CAR_Public/080416.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, April 16, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 75
  
                            Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces Calif. Lawsuits Over Wage, Hour Violations
ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Approves $1.4M Settlement in "Augustus II"
ABM INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Allows Discovery in "Villacres"
ABM INDUSTRIES: Mid-2008 Hearing Set for 'Augustus I" Litigation
ABM INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Certifies FLSA Claims in "Batiz"

ANTHEM HEALTH: PTs' Antitrust Lawsuit in Maine Moves Forward
BABY BOTTLE MANUFACTURERS: Continues to Face BPA-Related Suit
BNSF RAILWAY: Okla. Residents Sue Over Toxic Waste from Smelter
CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery to Begin in Kansas Suit Over Hot Fuel
CASEY'S GENERAL: Appeals Ruling in Iowa Assistant Managers' Suit

CASEY'S GENERAL: Seeks Nixing of Store Employees' Suit in Iowa
DGA: Settles Levies Lawsuit Filed by Non-Members
DYNAMEX INC: No Reply Brief Filed in Appeal of Calf. Labor Suit
DYNAMEX INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Misclassification of Drivers
FELTEX CARPETS: Few Shareholders Opt Out of Class Action

FLORIDA: Broward County Canker Lawsuit in Jury Selection Stage
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Sued in OK Over Lead and Arsenic Contamination
GOODYEAR TIRE: Judge Wants More Info in VEBA Trust Lawsuit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: June 2008 Trial Set for CA "Smart Chips" Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: December 2009 Trial Set for "Rich" Litigation

HEWLETT PACKARD: Appeals Remanding of "Digwamaje" to N.Y. Court
IPO LITIGATION: Reply Briefs Supporting Dismissal Bid Filed
MF GLOBAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is on May 9
MONMOUTH TOYOTA: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Alleged Customer Fraud
NEW YORK: Naturalization Process Must Be Expedited, Court Says

PLANET TOYS: ADAO Files 2 Suits Over Asbestos-Tainted CSI Toys
QUEST CHEROKEE: Discovery Ongoing in Kansas Suit Over Royalties
SKECHERS USA: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
THOR INDUSTRIES: Faces Suits Over Contaminated FEMA Trailers
TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Pa. and Calif.

* Subprime Litigation Fuels Increase in Class Action Lawsuits


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in New York
ARTHROCARE CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Files FL Securities Fraud Suit
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Federman & Sherwood Files MA Securities Suit
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Paskowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
FORCE PROTECTION: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in SC

INVERNESS MEDICAL: Brower Piven Files Ma. Securities Lawsuit
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
MICHAEL BAKER: Spector Roseman Commences Pa. Securities Suit
MONEYGRAM INTL: Brualdi Law Firm Files MN Securities Fraud Suit
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Felgoise Files Securities Suit in Texas

WELLS FARGO: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces Calif. Lawsuits Over Wage, Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., is facing several purported class action
suits related to alleged violations of federal or California
wage-and-hour laws, according to the company's March 10, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The suits are:

     -- the recently consolidated cases of "Bucio/Morales and
        Martinez/Lopez v. ABM Janitorial Services," filed on
        April 7, 2006, with the Superior Court of California,
        County of San Francisco;

     -- the consolidated cases of "Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco
        System Parking" filed on Dec. 5, 2006, with L.A.
        Superior Ct.;

     -- the case of "Castellanos v. ABM Industries," filed on
        April 5, 2007, with the U.S. District Court for the
        Central District of California; and

     -- the case of "Chen v. Ampco System Parking and ABM
        Industries Incorporated" filed on March 6, 2008 with
        the U.S. District Court of for the Southern District
        of California.

The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current or former
employees of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things,
that they were required to work "off the clock," were not paid
for all overtime, were not provided work breaks or other
benefits, and received pay stubs not conforming to California
law.  

In all cases, the plaintiffs generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief or both.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and certain California wage and hour laws.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility  
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Approves $1.4M Settlement in "Augustus II"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California approved the
$1.4-million settlement deal in the matter, "Augustus and
Hernandez v. American Commercial Security Services (ACCS)" or
Augustus II, a purported class action lawsuit related to alleged
violations of federal or California wage-and-hour laws that
names a subsidiary of ABM Industries, Inc., as a defendant.

The named plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed on Feb. 23,
2006, are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who
allege, among other things, that they were required to work "off
the clock," were not paid for all overtime, were not provided
work breaks or other benefits, and received pay stubs not
conforming to California law.  

They generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

On April 25, 2007, a settlement in the amount of $1.4 million
was reached in Augustus II.  The settlement was approved by the
court on a final basis on Feb. 29, 2008, according to the
company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 31, 2008.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility  
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Allows Discovery in "Villacres"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
is permitting discovery to begin in the matter, "Villacres v.
ABM Security," which was filed on Aug 15, 2007, against a
subsidiary of ABM Industries, Inc.

The named plaintiffs in the suit are current or former employees
of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they
were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all
overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.  

They generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

Although the Villacres class originally claimed numerous wage
and hour violations under California law (including failure to
pay overtime, failure to pay wages timely, failure to provide
meal and rest breaks, the failure to provide proper wage
statements to employees, and engaging in unfair business
practices), the plaintiffs have since requested leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint, which would include only the claim
related to the provision of improper wage statements to
employees.

The hearing on class certification in "Villacres" was Feb. 25,
2008.  During the hearing, the court tentatively stated that it
likely lacked jurisdiction over the case, as, under the Class
Action Fairness Act, over two-thirds of the class likely reside
in California, the principal place of business of the employer
defendant, thereby not creating the necessary diversity
jurisdiction.

The court is permitting discovery on the issue and further
briefing was due on April 10, 2008, according to the company's
March 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility  
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Mid-2008 Hearing Set for 'Augustus I" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A mid-2008 hearing is set for the purported class action suit
entitled, "Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial
Security Services (ACSS)," which names a subsidiary of ABM
Industries, Inc., as a defendant.

The consolidated cases of "Augustus, Hall and Davis v. ACSS," or  
Augustus I, was filed on July 12, 2005, with n the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County.

The named plaintiffs in the suit are current or former employees
of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they
were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all
overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.  

They generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

The hearing on class certification in Augustus I is set for mid-
2008, according to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-f Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Jan. 31, 2008.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility  
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Certifies FLSA Claims in "Batiz"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
certified the Fair Labor Standards Acts claims stated in the
purported class action, "Batiz/Heine v. American Commercial
Security Services (ACSS)," which names a subsidiary of ABM
Industries, Inc., as a defendant.

The named plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed on June 7,
2006, are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who
allege, among other things, that they were required to work "off
the clock," were not paid for all overtime, were not provided
work breaks or other benefits, and received pay stubs not
conforming to California law.  

They generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

In January 2008, the U.S. District Court for the  Central
District of California conditionally certified the Fair Labor
Standards Acts claims stated in Batiz, according to the
company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 31, 2008.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility  
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada.  The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.


ANTHEM HEALTH: PTs' Antitrust Lawsuit in Maine Moves Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Humphrey of the Maine Business and Consumer Court
recently allowed a class action filed on behalf of all licensed
physical therapists who are participating providers with Anthem
Health Plans of Maine to go forward against Anthem for
allegations of violations of the Maine Antitrust Act, which
carries the possibility of an award of multiple damages and
attorneys fees, as well as a claim of breach of contract.

Anthem is one of four domestic insurers in the state and
represents a substantial portion of the therapists' income.  It
is anticipated that the affected physical therapists will be in
the hundreds, and the amount of money being sought in recovery
in the millions.

The class action against Anthem seeks to recover for
underpayments made in violation of the contracts between Anthem
and each of its participating providers. In each of the
underlying contracts, the therapists agreed to reduce their
usual charges for physical therapy services in order to be
eligible to provide services to Anthem's subscribers. The
dispute began in January 2006 when Anthem notified each
participating physical therapist that, effective April 1, it
would reduce the reimbursements outlined in the contracts.

Dissatisfied with what resulted in a 20% reduction in her Anthem
reimbursement, class representative Christy Stout, M.S.P.T.
filed an action on behalf of herself and other participating
therapists, alleging that Anthem had breached the professional
agreements and that it had used its significant market share in
Maine to force the participating physical therapists to
acquiesce to the reimbursement reduction by threatening
termination from all of Anthem's networks if they did not accept
the new arrangement.

"This case involves the right of physical therapists to rely
upon the contractual commitment made by Anthem in its
contracts," Gregory Brodek, lead lawyer representing the class
in the case, said.  "Anthem cannot be allowed to unilaterally
dictate a payment rate that jeopardizes the ability of physical
therapists to continue to provide high quality services to the
citizens of Maine."

The case will now move into the discovery phase prior to trial.

For more information, contact:

          Gregory A. Brodek (GABrodek@duanemorris.com)
          Duane Morris LLP
          Suite 500, 470 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210-2600
          Phone: 207-262-5440
          Fax: 207-262-5401


BABY BOTTLE MANUFACTURERS: Continues to Face BPA-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Robert H. Weiss PLLC and Rights for America
are the leading attorneys in a Consumer Class Action lawsuit
filed in 2007 with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Robert Weiss, Esq., filed the billion-dollar class action suit
with the Los Angeles Superior Court against five leading
manufacturers of baby bottles (Class Action Reporter, March 14,
2007).

Five of the leading baby products manufacturers use BPA in the
production of making their plastic baby bottles:

     -- Gerber,
     -- Evenflo,
     -- Avent,
     -- Playtex, and
     -- Dr. Brown's baby bottles and sippy cups contain BPA.

The suit was filed on behalf of the babies of California, who
may have been injured by drinking out of plastic bottles that
contain the toxic chemical Bisphenol-A, which is used in making
poly-carbonate plastic food and drink packaging.  BPA is known
to cause neurological and hormonal damage to lab animals.  

Late last year a separate independent panel of international
scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health published
a Consensus Statement indicating that BPA, an estrogen-like
substance used in plastic may pose risks that cause serious
consequences, including injury to infants' developing brain,
neural and reproductive systems. The independent peer-reviewed
studies published to date have shown that even low dose exposure
to BPA can cause estrogen-like effects in laboratory animals. In
contrast, the American Chemical and Plastics Industry
spokespersons have repeatedly claimed there is nothing to be
alarmed about.

However, some scientists believe there is no safe level of
exposure to BPA by infants.  BPA has been linked with certain
cancers, impaired immune function, premature onset of puberty,
sexual dysfunction, impairment, deformity and neurological
disorders affecting brain growth.

Mr. Weiss demands that baby bottle manufacturers add a prominent
notice on the packaging of these products stating, "This Product
Is Made With Bisphenol-A" so consumers can be informed before
deciding to purchase a product that might harm their infants and
children.

Rights For America and attorney Robert H. Weiss and Associates
are at the legal-social forefront of this controversy
endangering the infants and children of California and the rest
of the country.

For more information, contact:

          Jo Jo Holotka
          Public Relations Specialist and Coordinator
          Law Offices of Robert H. Weiss PLLC
          Phone: (404) 406-7183
                 (404) 525-3900


BNSF RAILWAY: Okla. Residents Sue Over Toxic Waste from Smelter
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit claims that residents of Blackwell, in
Oklahoma, have been exposed for years to toxic waste left over
from a zinc smelter that operated in the city for more than 50
years, the Associated Press reports.

Attorneys for a group of Blackwell residents filed a lawsuit on
April 14, 2008, in Kay County against mining companies connected
to a smelter site, a local industrial authority, and BNSF
Railway Company.  Defendants specifically include the
international mining company Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold and
its subsidiary, Phelps Dodge Corporation.

According to AP, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are four
Blackwell residents, but their attorneys are seeking class-
action status.  They claim that the city and property around the
site of the old smelter have been polluted with millions of
pounds of toxic waste produced at the factory.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery to Begin in Kansas Suit Over Hot Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is set to commence in various "hot fuel" cases, which
names Casey's General Stores, Inc., as one of the defendants,
according to the company's March 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
Jan. 31, 2008.

The "hot fuel" cases were consolidated for coordinated pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

Initially, Casey's General Stores was named as a defendant in
five lawsuits brought with the federal courts in Kansas and
Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers.  The
complaints generally allege that the Company, along with
numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes
dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion
that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60F.  

Fuel is measured at 60F in wholesale purchase transactions and
computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri.

The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf
of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the
complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of
gasoline consumers in all states.

The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of
state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices
statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing.  Several of the suits seek injunctive
relief and punitive damages.

These actions are part of a number of similar lawsuits that have
been filed within the past year in 28 jurisdictions, including
26 states, Guam and the District of Columbia, against a wide
range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and market
gasoline products in the United States.

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including
rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and
class certification.

All other proceedings have been stayed pending rulings on such
matters.  However, it is expected that discovery efforts by both
sides will commence soon.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--   
operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Appeals Ruling in Iowa Assistant Managers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc., is appealing a court decision that
allows plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in a purported
class action against the company, alleging violations of the
state wage laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to
the company's March 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Jan. 31,
2008.

The complaint was filed against the Company on May 30, 2007,
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
by two former assistant managers who claim that Casey's failed
to properly pay them and other assistant managers overtime
compensation.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the assistant managers
were treated as nonexempt employees entitled to overtime pay,
but that the Company did not properly record all hours worked
and failed to pay the assistant managers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The action purports to be a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act brought on behalf of all "persons who are
currently or were employed during the three-year period
immediately preceding the filing of [the] complaint as
'Assistant Managers' at any Casey's General Store operated by
[the] Defendant (directly or through one of its wholly owned
subsidiaries), who worked overtime during any given week within
that period, and who have not filed a complaint to recover
overtime wages."

The complaint seeks relief in the form of back wages owed all
members of the class during the three-year period preceding the
filing of the complaint, liquidated damages, attorneys fees, and
costs.

The Company filed an answer denying the claims, as well as a
motion for change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa sitting in Des Moines.  That motion
was granted on Aug. 30, 2007, and the case has been transferred
to Des Moines.  

On Oct. 31, 2007, the Court conditionally certified the
collective action as to "any employees who are or have been
employed by Casey's as an assistant manager at any time since
Nov. 1, 2004, and who have unresolved claims for unpaid
overtime," and authorized the mailing of notice of the action to
all such persons.  

Notice recipients who elected to participate in the lawsuit were
required to file a form opting in to the lawsuit.  The opt-in
period has now closed, with approximately 600 persons filing an
opt-in form.  

The Company will be allowed to move to decertify the collective
action after discovery is conducted.

On Nov. 20, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their
complaint to include class claims under the state laws of eight
states where the Company operates, based on the same general
factual allegations underlying the FLSA claim.  

A ruling by the Magistrate Judge allowing an amended complaint
to be filed has been appealed to the District Court Judge.

The suit is "Jones et al. v. Casey's General Stores Inc., Case
No. 5:07-cv-04043-MWB," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa, Judge Mark W. Bennett presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jon E. Heisterkamp, Esq. (jeheisterkamp@yahoo.com)
         Peters Law Firm PC
         PO Box 1078, 233 Pearl Street
         Council Bluffs, IA 51502-1078
         Phone: 712-328-3157
         Fax: 712-328-9092


CASEY'S GENERAL: Seeks Nixing of Store Employees' Suit in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of
certain claims in a purported class action suit filed against it
alleging violations of the state wage laws and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On Jan. 10, 2008, seven current and former store employees filed
a companion case to the action brought by assistant managers.

That companion case was filed by the same attorneys representing
the assistant managers in "Jones et al. v. Casey's General
Stores Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv-04043-MWB", and it is also pending
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

The action is filed as a purported "collective action" pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and also alleges class claims
based on "the independent statutory state wage and hours laws of
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South
Dakota."

The action purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of essentially all Casey's non-management-level store
employees employed "during the three-year period immediately
preceding the filing of [the] complaint [] at any Casey's
General Store, whether operated directly by Defendant or through
one of its wholly owned subsidiaries."  

The complaint alleges that the subject employees were denied
overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as
well as mandatory meal and rest breaks, and that the Company
failed to accurately record actual hours worked and willfully
encouraged the employees to work "off-the-clock."

It seeks damages, including alleged unpaid back wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post- judgment interest, court
costs and attorneys fees, as well as equitable relief pursuant
to various state laws.  

A motion to dismiss some of the state law claims was filed on
behalf of the Company on Feb. 8, 2008, according to the
company's March 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Jan. 31,
2008.

The suit is "Wineland et al v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 4:08-cv-00020-RP-TJS," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Judge Robert W. Pratt
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202 789 3960
          Fax: 202 789 1813

          Scott H. Peters, Esq. (scott.peters@peterslawfirm.com)
          Peters Law Firm PC
          233 Pearl Street
          P.O. Box 1078
          Council Bluffs, IA 51502-1078
          Phone: 712 328 3157
          Fax: 712 328 9092

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. (rstephan@stephanzouras.com)
          Stephan Zouras, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue
          Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312 233 1550
          Fax: 312 233 1560

Representing the defendants is:

          Jason Michael Craig, Esq. (jcraig@ahlerslaw.com)
          Ahlers & Cooney PC
          100 Court Ave.
          Ste. 600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-2231
          Phone: 515-246-0372
          Fax: 515-243-2149


DGA: Settles Levies Lawsuit Filed by Non-Members
------------------------------------------------
The Directors Guild of America, Inc., said that it has settled a
class-action lawsuit filed by nonmembers who challenged the way
the guild collected and disbursed foreign levies, Leslie Simmons
writes for the Hollywood Reporter.

According to Variety, the class action, filed in September 2005
by helmer William Webb, alleged that the DGA did not have the
authority to make foreign collections, had not communicated that
info to members and had not paid them.  The amount due to
copyright holders as compensation for reuse, such as taxes on
video rentals, cable retransmissions and purchases of blank
videocassettes and DVDs.

Mr. Webb alleged that the DGA collected foreign levies due him
on "Delta Fever," released domestically in 1987, and the 1993
telepic "The Hit List" but had not paid him.

Hollywood Reporter says that the settlement works out an
arrangement in which an outside accounting firm will conduct an
independent review of the guild's foreign levies program.  The
DGA also will set up a Web site for nonmembers to register and
provide information on the site regarding unpaid levies.

"The DGA is proud of its efforts to obtain and ensure each
director's right to a share of foreign levies, and that we have
distributed tens of millions of dollars of levies to so many
directors in our industry," DGA assistant executive director
Morgan Rumpf told Hollywood Reporter.  "Although we dispute the
fundamental premise of the litigation and stand by our efforts
and results in distributing foreign levies to members and
nonmembers alike, we are pleased to have resolved this dispute
amicably in its early stages and to be moving forward."

The plaintiffs' attorney, Neville Johnson, Esq., said the
settlement brings "accountability and transparency" to the
program and gives nonmembers full disclosure of how the foreign
levies are distributed.

Hollywood Reporter explains that until the early 1990s, the
foreign levies, which are imposed for such things as home video
rentals and cable distribution, were collected by production
companies.

However, in 1990, the WGA and DGA challenged the companies'
right to collect and retain 100% of the money, according to
Hollywood Reporter.  To settle the dispute, all sides entered
into a new agreement under which the DGA and WGA collected the
authors' share on U.S. film and TV programs covered by the
unions' collective bargaining agreement.

To date, the DGA has distributed more than $48 million in levies
to DGA members with more than $4.9 million paid to 2,000
directors who are not members.


    
DYNAMEX INC: No Reply Brief Filed in Appeal of Calf. Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported labor class action against Dynamex,
Inc. has yet to file a reply brief in his appeal against a
decision by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
refusing to certify a class in the matter, according to
Dynamex's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 31, 2008.

A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005.  It alleges
that the company unlawfully misclassified its California drivers
as independent contractors, rather than employees.

It asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the
purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other
benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of
certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other
benefits and the obligation of the company to pay employer
payroll taxes under federal and state law.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2,
2006.  The company responded in a memorandum of points and
authorities in support of the defendants' opposition to the
plaintiff's motion for class certification on Nov. 29, 2006.   

A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and on Dec. 14, 2006, the
plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied.  The
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 5, 2007.

During the summer of 2007, the plaintiff associated additional
counsel for the appeal.  The plaintiff requested and was granted
various extensions in which to file his Opening Brief.

The plaintiff's Brief and the Company's Reply Brief have been
filed.  The plaintiff is required to file his Reply Brief on
March 31, 2008.  Thereafter, the Court will schedule an oral
hearing.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com-- is a provider of   
same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the Company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing
its ground couriers.


DYNAMEX INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Misclassification of Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc., is facing a purported class action with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York over an
alleged misclassification of its drivers as independent
contractors instead of employees.

On Oct. 17, 2007, two former independent contractor drivers in
New York filed a purported class action/collective action
against the Company, alleging that the company had unlawfully
misclassified its drivers in New York and in the U.S. as
independent contractors rather than as employees, and the
Company had unlawfully failed to comply with the "Truth In Truck
Leasing" and "Leasing Regulations" under U.S. Transportation
Statutes.

The Complaint seeks relief under the New York Labor and Wage
Statutes and the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act including payment
of wages for all hours worked plus overtime, as well as for
reimbursement of business expenses and improper deductions made
from driver wages.

The truck leasing claims seek unspecified amounts by which
plaintiffs were underpaid and amounts for which the Company had
over deducted.  Injunctive relief to prevent further violations
is sought.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Berrios et al v. Dynamex, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-09293-RJS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J. Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Fran L. Rudich, Esq. (frudich@lockslawny.com)
         Locks Law Firm PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 838-3333
         Fax: (212) 838-3735

              - and -

         Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. (nyjg@aol.com)
         Berger & Gottlieb
         150 E. 18 St.
         New York, NY 10003
         Phone: (212)-228-9795
         Fax: (212)-982-6284

Representing the defendants is:

         Jeffrey W. Brecher, Esq. (brecherj@jacksonlewis.com)
         Jackson Lewis LLP
         58 South Service Road
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-247-0404
         Fax: 631-247-0417


FELTEX CARPETS: Few Shareholders Opt Out of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Only around 30 of an estimated 10,000 Feltex Carpets Ltd.
shareholders have opted not to sue the former directors, owners
and advisers of the failed carpet maker, Maria Slade writes for
the New Zealand Herald.

The report recounts that in March, shareholders launched a
unique group action which required those who bought shares in,
and subsequent to, the 2004 Feltex float to actively opt out if
they did not want to be part of it.

The shareholders have filed a claim with the High Court to get
their money back, and if they succeed, that could be as much as
NZ$254 million, which is the amount invested in the public
float.

The Class Action Reporter reported on Dec. 4, 2006, that lawyer
Garry Wakefield in Christchurch, New Zealand, asked support to
file a class action against the former directors of bankrupt
Feltex Carpets, which was recently sold to carpet giant Godfrey
Hirst.  Mr. had written to 8,893 Feltex shareholders asking for
NZ$380 each to support the suit against the company and the
promoters of its 2004 float.  Credit Suisse First Boston Asian
Merchant Partners, an associate of CS First Boston, sold the
company to the public.  The Securities Commission has
investigated the float and found no wrongdoing.


The deadline for opting out was at 4:00 p.m. on April 11.  After
that, shareholders were considered to be part of the action.

Mr. Wakefield said that as of the first week of April, only
around 30 had opted out.  Four of those were individuals, and
the rest were parties associated with the advisers targeted in
the action, because to stay in would mean they were effectively
suing themselves.

According to NZ Herald, the shareholders have unnamed backers
who are prepared to fund the court action for the next year.  
They are putting up their money on a no-win, no-fee basis.  If
shareholders remain in the group, their share of the legal costs
will be deducted out of any award they win.

The total amount budgeted for the action, including costs if the
shareholders lose, is NZ$2.5 million.

The shareholders allege they were misled by the prospectus for
the float.  In the gun are former Feltex chairman Tim Saunders,
chief executive Sam Magill, and directors John Feeney, Peter
Hunter, Peter Thomas, Craig Horrocks and Joan Withers, who all
signed the prospectus.

Also targeted are the firm that offered Feltex for sale, Credit
Suisse; an associated company and the joint lead managers of the
float, First New Zealand Capital and Forsyth Barr.


FLORIDA: Broward County Canker Lawsuit in Jury Selection Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the first of five class-action lawsuits to go to trial, more
than 60,000 Broward County homeowners will wage a high-stakes
showdown against the state of Florida for destroying their
orange, lemon, grapefruit and other citrus trees in its
aggressive quest to eradicate citrus canker, MiamiHerald.com
reports.

                        The Broward Case

The Class Action Reporter, on Feb. 25, 2008, recounted that a
class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of about 70,000 Broward
County homeowners against the state, particularly the Florida
Department of Agriculture, which cut down citrus trees across
South Florida between over 10 years as part of the Canker
Eradication Program.

                  The Canker Eradication Program

Citrus canker is a plant disease which is harmless to humans but
which damages trees -- specifically blemishes fruit, weakens the
tree, causes loss of production, and eventually be fatal to the
tree.  The state claimed that the trees were worthless because
they were either infected or potentially infected.  The program
was an effort to stop the spread of the plant disease,
particularly to keep it from the commercial groves of Central
and East Central Florida.  However, the program failed, and
after a decade and nearly $1 billion spent, the state and
federal government abandoned it.

At issue is the value in Broward's case: just over 133,000 trees
were cut down by the state since January 2000.  The state's tree
cutters were ordered to remove all trees infected with canker,
and non-infected ones within 1,900 feet of those that were
infected.

Florida had argued that those trees would have become diseased
and declined as many other trees in Broward have.  Thus, it
asserted, the trees that were removed from the 1,900-foot zone
had minimal value.

Homeowners, however, contended that the trees had considerable
value, either from the fruit they bore or the shade they
provided.

                Judge Favored Broward Residents

Circuit Judge Ronald Rothschild, on Feb. 21, 2008, ruled in
favor of the Broward homeowners who lost their citrus trees,
saying that the agriculture department destroyed the homeowners'
property without paying adequate compensation.

Judge Rothschild, at that time, did not yet award damages.  The
next step is for the judge to empanel a jury to hear testimony
from both sides and decide how to set a value on the destroyed
trees.

According to MiamiHerald, the outcome of the Broward trial,
though not binding in other counties, could foretell what may
happen in the four other cases that involve tens of thousands of
homeowners and 587,000 trees statewide.  A large verdict for
homeowners statewide could have a potential multi-million dollar
impact on the state's budget.

                         Jury Selection

MiamiHerald relates that lawyers began questioning a pre-
screened pool of 90 to 100 potential jurors.  Jury selection
could be challenging, since many residents or their relatives or
neighbors in South Florida, have seen the chain-saw's wrath.

Given that so many people have been affected by the eradication
program and given the highly public controversy, "it may prove
very difficult to select a jury," but not impossible, Tony
Alfieri, director of the University of Miami Law School's Center
for Ethics and Public Service, told MiamiHerald.

Both sides will face obstacles in finding jurors, said Miami-
based litigation consultant Sanford H. Marks, president and
founder of Trial Tech Inc.  Even though potential jurors may not
have had trees destroyed themselves, many will likely know
someone who did, Mr. Marks added.

Moreover, people also remember what they read, saw or heard in
the media, the report notes.  During the eradication program,
there was considerable media coverage.

Finally, there are people who just, "don't like 'the state' in
essence telling them what to do," Mr. Marks said.

"I think that the day of judgment has finally arrived for the
Department of Agriculture and Commissioner (Charles) Bronson,"
Bobby Gilbert, Esq., lead Miami-based attorney for the
plaintiffs in Broward and four other counties where lawsuits
have been filed -- Orange, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Lee
counties -- told MiamiHerald.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Sued in OK Over Lead and Arsenic Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP, a nationally recognized plaintiffs'
law firm, filed a major class action lawsuit in Kay County,
Oklahoma, on behalf of roughly 7,000 residents of the town of
Blackwell, Oklahoma.

The lawsuit accuses defendants Phelps Dodge Corporation and its
parent company, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., of failing
to properly address lead, arsenic, and cadmium contamination in
the Blackwell area.

This contamination is related to the operation of the Blackwell
Zinc Smelter, which was located in Blackwell from 1916 until
1974 and was at one time the largest smelter of its type in the
United States.  According to recent tests, 76% of Blackwell
homes contain lead dust above safety levels set by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and 90% of Blackwell homes are
contaminated with arsenic above EPA safety standards.

As owners of the company which operated the Blackwell Zinc
Smelter, Freeport-McMoRan and Phelps Dodge are liable for
contamination related to smelting activities.  This lawsuit
demands that the defendants comprehensively remediate all
contaminated property and reimburse residents for damage to
property values.  The legal action also asks defendants to
provide for a medical-monitoring program open to all Blackwell
residents.

Lead, arsenic, and cadmium can cause a wide variety of health
problems, including brain damage, neurological damage, learning
disabilities, and cancer.  Blood tests conducted by the Oklahoma
State Department of Health show that 30% of Blackwell children
have enough lead in their blood to cause brain damage.

In the early 1990s, the EPA deferred oversight of the Blackwell
Zinc Smelter site to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Qualityrather than place it on the National Priorities List.  
Since that time, the DEQ has set minimum cleanup levels for the
defendants that are insufficient to protect human health.

"The contamination of Blackwell represents a public health
crisis," said Nelson Roach, Esq., a partner with Nix, Patterson
& Roach and an attorney representing the plaintiffs.  "Past and
current attempts to remediate this town haven't cleaned up the
problem -- they've covered up the problem.  The children of this
community are going to continue to be at risk until these
companies are forced to remove this contamination properly."

Nix, Patterson & Roach is being assisted in this case by
attorneys Ben Barnes of Beeler, Walsh & Walsh PLLC and Andrew
Ihrig of the Ihrig Law Firm.

The suit is "Bob Coffey, Loretta Corn, and Larry and Mary Ellen
Jones, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.;
Phelps Dodge Corporation; et al., Defendants, Case No. CJ-2008-
68," filed with the District Court of Kay County in the State of
Oklahoma.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Judge Wants More Info in VEBA Trust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge John R. Adams of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio is in no hurry to approve the proposed $1-
billion-plus independent health-care trust that would pay
benefits for about 30,000 United Steelworkers who retired from
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, according to Beacon Journal.

Judge Adams told lawyers representing the union, Goodyear and
parties to a class-action lawsuit that he needed more and better
information on the long-term financial viability of the
Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association.  The Steelworkers
and Goodyear agreed to create the VEBA as part of a settlement
to the union's 85-day strike in 2006.

During a two-hour hearing, Judge Adams said he will review the
latest paperwork and might call another hearing in a week or ask
for more evidence.

Beacon Journal says that Judge Adams' decision left teams of
lawyers trying to figure out exactly what kind of actuarial
information the judge said he needs.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 20, 2008, Judge
Adams gave preliminary approval to the proposed settlement in
the case, which is captioned "Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire
& Rubber Company, Case No. 5:07-cv-01999-JRA."

The CAR recounted that on July 3, 2007, the United Steelworkers
and several retirees filed a required class action regarding the
establishment of the VEBA, which is intended to provide
healthcare benefits for current and future USW retirees.
The parties subsequently agreed to settle the matter.

Under the settlement deal, the parties agreed to create a VEBA
trust fund.  As part of this settlement, the court will certify
the class of retirees covered under the proposed VEBA.  

Essentially, Goodyear has agreed to pay as much as $1 billion to
the fund, which then will have sole responsibility for union
retirees' health care costs.  The independent health care trust
stands to benefit the union's 30,000 retirees.  Goodyear expects
to save $110 million a year and take $1.2 billion in liabilities
off its books with the creation of the VEBA trust.

Judge Adams said during the hearing that he has a heightened
sense of duty and obligation over the creation of the trust
because of the number of people it will affect.

"My task here today is to decide if the proposed settlement is
fair," Judge Adams said.  He stated that he needed to see such
things as the projected number of retirees over at least the
next five years, inflation rates, the age of retirees and more.
The VEBA agreement, in part, appears to be based on the
anticipation that the federal government will be involved in
health care at some point, he said.

"There's a whole host of issues I hoped would be addressed here
today," Judge Adams said.  Instead, he added, new information
presented to him was a three-page, seven-paragraph affidavit.

Short-term projections show the VEBA will be financially viable
for the next three years, the judge pointed out.  However, he
said that he is "concerned over the long term, not the next
three years."

Moreover, under the deal, steelworkers who are currently working
will be required to pay a substantial part of their earnings
into the VEBA to keep it viable, Judge Adams noted.  Working
Steelworkers will pay part of their cost-of-living increases and
profit sharing into the fund.  Because of that, the VEBA has the
potential to pit the interests of current workers against the
interests of retirees, Judge Adams further contended.

The Steelworkers explained that there were 3,625 retirees in the
Akron and Stow area as of the beginning of 2006, plus an
additional 1,403 spouses, who would be covered under the trust.
Nationally, there were 30,068 Steelworker retirees and spouses
whose health-care benefits would be covered by the trust.  The
trust will not pay benefits to retired Goodyear salaried
employees.

Beacon Journal notes that, according lawyers, the VEBA should be
able to last as long as 30 years, depending in part on the
amount of contributions from working Steelworkers and the cost
of paying out benefits to retirees.  While there is a risk the
VEBA could find itself in financial trouble, there is also a
risk that Goodyear could find itself in bankruptcy in 30 years,
too, the Steelworkers argued.

The report relates that the VEBA will be run by a committee made
up of three union representatives, two retiree representatives
and four public members with expertise in benefits.  Goodyear
will have no one on the committee.

The parties to the VEBA preliminary agreement will provide any
additional information that the court requests, Goodyear
spokesman Keith Price told Beacon Journal.

The suit is "Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, Case No. 5:07-cv-01999-JRA," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge John R.
Adams presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeremiah A. Collins, Esq. (jcollins@bredhoff.com)
          Bredhoff & Kaiser
          Ste. 1000, 805 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-842-2600
          Fax: 202-842-1888

          Jori B. Naegele, Esq.
          Gary, Naegele & Theado
          446 Broadway
          Lorain, OH 44052-1797
          Phone: 440-244-4809
          Fax: 440-244-3462
          e-mail: envirolit@aol.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. (jsellers@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
          500 West Tower, 1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

          Johanna Fabrizio Parker, Esq. (jfparker@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7263
          Fax: 216-579-0212

    
HEWLETT-PACKARD: June 2008 Trial Set for CA "Smart Chips" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative June 2008 trial is slated for the consolidated
lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. over its use of "smart
chips" in its inkjet printer cartridges.

In general the consolidated suit claims that the "smart chips"
erroneously signal to the customer that certain inkjet printer
cartridges need to be replaced before they are really empty, and
include an expiration date that is allegedly not documented in
marketing materials provided to consumers.  

                        Feder Litigation

The suit, "Feder v. HP (formerly Tyler v. HP)," was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on June 16, 2005 asserting breach of express and implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a
"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge
unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.

The plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

                        Ciolino Litigation

On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit captioned, "Ciolino v. HP," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

                         Consolidation

The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical
to those in "Feder," and the two cases have been formally
consolidated in a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption, "In
re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation."

On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard the plaintiffs' motions for
class certification and to add a class representative and
defendant's motion for summary judgment.  These motions are
currently under submission.  

Trial has been set for June 2008, according to the company's
March 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. 5:05-
cv-03580-JF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Bruce Lee Simon, Esq. (bsimon@cpsmlaw.com)
         Cotchett Pitre & Simon
         S.F. Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Phone: 650.697.6000
         Fax: 650.692.3606

Representing the defendants is:

         Sally J. Berens, Esq. (sberens@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
         1881 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-5300
         Fax: 650-849-5333


HEWLETT-PACKARD: December 2009 Trial Set for "Rich" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative December 2009 trial is slated for a purported class
action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Hewlett-Packard Co.

The suit is "Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:06-cv-
03361-JF," which is a consumer class action filed against the
company on May 22, 2006.

It alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to
unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when
printing black and white images and text.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of
a nationwide class.

The Court has granted HP's motion to dismiss several of the
plaintiffs' claims, and HP answered the remaining claims in
February 2007.

The Court set a deadline of Jan. 23, 2009, by which plaintiffs
need to file a motion for class certification.  

Trial has been set for December 2009, according to the company's
March 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:06-cv-
03361-JF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
         Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213/217-5000
         Fax: 213/217-5010

              - and -

         Stephen Michael Garcia, Esq. (jmobley@lawgarcia.com)
         Garcia Law Firm
         Suite 1950
         One World Trade Center
         Long Beach, CA 90831
         Phone: 562-216-5270

Representing the defendants is:

         Christopher Chorba, Esq. (cchorba@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         Fax: 213-229-7520


HEWLETT PACKARD: Appeals Remanding of "Digwamaje" to N.Y. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Co. and numerous other multinational firms filed
a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection
with a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit wherein it remanded the purported class action,
"Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al.," back to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for further
proceedings.

The case was filed on Sept. 27, 2002, with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of current
and former South African citizens and their survivors who
suffered violence and oppression under the apartheid regime.  

The lawsuit alleges that HP and other companies helped
perpetuate, profited from, and otherwise aided and abetted the
apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by selling
products and services to agencies of the South African
government.  

Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture
Victims Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state law.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the
creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in
excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200
billion, costs and attorneys' fees.  

On Nov. 29, 2004, the court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' complaint.  In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed an
amended notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

On Jan. 24, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
argument on the plaintiffs' appeal but has not yet issued a
decision.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District
Court's decision.  

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
claims under the Torture Victims Protection Act, but reversed
the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' Alien Tort
Claims Act claims, finding that it was possible for the
plaintiffs to state such a claim.

The Second Circuit, therefore, remanded the case to the District
Court to permit the plaintiffs to attempt to plead the
allegations needed to state a claim under the Alien Tort Claims
Act.

On Jan. 10, 2008, HP and the other defendants filed a certiorari
petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, which plaintiffs plan to
oppose, according to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corp., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge John E. Sprizzo presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kweku J. Hanson, Esq.
         487 Main Street
         Harford, CT 06106,
         Phone: (860) 728-5454
         Fax: (860) 548-9660

         Medi Moira Mokuena
         268 Jubilee Avenue
         Halfway House 1685, Extension 12
         Republic of South Africa

              - and -

         Paul M. Ngobeni, Esq.
         914 Main Street, Suite 206
         East Hartford, CT 06108
         Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508) 620-4798

Representing the defendants are:

         Kristin M. Heine, Esq.
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         500 Campus Drive
         Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831
         Web site: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/

              - and -

         Kristin Michele Heine, Esq. (kristin.heine@dbr.com)
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         140 Broadway, 39th Flr.
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831


IPO LITIGATION: Reply Briefs Supporting Dismissal Bid Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the matter, "Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," have filed reply briefs supporting their
earlier motion to dismiss the six focus cases in the case as
well as an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

                     Case Background

On Oct. 13, 2004, six selected focus cases, among the more than
300 coordinated cases in the IPO allocation litigation, were
certified as class actions.  The actions are coordinated for
pretrial purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York.

The six focus cases are that against Corvis Corp.; Engage
Technologies, Inc.; Firepond, Inc.; iXL Enterprises, Inc.;
Sycamore Networks, Inc.; and VA Linux Corp.

The IPO Litigation consists of 309 class actions involving more
than 300 IPOs marketed between 1998 and 2000.  The defendants
include the companies brought public, certain of their officers
and directors and 55 of the investment banks that brought them
public and underwrote various follow-on offerings.

The lawsuits allege that the IPO offerings were manipulated by
the investment banks to artificially inflate the market price of
those securities and to reap excessive compensation and that
their conduct was concealed from the public, in violation of the
federal securities laws.  There are also allegations that they
misused their securities analysts to hype the stock.

In June 2006, The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee announced that
a proposed settlement between the issuer defendants and their
directors and officers and the plaintiffs has been structured in
the IPO Securities Litigation which would guarantee at least (or
the first) $1 billion dollars to investors who are class members
from the insurers of the issuers.

                Decertification of Focus Cases

On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
issued a decision reversing the court's ruling certifying six of
the cases in the consolidated proceedings as class actions.

On Dec. 14, 2006, the court agreed to stay all proceedings,
including consideration of the settlement, pending a decision
from the 2nd Circuit on whether it will hear further argument on
the class certification issue.

In seeking for a review, plaintiffs argued that the initial
decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted
incorrect standards that a district court must apply in
determining whether to grant class certification, according to
Law.com.

They also said the circuit erred in concluding that the
criterion for certification set out in Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure could not be satisfied with
respect to their class, and argued that a remand was appropriate
to enable the district court to reconsider the class
certification motion under the standards set forth by the
circuit.

        Denial to Hear Rehearing of Decertification

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition
for rehearing, but allowed the plaintiffs to request that the
district court certify a more limited class. On April 23, 2007,
plaintiffs requested 30 days to report to the District Court on
how they wish to proceed regarding class certification.

The District Court indicated that a new class definition was a
priority for the issuers' proposed settlement agreement, and met
on May 30, 2007, to discuss this as well as other issues.

During the May 30, 2007 conference, the plaintiffs orally moved
for revised class certification and stated that they will seek
mixed class and merits discovery in advance of their opening
brief on class certification.  The plaintiffs also indicated
that they may seek discovery from issuers in cases other than
the six focus cases.

On June 25, 2007, the parties submitted a stipulation to
terminate the settlement, which was granted by Court Order.  On
June 26, 2007, plaintiffs served a document request on all
issuer defendants.  On June 27, 2007, the Court held a
conference with counsel for all three groups in the case.  The
parties agreed that the plaintiffs had until July 31, 2007, to
file any Amended Complaints.

In addition, the Court set the following briefing schedule for
class certification: opening briefs due by Sept. 27, 2007,
responses due by December 21, 2007, and reply briefs due by
Feb. 15, 2008.  

Finally, the plaintiffs had until July 11, 2007, to respond to
the underwriters' motion, joined by the issuers, regarding the
statute of limitations.

There was a conference with the Court to address discovery
issues on July 25, 2007; however, the conference was adjourned
at the request of the parties, and has not been rescheduled.

On July 31, 2007, the plaintiffs requested that the Court extend
the deadline to Aug. 14, 2007, for filing any Amended
Complaints.  

On Aug. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the
six focus cases.  The amended complaints include a number of
changes, such as changes to the definition of the purported
class of investors, and the elimination of the individual
defendants as defendants.

On Sept. 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the six focus cases.  

On Dec. 21, 2007, the issuers and the underwriters filed papers
opposing plaintiffs' class certification motion and plaintiffs
filed an opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss.

On Jan. 28, 2008, the issuers and the underwriters filed reply
briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss the
amended complaints.

ISSUER                                      BEGIN DATE END DATE

724 Solutions, Inc.                         01/27/00 12/06/00
Accelerated Networks, Inc.                  06/22/00 12/06/00
ACLARA BioSciences, Inc.                    03/20/00 12/06/00
Aether Systems, Inc.                        10/20/99 12/06/00
AGENCY.COM, Ltd.                            12/08/99 12/06/00
Agile Software Corp.                        08/20/99 12/06/00
Agilent Technologies, Inc.                  11/17/99 12/06/00
AirNet Communications                       12/06/99 12/06/00
Airspan Networks, Inc.                      07/19/00 12/06/00
Akamai Technologies, Inc.                   10/28/99 12/06/00
Alamosa PCS Holdings, Inc.                  02/03/00 12/06/00
Alloy Online, Inc.                          05/14/99 12/06/00
Antigenics Inc. (named as Antigenics, Inc.) 02/03/00 12/06/00
Apropos Technology, Inc.                    02/17/00 12/06/00
Ariba, Inc.                                 06/23/99 12/06/00
Ashford.com, Inc.                           09/22/99 12/06/00
AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc.                     03/03/00 12/06/00
Ask Jeeves, Inc.                            07/01/99 12/06/00
Audible, Inc.                               07/15/99 12/06/00
Autobytel.com, Inc.                         03/26/99 12/06/00
AutoWeb.com, Inc.                           03/23/99 12/06/00
Avanex Corporation                          02/03/00 12/06/00
AvantGo, Inc.                               09/27/00 12/06/00
Avenue A, Inc.                              02/28/00 12/06/00
Avici Systems Inc. (named as Avici
   Systems, Inc.)                           07/27/00 12/06/00                
                          
BackWeb Technologies Ltd.                   06/07/99 12/06/00
Be Free, Inc.                               11/03/99 12/06/00
Blue Martini Software, Inc.                 07/24/00 12/06/00
Bookham Technology PLC                      04/11/00 12/06/00
Bottomline Technologies, Inc.               02/12/99 12/06/00
Braun Consulting, Inc.                      08/10/99 12/06/00
Breakaway Solutions, Inc.                   10/05/99 12/06/00
Brocade Communication Systems, Inc.         05/24/99 12/06/00
BSQUARE Corporation                         10/19/99 12/06/00
Buy.com, Inc.                               02/07/00 12/06/00
CacheFlow, Inc. (now Blue Coat Systems)     11/19/99 12/06/00
Caldera International, Inc.                 03/20/00 12/06/00
Calico Commerce, Inc.                       10/06/99 12/06/00
Caliper Technologies Corp. (now Caliper
   Life Sciences, Inc.)                     12/14/99 12/06/00
Capstone Turbine Corp.                      06/28/00 12/06/00
Carrier1 International SA                   02/23/00 12/06/00
Centra Software, Inc.                       02/03/00 12/06/00
chinadotcom corporation                     07/12/99 12/06/00
Choice One Communications, Inc.             02/16/00 12/06/00
Chordiant Software, Inc.                    02/14/00 12/06/00
Clarent Corporation                         06/30/99 12/06/00
CNET Networks (named as successor-
   ininterest to Ziff-Davis)1               03/30/99 12/06/00
Cobalt Networks, Inc.                       11/05/99 12/06/00
Commerce One, Inc.                          07/01/99 12/06/00
Concur Technologies, Inc.                   12/16/98 12/06/00
Copper Mountain Networks, Inc.              05/12/99 12/06/00
Corio, Inc.                                 07/21/00 12/06/00
Corvis Corp.                                07/27/00 12/06/00
Cosine Communications, Inc.                 09/25/00 12/06/00
Covad Communications Group, Inc.            01/21/99 12/06/00
Critical Path, Inc.                         03/29/99 12/06/00
CyberSource Corporation                     06/23/99 12/06/00
Daleen Technologies, Inc.                   09/30/99 12/06/00
Data Return Corp.                           10/27/99 12/06/00
deCODE Genetics, Inc.                       07/17/00 12/06/00
Delano Technology Corporation               02/09/00 12/06/00
deltathree, Inc.                            11/22/99 12/06/00
Dice, Inc. (named as EarthWeb, Inc.)        11/10/98 12/06/00
Digimarc Corporation                        12/01/99 12/06/00
Digital Impact, Inc.                        11/22/99 12/06/00
Digital Insight Corp.                       09/30/99 12/06/00
Digital Island Corporation (now Cable &
   Wireless plc)                            06/29/99 12/06/00
Digital River, Inc.                         08/11/98 12/06/00
DigitalThink, Inc.                          02/24/00 12/06/00
Digitas, Inc.                               03/13/00 12/06/00
Diversa Corp.                               02/14/00 12/06/00
DoubleClick, Inc.                           12/11/98 12/06/00
Drugstore.com, Inc.                         07/28/99 12/06/00
Epiphany, Inc.                              09/21/99 12/06/00
eBenX Inc.                                  12/09/99 12/06/00
eGain Communications Corp.                  09/23/99 12/06/00
El Sitio, Inc.                              12/10/99 12/06/00
E-Loan, Inc.                                06/28/99 12/06/00
Eloquent, Inc.                              02/16/00 12/06/00
Engage Technologies, Inc.                   07/20/99 12/06/00
Equinix, Inc.                               08/10/00 12/06/00
eToys, Inc.                                 05/20/99 12/06/00
Evolve Software, Inc.                       08/09/00 12/06/00
Exchange Applications, Inc.                 12/09/98 12/06/00
EXFO Electro Optical Engineering, Inc.      06/29/00 12/06/00
Expedia, Inc.                               11/09/99 12/06/00
Extensity, Inc.                             01/26/00 12/06/00
Extreme Networks, Inc.                      04/08/99 12/06/00
F5 Networks, Inc.                           06/04/99 12/06/00
Fairmarket, Inc.                            03/14/00 12/06/00
Fatbrain.com                                11/19/98 12/06/00
Finisar Corp.                               11/11/99 12/06/00
FirePond, Inc.                              02/04/00 12/06/00
FlashNet Communications, Inc.               03/16/99 12/06/00
Focal Communications                        07/28/99 12/06/00
Foundry Networks, Inc.                      09/27/99 12/06/00
FreeMarkets, Inc.                           12/09/99 12/06/00
Gadzoox Networks, Inc.                      07/19/99 12/06/00
Gigamedia Ltd.                              02/17/00 12/06/00
Global Crossing Ltd.                        08/13/98 12/06/00
GlobeSpan, Inc. (now GlobeSpanVirata, Inc.) 06/23/99 12/06/00
GoTo.com (now Overture Services, Inc.)      06/18/99 12/06/00
GRIC Communications                         12/14/99 12/06/00
GT Group Telecom, Inc.                      03/09/00 12/06/00
Handspring, Inc. (now PalmOne, Inc.)        06/20/00 12/06/00
High Speed Access Corp.                     06/04/99 12/06/00
Hoover's, Inc.                              07/20/99 12/06/00
iBasis, Inc.                                11/10/99 12/06/00
iBeam Broadcasting Corporation              05/17/00 12/06/00
iManage, Inc.                               11/17/99 12/06/00
Immersion Corp.                             11/12/99 12/06/00
Impsat Fiber Networks, Inc.                 01/31/00 12/06/00
Informatica Corp.                           04/28/99 12/06/00
InforMax, Inc. (now Invitrogen Corp.)       10/02/00 12/06/00
Inforte Corp.                               02/17/00 12/06/00
Inrange Technologies Corp.                  09/21/00 12/06/00
InsWeb Corp.                                07/22/99 12/06/00
Integrated Information Systems, Inc.        03/17/00 12/06/00
Integrated Telecom Express, Inc.            08/18/00 12/06/00
InterNAP Network Services Corporation       09/29/99 12/06/00
Internet Capital Group                      08/04/99 12/06/00
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.             08/03/99 12/06/00
Intersil Holding Corp.                      02/24/00 12/06/00
InterTrust Technologies Corp.               10/26/99 12/06/00
interWAVE Communications InternationalLtd.  01/31/00 12/06/00
Interwoven, Inc.                            10/08/99 12/06/00
Intraware, Inc.                             02/25/99 12/06/00
iPrint.com, Inc. (now iPrint
   Technologies, Inc.)                      03/07/00 12/06/00
ITXC Corporation                            09/27/99 12/06/00
iVillage, Inc.                              03/18/99 12/06/00
iXL Enterprises, Inc.                       06/02/99 12/06/00
Jazztel PLC                                 12/08/99 12/06/00
JNI Corp.                                   10/26/99 12/06/00
Juniper Networks Inc.                       06/24/99 12/06/00
Kana Software, Inc.                         09/21/99 12/06/00
Keynote Systems Inc.                        09/24/99 12/06/00
Korea Thrunet Co. Ltd.                      09/16/99 12/06/00
Lante Corporation                           02/10/00 12/06/00
Latitude Communications, Inc.               05/06/99 12/06/00
Lexent Inc.                                 07/27/00 12/06/00
Liberate Technologies (named as Liberate
   Technologies, Inc.)                      07/27/99 12/06/00
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.               08/20/99 12/06/00
Liquid Audio, Inc.                          07/08/99 12/06/00
Loudeye Technologies, Inc.                  03/15/00 12/06/00
Manufacturers Services Ltd.                 06/22/00 12/06/00
Marimba, Inc.                               04/29/99 12/06/00
MarketWatch.com, Inc.                       01/15/99 12/06/00
Martha Stewart Living
   Omnimedia, Inc.                          10/18/99 12/06/00
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.              06/27/00 12/06/00
MatrixOne, Inc.                             03/01/00 12/06/00
Maxygen, Inc.                               12/15/99 12/06/00
McAfee.com Corp.                            12/01/99 12/06/00
McData Corporation                          08/09/00 12/06/00
MCK Communications, Inc.                    10/22/99 12/06/00
Mediaplex, Inc.                             11/19/99 12/06/00
MedicaLogic, Inc.                           12/10/99 12/06/00
MetaSolv Software, Inc.                     11/17/99 12/06/00
Metawave Communications Corp.               04/26/00 12/06/00
Microtune, Inc.                             08/04/00 12/06/00
Modem Media, Inc.                           02/05/99 12/06/00
MP3.com, Inc.                               07/21/99 12/06/00
Multex.com, Inc.                            03/17/99 12/06/00
NaviSite, Inc.                              10/22/99 12/06/00
Neoforma.com, Inc.                          01/24/00 12/06/00
Net Perceptions, Inc.                       04/22/99 12/06/00
Net2000 Communications, Inc.                03/06/00 12/06/00
Net2Phone, Inc.                             07/29/99 12/06/00
Netcentives, Inc.                           10/13/99 12/06/00
NetRatings, Inc.                            12/08/99 12/06/00
Netro Corporation (now SR Telecom Inc.)     08/18/99 12/06/00
NetSilicon, Inc.                            09/15/99 12/06/00
NetSolve, Inc.                              09/29/99 12/06/00
Network Engines Inc.                        07/13/00 12/06/00
Network Plus Corporation                    06/29/99 12/06/00
NetZero, Inc.                               09/23/99 12/06/00
New Focus, Inc.                             05/17/00 12/06/00
Next Level Communications                   11/09/99 12/06/00
NextCard, Inc.                              05/14/99 12/06/00
Nextel Partners, Inc.                       02/22/00 12/06/00
Niku Corp.                                  02/28/00 12/06/00
Northpoint Communications Group Inc.        05/05/99 12/06/00
Nuance Communications, Inc.                 04/12/00 12/06/00
OmniSky Corp.                               09/20/00 12/06/00
OmniVision Technologies, Inc.               07/14/00 12/06/00
ON Semiconductor Corporation (named as
   ON Semiconductor Corp.)                  04/27/00 12/06/00
ONI Systems Corp. (now CIENA Corp.)         06/01/00 12/06/00
Onvia.com, Inc.                             02/29/00 12/06/00
Onyx Software Corp.                         02/11/99 12/06/00
OpenTV Corp.                                11/23/99 12/06/00
Openwave Systems Inc. (named as Openwave
   Systems, Inc.) (f/k/a Phone.com, Inc.)   06/11/99 12/06/00
Oplink Communications, Inc.                 10/03/00 12/06/00
Optio Software, Inc.                        12/15/99 12/06/00
OraPharma, Inc.                             03/09/00 12/06/00
Oratec Interventions, Inc.                  04/04/00 12/06/00
Orchid Biosciences, Inc.                    05/04/00 12/06/00
Organic, Inc.                               02/09/00 12/06/00
OTG Software, Inc.                          03/10/00 12/06/00
Pacific Internet Ltd.                       02/05/99 12/06/00
Packeteer, Inc.                             07/27/99 12/06/00
Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.                     11/03/99 12/06/00
Palm Inc.                                   03/01/00 12/06/00
Paradyne Networks, Inc.                     07/15/99 12/06/00
pcOrder.com, Inc. (named as PCOrder.com,
   Inc.) (now Trilogy Software, Inc.)       02/25/99 12/06/00
Perot Systems Corp.                         02/01/99 12/06/00
PlanetRX.com                                10/06/99 12/06/00
Portal Software, Inc.                       05/05/99 12/06/00
Predictive Systems, Inc.                    10/27/99 12/06/00
Preview Systems, Inc.                       12/07/99 12/06/00
priceline.com Inc. (named as
   Priceline.com, Inc.)                     03/30/99 12/06/00
Primus Knowledge Solutions Inc.             07/01/99 12/06/00
Prodigy Communications Inc.                 02/10/99 12/06/00
Proton Energy Systems, Inc.                 09/28/00 12/06/00
PSi Technologies Holdings, Inc.             03/16/00 12/06/00
PurchasePro.com, Inc.                       09/13/99 12/06/00
Quest Software, Inc.                        08/13/99 12/06/00
Quicklogic Corp.                            10/14/99 12/06/00
Radio One, Inc.                             05/06/99 12/06/00
Radio Unica Communications Corp.            10/19/99 12/06/00
Radware Ltd.                                09/30/99 12/06/00
Ravisent Technologies, Inc.                 07/16/99 12/06/00
Razorfish, Inc.                             04/26/99 12/06/00
Red Hat, Inc.                               08/11/99 12/06/00
Redback Networks, Inc.                      05/17/99 12/06/00
Regent Communications Inc.                  01/24/00 12/06/00
Register.com, Inc.                          03/02/00 12/06/00
Repeater Technologies, Inc.                 08/08/00 12/06/00
Resonate, Inc.                              08/02/00 12/06/00
Retek Inc.                                  11/17/99 12/06/00
Rhythms NetConnections, Inc.                04/06/99 12/06/00
Rowecom, Inc.                               03/09/99 12/06/00
Saba Software, Inc.                         04/06/00 12/06/00
Satyam Infoway, Inc.                        10/18/99 12/06/00
SciQuest.com, Inc.                          11/19/99 12/06/00
Selectica, Inc.                             03/09/00 12/06/00
Sequenom, Inc.                              01/31/00 12/06/00
Silicon Image, Inc.                         10/05/99 12/06/00
Silicon Laboratories, Inc.                  03/24/00 12/06/00
SilverStream Software, Inc.                 08/16/99 12/06/00
Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. (f/k/a Stanford
   Microdevices)                            05/24/00 12/06/00
SmartDisk Corporation                       10/05/99 12/06/00
SMTC Corp.                                  07/20/00 12/06/00
SonicWALL, Inc.                             11/11/99 12/06/00
Sonus Networks, Inc.                        05/24/00 12/06/00
Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.           10/27/99 12/06/00
Stamps.com, Inc.                            06/24/99 12/06/00
StarMedia Network, Inc. (now CycleLogic,
   Inc.)                                    05/25/99 12/06/00
StorageNetworks, Inc.                       06/29/00 12/06/00
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. (now known as
   Stratos International, Inc.)             06/26/00 12/06/00
Support.com, Inc. (now SupportSoft, Inc.)   07/18/00 12/06/00
Switchboard, Inc.                           03/02/00 12/06/00
Sycamore Networks, Inc.                     10/21/99 12/06/00
Talarian Corporation                        07/20/00 12/06/00
Telaxis Communications Corp.
   (now YDI Wireless, Inc.)                 02/01/00 12/06/00
TeleCommunication Systems Inc.              08/07/00 12/06/00
TeleCorp PCS, Inc.                          11/23/99 12/06/00
TenFold Corp.                               05/21/99 12/06/00
Terra Networks, S.A.                        11/15/99 12/06/00
TheGlobe.com, Inc.                          11/12/98 12/06/00
TheStreet.com, Inc.                         05/10/99 12/06/00
TIBCO Software, Inc.                        07/13/99 12/06/00
Ticketmaster Online-CitySearch, Inc. (now
   Ticketmaster)                            12/02/98 12/06/00
Tickets.com, Inc.                           11/03/99 12/06/00
Tippingpoint Technologies, Inc.             03/17/00 12/06/00
TiVo, Inc.                                  09/29/99 12/06/00
Transmeta Corporation (named as Transmeta
   Corp.)                                   11/06/00 12/06/00
Triton Network Systems, Inc.                07/12/00 12/06/00
Turnstone Systems, Inc.                     01/31/00 12/06/00
Tut Systems, Inc.                           01/29/99 12/06/00
UAXS Global Holdings Inc. (now Universal
   Access Global Holdings Inc.)             03/16/00 12/06/00
United Pan-European Communications NV       02/11/99 12/06/00
Usinternetworking, Inc.                     04/08/99 12/06/00
UTStarcom, Inc.                             03/02/00 12/06/00
VA Linux Systems Inc. (now VA Software
   Corp.)                                   12/09/99 12/06/00
ValiCert, Inc.                              07/27/00 12/06/00
Valley Media, Inc.                          03/26/99 12/06/00
Value America, Inc.                         04/08/99 12/06/00
Variagenics, Inc.                           07/21/00 12/06/00
Ventro Corporation (now NexPrise, Inc.)     07/26/99 12/06/00
Verado Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a First World   
   Comm. Inc.)                              03/08/00 12/06/00
VerticalNet, Inc.                           02/10/99 12/06/00
VIA Net.Works, Inc.                         02/11/00 12/06/00
Viador, Inc.                                10/25/99 12/06/00
Viant Corporation                           06/17/99 12/06/00
Vicinity Corporation                        02/09/00 12/06/00
Vignette Corp.                              02/19/99 12/06/00
Virage, Inc.                                06/29/00 12/06/00
Vitria Technology, Inc.                     09/16/99 12/06/00
Vixel Corp. (now Emulex Corp.)              10/01/99 12/06/00
WebMD Corporation                           02/10/99 12/06/00
WebMethods, Inc. (named as WebMethods,
   Inc.)                                    02/10/00 12/06/00
Webvan Group, Inc.                          11/04/99 12/06/00
Wink Communications                         08/19/99 12/06/00
Wireless Facilities, Inc.                   11/04/99 12/06/00
Women.com Networks, Inc.                    10/14/99 12/06/00
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment,
   Inc.                                     10/18/99 12/06/00
XCare.net, Inc. (now Quovadx, Inc.)         02/09/00 12/06/00
Xpedior, Inc.                               12/15/99 12/06/00
Z-Tel Technologies, Inc.                    12/15/99 12/06/00

1 This settlement applies only to investors in the class of
Ziff-Davis, Inc. stock intended to track the performance of the
ZDNet business unit, which is traded under the symbol ZDZ.  This
settlement does not apply to investors in other securities
issued by Ziff-Davis, Inc. or CNET Networks, Inc.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/


MF GLOBAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is on May 9
----------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP reminds investors of the
May 9, 2008 lead plaintiff appointment deadline.

In March, Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or acquired the common stock of MF
Global, Ltd. pursuant or traceable to the Company's July 19,
2007, initial public offering of approximately 97.4 million
shares at $30.00 per share and through February 28, 2008, and
who suffered damages (Class Action Reporter, March 19, 2008).

The complaint alleges that certain representations made by the
defendants in connection with the IPO contained statements that
were materially false and misleading, or omitted to state other
facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading,
because:

     (1) the Company's risk management infrastructure including
         its policies, procedures and systems were deficient;

     (2) the Company misrepresented that clients open positions
         and margin levels were monitored on a real time basis
         with its sophisticated technical system and oversight;

     (3) the Company's risk management controls were suspended
         or eliminated to speed up certain trades;

     (4) the Company eliminated credit and risk analysis, buying
         power limits and controls which allowed an MF
         representative to place orders disregarding margin
         requirements; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Registration
         Statement and Prospectus were false and misleading at
         all relevant times.

On February 28, 2008, before the markets opened, MF disclosed
via press release that the Company was taking a $141.5 million
bad debt provision after one of its day-trading brokers, who was
trading in wheat futures "substantially exceeded his authorized
trading limit."

The MF broker speculated in wheat futures in his MF personal
account, placing orders for about 15,000 to 20,000 futures
contracts. On this news, MF's shares closed at $21.19 -- down
$8.09 a share, representing a nearly 30% collapse.

Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP at its Web site:
http://www.zsz.com/


MONMOUTH TOYOTA: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Alleged Customer Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monmouth Toyota -- doing business as Galaxy Toyota -- is facing
a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Monmouth County alleging the company cheats customers by
concealing that 40% to 50% of the price of their extended
warranty is an undisclosed "finder's fee," CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Jenny Cooper brings this action on behalf of all
persons, who purchased an extended warranty/service contract
from MT and window etching which is described in the defendant's
Buyers Orders as "vehicle protection program."

The plaintiff alleges that MT and the other defendants engage in
a business practice and scheme whose effect is to conceal from
consumers that they are paying substantial commissions or
finder's fees to the dealer, in connection with the dealer's
sale of an extended warranty.

This deceptive and unfair practice inflates the amount financed
by the consumer, which inures to the benefit of the defendants.
The defendants are liable for these misrepresentations or
omissions under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, NJSA 56:8-1,
et seq.  MT is also liable for breach of contract and must
disgorge all monies earned on account of its breaches.

The plaintiff further claims that the amounts charged for the
extended warranties is unconscionable, thereby violating the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Uniform Commercial Code, 12 A:
2-302.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether MT is liable under the Uniform Commercial Code,
         legal fraud and equitable fraud causes for action
         for the misrepresentations and inaccurate disclosures
         in the sale contract regarding the cost of the extended
         warranty;

     (b) whether MT is liable to the plaintiff and the class
         members under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
         (for acts of commission, omission and regulatory
         violations) with respect to the sale of extended
         warranties;

     (c) whether MT concealed from consumers the true cost of
         extended warranties and payment of a finder's fee or
         commission to the automobile dealership in connection
         with the sale of warranties;

     (d) whether MT is liable to the plaintiff and class members
         for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good
         faith and fair dealing with respect to the sale of
         extended warranties;

     (e) whether MT is liable to the plaintiff and class members
         for money paid in connection with extended warranties
         and window etching pursuant to the refund provision in
         CFA;

     (f) whether MT is liable to the plaintiff and class members
         for violating NJSA 56:8-68(a);

     (g) whether MT is liable to the plaintiff and class members
         for violating NJAC 13:45A26(b).1

     (h) whether MT is liable to the plaintiff and class members
         for charging for a theft deterrent and insurance policy
         without obtaining prior express consent and acceptance
         and by making it appear that the $129 charge was
         required to be paid as opposed to being an option item;

     (i) whether the amounts charged for the extended warranties
         and window etching were unconscionably high;

     (j) whether MT is liable under the CFA, Uniform Commercial
         Code and other laws for the misrepresentations and
         inaccurate disclosures in the buyer's order and other
         related contracts regarding the cost of the theft
         deterrent policy, to whom these costs are paid, and
         whether the theft deterrent policy could be used under
         its terms and conditions -- these same questions
         pertain to the extended warranty; and

     (k) whether MT concealed from the plaintiffs and the class
         members the true cost of the window etching/theft
         deterrent policy and payment of a finder's fee or
         commission to MT in connection with the sale
         particularly since the CFA and regulations promulgated
         pursuant thereto are designed to promote the disclosure
         of relevant information to enable the consumer to make
         intelligent decisions in the selection of products and
         services.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- certifying the action as a class action on behalf of the
        proposed class;

     -- certifying the plaintiff as class representative and his
        counsel as class counsel;

     -- awarding the plaintiff and all class members
        compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- awarding the plaintiff and all class members treble
        damages under the NJCFA and NJ Rico law;

     -- awarding the plaintiff and all class members punitive
        damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- declaring the rights and obligations of the parties,
        including a declaration that the defendants' conduct
        violates the NJCFA, the Uniform Commercial Code, and the
        common law;

     -- setting an injunction requiring defendants to
        discontinue their unlawful and unfair practices;

     -- providing an accounting that determines the amount the
        defendants have illegally profited at the plaintiff's
        and the class members' expense, and disgorgement to the
        class of such finds; and

     -- awarding the plaintiff and the class members the
        expenses of the suit, including costs, reasonable
        attorneys' fees, and expert's fees.

The suit is "Jenny Cooper et al. v. Monmouth Toyota et al., Case
No: L-1634-8," filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Monmouth County.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ronald L. Lueddeke, Esq.
          215 Morris Ave.
          Spring Lake, New Jersey 07762
          Phone: (732) 449-2884

               - and -

          Lynda Lee, Esq.
          215 Morris Ave.
          Spring Lake, New Jersey 07762
          Phone: (732) 974-7409


NEW YORK: Naturalization Process Must Be Expedited, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Latino immigrants suing to get their citizenship
applications processed in time for this year's presidential
election have won an initial battle, Marianne McCune writes for
WNYC.

The report relates that a federal judge agreed with the
plaintiffs that the case must move forward at a faster-than-
normal pace in order to allow time to process the applications
if the plaintiffs prevail.  

The Class Action Reporter reported on March 11, 2008, that the
New York Legal Assistance Group and the Puerto Rican
Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a class-action
complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of a class of immigrants challenging
unlawful delays in the processing and adjudication of their
naturalization applications by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Federal law, CAR stated, requires USCIS to adjudicate
naturalization applications within a reasonable time.  USCIS's
failure to do so has resulted in thousands of immigrants waiting
well over six months, and in some cases years, since the
submission of their applications, with no decision and no word
from USCIS.

The class action charges that lengthy delays in the processing
of citizenship applications are unjustly depriving immigrants of
their right to vote, with the U.S. elections only several months
away.

WNYC explains that more than a million citizenship applications
currently face long delays.  The backlog is partly due to FBI
name checks, and partly to a surge in applications in 2007.

Founded in 1990, the New York Legal Assistance Group --
http://www.nylag.org/-- is a not-for-profit law office that   
provides free civil legal services to low-income New Yorkers.  A
full service agency, NYLAG provides consultation, representation
and advocacy.  Last year, NYLAG handled 22,370 cases and
impacted additional thousands through successful impact
litigation and community legal education.


PLANET TOYS: ADAO Files 2 Suits Over Asbestos-Tainted CSI Toys
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alarmed that CBS Broadcasting, Inc. and Planet Toys, Inc. have
refused to take appropriate action, Public Justice, on behalf of
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, filed state and federal
lawsuits in Los Angeles to force the companies to protect
children and their families from further exposure to asbestos
contained in toy science kits made by Planet Toys and licensed
by CBS.

The toy kits are based on the popular "CSI" television drama
series, and tests of the kits' fingerprinting powder found
tremolite, one of the most deadly forms of asbestos.

Public Justice's federal complaint, filed with U.S. District
Court in Los Angeles, alleges that CBS and Planet Toys were
negligent in their quality control measures and that they made
consumers believe the toys were appropriate playthings for
children when, in fact, the toys contained a hazardous and
potentially lethal carcinogen.  Because the toys were sold
nationwide, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of a nationwide
class of consumers who purchased or acquired the toys.

"This should be a no-brainer," said Victoria Ni, the lead Public
Justice attorney in both cases.  "The facts are that even small
quantities of asbestos are hazardous when inhaled, that the
fingerprinting powder has been found to contain asbestos, and
that this powder has been marketed and sold to thousands of
children who are told to spread it around and blow off the
excess.  It's a shame that we've had to resort to litigation to
force these companies to do what they should have done in the
first place to protect the American public."

Among other things, the class action asks that the defendants
provide refunds to consumers, pay for asbestos testing of toys
that have been opened, and pay for appropriate medical treatment
for consumers who have been exposed to asbestos.

A second suit was filed in California state court, citing
violations of a state law known as "Proposition 65," which
requires businesses to give a "clear and reasonable warning" to
California consumers if a product contains a chemical known to
cause cancer or birth defects, such as asbestos.

The Proposition 65 complaint was filed, in part, on behalf of
the California-based Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization,
which first publicly reported the presence of asbestos in the
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation(TM) Fingerprint Examination Kit
last November.  The discovery was the result of independent
laboratory tests on an array of consumer goods and toys,
including the popular fingerprinting kit.  ADAO commissioned the
study.

Further investigation found that the fingerprinting powder
containing asbestos was also in other "CSI" toy kits -- the CSI:
Crime Scene Investigation(TM) Field Kit and the CSI: Crime Scene
Investigation(TM) Forensic Lab Kit.

"Since December 2007 when we first met with Planet Toys and CBS,
our pleas for the companies to do the right thing have fallen on
deaf ears," said Linda Reinstein, ADAO Executive Director.  "It
is unacceptable and unnecessary to have asbestos in toys, and
especially in powder form, its most dangerous state.  Most
Americans falsely believe asbestos has been banned, but our
recent product testing results prove asbestos remains a threat
to public health."  Ms. Reinstein's husband died from
mesothelioma, a form of cancer that is almost always caused by
asbestos exposure.

Both lawsuits name CBS, Planet Toys, and major retailers of the
toy, some of whom continue to sell the kits.  The Proposition 65
lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violations of the law, in
addition to injunctive relief.

The dangers of asbestos exposure have been well documented by
scientists, doctors, and environmentalists since the 1970s.
There is no known safe level of exposure.  If inhaled,
microscopic asbestos particles can penetrate lung tissue and
stay there permanently, causing serious, even deadly,
respiratory illnesses or cancer that might not manifest until
decades after initial exposure.

Public Justice -- http://www.publicjustice.net-- is America's  
public interest law firm. Dedicated to using trial lawyers' and
other attorneys' skills and resources to advance the public
good, Public Justice is supported by -- and can call on -- a
nationwide network of more than 3,000 of the nation's top
lawyers to pursue precedent-setting and socially significant
litigation.  It has a wide-ranging litigation docket in the
areas of consumer rights, worker safety, civil rights and
liberties, toxic torts, environmental protection, and access to
the courts.  Public Justice is the principal project of The
Public Justice Foundation, a not-for-profit membership
organization headquartered in Washington, DC, with a West Coast
office in Oakland, California.

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization --
http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/-- was founded by  
asbestos victims and their families.  ADAO seeks to give
asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to help
ensure that their rights are fairly represented and protected,
while raising public awareness about the dangers of asbestos
exposure and often deadly asbestos related diseases.  ADAO is an
independent organization funded through voluntary contributions
and staffed by volunteers.


QUEST CHEROKEE: Discovery Ongoing in Kansas Suit Over Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action over royalty
payments that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas against Quest Cherokee, LLC, a unit of Quest
Resource Corp.

On Aug. 3, 2007, certain alleged mineral and overriding royalty
interests owners in land located at the Kansas portion of the
Cherokee Basin filed a putative class action against Quest
Cherokee.

The suit is captioned, "Hugo Spieker, et al. v. Quest Cherokee,
LLC, Case No. 07-1225-MLB."  The named plaintiffs allege that
Quest Cherokee failed to properly make royalty payments to them
and the putative class by, among other things, paying royalties
based on reduced volumes instead of volumes of gas measured at
the wellheads, and by allocating certain expenses to plaintiffs'
interests.

The plaintiffs allege that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million.

Discovery in that case is ongoing, according to Quest Cherokee's
March 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Spieker et al. v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, Case No.
6:07-cv-01225-MLB-KMH," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas, Judge Monti L. Belot presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Charles E. Millsap, Esq. (cmillsap@fleeson.com)
          Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C.
          1900 Epic Center, 301 N. Main, PO Box 997
          Wichita, KS 67201-0997
          Phone: 316-267-7361
          Fax: 316-267-1754

Representing the defendant is:

          David E. Bengtson, Esq. (dbengtson@stinson.com)
          Stinson Morrrison Hecker LLP
          1625 N. Waterfront Pkwy., Suite #300
          Wichita, KS 67206-6602
          Phone: 316-265-8800
          Fax: 316-265-1349


SKECHERS USA: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the private class action securities
lawsuit against SKECHERS USA, Inc., and individual defendants
Robert Greenberg, Michael Greenberg, Jeffrey Greenberg and David
Weinberg.

Initially, several purported class actions were filed against
the company with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  Each of these class action complaints
alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of
persons who purchased publicly traded securities of the company
between April 3, 2002, and Dec. 9, 2002.  

In July 2003, the court in these federal securities class
actions, all pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, ordered the cases consolidated and a
consolidated complaint to be filed and served.

On Sept. 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
entitled "In re Skechers USA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV-03-2094-PA."

The complaint names as defendants the company and certain
officers and directors and alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of
persons who purchased publicly traded securities of the company
between April 3, 2002, and Dec. 9, 2002.  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and injunctive and equitable relief.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its
entirety.  On May 10, 2004, the court granted the motion to
dismiss with leave for the plaintiffs to amend the complaint.   

On Aug. 9, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated complaint for violations of the federal securities
laws.  The allegations and relief sought were virtually
identical to the original consolidated complaint.  

The company has moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated
complaint and the motion was set for hearing on Dec. 6, 2004.   

On March 21, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss the
first amended consolidated complaint with leave for the
plaintiffs to amend one final time.

On April 7, 2005, the plaintiffs elected to stand on the first
amended consolidated complaint and requested entry of judgment
so that an appeal from the court's ruling could be taken.

On April 26, 2005, the court entered judgment in favor of the
Company and the individual defendants, and on May 3, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

As of the filing date of the Company's quarterly report for the
first quarter of 2007, all briefing by the parties had been
completed, and a hearing date was set for April 18, 2007.

However, the court took it off calendar pending a decision from
the U.S. Supreme Court in another matter on the grounds that the
decision from the Supreme Court could affect the outcome of the
appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in that matter
on June 20, 2007.  The parties prepared briefs based on that
decision before the Ninth Circuit (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 26, 2007).

The Ninth Circuit recently concluded that the plaintiff
shareholders failed to state facts giving rise to an inference
that defendants made fraudulent statements.  The Ninth Circuit
affirmed the ruling of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, which twice had previously
dismissed the shareholder lawsuit in its entirety.

"We are pleased with the Court's ruling," commented David
Weinberg, the Chief Operating Officer and a co-defendant in the
lawsuit.  "We have said continuously that neither the Company
nor the individual defendants engaged in any wrongful conduct
whatsoever and we have been vindicated by the courts again and
again for the past four years.  We are very satisfied that the
United States Court of Appeals has agreed with this view."

The suit is "In Re: Skechers USA, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-2094," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, under Judge Percy Anderson.

The plaintiff firms named in complaint are:

         Glancy and Binkow
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA, 92101
         Phone: 206-749-5544
         Fax: 206-749-9978
         e-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

         Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
         355 S Grand Ave - Ste 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3172
         Phone: 213-617-9007

              - and -

         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         3 Bala Plaza E
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


THOR INDUSTRIES: Faces Suits Over Contaminated FEMA Trailers
------------------------------------------------------------
Thor Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in several
complaints, some of which are punitive class actions filed
against manufacturers of travel trailers and manufactured homes
supplied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be used
for emergency living accommodations in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina.

The complaints generally allege injury due to the presence of
formaldehyde in the units, according to the company's March 10,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

Thor Industries, Inc. -- http://www.thorindustries.com/--  
produces and sells a range of recreation vehicles and small and
mid-size buses in the U.S., and Canada.


TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Pa. and Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc., is facing two purported securities fraud
class actions in Pennsylvania and California courts, according
to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Jan. 31,
2008.

                    Pennsylvania Litigation

On April 17, 2007, a securities class action was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Toll Brothers and current officers Robert I. Toll and
Bruce E. Toll.

The original plaintiff, Desmond Lowrey, has been replaced by two
new lead plaintiffs: The City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement
System and the Laborers Pension Trust Funds for Northern
California.

On Aug. 14, 2007, an amended complaint was filed on behalf of
the purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between Dec. 9, 2004, and Nov. 8, 2005, and these individual
defendants, who are directors and officers of Toll Brothers,  
were added to the suit:

       -- Zvi Barzilay,
       -- Joel H. Rassman,
       -- Robert S. Blank,
       -- Paul E. Shapiro,
       -- Carl B. Marbach,
       -- Richard Braemer, and
       -- Joseph R. Sicree.

The amended complaint on behalf of the purported class alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The company has responded to the amended complaint by filing a
motion to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings.

                     California Litigation

A second securities class action suit was filed on Sept. 7,
2007, with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  

In the complaint, the plaintiff, on behalf of the purported
class of stockholders, alleges that the company's chief
financial officer violated federal securities laws by issuing
various materially false and misleading statements and seeks
compensatory damages, counsel fees and expert costs.  The
alleged class period is Dec. 8, 2005, to Aug. 22, 2007.

The original plaintiff, Kathy Mankofsky, has been replaced by a
new lead plaintiff -- the Massachusetts Bricklayers & Masons
Trust Funds.  

The suit is "Lowrey v. Toll Brothers, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-01513-JG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Judge James T. Giles
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lcsr.com)
        Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP
        655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendant is:

        Steven B. Feirson, Esq. (steven.feirson@dechert.com)
        Dechert, Price & Rhoads
        1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
        Phone: 215-994-2749


* Subprime Litigation Fuels Increase in Class Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
A surge in subprime-related litigation in the second half of
2007 accounted for an increase in the total number of federal
class action lawsuits filed against foreign and domestic
companies, Medill Reports relates, citing a study released on
April 10 by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers 2007 Securities Litigation Study  
says that a total of 163 federal class actions were filed in
2007, compared with 109 in 2006.

Of last year's filings, subprime-related cases accounted for 37%
or 23% of total filings, according to the study.  Thirty of the
lawsuits were filed in the second half of the year, which
coincided with news of downturns in the housing and mortgage-
backed securities markets.

The study forecasts that the surge of subprime-related filings
will continue this year as the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the state attorneys general continue
investigations into financial institutions, and the plaintiffs'
bar issues more federal class action lawsuits.

"A lot has to do with the plaintiffs' bar and how much the
regulators really ramp things up," Ted Hawkins, a partner in the
investigations and forensic services practice of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, said.

The report notes that 30 of the 37 subprime-related cases filed
contained accounting-related allegations.  The majority of those
cases were related to inadequate estimates—largely the
understatement and underreporting of loan loss reserves—and the
failure to record impairment on mortgage portfolios.

A loan loss reserve is money set aside by financial institutions
for certain loans that they don't expect to be repaid.

Of all the subprime cases in 2007, 51% were against loan
originators, 8% against investment banks and 5% against rating
agencies.  To date, major investment banks have reported
approximately $130 billion in losses related to the subprime
crisis.

According to the study, in tougher economic times, financial
institutions are pressured to produce favorable financial
results.  This expectation can lead to unscrupulous behavior,
eventually causing higher levels of shareholder litigation.

Looking forward, the study notes that the number and scope of
subprime-related litigation will likely expand as regulators
scrutinize the practices of a wide swath of financial
institutions.  Even if financial institutions can weather the
current economic storm, some may have many years of litigation
ahead


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation has commenced a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Agria
Corporation securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's
November 6, 2007 initial public offering.

Agria engages in the research and development, production, and
sale of upstream agricultural products in the People's Republic
of China.

The complaint charges Agria and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/  


ARTHROCARE CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Files FL Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
ArthroCare Corp. between August 4, 2006, and January 23, 2008,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that 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.

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

For more information, contact:

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1877
                 (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Federman & Sherwood Files MA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed by federman
& Sherwood with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against First Marblehead Corp.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period is from August 10, 2006, through April 7, 2008.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Paskowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates has commenced a class action lawsuit with
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
or acquired the common shares of First Marblehead Corp. (NYSE:
FMD) from August 10, 2006, through and including April 7, 2008.

The lawsuit claims that First Marblehead and a number of
individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements about the
performance and quality of First Marblehead's securitizations in
SEC filings and other statements to the investing public.

Among other things, First Marblehead misrepresented the level of
default rates in its portfolio and the default rates' effect on
the Company's ability to securitize additional student loan
underwritings.  The complaint also states that First Marblehead
recklessly disregarded that its student loan guarantor, The
Education Resources Institute, was under-reserved and unable to
adequately insure student loans underwritten by the Company.

The guarantor filed for bankruptcy protection on April 7, 2008.

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

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Paskowitz, Esq.
          Paskowitz & Associates
          Toll Free: 1-800-705-9529


FORCE PROTECTION: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in SC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation has initiated a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Force Protection, Inc., between August 14, 2006, and
March 17, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410-986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Brower Piven Files Ma. Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation says that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced with the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
purchasers of Inverness Medical Innovations Inc. common stock in
the Company's secondary public offering on or about November 14,
2007.

The complaint charges Inverness and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
Inverness engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing
of consumer and professional medical diagnostic products, as
well as a range of vitamins and nutritional supplements
worldwide.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410-986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action suit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of iStar Financial Inc. pursuant and traceable to
the Company's secondary public offering on or about December 13,
2007 -- the Secondary Offering -- seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint charges iStar Financial and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act.
iStar Financial operates as a finance company focusing on the
commercial real estate industry.

According to the complaint, on or about October 9, 2007, iStar
Financial filed a Form S-3 Shelf Registration Statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  On or about December 13,
2007, iStar Financial filed a Prospectus Supplement to the Shelf
Registration Statement with respect to the secondary offering,
which forms part of the Registration Statement, and more than 8
million shares of iStar Financial common stock were sold to the
public at $28.41 per share, thereby raising more than
$227 million.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
negligently failed to disclose that the Company was then being
negatively impacted by the adverse conditions in the credit
markets and was failing to recognize more than $200 million of
losses on its corporate loan and debt portfolio.

On February 28, 2008, iStar Financial issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2007
and fiscal year 2007, the period ending December 31, 2007. For
the fourth quarter, the Company reported a loss of
($78.7 million) or ($0.62) per share.  The Company further
reported that its fourth quarter financial results were impacted
by $134.9 million of charges associated with the "impairment of
two credits" and that the Company had increased its loan loss
provisions by $113 million.  In response to this announcement
and subsequent analyst downgrades, the price of iStar Financial
stock declined from $22.85 per share on February 27, 2008, to
$13.98 per share on March 6, 2008.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages of all those who
purchased the common stock of iStar Financial pursuant and
traceable to the Company's secondary public offering on or about
December 13, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


MICHAEL BAKER: Spector Roseman Commences Pa. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. commenced a
securities class action lawsuit with the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Michael Baker Corporation from
March 19, 2007, through February 22, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's financial
well-being, business relationships, and prospects.  In this
regard, the Complaint alleges that the defendants' false
statements concealed from investors the fact that the Company's
reported financial results for the first three quarters of 2007
were materially inaccurate and the fact that the Company's
financial statements were not presented in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On February 22, 2008, Baker Corp. surprised investors when it
revealed that it would be restating its financial results for
the first, second and third quarters of 2007.  The Company said
that accounting errors would reduce its consolidated earnings
for those periods and that the reported results from those
periods should not be relied upon.  Upon release of this news,
the company's shares declined $8.53 per share, or 23.63%, to
close on February 25, 2008 at $27.57 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 12,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (888) 844-5862


MONEYGRAM INTL: Brualdi Law Firm Files MN Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of MoneyGram
International, Inc. between January 24, 2007, and January 14,
2008, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1877
                 (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Felgoise Files Securities Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., has commenced a
securities class action with the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of shareholders
who acquired TETRA Technologies Inc. securities between
January 3, 2007, and October 16, 2007, inclusive.

The action, filed against the company and certain key officers
and directors, charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net)
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046
          Phone: (215) 886-1900


WELLS FARGO: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate
Securities from Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE:WFC) and Wells Fargo
Investments, LLC between April 14, 2003, and February 13, 2008,
inclusive and who continued to hold such securities as of
February 13, 2008.

The class action is brought against Wells Fargo & Co. and its
wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiary, Wells Fargo Investments,
LLC.

The Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo 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, Wells Fargo 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 Wells Fargo and others have been unable
to liquidate their positions in these securities following the
decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-dealers
including Wells Fargo to "withdraw their support" for the
periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction
rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo 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; and

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

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, 14 th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone number: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *