CAR_Public/080417.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 17, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 76
  
                            Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Mediation Session Begins in Del. Securities Lawsuit
ALFA CORP: Settles Del. & Ala. Suits Over Alfa Mutual Offer
ALFA CORP: May 28, 2008 Hearing Set for "Hagler" Suit Settlement
ALFA MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims in Ala. Case
BEAR STEARNS: Employees and Investors Dealt Another Setback

CARROLS CORP: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismissal in "Seever"
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces New Allegation in Pending N.Y. Suit
DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Calif. Securities Suit
DOLE FOOD: Fla. Court Approves Banana Antitrust Suit Settlement
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.

HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in RESPA Suit
MICHAEL BAKER: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is May 12
OCCAM NETWORKS: May 19, 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Litigation
PIXELPLUS CO: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. Tentatively
QUIKSILVER INC: Faces Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations

RAYTHEON INC: Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Over Alleged Toxic Pollution
RCN CORP: N.J. Court Approves ERISA Violations Suit Settlement
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Ala. Over "Illegal Flying"
WILLIAM LYON: Del. Supreme Court Remands Case to Chancery Court
WILLIAM LYON: Calif. Litigation Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed

WURLD MEDIA: Suit Says Company Failed to Pay Employees
* McGlinchey Stafford's CAFA Law Blog Celebrates Milestone


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in New York
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Brower Piven Commences Ma. Securities Suit
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Lawsuit

ISTAR FINANCIAL: Abraham Fruchter Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Suit Filing in N.Y.
SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Susman Godfrey Files CA Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ADAMS GOLF: Mediation Session Begins in Del. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation session has begun in a consolidated securities class
action pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware against Adams Golf, Inc.

Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class actions was filed
against the company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and the three underwriters of its initial public
offering.   

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection
with the company's initial public offering.  

In particular, the complaints alleged that its prospectus, which
became effective Jul. 9, 1998, was materially false and
misleading in at least two areas.

The plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose
that unauthorized distribution of the company's products (gray
market sales) threatened the company's long-term profits.  

They also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
the golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of
inventory at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on
sales.

The operative complaint was filed on Jan. 24, 2006, and it
alleges that the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized
distribution of the company's products (gray market sales)
threatened the company's long-term profits and that the company
engaged in questionable sales practices (including double
shipping and unlimited rights of return), which threatened post-
IPO financial results.  

Discovery closed on Aug. 11, 2006.  On Nov. 21, 2006, all
summary-judgment briefing was completed.  On Dec. 13, 2006, the
company learned that the judge from the U.S. District Court of
the District of Delaware for whom the case was set before was
elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.  

On Dec. 15, 2006, the company was notified that its case was
assigned to the vacant judicial position.  All proceedings have
been postponed until a new judge is confirmed, and there is no
trial date set at this time.

On Feb. 7, 2008, the company was notified that its case has been
reassigned to Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet.  

There has been no scheduling conference set yet, and there is no
trial date set at this time.  

A mediation has been scheduled for April 8, 2008, according to
the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended Dec. 31,
2007.

The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, Judge Kent A. Jordan presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com)
         Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
         Citizens Bank Center
         Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070
         Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
         Phone: (302) 656-4433

Representing the defendants are:

         Kevin G. Abrams, Esq.
         Abrams & Laster, LLP
         Brandywine Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303
         Wilmington, DE 19803
         Phone: (302) 778-1000
         Fax: (302) 778-1001

         Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. (moyer@rlf.com)
         Richards, Layton & Finger
         One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551
         Wilmington, DE 19899
         Phone: (302) 651-7700

              - and -

         John E. James, Esq. (jjames@potteranderson.com)
         Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
         1313 N. Market St, Hercules Plaza
         6th Flr, PO Box 951
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
         Phone: (302) 984-6000


ALFA CORP: Settles Del. & Ala. Suits Over Alfa Mutual Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alfa Corp. reached tentative settlement for two consolidated
class action suits filed in Delaware and Alabama over a plan to
privatize the company, according to the company's March 11, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                         Case Background

On July 17, 2007, the Company received an offer from Alfa Mutual
Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual
General Insurance Co., which collectively own a majority of its
common stock, for a transaction that would result in the
privatization of the company.  

The Mutual Group proposes to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock that are not currently
owned by the Mutual Group.

Subsequent to the end of the second quarter, nine purported
class actions, seven in the Delaware Chancery Court and two in
the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, have been
brought against the Company, the Mutual Group (composed of Alfa
Mutual Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa
Mutual General Insurance Co.), and directors and officers on
behalf of the public shareholders of the Company, to enjoin the
defendants from causing the Company to enter into an agreement
to be acquired by the Mutual Group, among other allegations.

On Aug. 16, 2007 and on Aug. 29, 2007, orders were entered that
consolidated the actions filed in Delaware into "In Re Alfa
Corporation Shareholders Litigation," in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No.
3104-VCP.

On Oct. 29, 2007, an order was entered that consolidated the
actions filed in Alabama into "In Re Alfa Corporation
Shareholder Litigation," in the Circuit Court of Montgomery
County, Alabama, CV-07-900485.

                       Alabama Settlement

On Nov. 7, 2007, the counsel to the parties in the above
referenced Alabama consolidated action entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding to settle such action, subject to approval of
the court.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, Mutual and
Fire agreed to pay $22.00 per share to acquire the outstanding
shares of common stock of the Company that are not currently
owned by them.

As further consideration, lead counsel to the Alabama
consolidated action was provided an opportunity to review and
comment on the preliminary proxy statement.  The Alabama MOU
also provided for confirmatory discovery, which has been
completed.

On or about Feb. 7, 2008, a preliminary hearing was held in the
consolidated matter, "In Re Alfa Corp. Shareholder Litigation,"
in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, where the
parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and the court entered
a Scheduling Order that, among other things, set a final hearing
to determine approval of the class action settlement for
April 14, 2007.

The court also authorized the form of a Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action to be sent to all members of
the class, as defined in the Notice.

On or about Feb. 12, 2008, the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action describing the settlement in the
matter, "In Re Alfa Corp. Shareholder Litigation," was mailed to
members of the class.

                       Delaware Settlement

On Dec. 20, 2007, the counsel to the parties in the above
referenced Delaware consolidated action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle such action, subject to
approval of the court.

Under the terms of the Delaware MOU, counsel to the Delaware
consolidated action will be provided an opportunity to review
and comment on the preliminary proxy statement.

The parties to the Delaware litigation subsequently intervened
in "In Re Alfa Corporation Shareholder Litigation" in the
Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, for the purposes of
participating in confirmatory discovery and for participating in
the settlement of the action.

Alfa Corp. -- http://www.alfains.com/-- is a financial services  
holding company headquartered that offers property casualty
insurance, life insurance and financial services products
through its wholly owned subsidiaries Alfa Insurance Corp., Alfa
General Insurance Corp., Alfa Vision Insurance Corp., Alfa
Alliance Insurance Corp., Alfa Life Insurance Corp., Alfa
Financial Corp., The Vision Insurance Group, LLC, Alfa Agency
Mississippi, Inc., Alfa Agency Georgia, Inc., and Alfa Benefits
Corp.  Alfa Corp. is affiliated with Alfa Mutual Insurance Co.,
Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General
Insurance Co.


ALFA CORP: May 28, 2008 Hearing Set for "Hagler" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A May 28, 2008 final approval hearing is slated for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Mr. and Mrs Prince Hagler et. al. v.
Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., et. al., No. CV-07-408," which names
Alfa Corp. as a defendant.

On July 17, 2007, the Company received an offer from Alfa Mutual
Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual
General Insurance Co., which collectively own a majority of its
common stock, for a transaction that would result in the
privatization of the company.  

The Mutual Group proposes to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock that are not currently
owned by the Mutual Group.

On Nov. 21, 2007, certain policyholders of the Mutual Group
filed the purported class action and derivative action against
the Company, the Mutual Group and certain of their officers and
directors in the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama.

In "Hagler," the policyholders contended that transaction was
not in the best interest of the policyholders of the Mutual
Group and would unjustly enrich the defendants.

The Plaintiffs asserted purported claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the
proposed acquisition, other injunctive relief, and unspecified
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On Dec. 21, 2007, some of the defendants filed a motion to
transfer said litigation to the Circuit Court of Montgomery
County, Alabama.

On or about Jan. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs served discovery
requests on the defendants, seeking production of documents
purportedly related to the transaction.

On Feb. 23, 2008, counsel for the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle such action, subject to
approval of the court.

On March 4, 2008, the Walker County court conditionally approved
the settlement and set a final approval hearing for May 28,
2008, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Alfa Corp. -- http://www.alfains.com/-- is a financial services  
holding company headquartered that offers property casualty
insurance, life insurance and financial services products
through its wholly owned subsidiaries Alfa Insurance Corp., Alfa
General Insurance Corp., Alfa Vision Insurance Corp., Alfa
Alliance Insurance Corp., Alfa Life Insurance Corp., Alfa
Financial Corp., The Vision Insurance Group, LLC, Alfa Agency
Mississippi, Inc., Alfa Agency Georgia, Inc., and Alfa Benefits
Corp.  Alfa Corp. is affiliated with Alfa Mutual Insurance Co.,
Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General
Insurance Co.


ALFA MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims in Ala. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Preston M. Wright v. Alfa Mutual
Insurance Co., No. CV-07-900070," voluntarily dismissed the
policyholder class action allegation against the defendants,
according to Alfa Mutual's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On July 17, 2007, the Company received an offer from Alfa Mutual
Insurance Co., Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual
General Insurance Co., which collectively own a majority of its
common stock, for a transaction that would result in the
privatization of the company.  

The Mutual Group proposes to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock that are not currently
owned by the Mutual Group.

On Nov. 9, 2007, a policyholder of Alfa Mutual Insurance Co.
filed the purported class action and derivative action against
Mutual in the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama.

The policyholder contended that Mutual's and Alfa Mutual Fire
Insurance Co.'s acquisition of the outstanding stock of Alfa
Corp. was not in the best interest of the policyholders of
Mutual and Fire.

The plaintiffs asserted purported claims for the alleged
impairment of Mutual's assets.  

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the proposed acquisition, other
injunctive relief, and unspecified damages, costs and attorneys'
fees.  The Company believed that this action was without merit.

On or about Dec. 19, 2007, the defendants in the above-described
Macon County litigation filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer,
requesting that the court sever the class action allegations
related to the transaction from unrelated individual insurance
fraud allegations contained in the Complaint.

The motion requested that, once severed, the class action
allegations be transferred to the Circuit Court of Montgomery
County, Alabama.

On or about Jan. 23, 2008, the defendants' motion to sever and
transfer in the Macon County litigation was denied by the trial
court.

The Defendants then filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the
Alabama Supreme Court seeking to have the trial court's denial
of defendants' motion reversed.

On or about Feb. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Macon County
litigation voluntarily dismissed the policyholder class action
allegation against defendants.

Alfa Corp. -- http://www.alfains.com/-- is a financial services  
holding company headquartered that offers property casualty
insurance, life insurance and financial services products
through its wholly owned subsidiaries Alfa Insurance Corp., Alfa
General Insurance Corp., Alfa Vision Insurance Corp., Alfa
Alliance Insurance Corp., Alfa Life Insurance Corp., Alfa
Financial Corp., The Vision Insurance Group, LLC, Alfa Agency
Mississippi, Inc., Alfa Agency Georgia, Inc., and Alfa Benefits
Corp.  Alfa Corp. is affiliated with Alfa Mutual Insurance Co.,
Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and Alfa Mutual General
Insurance Co.


BEAR STEARNS: Employees and Investors Dealt Another Setback
-----------------------------------------------------------
Employees and investors of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.
(NYSE:BSC) were dealt another setback on news that profit fell
79% in the company's fiscal first quarter and that there would
likely be impairment charges taken by the company in the second
quarter.

Last week, after the market closed, Bear Stearns disclosed that
it will incur about $288 million in charges in the second
quarter tied to write-downs in goodwill and losses tied to a
municipal bond program. Bear Stearns stock price closed at
$10.11 per share. Just one year ago, Bear Stearns stock traded
at just under $160 per share.

Class action litigation has commenced with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the
Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Employee Stock Option Plan and all
plan participants against Bear Stearns for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The lawsuits allege that Bear Stearns, as plan fiduciary,
allowed imprudent investment of plan assets into Bear Stearns
common stock despite the fact that the company knew that such
investment was unduly risky and no longer appropriate for Bear
Stearns employees.  In the wake of the company's liquidity
problems and subsequent sell-off, the Bear Stearns ESOP has
suffered substantial losses.

The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. on the net:
http://www.bearstearns.com.


CARROLS CORP: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismissal in "Seever"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
granted Carrols Corp.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action against the company, according to Carrol's March 11, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2007.

The lawsuit, captioned "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp.,"
was filed on Nov. 30, 2002, by four former hourly employees of
the company.

The lawsuit alleges, in substance, that Carrols violated certain
minimum wage laws under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
related state laws by requiring employees to work without
recording their time and by retaliating against those who
complained.

The plaintiffs seek damages, costs and injunctive relief.  They
also seek to notify, and eventually certify, a class consisting
of current and former employees who, since 1998, have worked or
are working for Carrols.

As a result of a status conference on July 21, 2005, the parties
agreed to withdraw the plaintiff's motions to certify and for
national discovery, and defendant's motion to disqualify counsel
and related motions, to allow both sides limited additional
discovery.

Carrols has since filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
existing plaintiffs that the court has under consideration.  

On Jan. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed their motions to
certify the action and for national discovery.  Carrols opposed
both requests.  Carrols has also moved to disqualify the
plaintiffs from representing the class and to strike the
purported evidence presented in support of their certification
motion.

On Dec. 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for notice and class certification and
granting the company's motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs'
claims, other than certain nominal claims relating to
orientation and managers meetings.  The Court instructed the
parties to confer, in good faith, and settle those nominal
claims.  

Subject to settlement of the amounts for orientation and
managers meetings and possible appeal by the plaintiffs, the
case is concluded.

The suit is "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case No.
6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York under Judge David G. Larimer,
with referral to Judge Marian W. Payson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick J. Solomon, Esq.
         (psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com)
         Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP
         693 East Avenue
         Rochester, NY 14607
         Phone: 585-272-0540
         Fax: 585-272-0574

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Helen N. Baker, Esq. (hbaker@freebornpeters.com)
         Freeborn & Peters
         311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-360-6256
         Fax: 312-360-6995


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces New Allegation in Pending N.Y. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New allegations have been added to a class action suit pending
against Countrywide Financial Corp. (NYSE: CFC) and which was
filed by New York state comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, New York
City comptroller William Thompson Jr. and New York City Pension
Funds.

The suit is intended to compensate investors who were allegedly
misled by the California-based mortgage lender.  The company's
stock plummeted last fall after it was revealed that it had made
material misstatements and omissions regarding its lending
practices and other aspects of its business and finances.

The stock, which a year ago was at $36 a share, closed April 11
at $5.26 a share.  The complaint has been amended to include
allegations that Countrywide distorted industry definitions of
prime and subprime borrowers and mortgages to mislead uninformed
investors about the nature of its business.

The suit also contends that Countrywide executives engaged in
insider trading, selling shares while simultaneously encouraging
other investors to buy or hold the stock.  Shares of Countrywide
fell 40 cents, or 7.60 percent, to close at $4.86.

Based in Calabasas, California, Countrywide Financial
Corporation (NYSE: CFC) -- http://www.countrywide.com/-- is a  
diversified financial services provider and a member of the S&P
500, Forbes 2000 and Fortune 500.  Through its family of
companies, Countrywide originates, purchases, securitizes,
sells, and services residential and commercial loans; provides
loan closing services such as credit reports, appraisals and
flood determinations; offers banking services which include
depository and home loan products; conducts fixed income
securities underwriting and trading activities; provides
property, life and casualty insurance; and manages a captive
mortgage reinsurance company.


DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action
suit filed against Ditech Communications Corp. are appealing the
dismissal of their case.

On June 14, 2005, a lawsuit filed by Richard E. Jaffe against
Ditech Communications, Timothy K. Montgomery, and William J.
Tamblyn (Case No. C 05 02406) was filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased Ditech's stock
between Aug. 25, 2004, and May 26, 2005.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its
former chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

Several similar lawsuits were filed.  All of them were later
consolidated into a single action, captioned, "In re Ditech
Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-02406-
JSW."  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Feb. 2,
2006.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and by order
dated Aug. 10, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion
and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.  

The defendants filed their Second Amended Complaint on Sept. 11,
2006.  They again moved to dismiss, and by order dated March 22,
2007, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with
leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on April 23,
2007.  On May 14, 2007, the defendant again moved to dismiss.  

By order dated Oct. 11, 2007, the court dismissed the third
amended complaint with prejudice.  

On Nov. 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's
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 "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
         (cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C.
         425 California Street, Suite 2025
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415/433-3200
         Fax: 415-433-6382

Representing the defendants is:

         William S. Freeman, Esq. (freemanws@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
         Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155
         Phone: 650 843-5000
         Fax: 650 857-0663


DOLE FOOD: Fla. Court Approves Banana Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
entered final judgment orders approving the settlement of two
consolidated class actions filed by direct and indirect banana
buyers against Dole Food Co. Inc.

Initially, a number of class actions were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the
company and three of its competitors.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of entities that directly or
indirectly purchased bananas from the defendants and have now
been consolidated into two separate class actions:

     -- one by direct purchasers (customers); and

     -- another by indirect purchasers (those who purchased
        bananas from customers).

Both consolidated class actions allege that the defendants
conspired to artificially raise or maintain prices and control
or restrict output of bananas.

On May 17, 2007, and June 26, 2007, Dole entered into settlement
agreements resolving these putative consolidated class actions
filed by the direct purchasers and indirect purchasers,
respectively.

The Court entered final judgment orders approving the settlement
agreements on Nov. 21, 2007.  

The direct purchaser settlement is now completed.  The indirect
purchaser agreement is currently under appeal by a single party,
according to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Dole Food Co. Inc. -- http://www.dole.com/-- is a producer and  
marketer of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and fresh-cut flowers,
and markets a line of packaged foods.

    
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.; its chief financial officer J.
Larry Sorsby; and its chief executive officer and president, Ara
K. Hovnanian, are facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The class-action complaint was originally filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on
Sept. 14, 2007, accusing Mr. Sorsby of inflating the home
builder's share price through false and misleading statements
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2007.

Named plaintiff, and later court-appointed lead plaintiff,
Herbert Mankofsky, brought this securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Hovnanian between Dec. 8, 2005, and Aug. 13,
2007.  

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act
of 1934.  It also alleges that during the class period, the
defendants issued a materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and prospects.

According to the suit, as a result of these misleading
statements, Hovnanian stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the class period, reaching a high of $54.29 per
share in Jan. 2006.  

However, as a direct result of the market learning of
defendants' wrongdoing, the price of Hovnanian shares declined
and the plaintiff and the class suffered a loss on their
investment in Hovnanian.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the 1934 Act was violated by defendant;

     (b) whether the defendant omitted and misrepresented
         material facts;

     (c) whether defendant's statements omitted material facts
         necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
         circumstances under which they were made, not
         misleading;

     (d) whether defendant knew or deliberately disregarded that
         his statements were false and misleading;

     (e) whether the price of Hovnanian common stock was
         artificially inflated; and

     (f) the extent of damage sustained by class members and the
         appropriate measure of damages.

The plaintiff prays for judgment:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the members of the class,
        damages, including interest;

     -- awarding plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney's fees;
        and

     -- awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as
        the court may deem just and proper.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the action was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On March 10, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
captioned, "In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation," alleging that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
future prospects with respect to the Company's acquisition and
operation of First Home Builders of Florida in violation of
federal securities laws.

The suit is "In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Judge Susan D. Wigenton.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William C. Cagney, Esq. (wcagney@windelsmarx.com)
         Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP
         120 Albany Street Plaza
         New Brunswick, NJ 08901
         Phone: (732) 846-7600

Representing the defendants is:

         Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq. (deakeley@lowenstein.com)
         Lowenstein Sandler P.C.
         65 Livingston Ave.
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: (973) 597-2500

    
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in RESPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denied Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.'s motion that sought for the
dismissal of a purported class action filed against it, alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The suit, "Mark W. Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.
et al.," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on May 30, 2007.  

It accuses Hovnanian of taking kickbacks and unearned fees by
requiring homebuyers and sellers to use a specified title
insurance company, in violation of RESPA.

Named plaintiffs Mark W. Mellar and Margaret Ann Liguori bring
this action on behalf of residential mortgage borrowers who:

     -- purchased a home from Hovnanian Enterprises Inc.;

     -- received a mortgage loan for such home purchase that was
        originated, processed and brokered by K. Hovnanian
        American Mortgage, LLC; and

     -- brought title insurance for such home purchase from a
        title company designated by and affiliated with
        Hovnanian, wherein the borrowers were required by the
        literal terms of their real estate purchase agreement
        with Hovnanian to finance their purchase through
        Hovnanian Mortgage and obtain title insurance through a
        Hovanian-affiliated title company, or else forfeit
        various discounts off of the purchase price and
        closing costs for their new home.

By requiring home buyers to finance their purchase through
Hovnanian Mortgage and to obtain title insurance through a
Hovnanian-affiliated title company, under the direct threat of
having to otherwise pay more money for their new home,
defendants have allegedly failed to comply with the statutory
prerequisites for exemption as an affiliated business
arrangement and, consequently, have violated RESPA's prohibition
against kickbacks and unearned fees.

Additionally, Hovnanian, as a seller of property, has allegedly
violated Section 9 of RESPA by requiring the use of a particular
title insurance company.

The defendants are accused of engaging in a uniform, systematic
pattern and practice of requiring the use of Hovnanian Mortgage
for the financing of home purchases from Hovnanian and the use
of a Hovnanian-affiliated title company for the provision of
title insurance for such home purchases, in violation of
Sections 8 and 9 of RESPA.

             Plaintiffs' Transaction with Hovnanian

On or about March 30, 2007, the plaintiffs entered into a Terms
and Conditions Purchase Agreement with Hovnanian, pursuant to
which the plaintiffs agreed to purchase a new home from
Hovnanian, located in its "Byers Station" community, in Chester
Springs, Pennsylvania.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs entered into an Amendment to
Purchase Agreement, dated April 5, 2007, which amended the
purchase price to $427,366.44.  This Amendment is valid only if
K. Hovnanian Mortgage and Governor's Abstract Co. are used.

On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Price
Reduction Addendum, which purported to reduce the price of the
plaintiffs' home in the amount of $14,041.78.

This price reduction was, once again, conditioned upon
Plaintiffs' agreement to, inter alia, "use K. Hovnanian American
Mortgage, LLC, an affiliate of Seller, to obtain a mortgage loan
and purchase the home with a loan made by K. Hovnanian American
Mortgage, LLC" and "use Governor's Abstract Co., Inc., an
affiliate of the Seller, to obtain title insurance to complete
the purchase of the home."

On or about April 7, 2007, the plaintiffs entered into a
Decorator Selection Credit Addendum, which purported to issue
the plaintiffs a "Decorator Selection Credit" at closing in the
amount of $55,958.22.  This credit was, once again, conditioned
upon the plaintiffs' agreement to use Hovnanian Mortgage and
Governor's Abstract for the financing and title insurance of
their new home.

As a direct result of the requirement placed upon them by
Hovnanian to either use Hovnanian Mortgage for financing and
Governor's Abstract for title insurance, or pay an additional
$70,000.00 in order to purchase their home, the plaintiffs
financed their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtained
title insurance through Governor's Abstract.  The plaintiffs
closed on their purchase on April 26, 2007.

By "requiring" the use of Hovnanian Mortgage and the affiliated
title company, under the threat of charging buyers thousands of
dollars more for their homes, Defendants, however, fail to meet
the prerequisites for the affiliated business arrangement
exemption. 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(c).

The plaintiffs and the class ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying this action may be maintained as
        a class action, as defined, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
        and 23(b)(3);

     -- an order appointing the plaintiffs as representatives of
        the class;

     -- an order appointing the undersigned counsel as class
        counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- an order directing that reasonable notice of the
        class action be provided to all members of the class at
        the appropriate time after discovery and dispositive
        motions have been resolved;

     -- an order finding that the company violated RESPA and is
        therefore liable as a matter of law to each member of
        the class for treble damages;

     -- declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by
        law or equity, including enjoining the defendants from
        continuing the unlawful practices;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law and
        statute;

     -- pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in
        an amount according to proof at trial;

     -- an award of costs and expenses incurred in this
        action; and

     -- such other relief as the Court may deem just and
        proper.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was subsequently denied by the Court on March 4, 2008
without prejudice, according to the company's March 11, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208f

The suit is "Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. et al,
Case No. 2:07-cv-02196-AB," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Anita B. Brody
presiding.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq. (glynch@carlsonlynch.com)
          Carlson Lynch Ltd
          36 N. Jefferson Street
          P.O. Box 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Phone: 724-656-1555
          Fax: 724-656-1556


MICHAEL BAKER: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is May 12
------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., the law firm that filed the first
securities class action lawsuit against Michael Baker
Corporation, reminds investors that the deadline to move the
Court for lead plaintiff appointment is May 12, 2008.

In March, the law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., filed a
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking class action status on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Michael Baker
Corporation between March 19, 2007, and February 22, 2008,
inclusive (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2008).

The Complaint charges that MBC and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements inflating reported revenue
from the Company's energy business segment.

After the close of the market on February 22, 2008, the Company
announced that it would be filing a restatement of its first,
second and third quarter 2007 financial statements to correct
errors in MBC's revenue recognition practices in the energy
business segment.  The Company's February 22, 2008 disclosure
revealed, inter alia, that the amount of the restatement might
exceed the total earnings reported for the energy business
segment for the first nine months of the 2007 fiscal year -- the
business segment that accounted for almost 70 percent of the
Company's total earnings for that period.

Furthermore, the February 22, 2008 announcement disclosed that
the Company was still evaluating whether it would need to
restate earnings for fiscal year 2006 financial statements.

Following the issuance of the Company's February 22, 2008 press
release, the price of the Company's common stock dropped from a
closing price of $36.10 on February 22, 2008, to a closing price
of $27.57 at the end of the next trading day.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com


OCCAM NETWORKS: May 19, 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A May 19, 2008 hearing is set for the consolidated securities
fraud class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Occam Networks, Inc.

On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class action
complaints were filed with the district court against the
company and certain of its officers.  The complaints allege that
the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the Company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect revenue recognition.

The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common stock during the period from May 2, 2006, and
April 17, 2007, damages of an unspecified amount.

On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated these
actions into a single action, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund
-- The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  This consolidated complaint adds as defendants
certain of the company's current and former directors and
officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead
underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006,
and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the
company.

The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated
sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that
required restatement.  

The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during the period from
April 29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified
amount.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

A hearing on the motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
is currently set for May 19, 2008, according to the company's
March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-02750," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Christina A.
Snyder.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212.687.1980
          Fax: 212.687.7714
          e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com


PIXELPLUS CO: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. Tentatively
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pixelplus Co., Ltd. disclosed that it reached a tentative
settlement resolving a consolidated shareholder class action
lawsuit against it and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.  The suit was filed with the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York in
April 2006.

The Complaint charges Pixelplus and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2006).

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that Pixelplus failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to the defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

      -- that the Company incorrectly accounted for sales to its
         consolidated subsidiary, Pixelplus Technology Inc.;

      -- that as a result of this improper accounting, the
         Company's revenues were materially overstated
         throughout the Class Period;

      -- that the Company's financial statements were in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

      -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

Under the terms of the tentative settlement, Pixelplus continues
to dispute the merits of the lawsuit, but has approved a
compromise payment of US$1.0 million.

The settlement provides a dismissal with prejudice of the
lawsuit and full releases for the Company and the named officers
and directors from all allegations made in the lawsuit.  The
settlement further provides no presumption or admission of
fault, liability or wrongdoing by the Company or the directors
or officers.  The compromise payment will be funded by the
Company's directors and officers liability insurance.  Given
available insurance and other factors, the Company presently
believes this compromise payment will not have a material impact
on Pixelplus' financial position or results of operations.

"We are satisfied that is a fair settlement and believe it is in
the best interests of Pixelplus and its shareholders, as the
settlement will allow us to avoid further prolonged litigation,
expense, and distraction.  Given this major accomplishment, we
are eager to move the Company forward and focus all of our
energies on executing our strategy of technology innovation and
leadership and of returning to profitability to build
shareholder confidence and value," said Dr. S.K. Lee, founder
and chief executive officer of Pixelplus.

The terms of the settlement are subject to preliminary and final
Court approvals and notice to class members.  

Pixelplus is a South Korea-based developer of high-performance,
high-resolution, and cost-effective CMOS image sensors for use
primarily in mobile camera phones.  In addition to mobile
phones, Pixelplus provides CMOS image sensors and SoC solutions
for use in webcams and notebook embedded cameras, toys and
games, and security and surveillance system applications.

As a fabless semiconductor company, Pixelplus is focused on
creating proprietary design technologies to develop CMOS image
sensors with sharp, colorful and enhanced image quality, size
efficiency, and low power consumption.


QUIKSILVER INC: Faces Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Quiksilver, Inc. is facing a class action suit that alleges
willful violation of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The FACTA allegations are based upon certain of the Company's
retail stores' alleged electronic printing of receipts on which
appeared more than the last five digits of customers' credit or
debit card number and/or the expiration date of such customers'
credit or debit card.

Quiksilver, Inc. -- http://www.quiksilverinc.com/-- is a  
globally diversified company that designs, produces and
distributes branded apparel, wintersports equipment, footwear,
accessories and related products. Its products are sold in
over90 countries in a range of distribution channels, including  
surf shops, ski shops, skateboard shops, snowboard shops, its
Boardriders Club shops, other specialty stores and select
department stores.  The Company has three operating segments,
the Americas, Europe and Asia/Pacific.  The Americas segment
includes revenues primarily from the U.S., and Canada.  The
European segment includes revenues primarily from Western
Europe.  The Asia/Pacific segment includes revenues primarily
from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Indonesia.


RAYTHEON INC: Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Over Alleged Toxic Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas
County, Florida, alleging that the company has polluted St.
Petersburg water for years with toxic and carcinogenic dioxane,
trichloroethene, dichloroethene and vinyl chloride, which also
cause birth defects, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Nancy Sher brings the action on behalf of those
who currently own, or who on or after April 1, 2008, have owned
private realy property located at, on, or adjacent to the
Raytheon Facility in the area north, south, east and west of the
Raytheon Facility bordered by 22nd Ave. North to the north 66th
Street North to the east, South Central Ave. to the south and
Boca Ciego Bay to the westl and those who currently reside, or
who at any time in the past have resided at, on, or adjacent to
the Raytheon Facility in the are north, south, east and west of
the Raytheon FAcility bordered by 22nd Ave. North to the north,
66th Street North to the east, South Central Ave. to the south
and Boca Ciega Bay to th west.

The plaintiff claims Raytheon and its predecessors have known of
their deadly pollutants for more than 20 years but lied about
it, "fraudulently, negligently and/or knowingly suppressing the
nature and extent of the contamination which has migrated off
their property," and falsely claiming to have contained the
plume of toxins from its storage facility.

The toxic plume originates from Raytheon's 500,000-square-foot
plant in St. Petersburg, which employs 1,300 people, the
complaint states.

The plaintiff also sues Craig Pethe, environmental engineer at
the Raytheon plant.

Ms. Sher claims that Raytheon has known of the carcinogenic
pollution for years but decided not to contain it properly to
save money.

Ms. Sher wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether, and to what extent, defendants are responsible
         for the plume of contamination flowing on, under and
         around plaintiffs' properties;

     (b) whether, and to what extent, the actions and operations
         of defendants have resulted in a trespass on
         plaintiffs' properties;

     (c) whether, and to what extent, the actions and operations
         of defendants have annoyed and disturbed the free use,
         possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' properties
         so as to constitute a private nuisance;

     (d) whether, and to what extent, defendants have
         fraudulently suppressed material facts and information
         which should have been provided to plaintiffs;

     (e) whether defendants engaged in abnormally dangerous
         activities for which they are strictly liable;

     (f) whether plaintiffs and other class members were injured
         by defendants' actions and operations and, if so, the
         appropriate class-wide measure of damages; and

     (g) whether plaintiffs and other class members are entitled
         to medical monitoring relief.

The suit is "Nancy Sher et al. v. Raytheon, Inc. et al, Case No.
08-5332-C1-19," filed with the Circuit Court of the Sixth
Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida,

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          J. Michael Papantonio, Esq.
          Brian H. Barr, Esq.
          Neil E. McWilliams, Jr., Esq.
          Amanda R. Slevinki, Esq.
          Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner &
          Proctor, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          P.O. Box 12308
          Pensacola, FL 32591


RCN CORP: N.J. Court Approves ERISA Violations Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved
the settlement reached in the consolidated class action suit
filed against RCN Corp. which alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

                        Case Background

In September 2004, as part of the company's Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings, certain participants and beneficiaries
of the former RCN Savings and Stock Ownership Plan asserted
claims against the company and its current and former directors,
officers, employee administrators, and managers for alleged
violations of ERISA.  

The plaintiffs generally alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to properly manage and monitor
the Savings Plan in light of the drop in the trading price of
the company's then-outstanding common stock, which comprised of
a portion of the aggregate contributions made to the Savings
Plan.

In April 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York permitted the filing of a consolidated
class action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against RCN Corp. and its current and
former directors, officers, employee administrators, and
managers, subject to the limitation that the plaintiffs would
not be permitted to enforce a judgment against the company in
excess of any applicable RCN insurance coverage.  The class
action complaint was filed on May 16, 2005.  

In March 2006, the class action complaint was dismissed as to
all defendants, except for:

      -- the company and certain former directors of RCN with  
         respect to an alleged "failure to monitor" the Savings  
         Plan; and  

      -- certain individuals who comprised the former  
         administrative committee of the Savings Plan with  
         respect to an alleged failure to prudently invest  
         Savings Plan assets, in each case during late 2003 and  
         early 2004 when the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty  
         occurred.  

Discovery with respect to these remaining defendants commenced
in September 2006.

On March 14, 2007, the company reached a tentative settlement
for the matter.  The settlement agreement was executed on
July 19, 2007, and is subject to judicial and other related
approvals.

The court approved the settlement on Dec. 17, 2007, according to
the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re: RCN Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No.
04-CV-5068 (SRC)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Stanley R. Chesler presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. (lisa@trrlaw.com)
          Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
          8 Kings Highway West
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 795-9002

Representing the company is:

          Edward Cerasia, II, Esq. (ecerasia@proskauer.com)
          Proskauer Rose, LLP
          One Newark Center, 18th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5211
          Phone: (973) 274-3200


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Ala. Over "Illegal Flying"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed  
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama alleging it ducked FAA -- Federal Aviation
Administration -- maintenance and inspection regulations for
nearly a year, sending customers on 59,000 flights on planes
that were "flying illegally," CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs say that Southwest failed to comply with FAA
regulations on 59,000 flights between June 2006 and March 2007.
The planes allegedly did not undergo inspections for fuselage
cracks.

After planes failed inspection, Southwest sent planes on another
1,451 flights without proper repairs, the complaint states.

"Further, according to the investigation completed by the US
Department of Transportation Inspector General, in March of
2007, Southwest Airlines had 21 key inspections which were
overdue for at least five years," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased tickets with Southwest
Airlines and traveled with Southwest Airlines between Jan. 2002
and March 2008, on airplanes which were not in compliance with
the laws and governmental regulations of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Transportation Security Administration.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether airplanes operated by Southwest Airlines were
         in compliance with governmental safety regulations and
         guidelines, including airworthiness directives issued
         by the FAA;

     (b) whether Southwest Airlines received monies through
         ticket sales in exchange for transporting individuals
         on airplanes which were not in compliance with
         governmental safety regulations and guidelines;

     (c) whether plaintiffs and members of the class purchased
         tickets with Southwest Airlines and flew on airplanes
         which were not in compliance with governmental safety
         regulations and guidelines;

     (d) whether Southwest Airlines is refusing to reimburse
         plaintiffs and the members of the class for the cost of
         the airline tickets;

     (e) whether Southwest Airlines' failure to comply with all
         governmental safety regulations and guidelines
         constitutes a breach of contract with persons
         purchasing tickets;

     (f) whether Southwest Airlines was negligent in its duty to
         inspect maintain, and operate its airplanes in
         accordance with all laws and governmental regulations;

     (g) whether Southwest Airlines misrepresented to plaintiffs
         and members of the class that its airplanes were in
         compliance with all laws and governmental regulations;

     (h) whether Southwest Airlines' suppressed information with
         regard to whether its airplanes were in compliance with
         all laws and governmental regulations;

     (i) whether Southwest Airlines has been unjustly enriched;
         and

     (j) whether plaintiffs and members of the class are
         entitled to relief.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- damages in the amount of monies paid for travel on
        airplanes which were not in compliance with government
        regulations and rescission of the sales contract;

     -- actual damages, statutory damages, nominal damages,
        punitive or treble damages, and such other relief as
        provided by law;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary
        relief;

     -- appropriate attorney fees and costs and expenses
        incurred in connection with the litigation of this
        matter;

     -- certification of the action as a class action pursuant
        to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules (b)(2) and
        (b)(3), and appointment of plaintiffs as class
        representatives and plaintiffs' counsel of record as
        class counsel; and

     -- an order declaring Southwest Airlines' conduct unlawful,
        with respect to its operating airplanes which were not
        in compliance with the applicable laws and governmental
        regulations.

The suit is "Richard Cusick et al. v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
Case No. CV-08-RMP-0650-S," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr.
          Gayle L. Douglas
          Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, Alabama 35203
          Phone: (205) 326-3336
          Fax: (205) 326-3332


WILLIAM LYON: Del. Supreme Court Remands Case to Chancery Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Supreme Court referred and remanded the matter, "In
re: William Lyon Homes, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No.
05-CC-00092" to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County for further proceedings regarding
the fee award to the plaintiff's counsel, according to William
Lyon's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                        Case Background

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed on behalf of
the public stockholders of the company, challenging the tender
offer and challenging related actions of the company and the
directors of the company.  

The suits are:

      1. "Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
         Action No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and

      2. "Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et
         al., Civil Action No. 2017-N" was filed on March 21,
         2006.  

Both suits were filed with the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.

On March 21, 2006, the plaintiff in the "Brown" action filed a
first amended complaint.  

The Delaware Complaints name the company and its directors as
defendants.  They allege, among other things, that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
plaintiffs in connection with the tender offer and other related
corporate activities.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among
other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to
the litigation.

On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had
appointed a special committee of independent directors who are
not members of the company's management or employed by the
company to consider the tender offer.  

The members of the Special Committee are Harold H. Greene,
Lawrence M. Higby, and Dr. Arthur Laffer.

The company also announced that the Special Committee had
retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel.

                  Consolidation and Settlement

On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William
Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N."

On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a
proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's
approval.

Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per
share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer
to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended
Schedule Tender Offer.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have
determined that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class."

The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per
share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the
company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and
tender their shares.

Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the
closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006, to
April 28, 2006.

                   Certification & Dismissal

On April 23, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court conditionally
certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a
Stipulation of Settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware
Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware
Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated
Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the
class.

On Feb. 16, 2007, the fee award to the plaintiffs' counsel was
appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.  

On July 18, 2007, a three-judge panel of the Delaware Supreme
Court heard oral argument, and, on July 19, 2007, referred the
matter for consideration by the Court en Banc, which heard oral
argument on Sept. 19, 2007.  

On Dec. 21, 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the matter
to the Chancery Court for further proceedings regarding the fee
award to the plaintiff's counsel.

Under the appealed award, the Company has no expected liability
for the plaintiffs' counsel fees, which are expected to be paid
by General Lyon.

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com-- is primarily  
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The Company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.  

    
WILLIAM LYON: Calif. Litigation Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action that challenges a tender offer by one
of William Lyon Homes, Inc.'s stockholders continue to be
stayed.

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

On that same day, the complaint, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
v. William Lyon Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CC-00047," was
filed with the Superior Court of the state of California, County
of Orange.  

On April 5, 2006, the plaintiff in the Alaska Electrical action
filed an amended complaint.   

The complaint in the California Action names the company and
certain of its directors as defendants and alleges, among other
things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
to the public stockholders.  

The plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the
tender offer, and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees
and expenses related to the litigation.  

On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of
the plaintiff in the California Action to enjoin the Tender
Offer.  The plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class in the
California Action, which was later taken off calendar, and the
company filed a motion to stay the California Action.  

On July 5, 2006, the California Court granted the company's
motion to stay the California Action.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com-- is primarily  
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The Company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.


WURLD MEDIA: Suit Says Company Failed to Pay Employees
------------------------------------------------------
Saratoga Springs-based Wurld Media -- a now-defunct Internet
start-up that offered peer-to-peer software -- and its leaders  
are now facing a class-action lawsuit and a criminal
investigation over its alleged failure to pay employees and
dipping into their retirement accounts, Drew Kerr of Glens Falls
Post-Star reports.

The suit claims that the company owes the employees wages since
March 2008.  It also claims the company kept money from the
employees' paychecks that was for a 401(k) plan.

But Wurld Media Chief Executive Officer Gregory Kerber argues
that the court does not have jurisdiction over the claims
because the employees signed an agreement in 2005 that all legal
disputes with the company would be resolved through "final and
binding arbitration."

The agreement reads "This agreement is important because it
confirms and creates certain obligations which are binding on
the employee, and provides a mechanism for resolving legal
disputes between the company and the employee; it should be read
completely and carefully before being signed."

Shaun-Paul Manore, who began as a quality assurance director for
Wurld in 2003, is one of a number of past employees facing
financial woes since the ignominious downfall of the company.

"I accept the responsibility for staying without pay," the
Rexford resident said.  "Maybe it was wide-eyed optimism.  But,
eventually, I just ran out of energy and wherewithal."


* McGlinchey Stafford's CAFA Law Blog Celebrates Milestone
----------------------------------------------------------
Stafford's CAFA Law Blog -- http://www.cafalawblog.com-- the  
authoritative source for information, case analyses and insights
regarding the Class Action Fairness Act, disclosed an impressive
milestone of 250 original case summaries posted on its Web site.

The CAFA Law Blog was created in 2005 by McGlinchey Stafford
class action defense lawyers Anthony Rollo and Hunter Twiford
with the mission to serve as the leading on-line repository for
information concerning CAFA.  Since the blog's inception, it has
received accolades such as recognition on TechnoLawyer's list of
the nation's 77 most influential legal blogs in 2007, and
feature stories in the National Law Journal and other
publications as a national leader in law firm blogging.

"We are very proud of CAFA Law Blog and the growing success
we've achieved by timely providing CAFA related information to
our readers, and by using an informal, entertaining approach to
presenting that information," said Anthony Rollo, CAFA Law Blog
founder and Class Action Defense Partner with McGlinchey
Stafford PLLC.

Since the CAFA Law Blog was started, its team of authors who
create, write and edit the blog's original content have used a
non-legalistic, creative writing style to report on the cutting-
edge developments arising under CAFA.  Their objective from
inception has been for its growing audience to keep up with
complex CAFA developments while also having fun reading the
blog, and to distinguish themselves from the pack through their
entertaining and sometimes humorous analyses of these legal
issues.  In addition to posting summaries of new court decisions
and law review articles to the blog, the editors also scout out
CLE opportunities, lectures and conferences and provide this
information to CAFA Law Blog readers as well.

The editorial staff of the CAFA Law Blog is comprised of
McGlinchey Stafford attorneys Anthony Rollo and Hunter Twiford,
co-editors; Michael Ferachi, senior editor; Jay O'Brien,
managing editor; John Rouse, assistant editor; and case analysts
Lance Bowling, Angie Christina, Kyle Ferachi, Rose Marie Fiore,
Stephanie John, Heather LaSalle, Stephen Masley, Lisa Munyon,
Ravi Sangisetty, Jamie Seymour, Julie Skipper, Kaye Templet,
Stephanie Tolson, James Wertheim and Jonathan Wilbourn.

McGlinchey Stafford PLLC publishes the CAFA Law Blog
http://www.cafalawblog.com/-- an interactive web site found, is  
the leading online resource for the Class Action Fairness Act.
Virtually every case involving CAFA issues decided anywhere in
the country is available on the blog, with commentary and
analysis of the decisions.  In its efforts to provide "one-stop
CAFA shopping," the blog also highlights law reviews and other
scholarly articles on CAFA topics, information about relevant
seminars, "guest posts" by professors and other practitioners,
vendors offering CAFA-related services, and other resources.

McGlinchey Stafford -- http://www.mcglinchey.com -- is a  
national full-service commercial and defense law firm with
approximately 170 attorneys in eight locations in Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio and New York.  The firm is
recognized nationwide for its extensive practice in the field of
class action defense, and has represented Fortune 500 companies
across the country in hundreds of consumer class actions in
state, federal, and bankruptcy courts, arbitration proceedings,
and Multi-District Litigation.  McGlinchey Stafford's class
action defense attorneys have represented clients in class
action matters across a wide array of fields, including class
actions involving consumer financial services, banking, labor
and employment, consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices,
advertising, product liability, insurance, telecommunications,
environmental, mass tort, healthcare, and public utilities
claims and issues.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Agria Corporation and various individuals on behalf
of purchasers of Agria securities who purchased pursuant or
traceable to an Initial Public Offering on November 6, 2007 .

The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of
1933 by issuing false and misleading statements to the public
related to the IPO and Registration Statement.

For more information, contact:

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


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The
Blackstone Group L.P. pursuant and traceable to the Company's
initial public offering on or about June 25, 2007.

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

Blackstone, through its subsidiaries, provides alternative asset
management and financial advisory services worldwide.

According to the complaint, on or about June 21, 2007,
Blackstone filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration
Statement for the IPO.  On or about June 25, 2007, the
Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the
Registration Statement, became effective and, including the
exercise of the over-allotment, more than 133 million shares of
Blackstone's common stock were sold to the public at $31 per
share, thereby raising more than $4 billion.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose that certain of the Company's portfolio companies were
not performing well and were of declining value.  As a result,
Blackstone's equity investment was impaired and the Company
would not generate anticipated performance fees on those
investments or would have fees "clawed-back" by limited partners
in its funds.

On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the full year of 2007 and the fourth
quarter of 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007.  Among
other disclosures, Blackstone announced that it was writing down
its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by $122
million.  As of April 15, 2008, Blackstone common stock traded
in a range of $17.00-$17.50 per share, approximately 45% below
the IPO price of $31.00 per share.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages of all those who
purchased the common stock of Blackstone pursuant and traceable
to the Company's IPO on or about June 25, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter, Esq.
          Arthur Chen, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of The Blackstone Group L.P.  
pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial public offering
on or about June 25, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint charges Blackstone and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act.  Blackstone,
through its subsidiaries, provides alternative asset management
and financial advisory services worldwide.

According to the complaint, on or about June 21, 2007,
Blackstone filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration
Statement for the IPO.  On or about June 25, 2007, a prospectus
with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration
Statement, became effective and, including the exercise of the
over-allotment, more than 133 million shares of Blackstone's
common stock were sold to the public at $31 per share, thereby
raising more than $4 billion.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose that certain of the Company's portfolio companies were
not performing well and were of declining value and, as a
result, Blackstone's equity investment was impaired and the
Company would not generate anticipated performance fees on those
investments or would have fees "clawed-back" by limited partners
in its funds.

On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the full year of 2007 and the fourth
quarter of 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007.  Among
other disclosures, Blackstone announced that it was writing down
its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by
$122 million.  As of April 15, 2008, Blackstone common stock
traded in a range of $17-$17.50 per share, approximately 45%
below the IPO price of $31.00 per share.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages of all those who
purchased the common stock of Blackstone pursuant and traceable
to the Company's IPO on or about June 25, 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


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Brower Piven Commences Ma. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of The First Marblehead Corporation  between
August 10, 2006 and April 7, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company
and a number of individual defendants 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.

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: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Inverness Medical Innovations Inc., in the
Company's secondary public offering on or about November 14,
2007.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Inverness Medical.

Based in Waltham, Massachusetts, Inverness Medical Innovations
Inc. (AMEX: IMA) -- http://www.invernessmedical.com/--  
develops, manufactures and markets in vitro diagnostic products
for the over-the-counter pregnancy and fertility/ovulation test
market and the professional rapid diagnostic test markets.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Abraham Fruchter Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit
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 complaint charges iStar Financial and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

iStar Financial operates as a finance company focused 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:

          Jack Fruchter, Esq.
          Arthur Chen, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Tel.: (212) 279-5050


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Suit Filing in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class
action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of iStar Financial Inc.  
pursuant or traceable to the Company's secondary public offering
on or about December 13, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of iStar Financial.

Headquartered in New York, iStar Financial (NYSE: SFI) --
http://www.istarfinancial.com/-- is a publicly traded finance   
company focused on the commercial real estate industry.  The
company provides custom-tailored financing to high-end private
and corporate owners of real estate, including senior and
mezzanine real estate debt, senior and mezzanine corporate
capital, corporate net lease financing and equity.  

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-9


SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Susman Godfrey Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Schiffer Odom Hicks PLLC have filed a
class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of those who
purchased Schwab YieldPlus Fund Investor Shares or Schwab
YieldPlus Fund Select Shares issued by an affiliate of Charles
Schwab Corporation from March 17, 2005 to March 17, 2008.

The complaint claims Charles Schwab Corporation -- headquartered
in San Francisco, CA, the Fund's underwriter, investment
advisers and officers and directors made false and misleading
statements regarding the lack of diversification of the Schwab
YieldPlus Fund and the extent of investments made in sub-prime
mortgage-backed and related securities.

The complaint alleges the Fund's registration statements and
prospectuses contained untrue statements of material fact, and
omitted important information regarding the Fund's investments.

On Nov. 15, 2004, the Company began offering shares in the
Schwab YieldPlus Fund through a registration statement and
prospectus.  The Schwab YieldPlus Fund is advertised by
defendants as "a safe alternative to money market funds that
preserve principal while being designed with your income needs
in mind."

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants claimed the Fund was
invested in a large, well-diversified portfolio, a seasoned team
of taxable bond portfolio managers actively managed the Fund,
and that investment in shares of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund would
return higher yields on cash with only marginally higher risk.
Today the Fund stands at an all-time low of $6.79. Based on
values as of March 31, 2008, the Fund is down more than 19.8%
percent from Jan. 1, 2008.

The lawsuit claims the Fund was not well diversified, instead
concentrated in a single risky industry with more than 50% of
the Fund's assets invested in the mortgage industry.

The lawsuit seeks remedies under the federal Securities Act of
1933 on behalf of all Fund purchasers during the Class Period.

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

For more information, contact:

          Harry P. Susman, Esq. (hsusman@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
          Suite 5100, 1000 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Phone: (713) 651-9366
          Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Adam P. Schiffer, Esq. (aschiffer@sohlawfirm.com)
          Schiffer Odom Hicks PLLC
          Phoenix Tower
          3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2390
          Houston, Texas 77027
          Phone: (713) 357-5150
          Web site: http://www.sohlawfirm.com





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *