CAR_Public/080423.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, April 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 80
  
                            Headlines

BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Faces Pa. Suit Over Contaminated Heparin
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Holzer & Fistel Files Shareholder Suit in N.Y.
BODISEN BIOTECH: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
BROWN SHOE: Redfield Suit New Trial Request Goes to High Court
CARNIVAL CORP: Consolidation of Fuel Supplement Suits Sought

CARNIVAL CORP: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Alleging Copyright Violations
CUMMINS INC: Faces LA Suit Over Defective Automobile Engines
CVR ENERGY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Oil Spill Lawsuit
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: May 12 is Lead Plaintiff Request Deadline
DJO OPCO: Settles Consolidated Stockholder Litigation in Calif.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Tennessee Merger Suit
ELKHART COUNTY: Court Dismisses 2002 Lawsuit by Jail Inmates
ENERLUME ENERGY: Final Payment in Securities Suit Settlement Out
ERIE LIFE: Agrees to Settle Pa. Securities Suit for $5.2 Million
ERIE LIFE: "Purchase" Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. Dismissed

FORCE PROTECTION: May 9 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN: Faces Copyright Infringement Suit in Colorado
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Another Suit Over Bomb-Range Homes
INTERCOSMA LTD: $1.01MM Shoe Polish Suit in Tel Aviv Withdrawn
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: April 24 Mediation Set for Calif. Lawsuit

INVESTMENT BANKS: Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Lawsuit
MGA INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Dismiss Litigation Over MRI Readings
MICROSOFT: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Windows Vista Lawsuit
PALL CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Consolidation of Securities Lawsuits
VERTEX PHARMA: May 12 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline

VS HOLDINGS: Settles Multiple Suits Over Multivitamins for Women
WAL-MART: Participant Files Lawsuit Over Excessive 401(k) Fee
WELLS FARGO BANK: Faces LA Suit Over Over Excess Fees Collection
YANKEE HOLDING: Settles Calif. Labor-Related Suit for $950,000


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CALAMOS GLOBAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Schatz Nobel Files Ma. Securities Suit
HARMONY GOLD: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in NY
WALGREEN CO: Brualdi Firm Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Faces Pa. Suit Over Contaminated Heparin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baxter Healthcare Corp., as well as Scientific Protein
Laboratories and American Capital Strategies, are facing a
liability class-action complaint filed on April 18, 2008, with
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
claiming that the companies sold contaminated Heparin, a blood
thinner, they obtained from China, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Heparin, a blood thinner given to prevent blood clots, is
produced from an enzyme in the mucous lining of pig intestines.

Named plaintiff John P. DiSciullo brings this class action on
behalf of all persons who have used or been administered the
prescription drug called Heparin.

The complaint alleges Baxter Healthcare negligently failed to
screen its manufacturing process when it developed, formulated,
manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold its Heparin
contaminated with up to 20% of a counterfeit ingredient designed
to mimic Heparin.  The conterfeit ingredient that spiked
Baxter's Heparin was over sulfated chondroitin sulfate, a
manmade chemical compound derived from animal cartilage that is
often
used in dietary supplements.

Baxter Healthcare represented to patients, their physicians
and others that its Heparin was safe and effective.

The olaintiff demands judgment against the defendants as
follows:

     -- awarding the plaintiff compensatory damages against the
        defendants in an amount sufficient to fairly and
        completely compensate the plaintiff for all damages;

     -- awarding the plaintiff treble damages against the
        defendants so to fairly and completely compensate the
        plaintiff for all damages, and to deter similar wrongful
        conduct in the future;

     -- awarding the plaintiff punitive damages against the
        defendants in an amount sufficient to punish the
        defendant for its wrongful conduct and to deter similar
        wrongful conduct in the future;

     -- awarding the plaintiff costs and disbursements, costs of
        investigations, attorneys' fees and all such other
        relief available under New Jersey law;

     -- awarding that the costs of this action be taxed to
        the defendants; and

     -- awarding such other and further relief as the court may
        deem just and proper.

The suit is "John P. DiSciullo et al. v. Baxter Healthcare
Corporation, et al. Case No. Case 2:05-mc-02025," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the U.S. District of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John C. Evans, Esq.
          Megan L. Faust, Esq.
          Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, P.C.
          The 26th Floor Koppers Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 642-2300


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Holzer & Fistel Files Shareholder Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against The Blackstone Group L.P. and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Blackstone
common stock pursuant to and traceable to the Company's initial
public offering on or about June 25, 2007.

The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of
1933 by failing to disclose certain information in its
Registration Statement which was filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with its IPO.

For more information, contact:

          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, Georgia 30338
          Phone: (770) 392-0090
          Fax: (770) 392-0029
          Toll-Free: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com

    
BODISEN BIOTECH: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bodisen Biotech, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's April 15, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight
purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and certain of
its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.

The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations
about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal
controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York
Global Group.

The eight actions are:

      1. "Stephanie Tabor v. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13220 (filed November 2006),"
      
      2. "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13254 (filed November 2006),"

      3. "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13454 (filed November 2006),"

      4. "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         13567 (filed November 2006),"

      5. "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13739 (filed December 2006),"

      6. "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006),"

      7. "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         15179 (filed December 2006)," and

      8. "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No.
         06-15399 (filed December 2006)."

The court has consolidated each of the actions into a single
proceeding.  All the defendants, including the Company, have
filed motions to dismiss the actions.  

The parties are currently in the process of briefing the
dismissal issues.  No hearing has been set yet in connection
with these motions.

The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
         The Rosen Law Firm, PA
         Phone: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com    

Representing the defendants is:
       
         Judd Burstein, Esq. (jburstein@burlaw.com)
         Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P.
         1790 Broadway
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 974-2400
         Fax: 212-974-2944


BROWN SHOE: Redfield Suit New Trial Request Goes to High Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class action filed against Brown Shoe Co.,
Inc., in connection with the company's operations at its
Redfield, Colorado site, have filed a petition with the Supreme
Court of Colorado seeking review of the Court of Appeal's
decision denying them a new trial.

The suit was filed in March 2000 alleging claims for trespass,
nuisance, strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence, and
exemplary damages arising from the alleged release of solvents
contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas
adjacent to and near the site.

In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict
finding the company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class
plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages.

The Company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial
interest on the award and estimated costs related to sanctions
imposed by the court related to a pretrial discovery dispute
between the parties.  The total pretax charge recorded for these
matters in 2003 was $3.1 million.  

The Company recorded an additional $0.6 million in expense in
2004, related to pretrial interest, to reflect the trial court's
ruling extending the time period for which prejudgment interest
applied.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the December 2003 jury verdict
and in August 2007, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its
decision of the appeal.  

The Court rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain a new trial
by affirming the trial court judgment.  It also denied a cross-
appeal by the Company seeking a reversal of a portion of the
pretrial interest awarded to the plaintiffs.  

The Court also reversed the trial court's award of costs to the
Company, and remanded the case to the trial court for a
determination of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their costs related to the trial.

The plaintiffs have filed a petition with the Supreme Court of
Colorado seeking review of the Court of Appeal's decision
denying them a new trial.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

Brown Shoe Co., Inc. -- http://www.brownshoe.com/-- operates in   
the footwear industry.  The Company's activities include the
operation of retail shoe stores, and the sourcing and marketing
of footwear for women, men and children.  It operates in two
segments: Retail Operations and Wholesale Operations.


CARNIVAL CORP: Consolidation of Fuel Supplement Suits Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in several putative class actions filed with the
federal court against Carnival Corp. and other unaffiliated
cruise lines and a trade association are seeking for the
consolidation of their cases.

In February and March 2008, five class action lawsuits were
against the defendants on behalf of individuals affected by the
implementation of a fuel supplement.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal antitrust laws and
state deceptive and unfair trade practices in connection with
the implementation of the fuel supplement.  

The plaintiffs have moved to consolidate all of the actions,
according to the company's March 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 29, 2008.

Carnival Corp. -- http://www.carnivalcorp.com/-- is a cruise  
company having a portfolio of cruise brands and is a provider of
cruises to all vacation destinations.  The cruise brands of the
Company includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Princess Cruises, Costa
Cruises, Holland America Line, P&O Cruises, Cunard Line, AIDA
Cruises, P&O Cruises Australia, Ocean Village, Ibero Cruises and
The Yachts of Seabourn.  In addition to the cruise operations,
the Company owns Holland America Tours and Princess Tours.


CARNIVAL CORP: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Alleging Copyright Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corp. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, and other
unaffiliated cruise lines face a purported class action in New
York alleging copyright violations.

In January 2006, a lawsuit was filed against Carnival Corp. on
behalf of a purported class of owners of intellectual property
rights to musical plays and other works performed in the U.S.
The plaintiffs claim infringement of copyrights to Broadway, off
Broadway and other plays.

The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of alleged
profits, and an injunction against future infringement,
according to the company's March 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 29, 2008.

Carnival Corp. -- http://www.carnivalcorp.com/-- is a cruise  
company having a portfolio of cruise brands and is a provider of
cruises to all vacation destinations.  The cruise brands of the
Company includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Princess Cruises, Costa
Cruises, Holland America Line, P&O Cruises, Cunard Line, AIDA
Cruises, P&O Cruises Australia, Ocean Village, Ibero Cruises and
The Yachts of Seabourn.  In addition to the cruise operations,
the Company owns Holland America Tours and Princess Tours.


CUMMINS INC: Faces LA Suit Over Defective Automobile Engines
------------------------------------------------------------
Cummins Inc., of Indiana -- formerly known as Cummins Engine
Company, Inc. -- is facing a class-action complaint filed on
April 17, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana accusing it of making defective automobile
engines whose engine blocks crack, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Howard Pardue of Pardue's Auto Repair, Inc.,
alleges that Cummins knew of the design, manufacture, or
mechanical flaws, defects and conditions of the subject engines,
yet sought to conceal same in order to gain an economic
advantage over plaintiff and other putative class members.

According to the complaint, the defect in the subject engines
existed when the engines left the control of Cummins.  The
defect was not closely disclosed by Cummins to putative class,
although it knew of the defect at the time that the engines left
its control.  The defect, which was not apparent on ordinary
inspection, was concealed by Cummins from the members of the
putative class.

Cummins has been given multiple opportunities to repair the
defect in the subject engines, but has refused to do so, the
complaint states.  Cummins is well aware of the defect, yet
continues to deny that such defect exists.

Mr. Pardue brings the action on behalf of all purchasers or
owners of trucks which include as original equipment a Cummins
diesel of the type contained in the Dodge truck he purchased.

Mr. Pardue asks the court:

     -- for the matter to be certified as a class action, that
        he be confirmed as the representative of the putative
        class, and that his counsel be appointed as class
        counsel;

     -- for all damages described in the complaint or which may
        be discovered during the course of this litigation;

     -- for attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest; and

     -- for all other general and equitable relief.

The suit is "Howard Pardue et al. v. Cummins, Inc. et al, Case
No. 08-1677," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Michael V. Clegg, Esq.
          8714 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
          Phone: (225) 923-1055
          Fax: (225) 923-0955


CVR ENERGY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Oil Spill Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Montgomery County, Kansas declined to
certify a class in a lawsuit over an oil spill in Coffeyville,
Kansas, which had named CVR Energy, Inc., as a defendant.

Crude oil was discharged from the Company's refinery on July 1,
2007, due to the short amount of time available to shut down and
secure the refinery in preparation for the flood that occurred
on June 30, 2007.  More than 71,000 gallons of crude oil spilled
from the refinery, far more than the 42,000 gallons that was
initially reported.  Due to widespread flooding that was
occurring at the time of the oil spill, the crude oil reached
and damaged a very large area.

As a result of the crude oil discharge, two putative class
actions (one federal and one state) were filed seeking
unspecified damages with class certification under applicable
law for all residents, domiciliaries and property owners at
Coffeyville, Kansas, who were affected by the oil release.  The
federal suit was dismissed in 2007.

The state suit, captioned, "Western Plains Alliance, LLC and
Western Plains Operations, LLC v. Coffeyville Resources Refining
& Marketing, LLC, Case No. 07CV99I," was filed with the District
Court of Montgomery County, Kansas.  

This suit sought class certification under applicable law.  The
proposed class would have consisted of all persons and entities
who own or have owned real property within the "contaminated
area," and all businesses and other entities located within the
"contaminated area."

The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of class
certification on Oct. 24 and 25, 2007, and ruled against class
certification, leaving only the original two plaintiffs,
according to the company's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

CVR Energy, Inc. -- http://www.cvrenergy.com/-- is an  
independent refiner and marketer of transportation fuels and,
through a limited partnership, a producer of ammonia and urea
ammonia nitrate.  Its petroleum business includes a 113,500
barrel per day complex full coking sour crude refinery in
Coffeyville, Kansas.  In addition, its supporting businesses
include a crude oil gathering system serving central Kansas,
northern Oklahoma and southwest Nebraska; storage, and terminal
facilities for asphalt and refined fuels in Phillipsburg,
Kansas, and a rack marketing division supplying product through
tanker trucks directly to customers located in geographic
proximity to Coffeyville and Phillipsburg and to customers at
throughput terminals on Magellan Midstream Partners L.P.'s
refined products distribution systems.  Its refinery is situated
approximately 100 miles from Cushing, Oklahoma.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: May 12 is Lead Plaintiff Request Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that May 12, 2008, is
the deadline for investors to move to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Darden Restaurants Inc.
(NYSE: DRI) between June 19, 2007, and December 18, 2007,
inclusive.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Darden Restaurants' business, financial
performance and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Darden Restaurants stock.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


DJO OPCO: Settles Consolidated Stockholder Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Opco Holdings, Inc. settled a consolidated stockholder
litigation that was filed with the California Superior Court, in
the County of San Diego.

On Aug. 31, 2007, and Sept. 6, 2007, two purported shareholder
class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of DJO Opco's public
stockholders, challenging DJO Opco's proposed merger with ReAble
Therapeutics, Inc.  The two original complaints named DJO Opco,
ReAble and the current members of DJO Opco's board of directors
as defendants.  One of the complaints also named Blackstone
Capital Partners V L.P. as a defendant.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith
and loyalty by approving the proposed merger with an allegedly
inadequate price, without adequately informing themselves of DJO
Opco's highest transactional value, and without adequately
marketing DJO Opco to other potential buyers.

The complaints also alleged that the individual defendants and
DJO Opco failed to make full and adequate disclosures in the
preliminary proxy statement regarding the proposed merger.

The complaints pray for, among other things, class
certification, declaratory relief, an injunction of the proposed
merger or a rescission order, corrective disclosures to the
proxy statement, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees
and other costs; and such other relief as the court may find
just and proper.

The court consolidated the two lawsuits for all purposes on
Sept. 21, 2007.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding, pursuant to which the parties agreed to settle
the consolidated action subject to court approval.

The MOU provides for dismissal of the consolidated action with
prejudice upon approval of a stipulation by the court.  

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the defendants acknowledged
that the consolidated action resulted in a decision to provide
additional information to DJO Opco's shareholders in the
definitive proxy statement concerning the proposed merger and to
modify certain terms in the merger agreement and to pay certain
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the plaintiffs.

The parties have signed a settlement agreement and will seek
court approval, according to DJO Finance LLC's March 28, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

    
DOLLAR GENERAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Tennessee Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in consolidated class action
against Dollar General Corp. over its agreement and plan of
merger with Buck Holdings L.P. and Buck Acquisition Corp.

Initially, seven purported class actions were filed.  The suits
alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the
proposed sale of the company to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.,
L.P., the parent of Buck Holdings and Buck Acquisition.  

Each of the complaints alleged, among other things, that Dollar
General's directors engaged in "self-dealing" by agreeing to
recommend the transaction to the shareholders of Dollar General
and that the consideration available to Dollar General
shareholders in the proposed transaction is unfairly low.

At the plaintiffs' request, each of these cases was transferred
to the Sixth Circuit Court for Davidson County, Twentieth
Judicial District, at Nashville, Tenn.  Then by order dated
April 26, 2007, the seven lawsuits were consolidated in the
court under the caption, "In re: Dollar General," Case No.
07MD-1.

On June 13, 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a
temporary injunction to block the shareholder vote that was then
held on June 21, 2007.  

On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint
making claims substantially similar to the original, 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. 1, 2008.

Dollar General Corp. -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a  
discount retailer of general merchandise at everyday low prices.
Through its stores, the Company offers a focused assortment of
basic consumable merchandise, including health and beauty aids,
packaged food and refrigerated products, home cleaning supplies,
housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic clothing and
domestics.  Dollar General stores serve primarily low-, middle-
and fixed-income families.  


ELKHART COUNTY: Court Dismisses 2002 Lawsuit by Jail Inmates
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit that was brought against Elkhart County
in May 2002 by inmates who claimed that the county jail needs to
make improvements to its conditions, was dismissed on April 4,
2008, Lawyers and Settlements reports.

The suit, filed by inmate Jay Dean, who was represented by the
American Civil Liberties Union, alleged that the inmates' civil
rights were being violated by overcrowding and lack of medical
care, food and recreation at the Elkhart County Jail.

In a recent development, federal judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
dismissed the suit, stating that the case stands resolved as the
county opened a new, larger $97.3-million facility in November
2007.  

According to Lawyers and Settlements, records show that the
parties reached a settlement in April 2003, under which the suit
would be dismissed once a new jail was built.  Judge Miller
inherited the lawsuit and stated that together with other
elected officials and with input from the community, the county
designed and built a facility, which will meet the housing needs
and allow the county to offer education and rehabilitation to
people who need it most.


ENERLUME ENERGY: Final Payment in Securities Suit Settlement Out
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnerLume Energy Management Corp. said that on April 18, 2008,
the final payment to satisfy the outstanding obligation was made
for the settlement of the consolidated federal securities class
action that arose out of allegations stemming from a press
release issued by the Company back in 2005.

The consolidated federal securities class action arose out of
allegations stemming from a press release issued by EnerLume
Energy on July 12, 2005.

As previously described in the Company's current report on Form
8-K filed on February 1, 2008, and in connection with the
settlement, the Company became obligated under an unsecured term
note to the Class Plaintiffs for $550,000.

"The final payment of $550,000 plus interest was made on
April 18, 2008," said David J. Murphy, President and CEO of
EnerLume Energy Management Corp.  "We are delighted that we can
now put this matter behind us."

On January 28, 2008, the Honorable Vanessa L. Bryant of the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted final approval to the settlement of the purported
securities fraud and derivative lawsuits against EnerLume Energy
Management Corp., formerly Host America Corp (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 4, 2008).

The Company has not settled two other cases pending in state
court concerning the July 2005 press release.  The Company and
the other EnerLume defendants have steadfastly maintained that
the claims raised in the litigation are without merit, and have
vigorously contested those claims.  As part of the settlement,
the settling defendants continue to deny any liability or
wrongdoing.

                   Securities Fraud Litigation

In August 2005 and September 2005, 12 putative class action
complaints were filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company,
Geoffrey W. Ramsey, and David J. Murphy.  

One or more of the complaints also named Gilbert Rossomando,
Peter Sarmanian,Roger D. Lockhart and EnergyNsync, Inc.  

On Sept. 21, 2005, as amended on Sept. 26, 2005, the Court
issued a Consolidation and Scheduling Order, consolidating the
actions under the caption, "In re Host America Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-cv-1250 (VLB)."

On Feb. 12, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Securities Laws,
which named as defendants Host, Geoffrey W. Ramsey, David J.
Murphy, Peter Sarmanian and Roger D. Lockhart, and purported to
be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of the Company from July 12, 2005 to Sept. 1,
2005.

In general, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company's July 12,
2005 press release contained materially false and misleading
statements regarding Host's commercial relationship with Wal-
Mart.

The complaint alleged that the statements harmed the purported
class by artificially inflating the price of Host's securities
through close of trading on July 22, 2005, and that certain
defendants personally benefited from the inflated price by
selling stock during the alleged class period.  

The Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages based on alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
under Section 20A.  

On March 27, 2007, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Class Action.

                       Derivative Actions

The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in two
shareholder derivative actions filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut.  

The captions of those actions were:

       -- "Michael Freede v. Geoffrey Ramsey, et al., Civil
          Action No. 05-01326 (JBA)" (filed Aug. 19, 2005); and

       -- "Joella W. Cheek v. Geoffrey Ramsey, et al., Civil
          Action No. 05-01326 (JBA)" (filed Sept. 13, 2005).

The plaintiffs did not make a pre-suit demand on the Board of
Directors.  By order dated Oct. 20, 2005, the court consolidated
the derivative actions, and administratively consolidated that
action with the Class Action under the caption, "In re Host
America Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-cv-1250
(VLB)."

On June 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Amended
Derivative Complaint, which named as defendants Geoffrey Ramsey,
David Murphy, Anne Ramsey, Peter Sarmanian, Gilbert Rossomando,
Roger Lockhart,  Host directors C. Michael Horton, Nicholas M.
Troiano, Patrick J. Healy, and John D'Antona, and Host itself as
a nominal defendant.

The Verified Amended Derivative Complaint was based on
substantially the same allegations as the Class Action
Consolidated Complaint.  

It asserted causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross
negligence, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and insider trading.  The complaint
sought an unspecified amount of damages and other relief
purportedly on behalf of Host.  On March 27, 2007, all
defendants filed motions to dismiss the Federal Derivative
Action.

                           Settlement
     
On May 22 and 23, 2007, the Company and its past and present
directors and officers named as defendants in the Class and
Derivative Actions, and the plaintiffs filed agreements to
settle and fully resolve all claims against the Host America
defendants in both actions.  

The Class Action settlement calls for a gross payment of
US$2.45 million, of which US$1.7 million will be funded by
defendants' insurer, to the class in exchange for a release of
all claims against the Host America defendants based on the
July 12, 2005 press release.  

Under the Derivative Action settlement, the Company has agreed
to adopt certain therapeutic corporate governance policies and
to payment of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs of
US$140,000.

On Oct. 18 and 19, 2007, the District Court granted preliminary
approval of the Class and Derivative settlements.  The Court has
scheduled fairness hearings on the settlements for Jan. 28,
2008.  

The suit is "In Re: Host America Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01250," filed with the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet
Bond Arterton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

          Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
          830 Third Avenue 10th Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212.317.2300

          Sarraf Gentile LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005
          New York, NY, 10018
          Phone: 212.868.3610
          Fax: 212.918.7967

          Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
          330 Main Street
          Hartford, CT, 06106
          Phone: 800.797.5499
          Fax: 860.493.6290
          e-mail: sn06106@AOL.com

          Scott & Scott LLC
          P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT, 06415
          Phone: 860.537.5537
          Fax: 860.537.4432
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 877.891.9880
          e-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com

               - and -

          Wofsey Rosen Kweskin & Kuriansky LLP
          600 Summer Street
          Stamford, CT, 06901-1490
          Phone: (203) 327-2300
          Fax: (203) 967-9273
          e-mail: info@wrkk.com


ERIE LIFE: Agrees to Settle Pa. Securities Suit for $5.2 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Insurance Exchange has agreed to pay $5.2 million to settle
the securities class action suit filed against Erie Insurance
Exchange, Erie Indemnity and Erie Family Life, Lisa Thompson of
GoErie.com reports.

The suit, filed in May 2006 by lead plaintiffs Lin Lan of
California, and J. William Morris  of Florida, also named as
defendants the directors of Erie Family Life, all of whom were
also directors for Erie Indemnity or Erie Insurance Exchange, or
both, according to court records.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by using unfair procedures to arrive at an
unfair and inadequate price of $32 per share.  The defendants
then failed to provide minority shareholders with enough
information to make an informed decision about the price offered
for their stock, the plaintiffs said.

The plaintiffs said the majority shareholders had fiduciary
duties to the minority shareholders, especially when they sought
to take Erie Family Life private.

According to William Weinstein, Esq., of New York City -- one of
the plaintiffs' lawyers -- under the recent settlement, former
Erie Family Life minority shareholders are expected to receive
about $1.824 per share for Erie Family Life stock they owned
May 25, 2006.  The amount was $2.45 per share prior to the
removal of money for attorneys' fees.

Those who are eligible to receive a portion of the settlement
would not have to file any claim.  The proceeds will be
forwarded to them, according to court records.

Mr. Weinstein predicted that disbursement of the settlement
proceeds should begin after April 28, the day the settlement is
to be finalized.

According to records in U.S. District Court in Erie, the rest of
the settlement will be paid out as follows:

     -- About 25% of the settlement, $1.3 million, will go
        toward legal fees and $66,080 toward expenses.

     -- Lin Lan and J. William Morris, shareholders who
        initiated the lawsuit, will receive incentive awards of
        $5,000 and $2,000 respectively.

     -- Frank Johnson, a California lawyer who represented an
        Erie woman in a related shareholder lawsuit, will
        receive $39,257 in attorney's fees.

More than 2 million shares are at issue.  The number of former
shareholders who would receive money as a result of the
settlement was not known.  Weinstein has estimated it at several
thousand.

"We're very pleased with the judge's decision.  We are very
pleased we have been able to achieve what we consider to be an
excellent result for all the shareholders of Erie Family Life,"
Mr. Weinstein said.

The settlement was first proposed in May 2007.  U.S. District
Judge Sean J. McLaughlin then held a fairness hearing in July,
at which affected shareholders could request exclusion from the
settlement.

In March, Judge McLaughlin approved the final settlement.

The settlement spared both parties years of litigation and the
plaintiffs the risk of losing, Mr. Weinstein has said.

With the settlement, the defendants admit no wrongdoing,
according to court records.

"We are pleased that both the Lan and Purchase lawsuits have
been dismissed and that the court approved an agreed-upon
settlement of an additional $2.45 per share," said Mark
Dombrowski, Erie Insurance spokesman.


ERIE LIFE: "Purchase" Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action captioned "Purchase v. Ludrof et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00130-SJM," filed with the U.S. District Court for  
the Western District of Pennsylvania, had been dismissed, Lisa
Thompson of GoErie.com, reports.

In June 2006, The Johnson Law Firm commenced a securities fraud
class action suit with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf shareholder Naomi Purchase
and of those persons and entities who owned the securities of
Erie Family Life Insurance Co. between March 21, 2004, and
March 24, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2006).

The lawsuit claimed that Erie Indemnity Co., Erie Insurance
Exchange and EFL's board of directors "freeze[d] out" EFL's
minority shareholders at an unreasonably low price.  Defendants
allegedly artificially depressed the price of EFL shares to as
low as $26.50 per share even though they had traded at above $32
per share for nearly two years.  

Defendants then announced that a "third-party" purchaser would  
pay the minority shareholders $32 for their shares.  The  
purchaser was allegedly not a "third party" at all, but rather a  
shell entity owned and controlled by Erie Indemnity and Erie  
Exchange.  

The complaint alleged that EFL and its directors, along with  
Erie Indemnity and Erie Exchange, violated Section 14(e) of the  
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and  
misleading tender offer documents in which they misrepresented  
or failed to disclose the true facts regarding the proposed  
tender offer.

According to court records, the plaintiffs, who held 60,156
shares of Erie Family Life stock, did not opt out of the
settlement.  Her case has been dismissed.


FORCE PROTECTION: May 9 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith said that the deadline for
investors to apply for lead plaintiff appointment is on May 9,
2008.  This is in connection with the securities class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Force Protection, Inc.
(Force Protection) (Nasdaq: FRPT) between August 14, 2006, and
February 29, 2008, inclusive.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending with the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Force Protection's business, financial
performance and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Force Protection stock.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


HOUGHTON MIFFLIN: Faces Copyright Infringement Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Heilman, owner of a stock photo agency with more than 100
member photographers, filed a class action complaint with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado accusing
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. of using his clients'
images in more texts and reference books than permitted by
contracts, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended,
17 USC Section 101, et seq. for damages and injunctive relief
for copyright infringement.

Mr. Hellman brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
photographs, paintings, illustrations, or writing were copied,
displayed, distributed, and sold throughout the United States
and around the world beyond license limits without consent of or
payment to the copyright for such use.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant copied, displayed, distributed,
         and sold throughout the United States and around
         the world photographs, paintings, illustrations, or
         writings without consent of the copyright holders and
         without payment to them for such use;

     (b) whether such unauthorized use by the defendant
         constitutes copyright infringement;

     (c) whether the defendant acted willfully with respect to
         the alleged acts complained of;

     (d) whether the plaintiffs have sustained damages, and, if
         so, the proper measure of such damages; and

     (e) whether injunctive relief is appropriate.

The plaintiff requests for the following relief:

     -- for certification of the class, pursuant to Fed. R. civ.
        P. 23;

     -- for an award of statutory damages, or actual damages and
        defendant's profits attributable to the infringements,
        pursuant to 17 USC Section 101 et seq. and all relief
        available under foreign copyright laws;

     -- for an injunction and declaratory relief prohibiting
        defendant from the continued infringements of the
        copyrights of plaintiff and members of the class and
        other equitable relief to redress any continuing
        violations of the copyright Act of 1976, as amended, 17
        USC Section 101 et seq., and foreign copyright laws;

     -- for interest, costs and attorney fees; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court deems         
        just and proper.

The suit is "Grant Heilman et al. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maurice Harmon, Esq. (maurice@harmonseidman.com)
          Harmon & Seidman LLC
          The Pennsville School
          533 Walnut Drive
          Northampton, PA 18067
          Phone: (610) 262-9288


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Another Suit Over Bomb-Range Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
A third class-action lawsuit has been filed in connection with
homes built on and near a former Army bombing range in southeast
Orlando, The Orlando Sentinel reports.

Like the others, the latest suit, filed against Hovnanian
Enterprises with the 9th Judicial Circuit Court in Orlando by a
South Florida law firm on behalf of Orlando resident Thomas
Beard, alleges fraud and other actions that have harmed the
property owners.

The latest suit claims that Hovnanian, as well as developing
companies Terrabrook Vista Lakes LLC and Newland Communities LLC
knew there might be unexploded bombs, bomb debris and
contaminated dirt but did not tell their homebuyers.

Mr. Beard's complaint, according to Orlando Sentinel, parallels
other class-action suits filed in recent months representing
more than 400 homeowners living on and near the former 12,483-
acre Pinecastle Jeep Range off Lee Vista Boulevard.

The first class-action suit was filed by the Winter Park firm
Overchuck, Byron & Overchuck while the second was filed by the
Dallas firm Weiner, Glass & Reed.  They follow similar legal
arguments as the latest suit.

Mr. Beard's Boca Raton attorneys, David J. George, Esq., and
Bobby Robbins, Esq., allege that the builder and developers
committed fraud by not telling their customers they were buying
homes on tainted land.

"This [Beard's suit] is going to involve millions of dollars,
tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of residents," Mr.
George told Orlando Sentinel.  He also claims that Mr. Beard's
home, which records show he bought in 2006 for $250,100, is
worth only a fraction of that because of the bombing range.

Orlando Sentinel recounts that since July, when it was announced
that there were unexploded World War II-era munitions found on
some ranch property near Odyssey Middle School, more than 130
live bombs and rockets as well as 14 tons of bomb debris have
been recovered by the Army Corps of Engineers.  The Corps also
found mercury, nitroglycerin and other harmful chemicals in some
soil samples taken at the former range.  A full investigation
and cleanup of the range are expected to cost millions of
dollars and take years to complete.

The lawsuit also claims that Mr. Beard and an unspecified number
of other property owners were harmed by a lack of disclosure and
that they have watched their property values plummet.

Mr. George said residents want the builders or developers to buy
back their homes or pay them for their lost home values and
other damages.

According to Orlando Sentinel, representatives for Hovnanian,
which based in Red Bank, N.J., and Terrabrook and Newland, based
in San Diego, would not comment on the pending litigation.

The report cites Hovnanian's Web site as saying that the builder
is building homes in 19 states, including 15 Florida
communities, and that its national 2006 revenues were
$6.1 billion.


INTERCOSMA LTD: $1.01MM Shoe Polish Suit in Tel Aviv Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tel Aviv District Court Judge Anat Baron rejected the
application for a class action against Intercosma Ltd. --
distributors and importers of Kiwi shoe polish -- after claimant
Shimon Azoulay concluded that the whole thing had been based on
a factual error, Hila Raz of the Haaretz Daily reports.

According to the ILS1.01-million claim, the quantity of shoe
polish in each package had been reduced without the consumer's
knowledge.

The plaintiffs, Intercosma, alleged that there had been no
change in the volume, shape or weight of the shoe polish
containers.

At Mr. Azoulay's request, the application for a class action has
been withdrawn.

Headquartered in Tel Aviv, Intercosma Ltd. is a holding company
for several subsidiaries active in the cosmetics and skincare
industry, including Nurit Novel Cosmetics Ltd., Etron
Developments 1985 Ltd., and A.M.S Cosmetics among others.

Its product lines cover a number of market segments, from
cosmetics, toiletries and hair care, makeup and perfumes, to sun
care, deodorants, depilatories and men's skincare.  In addition
to its importing and distributing activities, the Company is
engaged in research and development and manufactures its own
product ranges that are distributed to over 235 countries,
notably its Mineral Care range, which is based on Dead Sea
minerals, and Soft Touch.

The group acts as agents for brands such as Dior, Gucci, Rochas,
Escada, Wella, Adidas and Kiwi Sara Lee, to distribute the
products on the local market.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: April 24 Mediation Set for Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 24, 2008 mediation session was scheduled for a
securities fraud class action suit filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against Interlink
Electronics, Inc.

The suit, filed on Nov. 15, 2005, under the caption, "Roger
Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," was brought against the company and two of
its current and former officers.  

The suit alleges that between April 24, 2003, and Nov. 1, 2005,
the company and two of its current and former officers made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the company's results of operations and
financial condition.  

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

On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs.  On
Jan. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint also includes claims under the Securities
Act and the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages and legal
expenses.

On Feb. 22, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 26, 2007, the Court issued an order
granting the defendants' motion in part and denied it in part.
The Court gave the plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation requesting
that the Court extend the deadline for the filing of an amended
complaint by 60 days so that the parties could pursue settlement
discussions.  On Oct. 12, 2007, the Court signed the parties'
stipulation.

Mediation of the case has been scheduled for April 24, 2008,
according to the company's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Percy Anderson presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         e-mail: service@ssbla.com

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

              - and

         Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
         Roy L. Jacobs and Associates
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Phone: 212-867-1156

Representing the defendants is:

         Daniel S. Floyd, Esq. (dfloyd@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000


INVESTMENT BANKS: Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP commenced an
antitrust class action concerning municipal derivatives against
various investment banks including:

     -- Bank of America, N.A.,
     -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
     -- Piper Jaffray & Co.,
     -- UBS AG, and
     -- Wachovia Bank N.A.

A municipal derivative is one of a variety of tax exempt
vehicles that government entities use to invest the proceeds of
bond offerings in their possession.  Municipal derivatives are
generally grouped into two categories pertaining to either:

     (i) the investment of bond proceeds or
    (ii) the bond's underlying interest rate obligation.

The class action complaint alleges that the Defendants rigged
bids in order to force class members to receive lower interest
rates on contracts than they would have in a competitive market.
Any state, local or municipal government entity, independent
government agency or private entity that purchased by
competitive bidding or auction municipal derivatives directly
from a Defendant, or through a broker, at any time from Jan. 1,
1992, through the present in the United States and its
territories, is a class member and may have a claim for damages.

For more information, contact:

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq. (mbuchman@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: (888) 476.6529
                 (888) 4.POMLAW


MGA INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Dismiss Litigation Over MRI Readings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action styled, "MD
Readers, Inc. (a/a/o Jose Asensi) and all others similarly
situated v. MGA Insurance Company, Inc.," voluntarily dismissed
the case, which named MGA Insurance, a unit of GAINSCO, Inc., as
a defendant.

The Complaint, as amended, alleged that MGA failed to pay the
named Plaintiff the appropriate amounts as reimbursement for MRI
reading, and that MGA should be liable to all similarly situated
MRI providers.

MGA disagreed with the allegations and filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, Summary Judgment.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case,
without prejudice, 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.

GAINSCO, Inc. -- http://www.gainsco.com/-- is engaged in the  
property and casualty insurance business, focusing on the
nonstandard personal auto market.  The Company writes minimum
and slightly higher coverage limits, nonstandard auto insurance
in Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas
and California.  The Company's insurance operations, which
include its ongoing nonstandard personal auto insurance and the
runoff of its commercial lines business, are conducted through
two insurance companies: General Agents Insurance Company of  
America, Inc. and MGA Insurance Company, Inc.


MICROSOFT: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Windows Vista Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp.'s attempt to overturn a key ruling in the
"Windows Vista Capable" lawsuit has been denied by the Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Seattle Post Intelligencer
reports, citing a court order.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted class-action status to a lawsuit
against Microsoft Corp. alleging that the company unjustly
enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even
when they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating
system, called "Vista Home Basic."

According to the CAR report, the slogan was emblazoned on PCs
during the 2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by
Microsoft to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the
launch of Windows Vista was delayed.

A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft
appealed against the court's decision affording class action
status to the Vista lawsuit.  The company also asked the
district court for the trial to be temporarily halted to prevent
any further disclosure of company e-mails that have proved
highly embarrassing for Microsoft.

Previous press reports said that internal Microsoft e-mail
messages released with court documents as evidence in the class-
action suit suggested that the software company bowed to
pressure from partner Intel Corp. in the run-up
to the release of Windows Vista, allowing computers to be
labeled "Windows Vista Capable" despite concerns that they were
not up to the task of running the operating system.  According
to the e-mails, Microsoft was pressured by Intel to certify some
chips as capable of running the Windows Vista operating system
to help Intel meet earnings estimates.

The CAR, on April 8, 2008, reported that Judge Pechman granted
Microsoft's request to halt proceedings in the lawsuit, pending
results from the company's appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

According to an update by Computerworld, in a brief order dated
April 21, the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected
Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's decision in
February granting class-action status to the lawsuit.  The
appeal court's decision also means that new insider e-mails
subpoened from Microsoft and nearly 30 other companies could now
be made public.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          e-mail: office@gmtlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com/    


PALL CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Consolidation of Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
yet to rule on motions seeking to consolidate several purported
securities fraud class actions filed against Pall Corp.

Initially, four putative class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain members of its management team
alleging violations of the federal securities laws relating to
the Company's understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax
payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior
periods.

These lawsuits were filed between Aug. 14, 2007, and Oct. 11,
2007, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

The plaintiffs principally alleged that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading public statements about the Company's financial
results, financial statements, income tax liability, effective
tax rate and internal controls.  They seek unspecified
compensatory damages, costs and expenses.

On Oct. 15, 2007, various plaintiffs and groups of plaintiffs
filed motions seeking to consolidate the cases and to be
appointed lead plaintiff.  

These motions have not been decided, according to the company's
March 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The first identified complaint is "Robert Baughman, et al. v.
Pall Corporation, et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
         Suite 500, West Tower        
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600
         Fax: 202-408-4699
         e-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         One South Broad Street - Suite 2100
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-238-1700
         Fax: 215-238-1960
         e-mail: info@kohnswift.com

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP      
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

         Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA, 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         e-mail: info@sbtklaw.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


VERTEX PHARMA: May 12 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces a May 12, 2008,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(Nasdaq: VRTX) between June 12, 2007, and November 2, 2007,
inclusive.  The shareholder lawsuit is pending with the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the Company's operations and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Vertex securities.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


VS HOLDINGS: Settles Multiple Suits Over Multivitamins for Women
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 27, 2008 hearing was set in connection with the approval
of a settlement for several purported class actions against VS
Holdings, Inc., over certain of its multivitamins for women,
according to the company's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 29, 2007.

On Jan. 19, 2007, media reports noted that an organization
called Consumerlab.com had tested various nutritional
supplements and found that the Company's private label brand of
multivitamins Especially for Women to contain less calcium than
specified on the product label and to contain levels of lead
that are above acceptable parameters.

As a precaution, the Company voluntarily and temporarily ceased
selling the product pending an internal investigation and
offered a full refund for those have purchased the Product.

Based upon the allegations in Consumerlab.com's report, five
purported class actions were filed against the Company, three
with the Federal Court in California, one with the Federal Court
in New Jersey and one with the State Court in New Jersey, from
January through March 2007.

The suits allege, in various combinations, violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair
Competition and False Advertising Laws, the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, the Uniform Commercial Code and the Federal Magnusson
Moss Act, common law, statutory and common law warranties, and
various common law torts, on behalf of both state and national
classes.

The various actions seek some combination of restitution on
behalf of purchasers of the Products, an injunction and
attorneys fees' and costs of litigation, and actual, treble, and
punitive damages.  There is no claim of personal injury in any
of the actions.

The Company was served with the complaints in these cases but
did not file a substantive response.  

Following mediation on June 11, 2007, all claims were settled on
a nationwide class basis, subject to court approval.  

Pursuant to the settlement, all of the federal plaintiffs
dismissed their cases without prejudice and joined as plaintiffs
in the New Jersey State Court action.

The settlement received preliminary Court approval on Feb. 1,
2008.  

A hearing on whether the settlement should be approved on a
final basis and all claims dismissed with prejudice on a
nationwide class basis will be held on June 27, 2008.

VS Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.vitaminshoppe.com-- is a  
specialty retailer and direct marketer of vitamins, minerals,
herbs, supplements, sports nutrition, and other health and
wellness products.  It offers a variety of products with over
8,500 stock keeping units offered in its stores with an
additional 11,500 SKUs available for its direct sales orders.   


WAL-MART: Participant Files Lawsuit Over Excessive 401(k) Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Braden, a Missouri Wal-Mart employee and participant in
the company's 401(k) plan, has filed an excessive fee lawsuit
against the retail giant, Planadviser.com reports.

Planadviser.com cites a news report on LawyersandSettlements.com
as saying that Mr. Braden claims Wal-Mart cost participants
$60 million in unnecessary expenses over six years by offering
what were expensive mutual funds and not their less expensive
alternatives.

The complaint, according to Planadviser.com, alleges that all
plan investment options were retail class shares, which
historically carry higher fees than institutional class shares,
and that plan trustee Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. received revenue
sharing and other unspecified payments without providing any
services.

LawyersandSettlements.com noted that the suit, which requests
class action certification, seeks to represent current or former
employees who participated in, or benefited from the plan since
January 31st, 2002.  It is estimated that more than one million
people could be affected.

According to the complaint, Wal-Mart failed to inform employees
about the impact that the allegedly excessive fees would have on
their savings, why particular investments options were chosen,
or that less expensive options were available.


WELLS FARGO BANK: Faces LA Suit Over Over Excess Fees Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed on
April 14, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana over alleged usage of a variety of ruses
to collect excess fees, including delinquency fees, from
mortgage borrowers, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs assert that Wells Fargo has engaged in a regular
pattern of violations of the federal law requirements imposed by
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Section
2601, et seq., with respect to misapplication of payments.  The
plaintiffs also allege that Wells Fargo's practices are
misleading, deceptive and unfair under state law.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of any and all
persons in the United States who are mortgagees in which the
defendant is a mortgagor, and who have been charged Improper
BPO's.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) the propriety of Wells Fargo's policies regarding the
         Improper BPO's and whether class members have a right
         to damage and restitution as a result of same; and

     (b) whether Wells FARgo illegally assessed and collected
         Improper BPO's.

The plaintiffs request the following relief:

      -- an order certifying that the action may be maintained
         as a class action for the class, and appointing the
         plaintiffs as the class representatives and the
         plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class;

      -- an order declaring the conduct of the defendant to be
         void and unenforceable as being in violation of the
         law, enjoining the defendant from continuing to engage
         in the same as to any person and requiring it to pay
         reasonable damages and reverse any assessments and
         collections found to be the result of the acts and
         violations set forth in the complaint;

      -- any and all relief in the premises, including any
         statutory penalties, punitive damages, restitution and
         damages resulting from Wells Fargo's unlawful practices
         in connection with the assessment or collection of
         Improper BPO's, together with pre-judgment interest;

      -- reasonable attorneys' fees;

      -- costs this litigation, including expert witness fees,
         costs associated with the certification of this matter,
         including class notice, and all other costs to which
         the plaintiffs and the class are entitled; and

      -- such further relief the court may deem necessary or
         proper.

The suit is "Irby Fitch et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et
al., Case No. 08-1639," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eeastern District of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marguerite K. Kingsmill, Esq.
          Michael R. C. Riess, Esq.
          Charles B. Colvin, Esq.
          Kingsmill Riess, LLC
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3300
          New Orleans, LA 70170-3300
          Phone: (504) 581-3300


YANKEE HOLDING: Settles Calif. Labor-Related Suit for $950,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yankee Holding Corp. settled for $950,000 a purported class
action that was filed against it in February 2005 for alleged
violations of certain California state wage and hour and
employment laws with respect to certain employees in its
California retail stores.

In December 2007, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached
pursuant to mediation.  The settlement is now pending court
approval.

Pursuant to the agreement, the company would pay a total of
$950,000 -- inclusive of attorneys' fees and administrative
expenses -- into a settlement fund, according to Yankee
Holding's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 29, 2007.

Yankee Holding Corp. -- http://www.yankeecandle.com/- together  
with its subsidiaries, engages in the design, manufacture, and
marketing of scented candles for the giftware industry. The
company offers approximately 2,000 stock-keeping units of candle
products in approximately 400 fragrances, which include various
jar candles, Samplers votive candles, Tarts wax potpourri,
pillars, and other products, which are marketed under the Yankee
Candle brand.  It also offers home fragrance and other
fragrance-based products, including Yankee Candle branded
electric home fragrancers, potpourri, scented oils, reed
diffusers, room sprays, Yankee Candle Car Jars auto air
fresheners, and candle related home decor accessories, as well
as seasonally appropriate holiday and novelty products and
collections.  The company sells its products in North America,
Europe, and Asia through its retail stores, as well as
distributors, wholesale customers, direct mail catalogs, and Web
sites.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CALAMOS GLOBAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has commenced a class
action suit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
acquired the Auction Rate Cumulative Preferred Shares of the
Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund pursuant and traceable to a
false and misleading registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the Registration Statement) issued in connection
with the Company's September 2007 offering.

The complaint charges Calamos Fund with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

Calamos Fund is a closed-end management investment company.  The
Fund's investment objective is to generate a high level of
current income, with a second objective of capital appreciation.

According to the complaint, on or about September 17, 2007, the
Fund filed its Prospectus for the Offering, which forms part of
the Registration Statement, and $350 million worth of the Fund's
ARPS were sold to the public at $25,000 per share.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other
facts necessary to make the statements made therein not
misleading and was not prepared in accordance with applicable
SEC rules and regulations.  Specifically, the true facts which
were omitted from the Registration Statement were that:

     (i) the purported "auctions" used by Calamos Fund to get
         the dividend rates were not bona fide auctions at all,
         but rather a mechanism to maintain the illusion of an
         efficient and liquid market for the ARPS so that the
         Calamos Fund could continue to earn fees from the so-
         called auctions and from the ongoing stabilizing of the
         market because of the lack of buyer demand;

    (ii) the default interest rate set as a consequence of a
         failed auction is less than the interest rate paid when
         auctions of certain competing municipal auction rate
         securities offered directly by municipal issuers
         fail;

   (iii) the ARPS suffer from an additional disadvantage
         compared to MARS because the ARPS are securities which
         exist in perpetuity until such time as the Fund calls
         them due while MARS have a set due date; and

    (iv) the default interest rate as set would cause the ARPS
         to trade at a discount to their par value if, and when,
         the auctions began to fail.

In the past few months, the market for auction rate securities
has collapsed, as all of the major broker-dealers have announced
that they will no longer purchase auction rate securities for
their own accounts to ensure that the auctions do not fail.  In
the past month, thousands of auctions run by the broker-dealers
failed.  As a result, over $350 billion in auction rate
securities that were once offered as "cash equivalents" are now
illiquid, resulting in economic losses and severe hardships for
investors.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Calamos Fund's ARPS pursuant and traceable to the
September 17, 2007 Registration Statement.

For more information, contact:

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


CREDIT SUISSE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the American
Depositary Receipts of Credit Suisse Group and U.S. residents or
citizens who purchased Credit Suisse stock (VTX:CSGN.VX) between
February 15, 2007, and February 19, 2008.

The complaint charges Credit Suisse and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Credit Suisse operates as a financial services company.  The
Company operates in three segments: Investment Banking, Private
Banking, and Asset Management.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  The complaint further
alleges that defendants failed to write down impaired securities
containing mortgage-related debt.  According to the complaint,
the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:

     (a) that defendants failed to record losses on the
         deterioration in mortgage assets and collateralized
         debt obligations on Credit Suisse's books caused
         by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages
         included in the portfolio;

     (b) that Credit Suisse's internal controls were inadequate
         to ensure that losses on residential mortgage-related
         assets were accounted for properly; and

     (c) that Credit Suisse's traders had put incorrect values
         on CDOs and other debt securities, concealing the
         exposure the Company had to losses.

On February 19, 2008, Credit Suisse announced that it had
undertaken an internal review that resulted in the repricing of
certain asset-backed positions in its Structured Credit Trading
business.  The total fair value reductions of these positions
were estimated at approximately $2.85 billion.  On this news,
Credit Suisse's ADRs collapsed to close at $48.22 per ADR on
February 19, 2008, a decline of almost 31% from $69.61 per ADR
in early October 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Credit Suisse ADRs and U.S. residents or citizens who
purchased Credit Suisse stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Schatz Nobel Files Ma. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, said that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed with the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who
purchased First Marblehead Corporation common stock between
August 10, 2006, and April 7, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that First Marblehead and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements about the
quality of First Marblehead's securitizations.  Specifically,
the Complaint charges, among other things, that First Marblehead
misrepresented the level of default rates in its portfolio and
the default rates' effect on the Company's ability to securitize
additional student loan underwritings.  The Complaint also
states that First Marblehead recklessly disregarded that its
student loan guarantor, The Education Resources Institute, was
under-reserved and unable to adequately insure student loans
underwritten by the Company.  The guarantor filed for bankruptcy
protection on April 7, 2008.

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

For more information, contact:

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


HARMONY GOLD: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. said that a
securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers American Depository Receipts and call
options and sellers of put options of Harmony Gold Mining
Company Limited between April 2, 2007, through August 7, 2007,
inclusive.

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

Harmony Gold is a gold producer that operates 22 individual
mines and projects across the world.

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 costs had significantly increased
         throughout 2007;

     (2) that the Company had underreported these increased
         costs in its previously issued financial statements;

     (3) that the Company had experienced a significant decrease
         in gold production for the third quarter 2007 due to
         production problems at various sites, which had already
         materialized at the time its Class Period statements
         were made;

     (4) that the Company had failed to disclose the full impact
         that these production problems would have on the
         Company's financial and operational results;

     (5) that, as a result of the Company's understatement of
         its costs and its lower production for the quarter, the
         Company had understated its operating costs and
         overstated its net profit for the third quarter;

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times;

     (7) that the Company would be forced to take substantial
         charges in the fourth quarter 2007 to remedy such
         failures, causing the Company to report a net loss for
         the quarter;

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

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

On August 6, 2007, Harmony Gold reported preliminary financial
and operational results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year
2007 (ended June 30, 2007).  The Company warned that its
financial results for the quarter were "expected to differ
significantly from those of the three previous quarters as well
as from the analysts' consensus."

For the fourth quarter, the Company stated that it expected to
report a headline loss of between 130 and 160 SA cents per
share, compared with a headline profit of 58 SA cents per share
for the third quarter.  This quarterly loss was primarily the
result of the Company recording significantly higher costs for
the quarter, and included a 25 to 28% increase in the Company's
total cash operating costs as a result of "the newly installed
accounting software system that resulted in some of the March
quarter's costs being captured in the June 2007 quarter."

Thus, the Company had substantially understated its costs in
previous quarters and was forced to take substantial charges in
the fourth quarter to remedy such underreported costs.
Additionally, the Company reported that its cost base had
increased by 8 to 12 percent from the previous six months.
Finally, the Company announced that its Chief Executive Officer
had resigned, "with immediate effect."

On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.45 per share, or over
18 percent, to close on August 6, 2007, at $11.02 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.  The following day, the
Company's shares declined an additional $1.57 per share, or over
14 percent, to close on August 7, 2007, at $9.45 per share,
again on heavy trading volume.  This closing price on August 7,
2007, represented a two-day decline in the Company's shares of
$4.02 per share, or 29.8%, and a cumulative decline of $7.25 per
share, or over 43.4%, from the value of the Company's shares at
their Class Period high of $16.70 on April 25, 2007.

For more information:

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


WALGREEN CO: Brualdi Firm Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. has commenced a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Walgreen Co. common stock
during the period between June 25, 2007, and November 29, 2007.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Walgreen was
experiencing a steady decline in the growth of its core business
-- filling retail drug prescriptions.  Throughout the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose declining growth rates for
the Company's generic prescription business and misled investors
concerning the sustainability of Walgreen's profits and sales.
According to the complaint, unbeknownst to Walgreen's public
shareholders, underlying the erosion of Walgreen's earnings was
a material contract dispute with one of the nation's largest
third-party providers of prescription drug benefits -- CVS
Caremark.

During 2007, Walgreen disputed Caremark's reimbursement rates
for a number of prescription drug plans located primarily in the
upper Midwestern U.S., which were negatively impacting the
Company's earnings.  On October 1, 2007, prior to the market
opening, Walgreen issued a press release announcing its
financial results for its fourth fiscal quarter and fiscal year
2006. For the fourth quarter, the Company reported net income of
$0.40 per share -- far below analysts' earnings expectations of
$0.47 per share.  In response to the announcement, the price of
Walgreen stock declined from $47.00 per share to $39.96 per
share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Then, on November 29, 2007, Walgreen announced that "(a)fter
many months" of dispute with Caremark over the reimbursement
rates for four prescription plans, Walgreen withdrew as a
pharmacy provider from the plans.  Following this announcement,
shares of Walgreen common stock declined to a new three-year low
of $36.59 per share at the close of trading on November 30,
2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 14,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *