CAR_Public/080422.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 79
  
                            Headlines

ALLTEL: Customers Sue Over Systematic and Unauthorized Billing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over Cargo Surcharges
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Calif. Transportation Surcharges Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Prices, Surcharges  
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Insider Trading Suit Dismissal Reversed

CITIMORTGAGE INC: Faces OH Suit Over Alleged Homebuyers Fraud
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Reaches Settlement in CA Suit Over 2% Reward
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Certifies Class in Membership Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Denies Dismissal Bid v. "Hot Fuel" Suit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Certification of "Ellis" Bias Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Denies "Serna" Certification Bid
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suits in Wash. & Colo. Over Organic Milk
CSK AUTO: April 22, 2008 Hearing Set for $10M AZ Suit Settlement
ENERNOC INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Massachusetts

FLIGHT SAFETY: Court Okays $1.2M Settlement in Securities Suit
FORD MOTOR: Claims Deadline for Explorer Lawsuit is April 29
GLOBALOPTIONS GROUP: Files Reconsideration Motion in "Anchondo"
HONEYWELL INT'L: Faces Mass. Litigation Over Automotive Filters
HUMANA INC: Settles Missouri Reimbursement Litigation for $3Mln.

LA-Z-BOY INC: Terminated Employees Seek Class Action Status
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Mortgage Units Sued for Discriminatory Lending
LIFECARE HOLDINGS: Still Faces Hurricane Katrina Lawsuits in La.
MELT INC: Franchisees File Lawsuit Alleging Various Violations
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Says Fraud Suit Can Move Forward

SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is May 19
SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Lead Plaintiff Requests Due on April 28
TD AMERITRADE: Sued Over Sale of Auction Rate Securities
TOBACCO LITIGATION: $600M Engle Trust Fund Available for Smokers
TWEEN BRANDS: Amended Complaint Filed in Ohio Securities Lawsuit

UNION PACIFIC: Judge Certifies Railroad Victims' Class Action
US DEPT. OF VETERAN AFFAIRS: Sued Over Veterans' Mental Health
WMC MORTGAGE: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit
WMC MORTGAGE: June, July Hearings Set for NAACP's Suit in Calif.
WMC MORTGAGE: Faces Discrimination Suit Over Home Mortgage Loans


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Commences Securities Suit in NY
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HARMONY GOLD: Brower Piven Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit

ISTAR FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
VERTEX PHARMA: Schiffrin Barroway Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
WALGREEN CO: Brower Piven Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********

ALLTEL: Customers Sue Over Systematic and Unauthorized Billing
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Alltel (NYSE: AT)
accusing the carrier of "systematically, repeatedly and without
authorization, billing its customers for purchases and services
not agreed to by those customers" the Washington Post reports,
citing RCR News.

"Alltel's decision to continue to charge its customers for
mobile content without taking steps to authenticate the
representations of the mobile content providers that the
customer's authority to be charged was obtained constitutes a
deliberate and willful scheme to cheat large numbers of people
out of small amounts of money," the plaintiff stated.

According to Washington Post, Alltel declined to comment on the
specific charges.

There are no details given on the particular billing situation
being sued about, but the general issue of third-party billing
has been around for a while, particularly tricking people into
signing up for expensive content subscriptions by offering
"free" content, the report points out.  Nevertheless, if telcos
are held responsible for the actions of third-party vendors and
the failure of people to read the fine print a fine line will
have to be walked.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over Cargo Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported Canadian class action, "McKay v.
Ace Aviation Holdings, et al.," agreed to dismiss their claims
against American Airlines, Inc.

On Jan. 23, 2007, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint filed against the company, AMR Corp., and
certain foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia in Canada.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated Canadian
competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  The complaint sought
compensatory and punitive damages under Canadian law.  

On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims
against the Company.  

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml-- is  
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp.  All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR.  American is a scheduled passenger
airline.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 170 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia.  In addition, American has capacity purchase
agreements with two wholly owned subsidiaries of AMR, American
Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. and two
independently owned regional airlines, which do business as the
American Connection (the American Connection carriers).  The AMR
Eagle and American Connection carriers provide connecting
service from eight of American's high-traffic cities to smaller
markets throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.
American is also a scheduled air freight carriers, providing a
range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Calif. Transportation Surcharges Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., is facing a consolidated class action
lawsuit, entitled "In re International Air Transportation
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:06-cv-01793-CRB."

Initially, numerous cases alleging violations of U.S. antitrust
laws were filed against the company and certain foreign and
domestic air carriers, which were later, consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Approximately 52 purported class actions have been filed in the
U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic air
carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.

These cases, along with other purported class actions in which
the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
M 06-01793" on Oct. 25, 2006.

The plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.

On July 9, 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in the
consolidated complaint.

American Airlines reported no development in the matter in its
April 18, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 18, 2008.

The suit is "In re International Air Transportation Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:06-cv-01793-CRB," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Lee Albert, Esq. (lalbert@magergoldstein.com)
         Mager & Goldstein, LLP
         One Liberty Place, 21st Fl., 1650 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-640-3280
         Fax: 215-640-3281

         Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq.
         Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
         LLP, 2280 Union Street
         San Francisco, CA 94123
         Phone: 415-563-7200
         Fax: 415-346-0679
         e-mail: malioto@tatp.com

              - and -

         Steven A. Asher, Esq.
         Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-545-7200
         Fax: 215-545-6535

Representing the defendants is:

         Debra J. Pearlstein, Esq. (debra.pearlstein@weil.com)
         Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8686
         Fax: 213-310-8007


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Prices, Surcharges  
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., is facing two purported class actions
alleging that the Company violated U.S. antitrust laws by
illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger
transportation in Japan and Germany, respectively.  

The suit were filed on March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, under
the captions:

       -- "Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444
          (N.D. Cal.);" and

       -- "LaFlamme v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-
          1079 (E.D.N.Y.)."

The plaintiffs in the Turner and LaFlamme cases are seeking
trebled money damages and injunctive relief, according to the
company's April 18, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 18, 2008.

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml-- is  
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp.  All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR.  American is a scheduled passenger
airline.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 170 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia.  In addition, American has capacity purchase
agreements with two wholly owned subsidiaries of AMR, American
Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. and two
independently owned regional airlines, which do business as the
American Connection (the American Connection carriers).  The AMR
Eagle and American Connection carriers provide connecting
service from eight of American's high-traffic cities to smaller
markets throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.
American is also a scheduled air freight carriers, providing a
range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Insider Trading Suit Dismissal Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
reversed the dismissal of a class action suit accusing Boston
Scientific officials of netting more than $332 million by
trading on inside knowledge that the value of the company's
stock had been artificially inflated through false statements
about the company's Taxus coronary stent, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

In 2001, Boston Scientific decided to produce a drugeluting
stent to compete with a similar product manufactured by
Johnson & Johnson known as TAXUS Express Paclitaxel-Eluting
Monorail Coronary Stent System.

Doctors inserted the drug-coated Taxus stent, used primarily to
prevent the growth of cancer cells, in a patient by placing a
catheter within a coronary artery plaque and expanding the stent
by blowing up a balloon.

The Federal Drug Administration recalled more than 80,000 of the
medical devices after studies showed that a manufacturing defect
caused the balloon to deflate.

On September 23, 2005, the Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi brought suit with the federal district
court against Boston Scientific and its executives.

The plaintiff, a Mississippi pension fund and purchaser of
Boston Scientific stock, alleged that the company executives
both withheld material information about problems with the stent
and decisions addressing those problems, and made misleading
positive statements, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t(a), and the attendant rules and regulations, including
Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

The plaintiff sued on behalf of a putative class of
individuals and entities who purchased equity securities in
Boston Scientific from March 31, 2003, to August 23, 2005.

The plaintiff alleged that during that period, the defendants
made false and misleading statements and caused the market price
of the company's securities to be artificially inflated, both
harming investors and allowing the individual insider defendants
to enrich themselves in excess of $332 million.

In dismissing the TAXUS claims, the district court reasoned in a
series of discrete steps.  It first noted that there was no
violation in not disclosing the FDA major deficiency letter
regarding TAXUS that Boston Scientific had received in September
2003, before the U.S. release of the product.  Rather, it said,
the major deficiency letter was simply "a step in the FDA
approval process which [Boston Scientific] had no duty to
disclose."

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the district court erred
in several respects.  It argued that the court misapplied the
doctrine of fraud by hindsight, resulting in the imposition of
too stringent a pleading standard.  More specifically, it
claimed that the court erroneously drew factual inferences
against plaintiff regarding the manufacturing change and failed
to account for the materiality of the change.  The plaintiff
further argued that the court misapplied the fraud by hindsight
doctrine to LaViolette's remarks by discounting the temporal
proximity between his statements and the third TAXUS recall, and
it challenges the district court's factual assumption that the
recall was limited in scope.  Finally, the plaintiff faulted the
district court for failing to consider the allegations of
insider trading presented in the complaint.  Overall, the
plaintiff argued that the district court atomized the complaint
and did not look at the overall pattern.

Recently, the 1st Circuit reversed the dismissal, not ruling on
the merits of the case, but finding that lead plaintiff Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi met the pleading
requirements needed to survive a motion to dismiss.

Based in Natick, Mass., Boston Scientific Corp. develops,
manufactures, and markets medical devices used in interventional
cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions,
cardiac surgery, vascular surgery, electrophysiology,
neurovascular intervention, endoscopy, urology, gynecology and
neuromodulation.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Faces OH Suit Over Alleged Homebuyers Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citimortgage Inc. is facing a class action complaint filed on
April 17, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio alleging it defrauded homeowners by overstating
amounts owed on mortgage refinancings, and collecting the
excessive money and fees, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Diana Williams brings this action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of all Ohio
citizens, and alternatively, if deemed manageable, all citizens
nationally, who have been required to pay interest or fees not
due under their mortgages to Citimortgage pursuant to its policy
of charging interest through the "next interest due date" and
retaining such amounts for an extended period of time up to 30
days or more before refunding same.

Ms. Williams wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Citimortgage's practice of obtaining payment in
         excess of the amount due under the terms of the
         mortgages it holds constitutes a breach of contract;

     (b) whether Citimortgage was unjustly enriched as a result
         of its practice of obtaining and holding payments in
         excess of the amount due under the terms of the
         mortgage it holds;

     (c) whether Citimortgage's practice of including amounts
         not due under the terms of the mortgages it holds in
         amounts represented on payoff statements as "total
         secured by mortgage" and "total to pay loan in full"
         was false, misleading, fraudulent, or in derogation of
         any statutory and common law rights of plaintiff and
         the putative class;

     (d) whether Citimortgage's practice of obtaining payment in
         excess of the amount due under the terms of the
         mortgages it holds in connection with the payoff of
         such loans constitutes the assessment of a "prepayment
         penalty" without prior disclosure contrary to the
         Federal Truth in Lending Act;

     (e) whether Citimortgage's conduct constituted a
         transaction, practice or course of business that is not
         in good faith or fair dealing or that operates a fraud
         in connection with the attempted or actual making,
         purchase, or sale of mortgage loans, in violation of
         Ohio's consumer protection statutes; and

     (f) whether Citimortgage has acted in a uniform manner with
         respect to the entire class and on grounds uniformly
         applicable to the class, whether relief in favor of the
         class as a whole is appropriate.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

      -- an order certifying this action as a class action
         and appointing the plaintiff and her counsel as
         representatives of the class;

      -- a declaration that the defendant's practice of charging
         borrowers up to one month of extra interest in order to
         release them from their mortgages constitutes a
         violation of plaintiff's contractual and legal
         rights;

      -- preliminary and injunctive relief enjoining,
         prohibiting and preventing the defendant from charging
         borrowers interest to which it is not entitled as a
         condition or releasing borrowers from their mortgages;

      -- restitution of the amounts by which the defendant was
         unjustly enriched;

      -- an award of compensatory, statutory, and punitive
         damages as permitted by law;

      -- an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs
         incurred by the plaintiff and the members of the
         putative class in prosecuting this matter; and

      -- an award of such other relief in law and equity to
         which the plaintiff and the members of the class
         may be entitled.

The suit is "Diana Williams et al v. Citimortgage, Inc., Case NO
2:08CV368," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Joseph M. Callow, Jr., Esq. (jcallow@kmklaw.com)
          W. Jeffrey Sefton, Esq. (jsefton@kmklaw.com)
          Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL
          One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Phone: (513) 579-6419
          Fax: (513) 579-6457


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
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, "Carrie Ward v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., Case No. BC-384334," 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 putative class action, filed on Jan. 24, 2008, was
purportedly brought on behalf of two groups of former California
employees—an "Unpaid Wage Class" and a "Wage Statement Class."

The "Unpaid Wage Class" focuses on an allegation that Costco
improperly deducts employee credit card balances from final
paychecks, while the "Wage Statement Class" focuses on an
allegation that Costco's final paychecks do not contain the
accurate and itemized information required for wage statements
by applicable law.

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: Reaches Settlement in CA Suit Over 2% Reward
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported class action brought on
behalf of certain present and former Costco Wholesale Corp.
members, 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 suit is "Barmak v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., Case No.
BC348857."  It asserts that the Company violated various
provisions of the common law and California statutes in
connection with its former practice of paying executive members
who downgraded or terminated their memberships a 2% reward for
less than 12 months of eligible purchases.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest, and punitive damages.

The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint
wherein the Company contended that the challenged practice,
while it was still in effect, was appropriately disclosed to
executive members.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the Court certified a nationwide class in
respect of the breach of contract claim and a California class
for the remaining claims.

The Company has subsequently agreed in principle to settle this
action, which will involve providing reward certificates to most
class members.  A reserve was established during the second
quarter of fiscal 2008 in the amount $5.5 million to cover the
expected cost of the certificates, payment of attorneys' fees to
class counsel, and the expenses of settlement administration.

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: Court Certifies Class in Membership Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California court certified a class in one of two purported
class actions against Costco Wholesale Corp. in relation to its
membership renewal practices.

One of the suits is "Evans, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
Case No. BC351869," which was filed with the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles and later removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The other suit is "Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Index No.
06-007555," which was commenced in the Supreme Court of Nassau
County, New York and removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

The suits are asserting that the Company violated various
provisions of California and New York common law and statutes in
connection with a membership renewal practice.

Under that practice, members who pay their renewal fees late
generally have their 12-month membership renewal periods
commence at the time of the prior year's expiration rather than
the time of the late payment.

The plaintiffs in the two actions seek compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement, preliminary and permanent injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest and, in "Evans," punitive damages.

The court has certified a class in the Dupler action, 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.

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: Court Denies Dismissal Bid v. "Hot Fuel" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a
motion seeking the dismissal of the consolidated class action
captioned "In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840."

Initially, numerous putative class actions were brought around
the U.S. against motor fuel retailers, including Costco
Wholesale Corp., alleging that they have been overcharging
drivers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60
degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for
heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such
expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer.  

The suits are:

      -- "Raphael Sagalyn, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);"

      -- "Phyllis Lerner, et al. v. Costco Wholesale
         Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.);"

      -- "Linda A. Williams, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.);"

      -- "James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);"

      -- "Betty A. Delgado, et al. v. Allsups, Convenience
         Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.);"

      -- "Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 07-285 (D. Nev.);"

      -- "Mark Rushing, et al. v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.);"

      -- "James Vanderbilt, et al. v. BP Corporation North
         America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.);"

      -- "Zachary Wilson, et al. v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.);" and

      -- "Diane Foster, et al. v. BP North America Petroleum,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.)."

      -- "Mara Redstone, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.);"

      -- "Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et
         al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.);"

      -- "J.C. Wash, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case
         No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);"

      -- "Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
         et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.);"

      -- "William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
         Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.);"

      -- "Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tx.);"

      -- "S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al. v. Hess Corporation, et
         al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.);"

      -- "Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.,
         Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah);" and

      -- "Mark Wyatt, et al. v. B. P. America Corp. dba Atlantic
         Richfield Company, et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D.
         Cal.)."

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled, "In re Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840," to Judge
Kathryn Vratil of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

On Aug. 28, 2007, Judge Vratil held an initial scheduling
conference in this proceeding.  At that time, she ordered
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint in these actions on
Oct. 19, 2007, and set a briefing schedule on challenges to this
consolidated complaint that calls for a hearing Jan. 11, 2008.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, 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.

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: Appeals Certification of "Ellis" Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is still appealing a decision granting
class-action status to a purported class action suit over the
alleged denial of promotion to certain female managers of the
company.

The case was brought as a class action on behalf of certain
present and former female managers, in which the plaintiffs
allege denial of promotion based on gender in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees.  Class
certification was granted on Jan. 11, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear
Costco's appeal of the certification.  

On May 30, 2007, the District Court ordered a stay of this case
during the pendency of the appeal.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended  Feb. 17, 2008.
    
The suit is "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No.
3:04-cv-03341-MHP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James M. Finberg, Esq. (jfinberg@lchb.com)
         Lexi Joy Hazam, Esq. (lhazam@lchb.com)
         Bill Lann Lee, Esq. (blee@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000
         Fax: 415-956-1008

              - and -

         Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq. (jlarkin@impactfund.org)
         Brad Seligman, Esq. (bseligman@impactfund.org)
         The Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304
         Fax: 510-845-3654

Representing the defendants are:

         David D. Kadue, Esq. (dkadue@seyfarth.com)
         William Owen Kampf, Esq. (wkampf@la.seyfarth.com)
         Seyfarth Shaw LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-5211
                310-277-7200 x1515
         Fax: 310-201-5219


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Denies "Serna" Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the
lawsuit captioned, "Mimi Serna, Timothy Herrock, et al. v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 2:07-CV-1491-AHM (JWJx),"
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 consumer class action was filed on March 2007 with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California alleging
willful violations of the 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g) of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  

Section 1681c(g), enacted Dec. 4, 2003, provides that "no person
that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of
business shall print more than the last five digits of the card
number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the
cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction."

The plaintiffs allege that, on or after Jan. 1, 2005, Costco
printed the expiration date and more than the last five digits
of their credit card or debit card number on electronically
printed receipts provided at the point of sale involving
transactions at Costco's gasoline dispensers throughout the U.S.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  

On Jan. 2, 2008, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The action has since been stayed pending the
resolution of an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in an action with related subject matter.

The suit is "Mimi Serna v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Inc et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01491-AHM-JWJ," filed with the U.S.
District Court for Central District of California, Judge A.
Howard Matz presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert S. Ackley, Esq. (rackley@murchisonlaw.com)
          Herbert Hafif Law Offices
          269 West Bonita Avenue
          Claremont, CA 91711-4784
          Phone: 909-624-1671

Representing the defendant is:

          Barbara L. Croutch, Esq.
          (barbara.croutch@pillsburylaw.com)
          Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
          725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406
          Phone: 213-488-7100
          Fax: 213-629-1033


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suits in Wash. & Colo. Over Organic Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is facings two purported federal class
action suits in Washington and Colorado in relation to sales of
organic milk.

The suits are:

      1. "Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D.
         Wash.);"

      2. "Snell v. Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449
         (D. Col.)."

Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its
supplier Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic."

Costco has not yet responded to the complaints; Aurora has
maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid organic
certifications.

The complaints seek, among other things, actual, compensatory,
statutory, punitive and exemplary damages in unspecified
amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended  Feb. 17, 2008.

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.


CSK AUTO: April 22, 2008 Hearing Set for $10M AZ Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona set an
April 22, 2008 hearing for the preliminary approval of the
$10-million settlement reached in a consolidated securities
fraud class action suit filed against CSK Auto Corp.

On June 9, and 20, 2006, two shareholder class actions were
filed against the company and certain current and former
officers, one of whom is also a director.

The cases are:

      -- "Communications Workers of America Plan for Employees
         Pensions and Death Benefits v. CSK Auto Corporation, et
         al., No. Civ. 06-1503 PHX DGC;" and

      -- "Wilfred Fortier v. CSK Auto Corporation, et al., No.
         Civ. 06-1580 PHX DGC."

The cases were consolidated on Sept. 18, 2006, with the
Communications Workers case as the lead case.  The consolidated
actions have been brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's stock between March 20, 2003, and
April 13, 2006, inclusive.

The consolidated complaint, filed on Nov. 30, 2006, alleged that
the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company and the individual defendants filed motions to
dismiss the suits, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to
adequately plead violations of the federal securities laws.

On March 28, 2007, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss, with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on April 26, 2007, alleging
violations of the same federal securities laws and adding
additional factual allegations.

The amended consolidated complaint names as defendants the
company and three individuals:

      -- Maynard Jenkins, chairman of the board and chief
         executive officer;

      -- Martin Fraser, former president and chief operating
         officer; and

      -- Don Watson; former chief financial officer and former
         chief administrative officer.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that defendants
issued false statements before and during the class period about
the company's income, earnings and internal controls, allegedly
causing the company's stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices during the class period.  It seeks recovery of damages in
an unspecified amount.

The plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on May 25,
2007, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, against the same Defendants, except for James
Riley, whom the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on July 13, 2007.

On Sept. 27, 2007, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss Mr. Fraser with prejudice and denying the motions to
dismiss the Company and Messrs. Jenkins and Watson.  

On Oct. 24, 2007 the court issued a scheduling order setting
forth a pretrial schedule that contemplates a trial, if
necessary, in March 2009.  

The Lead Plaintiff filed its motion to certify the class on
Jan. 18, 2008, and the Company filed its response on Feb. 15,
2008.

The Lead Plaintiff filed its reply in support of its motion for
class certification on March 14, 2008.  A hearing on the motion
was scheduled to take place on March 21, 2008.

Before the hearing on March 21, 2008, and as a result of ongoing
settlement discussions, Lead Plaintiff and the defendants
(including the Company) reached an agreement in principle to
settle the case.

Pursuant to the agreement in principle, the settlement amount
will be $10.0 million in cash (which the Company expects will be
paid by its directors and officers liability insurance) and
$1.7 million in the Company's stock (to be contributed by the
Company and valued at the closing price on March 20, 2008).

The Company would also pay interest on the cash portion of the
settlement at the rate of 5% per annum to the extent that it is
not deposited into the settlement escrow account within 30 days
of March 21, 2008.

The agreement in principle also includes certain corporate
governance and contracting policy terms that would apply so long
as the Company remains an independent company.

The court has scheduled a hearing on preliminary approval of the
settlement on April 22, 2008, according to the company's
April 18, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2008.

The suit is "Communication Workers of America Plan for
Employees' Pensions and Death Benefits v. CSK Auto Corp., Case
No. 2:06-cv-01503-DGC," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona, Judge David G. Campbell presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com)
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
         2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199

Representing the defendants are:

         Donald Wayne Bivens, Esq. (dbivens@swlaw.com)
         Snell & Wilmer
         400 E. Van Buren
         Phoenix, AZ 85004
         Phone: 602-382-6549
         Fax: 602-382-6070

              - and -

         Gareth T. Evans, Esq. (gevans@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 S. Grand Ave., 51st Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7734
         Fax: 213-229-6734


ENERNOC INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, Inc. is facing several purported securities fraud class
action suits that were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, 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.

In March 2008, three purported class actions were filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
the company, several of its officers and directors and certain
of the underwriters from its November 2007 follow-on public
offering of our common stock.  

The plaintiffs claim to represent those persons who purchased
shares of the company's common stock from Nov. 1, 2007, through
Feb. 27, 2008, and those persons who purchased shares of the
company's common stock in connection with our follow-on public
offering.  

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in various SEC filings, press releases and
other public statements.  

The complaints allege various claims under the U.S. Securities
Act, the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

The complaints seek, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified damages, fees and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper.

EnerNOC, Inc. -- http://www.enernoc.com/-- is a developer and  
provider of clean and intelligent energy solutions.  The Company
uses its Network Operations Center to remotely manage and reduce
electricity consumption across a network of commercial,
institutional and industrial customer sites to enable a more
information-based and responsive, or intelligent, electric power
grid.  The Company's customers are electric power grid operators
and utilities, as well as commercial, institutional and
industrial end users of electricity.  With approximately 2,189
customer sites in its demand response network and approximately
1,112 megawatts of demand response capacity under its management
as of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company provides demand response
solutions to the commercial, institutional and industrial
market.  On September 13, 2007, the Company acquired Mdenergy,
LLC, an energy procurement service provider.  


FLIGHT SAFETY: Court Okays $1.2M Settlement in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has
granted a motion for 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."

Under the terms of the settlement, all claims against all of the
defendants were dismissed without presumption or admission of
liability or wrongdoing.  A one-time settlement payment of
$1.2 million was made to the plaintiff class on behalf of the
defendants.  The company contributed $135,000 of the
$1.2 million settlement.

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 asserts that the 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 an 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).

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 2 30
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: (866) 274-4004
          Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net


FORD MOTOR: Claims Deadline for Explorer Lawsuit is April 29
------------------------------------------------------------
Class participants in the Ford Explorer class action settlement
have until April 29, 2008, to get benefits, which include
discount certificates worth $500 toward the purchase or lease of
a new Ford Explorer or $300 toward the purchase or lease of any
other new Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury, The Auto Channel reports.

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

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

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

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

Earlier, the Center for Auto Safety, a Ralph Nader-founded group
based in Washington, D.C. filed a legal challenge with the
Sacramento Superior Court (Calif.) to the settlement of the
massive Ford Explorer lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 10,
2008).

On April 15, Judge David De Alba of the Superior Court of
California, Sacramento County, ended seven years of litigation,
when he approved the Ford Explorer class action settlement
and found that it was fair, reasonable, and adequate (Class
Action Reporter, April 18, 2008).

This approval means that California, Illinois, Connecticut, and
Texas consumers who bought, owned or leased, a
new or used 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorer in California
between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either still own their
Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or otherwise disposed
of it after August 9, 2000.

                          The Settlement

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

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

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

A new ford Explorer lists for about $25,000 to
$30,000.

See Ford Explorer Cases on the net:

   http://www.explorercasuit.com/    

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

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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


GLOBALOPTIONS GROUP: Files Reconsideration Motion in "Anchondo"
---------------------------------------------------------------
GlobalOptions Group, Inc., filed a motion for reconsideration
with regard to a conflicting set of rulings in the matter,
"Peter Anchondo v. Facticon Inc. and GlobalOptions Group, Inc.,"
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.

This case was filed by the plaintiff originally against
Facticon, Inc., prior to the company's acquisition of assets of
Facticon (Feb. 28, 2007) with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California is alleging that Facticon failed
to pay overtime wages.

Subsequent to the acquisition, the company was added as a
defendant in th case, under the successor liability theory.

Under the terms of an escrow agreement, as amended, entered into
by and between the company and Facticon, the escrow provides
that 85,700 shares of the company's common stock and $100,000 in
cash funds shall be held to satisfy this and other pre-
acquisition obligations of Facticon.

The company has put Facticon on notice, and the stockholders of
Facticon agree, the company will not distribute any funds or
stock as provided under the asset purchase agreement until this
matter is resolved, and if necessary shall use such stock and
cash to resolve such matter.

A Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed for the Court to
determine whether we are liable under this as a successor liable
company.

On March 7, 2008, the Court issued a ruling denying the
company's Motion for Summary Judgment and issued a ruling
granting a Summary Judgment in favor for the Plaintiffs ruling
that the company was in fact a successor party to the Plaintiffs
actions, and this ruling by the Court is in opposition of the
Court's original ruling dated March 3, 2008, wherein it granted
the company's Motion for Summary Judgment.  

Due to the Court's apparent error in its final ruling being in
complete opposition of its Preliminary Ruling, the company filed
a Motion for Reconsideration.  

GlobalOptions Group, Inc. -- http://www.globaloptions.com/-- is  
an integrated provider of risk mitigation and management
services to government entities, Fortune 1,000 corporations and
high net-worth individuals.  The Company enables clients to
identify, assess and prevent natural and man-made threats to the
well-being of individuals and the operations of governments and
corporations.  In addition, it assists its clients in recovering
from the damages or losses resulting from the occurrence of acts
of terror, natural disasters, fraud and other risks.  It
delivers risk mitigation and management services through four
business units: Preparedness Services, Fraud and Special
Investigative Unit Services, Security Consulting and
Investigations and International Strategies.  


HONEYWELL INT'L: Faces Mass. Litigation Over Automotive Filters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., is facing a purported class
action suit filed with U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including
Honeywell, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and
allocate U.S. customers for after-market automotive filters.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a
filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube
Distributors Inc v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al, Case No.
3:2008cv00475."

This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct
purchasers of filters from the defendants.  Related actions have
been filed by other plaintiffs, according to the company's
April 18, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v. Champion
Labortories, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:2008cv00475," filed with
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet
Bond Arterton presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. (krcallahan@uks.com)
          Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
          One State St., Po Box 231277
          Hartford, CT 06123-1277
          Phone: 860-548-2600


HUMANA INC: Settles Missouri Reimbursement Litigation for $3Mln.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2008, hundreds of Missouri physicians won a $3-million
settlement with Humana Inc. in a class action which accused the
insurer of conspiring with competitors to hold down
reimbursements in the Kansas City area, the American Medical
News reports.

Several doctors' groups filed the lawsuit in February 2005,  
claiming that the three insurers were violating antitrust laws  
by conspiring to fix prices they paid to physicians for services  
to customers and refusing to negotiate reasonable  
reimbursements (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2006).

According to the American Medical News report, under the
settlement, the insurer agreed to pay physicians $2.8 million in
cash and spend an estimated $200,000 to change its business
practices.

Humana denied any wrongdoing in the agreement with nearly 2,500
doctors.

The settlement mirrors agreements reached in similar class-
action lawsuits brought by doctors nationwide against various
insurers, the American Medical News states.

At least two defendants remain in the Missouri case:

     -- BlueCross and BlueShield of Kansas City, which denied
        the conspiracy allegations and
     -- UnitedHealthcare.

Louisville, Ky.-based Humana Inc. is a publicly traded health
and supplemental benefits solutions company, offering an array
of health and supplemental benefit plans for employer groups,
government benefit programs, and individuals.  As of Dec. 31,
2007, the Company had  about 11.5 million members in its medical
benefit plans, as well as  about 6.8 million members in its
specialty products.


LA-Z-BOY INC: Terminated Employees Seek Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seven former employees of La-Z-Boy Inc. in Tremonton filed a
lawsuit in 2004 with the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City
alleging that they lost their jobs because they were injured and
filed for workers' compensation, The Salt Lake Tribune recounts.

Specifically, the legal action claims that La-Z-Boy harassed
workers who were injured on the job, then either fired them or
put them in a position that forced them to quit.

In an update, Salt Lake Tribune's Pamela Manson relates that the
workers' lawyers recently asked a federal judge to declare the
wrongful-termination suit a class action, a designation that
would allow other ex-employees with similar claims to join in.
The suit seeks back pay and the reopening of workers'
compensation cases.

Ms. Manson writes that because the plant is closing, the workers
are not making the standard request for reinstatement to their
jobs.

According to the report, the number of potential plaintiffs is
unknown, but nearly 30 have filed affidavits alleging they were
unfairly discharged after suffering on-the-job injuries and
asking to be part of the suit.

La-Z-Boy has denied the employees' allegations.               

Lauren Scholnick, Esq., a Salt Lake City attorney for the
workers, told Salt Lake Tribune that claims were "horribly
mishandled" by the company.

Court briefs allege that La-Z-Boy, which was self-insured, was
telling its third-party adjuster to deny claims and refuse
treatment.  Workers allege they were discouraged from applying
for benefits and assigned tasks they were physically unable to
perform so they could be fired.

Moreover, the former workers contended that their injuries were
caused by an unsafe work environment.  Many claim they were
discouraged from reporting industrial injuries and taking off
enough time to fully recover.

Salt Lake Tribune says that the proposed class would include
those employees whose employment was severed from April 2000 to
the present and within one year of exercising or attempting to
exercise their rights under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act.
The number of potential plaintiffs among the approximately 700
former workers is unknown.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Mortgage Units Sued for Discriminatory Lending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two mortgage units of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. were sued on
April 17, 2008, for allegedly engaging in lending practices that
improperly drove up financing charges for minority home buyers,
Dow Jones Newswires reports.

The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan,
alleges that Lehman Brothers Bank FSB and BNC Mortgage Inc.
improperly established a discretionary pricing policy that
"authorized an unchecked, subjective surcharge of additional
points and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based financing
rate."

"By their discretionary pricing policy, defendants schemed to
intentionally discriminate against plaintiff and class members,
systematically channeling plaintiff and other class members into
mortgage loans with less favorable conditions than those given
to similarly situated non-minority borrowers," the lawsuit
stated.  "This pattern of discrimination is not the result of
random or nondiscriminatory factors.  Rather, it is the direct
and intended result of defendants' business model and loan-
funding practices."

According to Dow Jones, the complaint was filed on behalf of
Pedro E. Rivas, a Latino homeowner living in Pacoima, Calif., by
the law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status on behalf of all
minorities who have entered into residential mortgage loan
contracts originated, financed or purchased by the Lehman
Brothers units and were harmed by the alleged discriminatory
conduct.

Dow Jones says Lehman refused to comment on the matter.

    
LIFECARE HOLDINGS: Still Faces Hurricane Katrina Lawsuits in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
LifeCare Holdings, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
various civil lawsuits and actions filed with the Louisiana
Patient Compensation Fund by former patients at Memorial Medical
Center who allege damages as a result of injuries sustained
during Hurricane Katrina.

Tenet Healthsystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc., the company's
former landlord, is also named as a defendant in these actions.

In one of these cases, the plaintiffs' counsel is seeking class
action certification to represent other individuals who were
also patients or present at Memorial Medical Center at the time
of Hurricane Katrina.

In addition to disputing the merits of the allegations in these
suits, the company believes that certification of a class in
these actions is not appropriate and that each of these cases
should be adjudicated independently.

The company reported no development in the matters in its
March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

LifeCare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.lifecare-hospitals.com/--  
operates 19 long term acute care hospitals located in nine
states.  Long term acute care hospitals specialize in the
treatment of medically complex patients who typically require
extended hospitalization.


MELT INC: Franchisees File Lawsuit Alleging Various Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melt, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit filed on
behalf of several of its franchisees, according to the company's
March 28, 2008 Form 10KSB filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Sept. 19, 2007, a punitive class action was filed against the
company, its affiliates, and its officers and employees alleging
damages and injunctive relief under state Franchise Acts,
restitution and injunctive relief under unfair business
practices act, damages and injunctive relief under the
"Cartwright" act, fraud, interference with prospective economic
advantage, and declaratory relief.

The suit, "David Gold, Elena Gold, EAOA, Inc., Steven Field, MMS
Management, LLC, MMS Coconut Point, LLC, Jong Han, Yon Ho Kim,
Young Suk Kim, Kang Won Lee, Yoo &  Lee Enterprises, Inc.,
Charindra Liyanage, Liyange Investments, LLC v. Melt, Inc., Melt
(California), Inc., Melt Franchising, LLC, Clive V. Barwin,
Brandon Barwin, Michael Zorehkey, Rick Zorehkey, Eddie Ollman,
Scott Miller, and Alin Cruz," purports to represent a class of
the company's franchisees.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Says Fraud Suit Can Move Forward
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rudolph Randa, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, has rejected calls by medical software
company Merge Technologies Inc. to dismiss a securities fraud
lawsuit but has agreed to toss accounting giant KPMG LLP from
the case, Securities Law360 reports.

The report says that Judge Randa also dismissed claims against
one of the company's senior executives, but ruled that the case
could move ahead against Merge's former chief executive officer
Richard A. Linden, and chief financial officer Scott T. Veech.

In his ruling, Judge Randa said that the plaintiffs had
presented sufficient evidence that Merge and its top two
officers had deceived investors and artificially inflated the
company's stock price.  

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 12, 2007, the
case arises out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement
that it would revise its results of operations for the fiscal
quarters ended June 30, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, as well as its
investigation of allegations made in anonymous letters received
by the company.  The lawsuit alleges that the company and the
individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  It seeks
damages in unspecified amounts.

The suit is "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00349-RTR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under
Judge Rudolph T. Randa.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel M. Shanley, Esq.
         DeCarlo & Connor
         533 S. Fremont Ave., 9th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706
         Phone: 213-488-4100
         Fax: 213-488-4180

              - and -

         Paul J. Geller, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

         David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
         (david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com)
         Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
         525 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1900
         Chicago, IL 60661-3693
         Phone: 312-902-5200
         Fax: 312-577-4481


SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is May 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
disclosed that shareholders of the Schwab YieldPlus Investor
Shares and Schwab YieldPlus Fund Select Shares have until
May 19, 2008 to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in a
securities class action lawsuit currently pending 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 (Class Action Reporter, April 21,
2008).

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


SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Lead Plaintiff Requests Due on April 28
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson said that the deadline for applying for lead
plaintiff status in a class action lawsuit naming Superior
Offshore International, Inc., is set on April 28, 2008.

The class action lawsuit was filed with the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas naming
Superior Offshore International, Inc. (NASDAQ: DEEP), several
officers of the Company, and underwriters for an initial public
offering on behalf of individuals, families, trusts or other
entities that purchased Superior Offshore common stock between
April 20, 2007 and January 9, 2008, inclusive (Class Action
Reporter, April 8, 2008).

The complaint charges the defendants with making a series of
materially false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

For more information, contact:

          Eben F. Duval, Esq.
          James F. Conway, III, Esq.
          Johnson & Perkinson
          1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box 2305
          South Burlington, Vermont 05403
          Phone: 1-888-459-7855 (toll free)
          e-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com/


TD AMERITRADE: Sued Over Sale of Auction Rate Securities
--------------------------------------------------------
Online brokerage TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. has been sued in
federal court over its sale of auction rate securities, AP
WorldStream English reports.

The plaintiff, Sheldon Silverstein, who is an investor, is
seeking to classify the lawsuit as a class action.  He says that
he and others were told by Ameritrade that auction rate
securities were as safe as cash, but ended up with securities
they cannot sell.

Mr. Silverstein is seeking unspecified damages to cover
investors' losses, plus interest, as well as any other "relief
as the court may deem just and proper."  He is seeking a jury
trial.

According to AP WorldStream, Ameritrade refused to comment.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: $600M Engle Trust Fund Available for Smokers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting next week, smokers, ex-smokers and survivors of people
who have died from smoking-related diseases will be scrambling
to grab a piece of the new $600-million Engle Trust Fund, which
will open for registration on April 25, 2008.

According to Todd McPharlin, Esq., a partner at the Fort
Lauderdale law firm Kelley / Uustal -- who is representing
tobacco victims -- the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court will be
issuing a supplemental notice regarding the fund next week.

The Engle Trust Fund is the result of the 1994 Engle Class
Action against the tobacco industry.

According to Mr. McPharlin, who also serves as the liaison
counsel for Broward County plaintiff attorneys handling tobacco
cases, the funds will be distributed only to those claimants who
register and file their claims before the deadline. Qualified
class members should act quickly and seek experienced counsel to
help them through the process.

"This is a very limited pool of funds for a very large
population," he said.  "Once the funds are gone, tobacco victims
and their survivors who haven't registered and properly filed
their claims will be out of luck."

To qualify for a share of the fund, individuals must have,
according to the notice, "suffered or presently suffer, or have
died from diseases and medical conditions caused by addiction to
cigarettes that contained nicotine.  The disease or medical
condition must have been diagnosed or first manifested itself on
or before November 21, 1996."

Because hundreds of law firms will be promoting their services
in this area, choosing counsel may be a daunting task for some
tobacco victims.

Registration forms are being posted at
http://www.EngleTrustFund.com/and mailed to members of the  
class on April 25, 2008.

Registration forms must be filed no later than midnight on
June 16, 2008.

                        Case Background

Trial began in July 1998 in "Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co.," a case filed in May 1994, and pending with the Circuit
Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, in which a class consisting
of Florida residents, or their survivors, alleges diseases or
medical conditions caused by their alleged "addiction" to
cigarettes.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking actual
damages and punitive damages in excess of $100 billion each and
the creation of a medical fund to compensate individuals for
future health-care costs.  

                   $145 Billion Damages Award

On July 7, 1999, the jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the
other cigarette-manufacturer defendants in the initial phase,
which included common issues related to certain elements of
liability, general causation and a potential award of, or
entitlement to, punitive damages.

The second phase of the trial, which consisted of the claims of
three of the named class representatives, began on November 1,
1999.  On April 7, 2000, the jury returned a verdict against all
the defendants. It awarded plaintiff Mary Farnan $2.85 million,
the estate of plaintiff Angie Della Vecchia $4.023 million and
plaintiff Frank Amodeo $5.831 million.

The trial court also ordered the jury in the second phase of the
trial to determine punitive damages, if any, on a class-wide
basis.  On July 14, 2000, the jury returned a punitive damages
verdict in favor of the "Florida class" of approximately
$145 billion against all the defendants, with approximately
$36.3 billion and $17.6 billion being assigned to RJR Tobacco
and B&W, respectively.

               Reversal of Trial Court's Judgment

On November 6, 2000, the trial judge denied all post-trial
motions and entered judgment.  In November 2000, RJR Tobacco and
B&W posted appeal bonds in the amount of $100 million each and
initiated the appeals process.  On May 21, 2003, Florida's Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's final
judgment and remanded the case to the Miami-Dade County Circuit
Court with instructions to decertify the class.

                  Florida Supreme Court Review

The class appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court accepted the
case on May 12, 2004.  On July 6, 2006, the court issued its
decision.  The court affirmed the dismissal of the punitive
damages award and decertified the class, on a going-forward
basis.  The court preserved a number of class-wide findings from
Phase I of the trial, including that cigarettes can cause
certain diseases, that nicotine is addictive and that defendants
placed defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes on the
market, and authorized former class members to avail themselves
of those findings under certain conditions in individual
lawsuits, provided they commence those lawsuits within one year
of the date the court's decision becomes final.

The court specified that the class is confined to those Florida
citizen residents who suffered or died from smoking-related
illnesses that "manifested" themselves on or before November 21,
1996 and that were caused by an addiction to cigarettes.  In
addition, the court reinstated the compensatory damages awards
of $2.85 million to Mary Farnan and $4.023 million to Angie
Della Vecchia, but ruled that the claims of Frank Amodeo were
barred by the statute of limitations.

Finally, the court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's
2003 ruling that class counsel's improper statements during
trial required reversal.

                        Rehearing Motion

On August 7, 2006, RJR Tobacco and the other defendants filed a
rehearing motion arguing, among other things, that the findings
from the Engle trial are not sufficiently specific to serve as
the basis for further proceedings and that the Florida Supreme
Court’s decision denied defendants due process.

On the same day, the plaintiffs also filed a rehearing motion
arguing that some smokers who became sick after November 21,
1996, and who are therefore not class members, should
nevertheless have the statute of limitations tolled since they
may have refrained from filing suit earlier in the mistaken
belief that they were Engle class members.

                Supreme Court's Revised Opinion

On December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court withdrew its
July 6, 2006, decision and issued a revised opinion, in which it
set aside the jury's findings of a conspiracy to misrepresent
and clarified that the Engle jury's finding on express warranty
were preserved for use by eligible plaintiffs.

The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion and confirmed that
the class was limited to those individuals who developed alleged
smoking-related illnesses that manifested themselves on or
before November 21, 1996.  The court issued its mandate on
January 11, 2007, which began the one-year period for former
class members to file individual lawsuits.

Afterwards, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court.  On Oct. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court
rejected an appeal against the Florida Supreme Court's ruling.          

Companies named in the lawsuit include Philip Morris USA, a unit
of Altria Group Inc., Brown and Williamson Holdings Inc., a unit
of British American Tobacco PLC, Lorillard Tobacco Co., a unit
of Loews Corp.; and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of
Reynolds American Inc.


TWEEN BRANDS: Amended Complaint Filed in Ohio Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action against Tween Brands, Inc., which suit is
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio.

Since Aug. 24, 2007, three purported class action complaints had
been filed by purported purchasers of the Company's common stock
against the Company and certain of its officers, asserting
claims under the federal securities laws.

To date, all of these actions have been filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  These cases
are:

      1. "June Gruhn v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV
         852),"

      2. "Allison Andrews v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV
         894)," and

      3. "John Sefler v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al (07 CV
         925)."

These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock during various periods beginning
as early as Feb. 21, 2007, and ending on Aug. 21, 2007, and
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and, in one action, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business and prospects during the class period.

These actions also allege that the Company's CEO sold stock
while in possession of adverse non-public information.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the Court appointed the Electrical Works
Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W., as lead plaintiff.  

On March 20, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint naming the Company and certain current and former
officers as defendants, 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.

The suit is "June Gruhn, et al. v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-00852," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Gregory L. Frost presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard Stuart Wayne, Esq. (rswayne@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy - 1
          The Federal Reserve Building
          150 E Fourth Street
          4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants are:

          James A. King, Esq. (jking@porterwright.com)
          Porter Wright Morris & Arthur - 2
          41 S High Street
          Suite 2800
          Columbus, OH 43215-6194
          Phone: 614-227-2000


UNION PACIFIC: Judge Certifies Railroad Victims' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Miller County judge has certified as a class action a lawsuit
alleging that representatives of Union Pacific Railroad Co.
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by deceptively
encouraging train accident victims to quickly settle their
claims, Lynn LaRowe writes for the Texarkana Gazette.

The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 14, 2005, with the Lafayette County
Circuit Court, asserted that Union Pacific intensely trained its
employees to descend on victims or the families of individuals
killed in train accidents, often in their homes or in an
emergency room, to arrange quick settlements.


US DEPT. OF VETERAN AFFAIRS: Sued Over Veterans' Mental Health
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two non-profit groups that work for veterans causes have filed a
class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs as the suicide rate of enlisted soldiers and retired
veterans continues to climb, allheadlinenews.com reports.

According to the report, the groups say that the VA is not doing
enough to address the mental health issues of the U.S. veterans,
especially with regard to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The USA Today quoted the lawyer for the groups, Gordon Erspamer,
Esq., as saying that "the VA has simply not devoted enough
resources.  They don't have enough psychiatrists."

allheadlinenews.com says that the military suicide risk
assessment guidelines list reasons for veterans committing
suicide, including the ending of a marriage or relationship,
loss or a catastrophic event, legal or financial issues and duty
or occupation problems.

In 2006, the report relates, suicide rates were reported to be
the highest in 26 years, at 99 confirmed suicides.  In 2005,
there were 88 suicides.  A military report said that the
majority of attempted and completed suicides happened in Iraq.


WMC MORTGAGE: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against WMC
Mortgage Corp. and WMC-GEMB Mortgage Corp. that was filed with
the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County.

On May 4, 2007, two former salespersons, Charmaine Van Heyn and
Christine Boskovich, filed a class-action complaint against WMC
Mortgage and WMC-GEMB Mortgage on behalf of all California
business development representatives and business development
associates.

The complaint alleges that WMC Mortgage violated various
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code, and the California Business and Professions Code.

In substance, the claims are that:

       -- all the putative class members should have been paid
          overtime;

       -- BDRs were improperly required to pay other employees
          in violation of California wage deduction laws;

       -- the compensation of some members of the putative class
          violated minimum wage laws;

       -- the putative class members did not receive meal and
          rest breaks;

       -- accurate wage statements were not provided; and

       -- not all expenses were reimbursed.

The plaintiffs seek general, liquidated and punitive damages,
and attorney's fees.  

WMC Mortgage has denied the allegations in the complaint; the
parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to GE-WMC
Asset-Backed Pass-Through Trust, Series 2006-1's March 28, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.


WMC MORTGAGE: June, July Hearings Set for NAACP's Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2, 2008 hearing and a July 7, 2008 a schedule/status
conference is scheduled for a purported class action filed by
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
against eleven mortgage lenders, including WMC Mortgage Corp.,
according to GE-WMC Asset-Backed Pass-Through Trust, Series
2006-1'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 was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, alleging that the lenders violated the
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et seq., the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1691, et seq., and the
Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982.  

NAACP has amended the complaint twice and the number of
defendants is now seventeen.  

In the second amended complaint, filed on March 8, 2008, NAACP
bases its claims of discrimination against WMC on assertions,
inter alia, that:

       -- WMC unlawfully "steered" African American consumers to
          less favorable subprime mortgage loans and

       -- WMC marketed to minorities adjustable rate loans with
          low initial rates without evaluating the ability of
          the applicant to pay the subsequent adjusted higher
          rate.

NAACP purports to bring the action as a class action "on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, as well as on
behalf of the General Public and Acting in the Public Interest,"
and seeks declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief, and
attorneys’ fees and costs.

Pursuant to a Stipulated Initial Case Management Order entered
by the Court on March 14, 2008, defendants may move to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint by April 4, 2008, a hearing thereon
is scheduled for June 2, 2008, a schedule/status conference is
scheduled for July 7, 2008, and no discovery is to occur until
after the Conference.


WMC MORTGAGE: Faces Discrimination Suit Over Home Mortgage Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
WMC Mortgage, LLC, is facing a purported class action suit that
was filed with U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, under the caption, "Lopez et al. v. GE Money Bank et
al.," according to GE-WMC Asset-Backed Pass-Through Trust,
Series 2006-1'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 was filed on or about Jan. 25, 2008 by two alleged
"minority borrowers" against GE Money Bank, and WMC Mortgage
Corp. and WMC Mortgage, LLC.

The suit asserts that the defendants' credit pricing policy had
a discriminatory impact on minority applicants for home mortgage
loans, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Seciton
3601, et seq., the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1691, et seq., and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1981, 1982.  

The plaintiffs seek disgorgement of "all disproportionate non-
risk charges imposed on minority borrowers," restitution, actual
and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
including an order enjoining, inter alia, "any non-risk-related
discretionary policy employed by Defendants,' and attorneys'
fees and costs.

As of March 24, 2008, the plaintiffs had not served the
complaint on any of the defendants.

The suit is "Carlos Lopez et al v. GE Money Bank et al., Case
No. 2:08-cv-00479-R-FFM," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L. Real
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Timothy P. Dillon, Esq. (timothy@dillonlaw.net)
          Law Offices of Timothy P. Dillon
          361 Forest Avenue Suite 205
          Laguna Beach, CA 92651
          Phone: 949-376-2800

               - and -

          Gary Klein, Esq. (klein@roddykleinryan.com)
          Roddy Klein and Ryan
          727 Atlantic Avenue 2nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: 617-357-5500
          Fax: 617-357-5030


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Commences Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC has filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Agria Corporation and various
individuals on behalf of purchasers of Agria securities pursuant
or traceable to the Company's November 6, 2007 initial Public
offering.

Agria is a China-based company engaged in the research and
development, production, and sale of upstream agricultural
products.

The complaint alleges Agria and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing false
and misleading statements to the public relating to the IPO and
registration statement.

On November 6, 2007, the Company and its selling shareholder,
Brothers Capital Limited, raised over $282 million by selling
17,150,000 of the Company's securities to investors at a price
of $16.50 per share.

Then on April 7, 2008, after the close of the market, Agria
shocked investors when it announced that its auditors were
unable to begin their audit of the Company's financial
statements for 2007 due to various accounting and payment
issues.  The Company also announced that its COO had resigned.
Further, the Company disclosed for the first time that its Chief
Executive Officer was actively involved in protracted
compensation negotiations with the COO and other key executives.

These executives stood to receive $18 million in cash and
transfer of Company shares (which represented 22% of the
Company).  The Company noted payment of cash and shares to the
COO and other executives "as compensation and incentive for
their past and continuing services in connection with the
proposed transaction will likely result in material compensation
charges to the Company in the period in which the payment is
made."

Upon the release of this news, shares of the Company's
securities declined $3.34 per share, or almost 38 percent, to
close on April 8, 2008, at $5.46 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.  This closing price on April 8, 2008,
represented a cumulative loss of $11.04, or 66.9 percent, of the
value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just months
prior.

For more information, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-697-6484


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

Blackstone, together with its subsidiaries, provides alternative
asset management and financial advisory services worldwide.  The
complaint charges Blackstone and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of First Marblehead Corporation Inc. from August 10,
2006, through April 7, 2008, inclusive.

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

First Marblehead provides services related to private student
loans.  The Education Resources Institute is an organization
that guarantees student loans originated by Marblehead, and
operated out of First Marblehead's office space.

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

     (1) that the Company's portfolio was experiencing
         increasing default rates and was therefore not
         performing as expected;

     (2) that it was unlikely that the Company would complete a
         securitization in the second quarter of fiscal year
         2008;

     (3) that the Company was unable to manage the risk of
         TERI's portfolio and that TERI was unable to guarantee
         FMD related loans;

     (4) the true nature of the Company's role in the management
         of TERI's affairs;

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

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

Then, on April 8, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that TERI had filed for bankruptcy.  The Company
stated that it was analyzing the implications of this filing on
its lenders, investors and borrowers, and stated that it was
working on securing an alternative guarantor (as well as
structural solutions for loan default guarantees) for future
originations.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined
$2.84 per share, or 36.88 percent, to close on April 8, 2008, at
$4.86 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a class  consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased and repurchased auction rate securities
offered for sale by The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and its
principal U.S. broker-dealer, Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(collectively, Goldman Sachs) between March 25, 2003, and
February 13, 2008, inclusive.

On April 18, The New York Times reported that New York Attorney
General Andrew M. Cuomo is investigating how auction rate
securities were marketed to municipalities and public entities,
and his office has subpoenaed 18 banks that underwrote and
brokered auction rate securities, including Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc.

In addition, securities regulators from nine other states have
formed a task force investigating how banks disclosed the risks
of auction failures to investors, and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, working with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, has initiated an inquiry into sales practices in the
auction rate securities industry.

The Complaint charges Goldman Sachs with violations of federal
securities laws.  Among other things, the plaintiff claims that
the defendants' material omissions and dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements concerning auction
rate securities caused those securities to be overvalued and
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Goldman Sachs provides investment banking, securities, and
investment management services to corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals
worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants represented to
investors that auction rate securities (also known as auction
rate preferred stock, variable rate preferred securities, money
market preferred securities, periodic auction rate securities
and auction rate bonds) were equivalent to cash or money market
funds, and highly liquid investments suitable for short-term
investing.

The defendants knew, but failed to disclose to investors,
material facts about auction rate securities.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose:

     (i) that auction rate securities were not cash
         alternatives, but actually were complex, long-term
         financial instruments with 30-year maturity dates or no
         maturity at all;

    (ii) that auction rate securities were only liquid at the
         time of sale because the auction market was
         artificially supported and manipulated by various
         broker-dealers to maintain the appearance of liquidity
         and stability; and

   (iii) that auction rate securities would become illiquid as
         soon as the broker-dealers stopped maintaining the
         auction market.

On February 13, 2008, approximately 87% of all auctions of
auction rate securities failed when all major broker-dealers
refused to continue to support the auctions.  As a result of the
withdrawal of support by all of the major broker-dealers, the
market for auction rate securities collapsed, leaving the
holders of these auction rate securities with no commercially
reasonable means of liquidating the investments the defendants
offered and sold as a suitable alternative to money market funds
and other short-term cash management vehicles.

On April 9, 2008, in a 10-Q filing with the SEC, Goldman Sachs
acknowledged it has received requests for information from
"various governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations
relating to certain auction products . . . and the related
recent failure of such auctions."

The New York Attorney General also is investigating how banks
brokered auction rate securities and how they decided to allow
some auctions to fail in February while supporting others.

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

For more information, contact:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


HARMONY GOLD: Brower Piven Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced with the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of American Depository Receipts and call options
and sellers of put options of Harmony Gold Mining Company
Limited between April 2, 2007, and August 7, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of iStar
Financial Inc. securities pursuant and traceable to the
Company's secondary public offering on or about December 13,
2007.

iStar operates as a finance company focusing on the commercial
real estate industry.  The complaint charges iStar and certain
of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 13,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036


VERTEX PHARMA: Schiffrin Barroway Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated from June 12,
2007, through November 2, 2007, inclusive.

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

Vertex is a biotechnology company committed to the discovery and
development of breakthrough small molecule drugs for serious
diseases.

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

     (1) that its new hepatitis C drug, telaprevir's, (or VX-
         950) results rivaled the findings on a similar Vertex
         drug;

     (2) that patients taking VX-950 only experienced a 6%
         advantage as compared to 16% in the previous study; and

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

On November 2, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
disclosed less than stellar results from a phase of testing
(PROVE 2) on telaprevir. The results came as a surprise to
investors, since the Company failed to indicate the findings of
PROVE 2 during the Class Period, when the results became known.

The Company had touted the results of telaprevir in PROVE 1,
which showed patient improvement at 16% as compared to the
control group.  However, patients in PROVE 2 displayed results
that were only 6% more favorable than those of the control
group, which cast serious doubt on the utility of the drug.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares immediately
declined $2.74 per share, or 8.66 percent, to close on November
2, 2007 at $28.90 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

As the news spread over the weekend, the stock declined even
further, falling $4.82, or 16.68 percent, to close on November
5, 2007 at $24.08.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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


WALGREEN CO: Brower Piven Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Walgreen Co. between
June 25, 2007, and November 29, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036




                            *********

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  * * *