CAR_Public/080421.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 21, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 78
  
                            Headlines

012 SMILE.COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over International Calling Cards
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: June 9 Hearing Set for CA Labor Suit Deal
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Ohio Court Mulls Motion in Securities Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Justice Dep't Settles USERRA Suit in Texas
AROTECH CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

BEA SYSTEMS: Suits Over Plumtree Deal Dismissed or Nears Nixing
BIG DOG: Subsidiary Still Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Pa.
CANADA: Breast Cancer Patients Will Win, Premier Says
CHICO'S FAS: CA Court Mulls Approving Settlement in Labor Suit
COCA-COLA: Court Rejects Class-Action Status in Diet Coke Suit

COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Deerfield Sues Over Unreliable Service
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Labor Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Mulls Appeal of $5.3M Judgment
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces California Suit Over Denial of Overtime
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Alvarado" Labor Lawsuit in California

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Florida
DE BEERS: Judge Set to Approve $259M Antitrust Suit Settlement
DEL WEBB CORP: Retired Homeowners Sue Over Construction Defects
EMVELCO CORP: Del. Court Okays Settlement in Stockholders' Suit
FLIGHT SAFETY: Conn. Court Considers Approving $1.2M Settlement

HANNAFORD BROS: Lawyers Want 9 Data Breach Lawsuits Consolidated
HOME DEPOT: To Settle Shareholder Suits For $14.5 Million
MERCK & CO: Proposed Supplemental Complaint Filed in ERISA Suit
MILLENNIUM PHARMA: Faces Suit Over Takeda'S $8.8B Buyout Bid
RAYTHEON CORP: St. Petersburg Residents Sue Over Contamination

SERVICEMASTER CO: Reaches Settlement in CD&R Deal Lawsuit
SEW CAL LOGO: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
SHOE PAVILION: Denies Liability in Calif. FACTA Violations Suits
SKYBUS AIRLINES: Former Employees Sue in Bankruptcy Court
SOUTHWEST AIR: Passengers Sue Over Missed Safety Inspections

SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Court Orders Conclusion of Merger Suit
TARRAGON CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
TRIZETTO GROUP: Delaware Suit Seeks Highest Possible Share Offer
UTI WORLDWIDE: Faces Freight Forwarding Services Antitrust Suit
WALGREEN CO: Faces Illinois Suit Over $6.6 Million Inside Trades


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Spector Roseman Files NY Security Fraud Suit
ENERNOC INC: Brian Felgoise Files Massachusetts Securities Suit
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Brian Felgoise Files Suit in Massachusetts
FORCE PROTECTION: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in SC
SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


012 SMILE.COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over International Calling Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
012 Smile.Communications, a growth-oriented provider of
communication services in Israel, is subject to a monetary claim
and an application for permission to file the claim with the
Tel-Aviv District Court as a class action lawsuit against the
company, as well as two other international telephony companies
-- Bezeq International Ltd. and Netvision 013 Barak Ltd.

The claim was filed by seven Philippine citizens who are
employed in Israel and who claim to have used the international
calling cards of 012 Smile.Communications, Bezeq International  
and Netvision 013, to call abroad.

The purported plaintiffs claim that the calling cards provide an
average of 50% of the units of time indicated to the purchasers
of the cards.  They also allege that the three international
telephony companies deduct the time spent when unsuccessfully
attempting to call someone from the card, calculate and collect
payment not by units of round minutes as indicated, provide
misleading information about the number of "units" on the card
and together formed a cartel that arranged and raised the prices
of calling cards.

The purported plaintiffs seek court permission to file the claim
as a class action lawsuit by virtue of Israel's Class Actions
Law, on behalf of groups of people that include anyone who
purchased calling cards distributed by one of three
international telephony companies for use in calls to The
Philippines, during the seven-year period prior to filing the
claim or during the proceedings themselves.

The purported plaintiffs claim that the damages caused to all
members of the purported class total approximately 400 million
shekels, of which, they estimate that approximately 80 million
shekels of damages were attributable to the company's calling
cards.  The purported plaintiffs also claim damages of
approximately ILS9 million as a result of the alleged actions by
the three international telephony companies, 012 Smile, Bezeq
International and Netvision 013 as a cartel.

The company, said in a press release that it has not had an
opportunity to review the claims with its counsel and is unable
to provide any comments at this time.

012 Smile.Communications -- http://www.012.net-- is a growth-
oriented communication services provider in Israel with a
leading market position, offering a wide range of broadband and
traditional voice services.  Its broadband services include
broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services,
specialized data services and server hosting, as well as new
innovative services such as local telephony via voice over
broadband and a WiFi network of hotspots across Israel.

Traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming
international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and
calling card services.  012 Smile.Communications services
residential and business customers, as well as Israeli cellular
operators and international communication services providers
through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows it to
provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in
Israel.

012 Smile is a 72.4% owned subsidiary of Internet Gold Golden
Lines Ltd., one of Israel's leading communications groups with a
major presence across all Internet-related sectors.  In addition
to 012 Smile, its 100% owned Smile.Media subsidiary manages a
growing portfolio of Internet portals and e-Commerce sites.
Internet Gold and 012 Smile are part of the Eurocom
Communications Group. 012 Smile's shares trade on the NASDAQ
Global Market and on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: June 9 Hearing Set for CA Labor Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 9, 2008 hearing is set for the settlement of a class
action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Co., and Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores, Inc., according to the company's March 3, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

The suit was filed by Lisa Hashimoto with the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on
June 23, 2006.

Three plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class of
California store managers employed in Hollister and Abercrombie
stores, that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-
exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws.  

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21,
2006.  The parties engaged in discovery.

On Dec. 10, 2007, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle certain claims
in the action.

The agreement resulted in a written Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement, effective as of Feb. 7, 2008, settling all claims of
Hollister and Abercrombie store managers who served in stores
from June 23, 2002, to April 30, 2004.

Neither the agreement in principle nor the Stipulation affects
claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing
on April 30, 2004.

On Feb. 27, 2008, the Court entered an order noting its
preliminary approval of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement
and setting a noticed hearing for June 9, 2008, to determine
whether the proposed settlement should be finally approved.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com-- is a   
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.  As of Jan. 28, 2006, the company
operated 851 stores in the U.S. and Canada.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Ohio Court Mulls Motion in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to rule on a motion seeking for the certification of a class
in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., according to the company's March 3,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons
who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the
company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005.

The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et
al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as
defendants the company's officers.  

In September and October of 2005, five other purported class
actions were filed against the company and other defendants with
the same court.  

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.  

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was
filed on Aug. 14, 2006.  On Oct. 13, 2006, all the defendants
moved to dismiss that complaint.  

On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss.  On
Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the
material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their
purported class.  The motion has not been fully briefed or
submitted.

The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00819-EAS-TPK)," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Edmund A. Sargus presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         (kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com)
         Maguire & Schneider
         250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236

Representing the defendants are:
   
         Philip Albert Brown, Esq. (pabrown@vssp.com)
         Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease
         52 East Gay Street
         Columbus, OH 43216-1008
         Phone: 614-464-6400
         Fax: 614-464-6400

         Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq. (rsugarman@keglerbrown.com)
         Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter
         65 E State Street, Suite 1800
         Columbus, OH 43215-4294
         Phone: 614-462-5400
         Fax: 614-462-5422

              - and -

         Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq. (mrs@mcnamaralaw.us)
         McNamara and McNamara
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-228-6131


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Justice Dep't Settles USERRA Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice has reached an agreement with American
Airlines that, if approved by the U.S. District Court in Dallas,
will resolve the Department's class action lawsuit against the
nation's largest commercial air carrier, alleging it violated
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of
1994.

In 2006, The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit against
American Airlines, Inc., alleging violations of the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).

The lawsuit represents the first class action complaint filed by
the United States under USERRA.

The complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court in Dallas,
Texas, alleges that American Airlines violated USERRA by denying
pilots Mark Woodall, Michael McMahon and Paul Madson employment
benefits during their military service.  Mr. Woodall and Mr.
McMahon serve as pilots in the Naval Reserve and hold the ranks
of Captain and Commander, respectively.  Mr. Madson serves as a
pilot in the South Dakota Air National Guard and holds the rank
of Lieutenant Colonel.

The complaint alleges that American Airlines conducted an audit
of the leave taken for military service by American Airline
pilots in 2001.  The complaint further alleges that based on the
results of that audit, American Airlines reduced the employment
benefits of those of its pilots who had taken military leave,
while not reducing the same benefits of those of its pilots who
had taken similar types of non-military leave.

The Justice Department's lawsuit was filed after the Veterans'
Employment and Training Service of the Department of
Labor referred Captain Woodall's, Commander McMahon's and Lt.
Colonel Madson's complaints to the Justice Department upon
completion of its investigation and failed settlement efforts.

The settlement agreement, if approved by the court, requires
that American Airlines pay the class of 353 pilots a total of
$345,772 for the loss of vacation and sick leave benefits, and
provide currently employed pilots with sick leave credits at an
estimated value of $215,000.  The settlement agreement also
calls for American to modify its existing policies and practices
to ensure that, in the future, all pilots who are called to
serve in the military will continue to accrue appropriate
vacation and sick leave benefits.

"The sacrifices made by our Armed Forces, including military
reservists, are invaluable to our nation.  No member of the
military should be disadvantaged for choosing to serve our
country and for answering the call of duty," said Attorney
General Michael B. Mukasey.  "The Department of Justice remains
committed to protecting the employment rights of all Americans
serving in the Armed Forces."

"The Department of Labor and the Department of Justice are
working in tandem to vigorously protect the employment rights of
the men and women who bravely serve in America's armed forces,"
said Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao.  "By successfully
concluding this first-ever USERRA class action lawsuit, we have
helped more than 300 service members who just wanted their
benefits back after answering the call to duty."

USERRA on the net: http://www.servicemembers.gov/and  
http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/main.htm


AROTECH CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arotech Corp. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action suit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

In May 2007, two purported class action complaints were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.  These two cases were consolidated in June 2007.

A similar case that was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan in March 2007 was withdrawn by
the plaintiff in June 2007.

The complaint seeks class status on behalf of all persons who
purchased our securities between Nov. 9, 2004 and Nov. 14, 2005,
and alleges violations by us and certain of our officers and
directors of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, primarily related to the
company's acquisition of Armour of America in 2005 and certain
public statements made by with respect to its business and
prospects during the Period.

The Complaint also alleges that the company did not have
adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls,
and that our financial statements and reports were not prepared
in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules.  It seeks an unspecified
amount of damages.  

A lead plaintiff has been named, and the plaintiff's
consolidated amended complaint was filed in September 2007.  The
company's motion to dismiss was due by the end of November 2007,
but a decision on the motion is not expected until mid-2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
April 14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Morris Akerman, et al. v. Arotech Corporation, et
al., Case No. 07-CV-01838," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Raymond J. Dearie
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310.209.2468
          Fax: 310.209.2087
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. (pklingman@sfmslaw.com)
          Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Phone: 860-526-1100
          Fax: 860-526-1120

               - and -

          Elizabeth Ann Schmid, Esq. (schmid@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven, P.C.
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10028
          Phone: 212-501-9000
          Fax: 212-501-0300

Representing the defendants are:

          Randall W. Bodner, Esq. (randall.bodner@ropesgray.com)
          Ropes & Gray LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-951-7000
          Fax: 617-951-7050


BEA SYSTEMS: Suits Over Plumtree Deal Dismissed or Nears Nixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class actions against BEA Systems, Inc., one filed
in Delaware and the other in California, has been dismissed or
is about to be dismissed, according to BEA Systems' March 28,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The suits were in connection the company's acquisition of
Plumtree Software, Inc., in August 2005.  Both were also filed
against Plumtree's board of directors.

                       Globis Litigation
  
On Aug. 23, 2005, a class action entitled, "Globis Partners,
L.P. v. Plumtree Software, Inc. et al., Case No. 1577-N," was
filed with the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and
for New Castle County.  

The suit alleges, among other claims, that the consideration to
be paid in the proposed acquisition of Plumtree by the company
is unfair and inadequate.  

It seeks an injunction barring consummation of the merger and,
in the event that the merger is consummated, a rescission of the
merger and an unspecified amount of damages.  

                       Keitel Litigation

On Aug. 24, 2005, a class action entitled "Keitel v. Plumtree
Software, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC 05-444355," was filed with
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco.  

The complaint names Plumtree and all member of Plumtree's board
of directors as defendants alleging similar complaints and
seeking similar damages as the Globis class action.   

                          Developments

On Nov. 30, 2007, the court dismissed, "Globis Partners, L.P.   
v. Plumtree Software, Inc. et al., Case No. 1577-N."  

On March 26, 2008, the plaintiffs in "Keitel v. Plumtree
Software, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC 05-444355," filed for
dismissal of the lawsuit with the court.

BEA Systems, Inc. -- http://www.bea.com-- is engaged in  
enterprise application and service infrastructure software.  BEA
Tuxedo product family is an application infrastructure platform
for transactional processing systems for C, C++ and COBOL
systems, and BEA WebLogic product family, which consists of
application infrastructure software for Java applications
perform functions, such as transaction processing, clustering,
caching, load balancing, failover, security, integration and
management features.


BIG DOG: Subsidiary Still Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Walking Co., a subsidiary of Big Dog Holdings, Inc.,
continues to face a purported class action with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging violations of the of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

The suit was filed in April 2007 by Marlene Korman.  It
generally claims a violation of FACTA in regard to
electronically printed receipts previously used at TWC's Oxford
Valley, Pennsylvania store.

The suit is brought as a class action on behalf of certain other
customers of TWC's Oxford Valley store, though the plaintiff's
ability to bring the suit a class action has not yet been
certified by the court.  

The plaintiff alleges that the company was in "willful"
violation of FACTA, thus entitling her and the other members of
the class to statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per person.

Aside from statutory damages, the suit also seeks injunctive
relief, costs, and attorneys fees, according to the company's
March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Korman v. The Walking Company, Case No.  2:07-cv-
01557-ER," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James A. Francis, Esq. (jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com)
          Francis & Mailman, PC
          Land Title Bldg., 19th Fl., 100 S. Broad St.,
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Phone: 215-735-8600
          Fax: 215-940-8000

               - and -

          David A. Searles, Esq. (dsearles@donovansearles.com)
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          1845 Walnut St., Ste. 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-732-6067
          Fax: 215-732-8060

Representing the defendants is:

          Carol Choate Carty, Esq. (ccarty@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-5331


CANADA: Breast Cancer Patients Will Win, Premier Says
-----------------------------------------------------
A provincial health authority can't win a class-action lawsuit
filed against it by cancer patients, Newfoundland Premier Danny
Williams told Canwest News Service.

"As a lawyer -- I'm speaking as a lawyer now, I'm not speaking
as the head of government -- but in my opinion, there is
liability here on behalf of, I would think down the line through
Eastern Health, for the problems that have arisen here," Mr.
Williams said.

Mr. Williams noted that liability and damages are completely
different issues, and he said he hopes the matter can be settled
out of court.

Canwest recounts that in May 2007, Newfoundland and Labrador
Supreme Court Justice Carl Thompson certified a class-action
lawsuit over faulty cancer testing.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 28, 2007, St.
John lawyer Ches Crosbie sought class certification for the
suit, which was filed on behalf of nearly hundreds of breast
cancer patients who received inaccurate cancer test results.

According to the CAR report, the suit alleges that Eastern
Regional Integrated Health Authority mishandled the provision of
information to the public and that it wrongly diagnosed several
women that they have breast cancer.  Verna Doucette filed the
suit on behalf of a group of women who feel they suffered as a
result of testing problems in the pathology department that date
as far as 1997.  Errors were disclosed only in 2005.

Mr. Crosbie had said at that time that about 2,800 people --
every breast-cancer patient who received a hormone-receptor test
from Eastern Health between 1997 and 2005 -- were eligible to
sign on to the class action.  


CHICO'S FAS: CA Court Mulls Approving Settlement in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles has yet to approve a proposed settlement in the putative
class action, "Linda Balint v. Chico's FAS, Inc. et al."

On May 9, 2007, Chico's FAS was served with the lawsuit, which
alleges that the Company, in violation of California law, failed
to:

       -- pay overtime wages, and

       -- provide meal periods, among other claims.  

In October 2007, the parties participated in an early mediation
of the matter and subsequently reached a settlement.  

In January 2008, the Court gave its preliminary approval of the
settlement and notice of the settlement has been sent to all
class members.  

Class members have until April 21, 2008, to partake in, opt out
of, or object to the settlement.  The settlement is subject to
final approval by the Court, according to the company's
March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

Chico's FAS, Inc. -- http://www.chicos.com/-- is a specialty  
retailer of private-label, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates,
complementary accessories and other non-clothing gift items.


COCA-COLA: Court Rejects Class-Action Status in Diet Coke Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Supreme Court denied class action status to a
lawsuit claiming that Coca-Cola has misled consumers about the
sweeteners used in some Diet Coke products, David A. Lieb writes
for the Associated Press.

According to the report, the lawsuit contends that many
consumers would not have bought the fountain version of Diet
Coke if they had known it contained the sweetener saccharin,
which some people fear can cause health problems.

Saccharin, AP explains, is the oldest of the common artificial
sweeteners.  This was dropped from a federal list of cancer-
causing chemicals in 2000, but some people still are reluctant
to use it.

Whereas the fountain Diet Coke contains both saccharin and the
sweetener aspartame, the bottled version exclusively uses
aspartame since 1984.  Coca-Cola said it has continued to use
saccharin in the fountain version because it retains its
sweetness better than aspartame when stored over long periods of
time.

AP recalls that a Jackson County judge had approved the lawsuit
as a class action in February 2006.  However, the state's
highest court prohibited that in a unanimous decision last week.

Supreme Court Judge William Ray Price Jr. said the
classification was overly broad, because it could have covered
an indefinite number of people, many of whom did not really care
how their Diet Coke was sweetened.  Determining who was eligible
to claim they were harmed would have been a huge managerial
task, the judge said.

"Consumers would have to not only recall the amount of fountain
Diet Coke they purchased out of the innumerable fountain
beverages they purchased during the past five years, but also
that they would have not purchased fountain Diet Coke if they
had known it contained saccharin," Judge Price wrote in his
decision.

The issue of the lawsuit, "was not whether it caused injuries,
but whether people have the right to know what chemicals they're
putting in their bodies," Ralph Phalen, Esq., the attorney who
filed the lawsuit, told AP.  "We wanted people to know that
fountain Diet Coke was different than canned and bottled Diet
Coke."

Similar class-action claims against Diet Coke already have been
denied in California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas and
Massachusetts, The Coca-Cola Co. spokesman Ray Crockett shared
to AP.

"It has been our view all along that this case and other similar
cases have no merit," Mr. Crockett said.  "Saccharin has been
found to be safe, just as have the other sweeteners we use in
our products."

Court documents filed by the plaintiff's attorney claimed that a
1999 market research study conducted by Coca-Cola concluded the
company could lose as much as 13% in sales and millions of
dollars if the public was made aware that the fountain version
of Diet Coke contains saccharin.

Mr. Crockett said, however, that he was unaware of that market
study.

Court documents filed by Coca-Cola indicated that it is not
required by federal law to disclose the ingredients in fountain
Diet Coke at the point where consumers purchase it, because it
is not sold in a prepackaged format such as a bottle or a can.
Nonetheless, Coca-Cola contended, some retailers do post the
ingredients of fountain drinks in public areas of their stores
in brochures made available to customers.


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Deerfield Sues Over Unreliable Service
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Village of Deerfield (Illinois) filed a class action lawsuit
against Commonwealth Edison charging the utility company with
gross violation of its agreement to provide reliable service to
the 18,000 residents of the north suburban Chicago community.
Deerfield officials say that during the period from 2000 until
2007, the village suffered 82,347 individual customer power
outages during 1,377 separate electrical failures. Only 13% of
these outages were weather-related.

"After years of patience while listening to ComEd's unfulfilled
promises to fix these problems, we now turn to the courts to
adjudicate our claims," said Steve Harris, Mayor of Deerfield.
"ComEd has given us no other option than to seek a legal remedy
to their gross and willful dereliction of duty."

Just three months ago, the Chairman of Exelon, ComEd's parent
company, gloated over profits from the previous year when he was
quoted as saying, "Honest to God, I don't think any utility has
ever had a better year."

Mayor Harris responded, "Exelon's comments are appalling in view
of the incredibly poor job that its utility subsidiary ComEd has
done in fulfilling its contractual obligations to the residents
of my community.  While the people of Deerfield pay for spoiled
food, generators and sump pumps and even temporary housing again
and again, Exelon pockets windfall profits.  Their commitment to
fix our electric delivery system remains a dream."

Several residents have even been told by ComEd employees that
the infrastructure in the Deerfield area "absolutely needs to be
updated."

Judith Adamson, a Deerfield resident for thirty years said,
"ComEd tells us that the problem is that our utilities are
underground and connect to old above ground poles and switch
boxes and it would be too costly to revamp the system."

The class action lawsuit filed with the Lake County Circuit
Court last week charges that ComEd violated the Illinois Public
Utilities Act and their franchise agreement with Deerfield and
its residents by failing to provide adequate and reliable
electric service and failing to maintain infrastructure
necessary to provide that service.  It calls for compensation
for actual damages as well as punitive damages for ComEd's
willful refusal to repair and maintain its electrical systems
and circuits.

From 2000 to 2007, ComEd's own Franchise Reports confirm
Deerfield suffered 1,377 total outages that lasted 5,576 hours.
The reports show only 13% were attributed to weather related
causes.  The Franchise Reports also show that the total amount
of outages have increased steadily during the last three years.
During this period, outages due to failure of ComEd's electric
underground equipment have risen dramatically.

ComEd's Annual Reliability Reports cite ten circuits that serve
Deerfield as appearing on their list of top 1% worst performing
circuits in its Northeast service area from 2001-2006.  In
addition, these reports show at least one circuit serving
Deerfield has been included as a top 1% worst performing circuit
for ComEd's Northeast service area in every year from 2001 to
2006.  Moreover, the report proves there are other circuits
serving Deerfield that are performing even worse than those on
ComEd's 1% worst performing list, but they do not appear on that
list.

In addition to ComEd's own reports, Deerfield residents have
provided further evidence that ComEd has had full knowledge of
the inadequacy and unreliability of its electric service in
Deerfield and willfully, knowingly, and wrongfully permitted the
deterioration of its electrical facilities.  Others have been
told by electricians that ComEd was not providing enough
amperage to their homes.

"I have been told by ComEd workers that the feeder to our area
of the Village is very old and worn out and that is one reason
for the outages," said Deerfield resident Richard Beaton.
Mayor Harris added, "With each outage, Deerfield and its
residents and business are damaged.  Many within our community
have been forced to spend monies to replace and repair items
damaged as a result of outages.  In addition, the Village has
been required to allocate municipal resources during each outage
in order to help keep order and assist residents and businesses.
The costs associated with this are an enormous burden for
Deerfield."

According to Section 5.1 of the Franchise Agreement, ComEd is
required to provide an adequate supply of electricity to
Deerfield and its residents.  According to Section 5.5.1, ComEd
has a duty to prevent interruptions in the electric service it
provides to Deerfield and its residents.  And, under the Public
Utilities Act, ComEd has a duty to provide adequate, reliable,
and efficient electric service and facilities to its customers.

Commonwealth Edison Co., a subsidiary of utility holding company
Exelon Corp., distributes electricity to 3.8 million homes and
businesses in Chicago and surrounding areas of Northern
Illinois.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class was certified in one of two lawsuits against Costco
Wholesale Corp. that were purportedly brought as class actions
on behalf of certain present and former managers in California
who principally allege that they have not been properly
compensated for overtime work, according to the company's
March 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended  Feb. 17, 2008.

The suits are:

      1. "Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S.
         District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-CV-2003 NAJ
         (JFS);" and

      2. "Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court
         for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-296369."

The Randall matter is currently in the class certification
briefing phase.  The Williams case has been stayed pending the
class certification outcome in the Randall case.

Claims in these actions are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court in "Randall" granted in part and
denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
Company intends to seek appellate review in part of that
decision.

The Williams matter has been stayed pending the class
certification outcome in "Randall."  The Company is reviewing
the implications of the class certification order.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/–- operates  
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Mulls Appeal of $5.3M Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Alameda has yet to rule on
an appeal by Costco Wholesale Corp. of a $5.3-million judgment
handed down in favor of the plaintiffs in the case, "Anthony
Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. RG-04150447,"
according to the company's March 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
quarter ended  Feb. 17, 2008.

The overtime compensation case certified as a class action on
behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in
which the plaintiffs principally allege that Costco's semi-
annual bonus formula is improper with regard to retroactive
overtime pay.

Claims in the case are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

Costco has filed an appeal challenging both the entry of a
$5.3 million judgment in favor of the class and the accompanying
award of attorneys' fees.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates  
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces California Suit Over Denial of Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is facing a purported class action suit
that was filed with the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles under the caption, "Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., Case No. BC-382911," according to the company's March 28,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal quarter ended  Feb. 17, 2008.

On Dec. 26, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the
company principally alleging denial of overtime.  The complaint
alleges misclassification of certain California managers.

Claims in the suit are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates  
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Alvarado" Labor Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is facing a purported class action that
was filed in California under the caption, "Elizabeth Alvarado
v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case No. C-06-04015-MJJ," according to
the company's March 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended  
Feb. 17, 2008.

The case was purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of
present and former hourly employees in California, in which the
plaintiff principally alleges that the Company's routine closing
procedures and security checks cause employees to incur delays
that qualify as uncompensated working time and that effectively
deny them statutorily guaranteed meal periods and rest breaks.

Claims in the suit are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates  
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., is facing a purported securities fraud
class action suit with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, according to the company's March 28, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 24, 2008.

The purported class-action complaint was filed on March 13,
2008, by an institutional shareholder against the Company and
certain of its current officers, one of whom is also a director.  

The suit, captioned, "Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension
Fund, et al. v. Darden Restaurants Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-
00388," was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock between June 19, 2007, and Dec. 18, 2007.

It alleges that during that period, the defendants issued false
and misleading statements in press releases and public filings
that misrepresented and failed to disclose certain information,
and that as a result, had no reasonable basis for statements
about the Company's prospects and guidance for fiscal 2008.

The suit also alleges violation of the federal securities laws.  
Specifically, it asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  

The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of
the Class.

The suit is "Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, et
al. v. Darden Restaurants Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-00388,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 20
          Boca Raton, FL, 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364
          e-mail: info@csgrr.com


DE BEERS: Judge Set to Approve $259M Antitrust Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court in New
Jersey is slated to enter an order approving the $295-million
settlement in the matter, "Shawn Sullivan, et al. v. DB
Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-02819 (SRC)," the
National Jeweler reports.

At the April 14 settlement hearing, Judge Chesler said a written
decision approving the settlement would be forthcoming, bringing
the case to a close.

Under the approved settlement, the $295 million will be divided
among direct and indirect purchasers -- defined as those who
bought diamonds from someone other than De Beers or one of its
mining competitors between Jan. 1, 1994-March 31, 2006 -- with
the majority of retail jewelers falling into the latter class.

The size of each individual settlement is contingent on how many
people file a claim.  The deadline for claims is May 19.

"We believe that settling these class actions allows us to put
these matters behind us and is in the best interests of our
shareholders, clients and the consumer," a statement from De
Beers read.  "Nothing is more important to De Beers than
consumers' confidence in diamonds and it is important for
consumers to understand that this settlement in no way affects
the value of their diamonds . . . Diamonds are worth as much
today, if not more, than they have ever been."

                        Case Background

In 2001, lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against
De Beers and entities associated with De Beers.  The other
defendants are:

       -- De Beers S.A.,

       -- DB Investments, Inc.,

       -- De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd.,

       -- De Beers A.G., Diamond Trading Company, Ltd.,

       -- CSO Valuations A.G.,

       -- Central Selling Organization, Central Holdings, Ltd.,
          and

       -- De Beers Centenary A.G. Defendants are the largest
          supplier of rough diamonds in the world.

The lawsuits claim that the defendants unlawfully monopolized
the supply of Rough Gem Diamonds, sponsored false and misleading
advertising and unlawfully raised the prices of Gem Diamonds
higher than they should have been, all of which violated certain
federal and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair
competition laws.

The following are the lawsuits being settled by the proposed
settlement:

       -- "Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al.,
          USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-02819 (SRC);"

       -- "Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary A.G., et al., San
          Francisco County, Ca. No. CGC-04-432954;"

       -- "Cornwell v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., Maricopa
          Co., Az. No. CV2005-2968;"

       -- "Null, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., D.N.J.
          Civil Action Index No. 05-04849 (SRC);"

       -- "Leider, et al. v. Ralfe, et al., D.N.J. Civil Action
          Index No. 06-00908 (SRC);"

       -- "Anco Industrial Diamond Corp. v. DB Investments,
          Inc., et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 01-04463
          (SRC);" and

       -- "British Diamond Import Company v. Central Holdings
          Ltd., et al., USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-
          04098 (SRC)."

                           Settlement

People and business entities in the U.S. who purchased gem
diamonds directly from De Beers and other diamond mining
companies from Sept. 20, 1997, to March 31, 2006 or who
purchased loose gem diamonds, diamond jewelry or other products
containing a gem diamond from a seller other than a mining
company from Jan. 1, 1994 to March 31, 2006
(Direct Purchaser Class) are included in the settlement.

Under the proposed settlement, defendants agreed to pay a total
of $295 million to the plaintiffs.  Additionally, they also
agreed to pay up to $7 million to provide Notice of the Proposed
Settlement to the Indirect Purchaser Class.  

Of the $295 million, $22.5 million has been allocated to the
Direct Purchaser Class and $272.5 million has been allocated to
the Indirect Purchaser Class.

Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on May 19, 2008,
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2008).

For more details, contact:

        Diamond Settlement Administrator
        Phone: 1-800-760-5431
               (612)-359-2002
        e-mail: Administrator@diamondsclassaction.com
        Web site: https://diamondsclassaction.com/


DEL WEBB CORP: Retired Homeowners Sue Over Construction Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of homeowners filed a lawsuit with the Maricopa County
Superior Court against Del Webb Communities Inc. -- now part of
Pulte Homes -- seeking house repairs, The Arizona Republic
reports.

The rest of the homeowners are either planning to file a lawsuit
or are required to seek arbitration instead based on their
purchase contracts.

Arizona Republic cites Bob Leslie, one of the complainants, who
moved to Surprise's Sun City Grand with his wife seven years ago
to settle for a nice retirement.  However, Mr. Leslie's house
began to crack, first on the ceiling, then on the floor and out
to his patio.  He sought help from the developer but received
none.

Now, Mr. Leslie and owners of 1,000 other homes in the Sun City
Grand retirement community are seeking legal action to repair
alleged construction defects ranging from cracks in the
foundation to insufficient noise protection.

"The thing is, I want my home fixed because I came here for
retirement and I plan to die here," Mr. Leslie told Arizona
Republic.

Some 375 homeowners filed the lawsuit, and 158 more are planning
to join.  The 471 remaining homeowners are seeking arbitration
because of a clause in their purchasing contracts, Ken Kasdan,
Esq., of Phoenix-based Kasdan, Simonds Riley & Vaughan LLP, told
Arizona Republic.

The report notes that Mr. Kasdan's firm specializes in
construction defects and is representing the Sun City Grand
residents in the lawsuit.

According to Mr. Kasdan, the homeowners relied on Del Webb and
its promise to use quality control measures in connection with
the construction of the houses, but they were disappointed.
"What they see is Del Webb walking away from responsibility in
the community," he said.

Mr. Kasdan estimated that each home requires between $50,000 and
$100,000 in repairs.  The lawsuit affects homes built between
2000 and 2006.

The alleged problems provided by the law firm include:

   * Stucco.  Some homes do not have "weep screeds."  A weep
     screed is part of stucco wall construction that allows
     rainwater to drain out of the walls and prevents mold
     growth.

   * Acoustics.  Noise levels are too high inside some Sun City
     Grand households, which fall within the noise impact zone
     of Luke Air Force Base.

   * Concrete.  Foundations are deteriorated due to corrosive
     salts and desert weathering.

   * Soils.  Expansion of the soils has resulted in cracking in
     the foundations, slabs, tile floors, walls, ceilings and
     drywall.

Before filing a lawsuit, the complainants first issued a formal
request for repairs and gave 60 days for a response, pursuant to
state law.  Yet, Mr. Kasdan said, there was no offer to address
the problem.

Arizona Republic writes, that Pulte Homes, which merged with Del
Webb in 2001, issued a statement via e-mail last week that said
in part, "If a homeowner believes their home is experiencing a
problem, we work hard to support our customers and reach a
resolution."

Pulte also stated, "We understand that the law firm solicited
residents from more than 7,000 homes."  There are more than
9,600 homes in Sun City Grand.


EMVELCO CORP: Del. Court Okays Settlement in Stockholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order approving the
settlement of the purported stockholders' class action suit,
"Laurence Paskowitz v. Csaba Toro et al., C.A. No. 2110-N,"
which names Emvelco Corp. -- formerly known as Euroweb
International Corp. -- as a defendant, according to the
company's April 14, 2008 Form 10KSB filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The lawsuit was filed on April 26, 2006, by a stockholder
against the company, each of its directors, and CORCYRA
d.o.o., which is a stockholder of the company that beneficially
owns 39.81% of the company's outstanding common stock.  

The complaint was brought individually and as a class action on
behalf of certain of the company's common stockholders excluding
defendants and their affiliates.  

The plaintiff alleges that the proposed sale of 100% of the
company's interest in its two Internet and telecom-related
operating subsidiaries constitutes a sale of substantially all
of the company's assets and requires approval by a majority of
the voting power of the company's outstanding common stock under
Section 271 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.  

The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of the subsidiaries
and the disclosures contained in the proxy statement filed on
April 24, 2006.  

The company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing in the
interests of conserving resources.  On April 28, 2006, the
parties to the litigation entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for, subject to confirmatory discovery
by plaintiff, the negotiation of a formal stipulation of a
settlement of the litigation.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the board of directors of
the company has determined to:

      -- increase the vote required to approve the sale of 100%
         of the company's interest in the subsidiaries;

      -- revise the disclosure within the proxy statement to
         eliminate the bonus of up to $400,000, which the  
         Compensation Committee of the company had the option  
         to pay to select members of management, as the Board  
         of Directors had previously elected to terminate the
         ability to pay such bonus; and

      -- provide supplemental disclosure as contained in the
         Supplemental Proxy Statement.  

The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement on April 3,
2007.  The settlement will provide for the dismissal of the
litigation with prejudice.

As part of the settlement, the Company has agreed to pay
attorneys' fees and expenses to the plaintiff's counsel in the
amount of $151,000.

Pursuant to the stipulation of settlement, the Company sent out
notices to the members of the class on May 3, 2007.  A fairness
hearing took place on June 8, 2007, and an order was entered on
June 8, 2007.

Emvelco Corp. -- http://www.emvelco.com/-- is a holding company  
and it invests in the real estate development, financing and
investments business through Emvelco RE Corp. (ERC) and its
subsidiaries in the U.S.  The Company commenced operations in
the investment real estate industry through the acquisition of
an empty, non-operational, wholly owned subsidiary, ERC, which
was acquired in June 2006. Primary activity of ERC includes
investment, development and subsequent sale of real estate, as
well as investment in the form of loans provided to, or
ownership acquired in, property development companies, directly
or via majority or minority owned affiliates.  The Company also
has an investment in Micrologic, Inc., a software development
company.


FLIGHT SAFETY: Conn. Court Considers Approving $1.2M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to approve the $1.2-million settlement in connection with the
class action entitled, "In Re: Flight Safety Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175."

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock, warrants or units of Flight safety
during the period from Jan. 14, 2003, through and including
July 16, 2004, but not limited to stock and warrants of Flight
Safety as a unit at $6.00 per unit in Flight Safety's Feb. 2,
2004 public offering, and were damaged thereby (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 4, 2008).

                        Case Background

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and
state common laws by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the SOCRATES Wake Vortex
Detector.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the court entered the order signed by Judge
Christopher F. Droney appointing lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.  On Dec. 23, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed.  

In November 2007, Flight Safety reached a settlement in
principle with the plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 19,
2007).

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, all claims
against all of the defendants will be dismissed without
presumption or admission of liability or wrongdoing.  A one time
settlement payment of $1.2 million will be made to the plaintiff
class by or on behalf of the defendants.

Under the settlement, the company has agreed to contribute
$135,000 of the $1.2 million settlement.  The settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including negotiation and
execution of appropriate settlement documents between the
parties, preliminary and final court approval and other factors.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
April 14, 2008 Form 10QSB filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.

The reference complaint is "In Re: Flight Safety Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge
Christopher F. Droney presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
          275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Fax: 212-682-1892
          e-mail: email@murrayfrank.com

          The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY, 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600
          Fax: 212-686-0114
          e-mail: newyork@whafh.com

For more information, contact:

          Flight Safety Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          P.O. Box 230
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: (866) 274-4004
          Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net


HANNAFORD BROS: Lawyers Want 9 Data Breach Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers are seeking to consolidate into one federal class-action
case about nine lawsuits against Hannaford Bros. over a data
breach that exposed some 4.2 million debit and credit card
numbers to potential fraudulent use, Times Herald-Record
reports.

The motion to consolidate, which was filed with the U.S.
District Court in Bangor, Maine, on behalf of Greg Doherty and
"all others similarly situated," asserts that Hannaford was
negligent in not providing adequate data security and did not
inform customers of the breach quickly enough.

It seeks credit monitoring or similar protection, unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees.

Attorneys will have a better idea of the scope of damages when
they nail down exactly how many card numbers were stolen, which
may take some time, Jon Lambiras, Esq., of Berger & Montague,
which is one of the law firms representing the plaintiffs, told  
Times Herald.

"If there's no lawsuit, the company is not compelled to do
anything," Mr. Lambiras said.  "A lawsuit forces them to do
something, either through a settlement or through a judgment, so
it just gives consumers the protections they're entitled to."

Hannaford spokeswoman Carol Eleazer said that the company does
not comment on litigation.

The report recounts that the breach occurred between Dec. 7,
2007, and March 10, 2008.  Hannaford did not notify the public
of the breach until March 17, 2008.

Hannaford has half a dozen stores in the mid-Hudson region.  So
far, the only solution the company has offered its customers is
advice: that they notify their banks and credit card companies
and watch their statements for any authorized activity.

Ms. Eleazer said that since no personal information was
obtained, there is no possibility of identity theft.


HOME DEPOT: To Settle Shareholder Suits For $14.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot has agreed to pay around $14.5 million to settle a
number of shareholder lawsuits tied to stock option and
compensation practices, Securities Law360 cites the company as
stating in a federal filing.

Home Depot said in its filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that it entered into a settlement agreement
on March 28, 2008, with a group of shareholders who were suing
the company.  

"We're pleased to have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs,
as lengthy litigation would have been very expensive and a
distraction to the company," the company stated.

Securities Law360 recounts that three shareholder actions were
filed against certain current directors and its former chief
executive officer in late 2006.  The three actions were
consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment in connection with the company's stock option and
compensation practices, according to the filing.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, which sought
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and
costs and attorneys' fees.  

Securities Law360 notes that the $14.5-million settlement also
involves a securities lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia against Home Depot and
certain of its current and former directors alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The filing said that the settlement, including the award to
plaintiffs' counsel, is subject to the approval of the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia, among other conditions.


MERCK & CO: Proposed Supplemental Complaint Filed in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., Chair of the Lead
Counsel Committee in the Merck & Co, Inc. "ERISA" Litigation,
announced that plaintiffs have filed a Proposed Supplemental
Class Action Complaint against Merck & Co. with the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The action is on behalf of participants in:

     -- the Merck & Co., Inc. Employee Savings & Security Plan
        (the Salaried Plan),

     -- the Merck & Co., Inc. Employee Stock Purchase & Savings
        Plan (the Hourly Plan),

     -- the Merck Puerto Rico Employee Savings & Security Plan
        (the Puerto Rico Plan), and

     -- the Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC 401(k) Savings Plan
        (the Medco Plan).

for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Proposed Supplemental Complaint has been amended to include
additional ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims against
Defendants arising from improprieties relating to Vytorin,
Merck's prescription anti-cholesterol drug.  It is alleged,
inter alia, that the defendants negligently failed to disclose
material information about the effects of Vytorin necessary for
participants to make informed decisions concerning their
investments in the Merck Common Stock Fund.

The Proposed Complaint alleges that while Merck was publicly
touting Vytorin as a superior cholesterol treatment, it actively
hid clinical study results negating such claims.  Merck knew or
should have known that Vytorin, a combination of the anti-
cholesterol drugs simvastatin and Zetia, was no more effective
than simvastatin alone, which is available in a substantially
cheaper generic form.  When the truth was revealed, the Plans
and Plan participants suffered massive losses as Merck's stock
price and the price of the Fund decreased substantially.

For more information, contact:

          Schatz Nobel Izard
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (860) 493-6292 or (800) 797-5499
          Fax: (860) 493-6290
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com


MILLENNIUM PHARMA: Faces Suit Over Takeda'S $8.8B Buyout Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: MLNM) is facing a
shareholder lawsuit that seeks to stop the biotechnology
company's acquisition by Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

The complaint, filed with the state court in Massachusetts,
alleges that Millennium and its directors breached fiduciary
duties in connection with the deal.

The company said the suit, filed by a single plaintiff, seeks
class-action certification.

Earlier, Takeda agreed to buy Millennium for $8.8 billion, a 53%
premium over Millennium's closing share price the day before the
deal.

Millennium said it intends to vigorously defend itself against
the lawsuit.

Shares of Millennium were unchanged at $24.51 in Wednesday
trading.

Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: MLNM) focuses on three
disease targets -- cancer, inflammatory diseases and
cardiovascular disorders.  Its flagship drug INTEGRILIN is FDA-
approved to treat various unstable angina and heart surgery
candidates.  The drug is co-promoted by Schering-Plough.  It is
primarily developing proteasome inhibitors, which stop harmful
enzymes that break down proteins.  VELCADE treats relapsed
multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer.  It has nearly 10
candidates in clinical development, including several it is
working on with partners in the health care industry.


RAYTHEON CORP: St. Petersburg Residents Sue Over Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pinellas County attorney Joe Saunders, Esq., has filed a class-
action lawsuit against the Raytheon Corp. on behalf of residents
who may be affected by contaminated groundwater in the Azalea
area of St. Petersburg, Mark Douglas writes for News Channel 8.

According to Tampa Bay Online, Mr. Saunders said that he was
contacted several weeks ago by Linda and John Swartout,
residents of the Azalea neighborhood.

The Swartouts filed their suit after a WFLA, News Channel Eight,
TBO.com and Tampa Tribune investigation revealed that chemicals
such as vinyl chloride, 1,4-Dioxane and trichloroethylene that
came from Raytheon's plant on 72nd Street are contaminating
groundwater in the neighborhood.

Mr. Saunders told TBO that the stigma of contamination already
has diminished property values.  He also said he wants Raytheon
to pay for medical screening of people in the neighborhood.

The Swartouts are alleging they "have suffered economic losses
in diminution to the value of their properties, possible cost of
mandatory cleanup of the toxic seepage, and face an unreasonable
risk of serious health problems due to exposure to these toxic
contaminants."

The state Department of Environmental Protection and Raytheon
officials are on record saying the plume of groundwater poses no
health risk, News Channel 8 notes.

Mr. Saunders said that as many as 1,500 residents, from about
900 homes, could be part of the suit.

The DEP has known about the pollution for 16 years and knew
three years ago that the pollution under the Raytheon plant was
moving into the neighborhood, public documents show.  The state
agency signed a consent order with Raytheon's predecessor, E-
Systems, in 1995 that required a thorough evaluation and cleanup
of the underground pollution.  Neither Raytheon nor DEP told
residents an underground contamination plume was moving from the
plant site into the neighborhood.


SERVICEMASTER CO: Reaches Settlement in CD&R Deal Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
ServiceMaster Co. reached a settlement deal that potentially
resolves three separate class action suits filed in Tennessee,
Illinois, and Delaware over the company's acquisition by New
York-based Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc., according to
ServiceMaster's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31. 2007.

According to Eric Smith of The Memphis Daily News, ServiceMaster
shareholders approved the merger agreement late last week, thus
allowing the acquisition of ServiceMaster by a corporation
called ServiceMaster Global Holdings Inc., formerly CDRSVM Topco
Inc. (Class Action Reporter, July 5, 2007).

About 67% of the outstanding shares entitled to vote at a
special meeting approved the merger, which now is subject to
regulatory approval.  The transaction is expected to close in
the third quarter.

Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of
ServiceMaster by CD&R, five complaints were filed against
ServiceMaster concerning the proposed deal:

      1. Kaiman v. Spainhour, et al. (filed with the Chancery
         Court in Memphis, Tennessee);

      2. Golombuski v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed with
         the Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee);

      3. Sokol and Bowen v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al.
         (filed with the Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee);

      4. Palmer v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed with the
         Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois); and

      5. Smith v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed with the
         Chancery Court for Newcastle County, Delaware).

All of the complaints name ServiceMaster, its CEO and its Board
of Directors as defendants.  The Kaiman, Golombuski and Smith
complaints additionally name CD&R as a defendant and the Smith
complaint also names the investors in CDRSVM Topco, Inc.  

All of the complaints allege breach of fiduciary duties and seek
injunctive relief.  

The Kaiman complaint also contains a specific count seeking
indemnification of costs.  

The Golombuski and Smith complaints also allege that CD&R aided
and abetted the individual defendants' breach of fiduciary
duties, while the Kaiman complaint generally alleges that
"defendants" breached their fiduciary duties or aided and
abetted a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Smith complaint also alleges that there are material
omissions in the preliminary proxy statement relating to the
proposed acquisition that the Company filed with the SEC on
April 16, 2007.

All five of the complaints challenged and indicated an intent to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of ServiceMaster.

After the plaintiff in the Smith case filed a motion for
expedited discovery and for the scheduling of a preliminary
injunction hearing, the parties to the Smith case reached an
agreement in principle to settle that case on a class wide basis
and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting that
agreement.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides, among other things,
for ServiceMaster to include certain additional disclosures in
the final Proxy Statement with respect to the proposed merger
(subsequently made on June 19, 2007) and for a reduction of the
Company termination fee from $100 million to $90.8 million
(subsequently made).

The Memorandum of Understanding stated that if the settlement
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding is approved,
plaintiff and his counsel intend to petition the court for an
award of fees and expenses.

It further stated that the parties reached no agreement with
regard to an appropriate award of fees to plaintiff's counsel,
and defendants reserved all rights to oppose any fee
application.

The parties are negotiating a definitive Stipulation of
Settlement, which requires confirmatory discovery to be
completed by the plaintiffs and the approval of the Delaware
Court.

Notwithstanding the settlement agreement reached in the Smith
case, the plaintiffs in the other four pending actions
nonetheless attempted to pursue those actions.  

The Kaiman, Golombuski and Sokol complaints were consolidated,
and the Tennessee court handling those cases entered an order
denying the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
granting a stay of these actions pending the resolution of the
Smith case in Delaware.

The Illinois court handling the Palmer case denied the
plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and dismissed the
complaint on the basis of the pending settlement in Delaware.

The plaintiffs in Palmer appealed to the Illinois Appellate
Court.  The Palmer appeal was voluntarily dismissed on Oct. 25,
2007.

The Company believes that the settlement agreement with respect
to the Smith case should resolve all of the foregoing
litigation, other than the Palmer action, which has already
concluded.

The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com/-- is a  
national company serving both residential and commercial
customers.  The Company's services include lawn care, landscape
maintenance, termite and pest control, home warranty, disaster
response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster restoration,
house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.


SEW CAL LOGO: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Sew Cal Logo, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit in
California captioned, "Naranjo v. Sew Cal Logo Inc., California
Case No. BC368353," according to the company's April 14, 2008
Form 10QSB filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.

In March 2007, the plaintiff filed the purported class action
against Sew Cal asserting wages due and violations of various
sections of the California Labor Code relating to the plaintiffs
purported tenure with the company.  

Sew Cal Logo, Inc. -- http://www.sewcal.com-- is engaged in two  
principal businesses: film wardrobe and entertainment related
business, and surf and sports related business.  The Company is
a supplier of wardrobe, as well as promotional, and cast and
crew items for feature films and television, to motion picture
studios, including Paramount, Warner Brothers, Universal, MGM,
Sony, DreamWorks, 20th Century Fox, Disney and a number of
independent production companies on a daily basis.  The
Company's surf and sports related business has the rights to a
branded line of Surf and Sports Wear items, named Pipeline
Posse.

    
SHOE PAVILION: Denies Liability in Calif. FACTA Violations Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shoe Pavilion, Inc., filed its responses to two California class
actions that allege violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act of 2003.

One suit was filed on Jan. 22, 2007, and the other was filed on
Feb 9, 2007.  Both are currently pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The suits have been filed by individuals alleging that the
company continues to print more than the last five digits and
expiration date on credit card receipts in violation of FACTA.

The company filed answers in both cases denying any liability to
the plaintiffs, according to the company's March 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 29. 2007.

Shoe Pavilion, Inc. -- http://www.shoepavilion.com/-- is an  
off-price footwear retailer with locations in the Western and
Southwestern U.S.  During the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006
(fiscal 2006), the Company operated 108 stores in Washington,
Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Texas and New Mexico.  The
Company offers a range of designer label and branded footwear,
typically at 20% to 60% below regular department store prices.
During fiscal 2006, it opened 24 new stores and expanded into
markets in Texas and New Mexico.  The average square footage of
these 24 new stores is approximately 21,000 square feet.


SKYBUS AIRLINES: Former Employees Sue in Bankruptcy Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Skybus Airlines filed a class action lawsuit
against the company with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware on April 15, 2008, saying they were not
properly told of the airline's plan to shut down operations, the
Associated Press reports.

According to the lawsuit, Skybus violated the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires
companies to notify employees at least 60 days in advance of any
mass layoffs.

AP says that in a court filing dated April 4 -- the last day
Skybus was in operation -- the Columbus-based airline said it
planned to lay off 450 employees in several phases, with the
majority losing their jobs as of April 7.  Of those, 365 were
based in Columbus, with the remainder in Greensboro, N.C.

Former Skybus Chief Executive Officer Mike Hodge told The
Columbus Dispatch that the company believes it complied with the
law.  He cited a section of the WARN Act that grants an
exception to companies that are actively seeking capital or
business that, if obtained, would have allowed those companies
to avoid or postpone a shutdown.

Passed by Congress in 1988, the WARN Act was intended to protect
workers and their families, the report explains.  The law says
employees who don't receive proper notice of plant closings or
layoffs are entitled to 60 days pay.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking unpaid wages, bonuses,
retirement benefits and holiday pay that they would have
received during the 60-day period.

AP recounts that Skybus declared bankruptcy less than a year
after beginning service.  The low-cost carrier was known for its
$10 fares and a la carte, pay-per-service flying.  Like other
airlines, it struggled with rising fuel prices and a slowing
economy.


SOUTHWEST AIR: Passengers Sue Over Missed Safety Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------
Four Alabama passengers have filed a lawsuit against Southwest
Airlines, saying the company broke its contract with travelers
by carrying them on planes that missed safety inspections over a
period of about six years, myfoxal.com reports.

The lawsuit, filed on April 11, 2008, with the federal court in
Birmingham, seeks class-action status on claims that include
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligent and
reckless operation of an aircraft.

Lew Garrison, Esq., a Birmingham lawyer who represents the
passengers, told myfoxal.com in a telephone interview that the
class could include hundreds of thousands of people who traveled
on Southwest planes from January 2002 through March 2008.

Mr. Garrison said that the lawsuit primarily seeks reimbursement
for tickets for those flights on the grounds that the Dallas-
based airline did not comply with government regulations and did
not honor its contract with its customers.

The suit also seeks punitive damages on one count that claims
Southwest behaved negligently in not grounding planes that had
not been deemed airworthy in compliance with government
standards, Mr. Garrison added.

"Fortuitously, of course, nothing happened, everyone arrived
safely at their destinations," Mr. Garrison said.  "But that
doesn't change the fact that Southwest did not comply with its
obligations."

The report notes that "Contract of Carriage" on Southwest's Web
site states: "All transportation is sold and all carriage is
performed subject to compliance with all applicable laws and
governmental regulations, including those of the U.S. Department
of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the
Transportation Security Administration, many of which are not
specified herein but are nonetheless binding on Carrier and all
passengers."

The lawsuit claims Southwest violated this contract by not
complying with FAA airworthiness directives "to correct pressing
safety risks which might not be detected through regular
maintenance."  It says the FAA requires planes that do not meet
these directives to be grounded until compliance is reached.

Also according to the lawsuit, the Transportation Department's
inspector general said in March 2007 that Southwest had 21 key
inspections that were overdue by at least five years.  Gayle
Douglas, Esq., a Birmingham lawyer for the passengers, explained
that this is why the lawsuit covers flights back to 2002.

The suit did not specify the amount of damages sought.

Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Marilee McInnis told myfoxal.com
that the airline does not comment on pending litigation.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Court Orders Conclusion of Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to a purported class action against SS&C
Technologies, Inc., in connection with the definitive merger
agreement that the company signed on July 28, 2005, to be
acquired by a corporation affiliated with The Carlyle Group,
were directed to submit a schedule to bring the matter to a
conclusion, according to SS&C's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed against the
company, each of its directors and, with respect to the first
matter, Sunshine Acquisition Corp., with the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County.

The first suit is "Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1525-N," which was filed on July 28,
2005.

The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against all of the company's  directors at the time of
filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the merger will benefit company's management at the
         expense of company's public stockholders,

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         inadequate and does not represent the best price
         available in the marketplace for the company and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
         company's stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and rescissory damages to
the class and attorneys’ fees and expenses, along with such
other relief as the court might find just and proper.

The second lawsuit is "Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1541-N," which was filed on Aug. 3, 2005.
The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against all of our directors at the time of filing of the
lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the merger will benefit Carlyle at the expense of the
         company's public stockholders;

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         unfair and that the process by which the merger was
         approved was unfair; and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the        
         company's stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and rescissory damages to
the class and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit, including
attorneys’ and experts’ fees, along with such other relief as
the court might find just and proper.

The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005.   

On Oct. 18, 2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit
entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which
the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its
stockholders in connection with their approval of the merger.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the
parties would enter into a settlement agreement, which the
parties executed on July 6, 2006.

Under the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay up to
$350,000 of plaintiffs' legal fees and expenses.  

The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to its stockholders.

The court did not find that the settlement agreement was fair,
reasonable and adequate and disapproved the proposed settlement
on Nov. 29, 2006.  

The court criticized plaintiffs' counsel's handling of the
litigation, noting that the plaintiffs' counsel displayed a lack
of understanding of basic terms of the merger, did not appear to
have adequately investigated the plaintiffs' potential claims
and was unable to identify the basic legal issues in the case.

The court also raised questions about the process leading up to
the transaction, but the court did not make any findings of fact
on the litigation other than that there were not adequate facts
in evidence to support the settlement.

The plaintiffs decided to continue the litigation following
rejection of the settlement, and the parties proceeded with
discovery.

On Nov. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to withdraw from the
lawsuit with notice to SS&C's former shareholders.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the defendants opposed the plaintiffs' motion
for notice to shareholders in connection with their withdrawal
and moved for sanctions against plaintiffs and removal of
confidentiality restrictions on plaintiffs' discovery materials.

At a hearing on Feb. 8, 2008, the court orally granted the
plaintiffs' motion to withdraw, declined to order notice and
took the defendants' motion for sanctions under advisement.

In its memorandum opinion and order dated March 6, 2008, the
court granted in part defendants' motion for sanctions, awarding
attorneys' fees and other expenses that defendants reasonably
incurred in defending plaintiffs' motion to withdraw and in
bringing a motion to unseal the record and for sanctions.

The court noted that further proceedings were required to
determine the proper amount of the award, and it directed the
parties to submit a schedule to bring this matter to a
conclusion.

SS&C Technologies Holdings -- http://www.ssctech.com-- helps   
its clients buy low and sell high.  The company (which operates
through its SS&C Technologies subsidiary) designs software for
managing financial portfolios, loans, real estate equity, back-
office processing, and securities trading, and it provides
consulting and outsourcing services.  SS&C's software handles
investment portfolio management, asset and liability management
for actuaries, property and casualty insurance company risk
management, and trade ordering and modeling.  Customers include
asset managers, insurance companies, banks, corporate
treasuries, hedge funds, home offices, and government agencies.


TARRAGON CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tarragon Corp. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action that is pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's
March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Aside from the company, three of its officers -- William S.
Friedman, chairman of the board of directors and chief executive
officer; Robert P. Rothenberg, president and chief operating
officer; and Erin D. Pickens, executive vice president and chief
financial officer -- as well as Beachwold Partners, L.P. (a
Texas limited partnership composed of William S. Friedman, as
general partner, and members of his family, as limited
partners), and the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm, were also named as defendants in the matter.

The suit, captioned, "In re Tarragon Corporation Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-7972," was originally filed on
Sept. 11, 2007, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between Jan. 5, 2005, and Aug. 9, 2007.

The suit is "In re Tarragon Corporation Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 07-7972," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge P. Kevin Castel.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq.
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, L.L.P.
          One Penn Plaza
          Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655
          e-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Theresa Ann Foudy, Esq.
          Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP
          101 Park Avenue South 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10178
          Phone: (212) 696-6000
          Fax: (212) 697-1559
          e-mail: tfoudy@cm-p.com


TRIZETTO GROUP: Delaware Suit Seeks Highest Possible Share Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., announced that a
class action suit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders
of The TriZetto Group, Inc., in connection with the offer by
Apax Partners to acquire all of the outstanding shares of TZIX.

The case is pending with the Delaware Court of Chancery against
certain officers and directors.  The goal of the lawsuit is to
seek the highest possible offer for the public shares.

Based in Newport Beach, California, The TriZetto Group Inc.
provides information technology products and services designed
to simplify provider network, transaction, and business process
management. The Company also offers outsourced IT staffing,
claims processing, and billing management services.

For more information, contact:

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


UTI WORLDWIDE: Faces Freight Forwarding Services Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. and several other global logistics providers
face a purported class action suit that was filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging
antitrust violations, according to the company's April 14, 2008
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption,
"Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport
(Holding) Ltd."  It alleges that the defendants engaged in
various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter Jan. 14,
2008).

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Panalpina, Inc.;
     -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG;
     -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;
     -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.;
     -- EGL, Inc.;
     -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP;
     -- Deutsche Bahn AG;
     -- Schenker AG;
     -- Schenker, Inc.;
     -- Deutsche Post AG;
     -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.;
     -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and
     -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders.

Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC
d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental
entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
         stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
         Services sold in the United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
         affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
         or combination;

     (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
         artificially high and non-competitive level;

     (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon interstate commerce;

     (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
        contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule
        23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
        of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
        provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
        the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
        with the antitrust laws;

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

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

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the distribution or sale of
            Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
            prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
            such products except to the extent necessary in
            connection with bona fide sale transactions between
            the parties to such communication;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre-
        and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded
        at the highest legal rate from and after the date of
        service of the initial complaint in this action;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their
        costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        as provided by law; and

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

The suit is "Precision Associates, Inc. et al. cv. Panalpina
World Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq. (clovell@lshllp.com)
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212) 608-1900
          Fax: (212) 719-4677

Representing the defendants are:

          August C. Venturini, Esq. (acv@venturini-law.com)
          Venturini & Associates
          230 Park Avenue
          Suite 545
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-826-6800
          Fax: 212-949-6162

          James Joseph Calder, Esq. (james.calder@kattenlaw.com)
          Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-940-6460
          Fax: 212-940-3871

               - and -

          Breon S. Peace, Esq. (bpeace@cgsh.com)
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2059
          Fax: 212-225-3999


WALGREEN CO: Faces Illinois Suit Over $6.6 Million Inside Trades
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co. shareholders have filed a class-action complaint on
April 16, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois accusing the company of concealing its
financial problems, and claiming that Walgreen Chief Eexcutive
Officer Jeffrey Rein and President Gregory Wasson dumped
personal shares for a total of $6.6 million before disclosing
the adverse information, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Walgreen between June 25, 2007, and November 29, 2007,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

By the start of the Class Period, Walgreen was experiencing a
steady decline in the growth of its core business -- filling
retail drug prescriptions.  Throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose declining growth rates for the
Company's generic prescription business and misled investors
concerning the sustainability of Walgreen's profits and sales.

On October 1, 2007, Walgreen shocked the market by announcing
the Company's first quarterly earnings decline in more than ten
years.  In reaction to this news, the price of Walgreen common
stock declined from $47.00 per share to $39.96 per share, on
extremely heavy trading.

Then, on November 29, 2006, Walgreen announced that "[a]fter
many months" of dispute with Caremark over the reimbursement
rates for four prescription plans, Walgreen withdrew as a
pharmacy provider from the plans.  According to the Company's
press release, patients affected include members of prescription
benefit plans managed by Caremark for ArcelorMittal, Johnson
Controls, Inc., Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. and Wisconsin
Education Association Trust.  Most of the affected plan members
live in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Following this announcement, shares of Walgreen common stock
declined to a new three year low of $36.59 per share at the
close of trading on November 30, 2007.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         defendants' acts as alleged;

     (b) whether statements made by defendants to the investing
         public during the Class Period misrepresented material
         facts about the business, operations and management of
         Walgreen; and

     (c) to what extent the members of the Class have sustained
         damages and the proper measure of damages.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action,
        designating plaintiff as Lead Plaintiff and certifying
        plaintiff as a Class representative under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and plaintiff's counsel
        as Lead Counsel;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
        the other Class members against all defendants, jointly
        and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
        defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at
        trial, including interest; and

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
        fees and expert fees.

The suit is "Plumbers and Steamfitteres Local No. 7 Pension
Fund, et al. v. Walgreen Co. et al., Case No 08CV2162," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          Miller Law LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312/332-3400
          Fax: 312/676-2676

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Russel J. Gunyan, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631/367-7100
          Fax: 631/367-1173


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Spector Roseman Files NY Security Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., commenced a
securities 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, 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, 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 members 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.

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

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (888) 844-5862
          Fax: (215) 496-6611
          e-mail: classaction@srk-law.com
          Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


ENERNOC INC: Brian Felgoise Files Massachusetts Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., disclosed that a
securities class action suit has been commenced with the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of shareholders who acquired EnerNOC, Inc. securities
between November 1, 2007, and February 27, 2008, inclusive.

The action 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)
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046
          Phone: (215) 886-1900


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Brian Felgoise Files Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., disclosed that a
securities class action has been commenced on behalf of
shareholders who acquired First Marblehead Corporation
securities between August 10, 2006 and April 7, 2008, inclusive.

The case is now pending with the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, against the company and
certain of its key officers and directors.

The action charges that the 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)
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046
          Phone: (215) 886-1900


FORCE PROTECTION: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in SC
--------------------------------------------------------------
An investor has sued Force Protection, Inc., with the federal
court, accusing the company of violating securities laws, Berman
DeValerio disclosed.

Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermanesq.com/-- filed the class  
action complaint on April 14, 2008, with the U.S. District of
South Carolina.  The complaint seeks damages for violations of
federal securities laws and remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The class action was filed on behalf of all investors who
acquired Force Protection securities from August 14, 2006,
through and including February 29, 2008.

Based in Ladson, South Carolina, Force Protection designs and
manufactures ballistic- and blast-protected specialty vehicles.

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

According to the complaint, Force Protection made false and
misleading statements regarding its financial results, failed to
record all revenue and costs related to a joint venture with
another manufacturer of specialty vehicles and failed to
maintain effective internal controls over its financial
reporting.  As a result, Force Protection's share price was
artificially inflated during the Class Period, the complaint
says.

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

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          One Liberty Square
          Berman DeValerio
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (800) 516-9926
          e-mail: law@bermanesq.com
          Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/


SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
commenced a class action suit with the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all
purchasers of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund Investor Shares and the
Schwab YieldPlus Fund Select Shares during the period March 17,
2005, through March 17, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges The Charles Schwab Corporation and certain
of its related subsidiaries, among others, with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The Charles Schwab Corporation provides a variety of financial
services to individual investors, independent investment
managers, retirement plans and institutions.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection
with the Funds' Registration Statement, the defendants failed to
disclose or indicate:

     (1) that the Funds' assets were or would be overly-
         concentrated in the highly risky mortgage industry and
         that such securities were or would be highly vulnerable
         to illiquidity;

     (2) that there existed no primary market for the majority
         of the bonds;

     (3) that the duration for a majority of the Funds is over
         two years;

     (4) that the values of the Funds' shares were inflated and
         highly speculative given their composition;

     (5) that there were not adequate internal controls; and

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Funds'
         Registration Statements were false and misleading at
         all relevant times.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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




                            *********

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  * * *