CAR_Public/080424.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 24, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 81
  
                            Headlines

BANKERS LIFE: July 21, 2208 Trial Set for Insurance Agent's Suit
BLUE CROSS: AMA Enforces Settlement of Nationwide Physician Suit
CARRIER CORP: Court Grants Final Approval to Furnaces Suit Deal
CASH STORE: "Payday Loan" Litigation in Ontario Settled
CONSECO INC: May 10, 2010 Jury Trial Set for IN Securities Suit

CONSECO INC: Settles Lawsuits Over Life Insurance Policies
CONSECO INSURANCE: CA Court Mulls Dismissal of Annuities Lawsuit
CONSECO HEALTH: 5th Circuit Mulls Appeal in Policyholder's Suit
ESKOM: MPO and Solidarity Mull Suits Over Power Cuts
FLORIDA: Compensation Phase in Broward County Canker Suit Starts

GERBER PRODUCTS: Mothers Pursue Suit Over Sugary Fruit Snacks
GOOGLE INC: Kabateck Brown Files Calif. Lawsuit for Ad Program
HCA INC: Reaches Tentative Settlement for Tenn. ERISA Litigation
HCA INC: Concludes Suits in Tenn. and Del. Over Hercules Merger
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Sued Over Misclassified Cleaning Employees

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Backdating Suit
MANN BRACKEN: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Violations of Federal Law
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Suit
OIL COS: California Boat Owners Sue Over Ethanol-Blended Fuel
PEDERNALES ELECTRIC: Class Member Fights to Stop Suit Settlement

QANTAS AIRWAYS: Japan Air Pleads Guilty in Price-Fixing Case
SETON CAPITAL: Defrauded Homebuyers File Arizona Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO: Investor Sues Over Electronic Arts Bid Rejection
WEALTH ACADEMY: Sued Over Bogus Stock Trading Program


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
CALAMOS GLOBAL: Abraham Fruchter Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
CANDELA CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit

WELLPOINT INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files IN Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


BANKERS LIFE: July 21, 2208 Trial Set for Insurance Agent's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 21, 2008 trial is scheduled for an appeal to overturn an
order certifying as class action a lawsuit filed against Bankers
Life & Casualty Co. over alleged misclassification of California
insurance agents as independent contractors.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a purported class action was filed with the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, "Holly Walker, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public
v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, an insurance company
domiciled in the State of Illinois, and Does 1 to 100, Case No.
BC358690."

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Bankers Life and
Casualty Company intentionally misclassified its California
insurance agents as independent contractors when they should
have been classified as employees.

The plaintiff sought relief on behalf of the class alleging
claims for preliminary and permanent injunction,
misclassification, indemnification, conversion and unfair
business practices.

Bankers Life & Casualty Co. caused the case to be removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Oct. 18, 2006.  

An order was entered on Nov. 20, 2006, transferring the case to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
under Case No. 06C6906.  

The Court has dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's allegations
of preliminary and permanent injunction and misclassification.

A first amended complaint was filed on June 12, 2007, adding
Carole Paradise as the new class representative and naming Holly
Walker as an individual plaintiff.

This complaint alleges claims of indemnification, conversion,
and unfair business practices.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  

On Oct. 16, 2007, Bankers Life and Casualty Company filed a
petition for permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.  The matter has been set for trial on
July 21, 2008, according to Conseco, Inc.'s March 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Walker v. Bankers Life And Casualty Company et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-06906," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Suzanne B. Conlon
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel A. Crawford, Esq. (dcrawford@quislaw.com)
          Quisenberry Law Firm
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 220
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 785-7966

Representing the defendants is:

          Shanthi V. Gaur, Esq. (sgaur@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson, P.C.
          200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 372-5520


BLUE CROSS: AMA Enforces Settlement of Nationwide Physician Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Medical Association will begin enforcement of the
national Blue Cross and Blue Shield settlement as a signatory
medical society to the agreement.

The AMA joins 27 other participating medical societies that are
able to provide direct assistance to physicians when a BCBS plan
or subsidiary has failed to comply with the national BCBS
settlement.

The AMA's participation in enforcement of the BCBS settlement
was initiated when a Miami federal court finalized the
settlement of a nationwide physician class action lawsuit
brought against Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and more
than 30 affiliated plans and subsidiaries.

"The AMA believes that the transparency and fairness mandated by
this settlement will allow physicians to redirect their limited
resources from battling for fair payment to caring for
patients," said AMA President Ronald M. Davis, M.D.  "The AMA
stands ready to ensure physicians receive all the protections
offered by the national BCBS settlement."

The provisions of the settlement resolve contentious business
practices that have long frustrated physicians and jeopardized
the delivery of high-quality patient care.  Key provisions
address recognition of coding guidelines, prompt payment,
medical necessity, physician credentialing, as well as
disclosure of fee schedules, claims procedures and payment
policies.

Several provisions contained in the BCBS settlement apply as of
April 21, 2008, and will become enforceable as soon as any
appeals filed in the next 30 days are resolved.  To assist
physicians in finding accurate information about the settlement,
the AMA offers an interactive on-line map that lists which BCBS
plans and subsidiaries have settled, state-specific provisions
of the agreement, and the effective dates of the various
provisions.

BCBS settlement on the net:
http://www.ama-assn.org/go/settlements

For more information, contact:

          Robert J. Mills
          AMA Media Relations
          Phone: (312) 464-5970


CARRIER CORP: Court Grants Final Approval to Furnaces Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington granted final approval to a
nationwide settlement in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf
of people who own or owned a high efficiency gas furnace that
was made by Carrier Corporation since January 1, 1989.

Approximately three million U.S. consumers purchased the
furnaces covered under the settlement since January 1989.
Carrier sold the furnaces under the Carrier, Bryant, Day &
Night, and Payne brand-names.  The settlement also resolves
companion cases in Canada and will be presented to courts there
for approval as well.

The complaint, originally filed in June 2005, charges that
starting in 1989, Carrier began manufacturing and selling high
efficiency condensing furnaces manufactured with a secondary
condensing heat exchanger made of inferior materials.

Plaintiffs allege that as a result, the CHXs, which Carrier
warranted and consumers expected to last for 20 years, fail
prematurely.  Carrier has denied these allegations and has
vigorously contested the litigation.  The Court has not made any
ruling on the merits of plaintiffs' allegations.

The Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 29, 2007, about Judge
Leighton's preliminary approval of the nationwide settlement.

The settlement will provide payments to people who had a
secondary heat exchanger failure and offer an enhanced 20-year
warranty on their high- efficiency gas furnaces.  Those included
in the settlement may send in a claim form to ask for a payment,
or they can exercise other legal rights such as asking to be
excluded from, or objecting to, the settlement.

For the purpose of effectuating the proposed settlement, the
Court has granted conditional certification of a settlement
class consisting of all individuals and entities in the United
States who currently own a Carrier 90% high efficiency
condensing furnace manufactured between January 1, 1989, and the
date of final approval of the Settlement and equipped with a
polypropylene-laminated secondary heat exchanger, and former
owners of such furnaces whose furnaces experienced CHX failure.

The Court appointed the law firms of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC
of Seattle, Washington and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP of New York, New York to represent the Class as Counsel.

A notification program began Dec. 3, as ordered by the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington, to
alert people who own or owned a high efficiency gas furnace that
was made by Carrier since January 1, 1989, about the proposed
settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2007).

"After several years of hard-fought litigation in four different
U.S. courts, we are pleased that the Court approved the
settlement," stated plaintiffs' counsel Jonathan D. Selbin,
Esq., of the New York office of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.  "It is an outstanding outcome for consumers,
and we commend Carrier for stepping forward and taking care of
its customers."

"The settlement provides an enhanced 20-year warranty for
consumers whose furnaces have not yet failed that will cover
parts and labor for CHX failures," stated Kim D. Stephens, Esq.,
counsel for plaintiffs with the Seattle law firm of Tousley
Brain Stephens PLLC.  "The settlement also offers a cash payment
for consumers who paid to repair or replace the CHX in their
high-efficiency Carrier furnaces."

Deadline to submit claims is August 1, 2008.

The suit is "Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School et al. v.  
Carrier Corp., Case No. 3:05-cv-05437-RBL," filed in the U.S.  
District Court for the Western District of Washington under  
Judge Ronald B. Leighton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq. (kstephens@tousley.com)  
          Nancy A. Pacharzina, Esq. (npacharzina@tousley.com)  
          Tousley Brain Stephens
          1700 Seventh Ave, STE 2200  
          Seattle, WA 98101-1332  
          Phone: 206-682-5600  

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. (jselbin@lchb.com)  
          Paulina do Amaral, Esq. (pdomaral@lchb.com)
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
          780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-2024  
          Phone: 212-355-9500  
          Fax: 212-355-9592

Representing defendants are:

          Bart L. Kessel, Esq. (bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com)
          Tucker Ellis & West
          1000 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 1800  
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2475  
          Phone: 213-430-3388  
          Fax: 213-430-3409

          Mark L. Levine, Esq. (mark.levine@bartlit-beck.com)
          Brian Swanson, Esq. (brian.swanson@bartlit-beck.com)
          Michael J. Valaik, Esq.
          (michael.valaik@bartlit-beck.com)
          Andrew Polovin, Esq. (andrew.polovin@bartlit-beck.com)  
          Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
          Courthouse Place
          54 W Hubbard St., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60610  
          Phone: 312-494-4400  

               - and -

          John Michael Silk, Esq. (silk@wscd.com)
          Dennis Smith, Esq. (smithd@wscd.com)
          Wilson Smith Cochran & Dickerson
          1700 Financial Center
          1215 4th Ave., Ste 1700
          Seattle, WA 98161-1007  
          Phone: 206-623-4100  
          Fax: 206-623-9273


CASH STORE: "Payday Loan" Litigation in Ontario Settled
-------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. (TSX:CSF), formerly
Rentcash Inc., settled a class action lawsuit commenced in 2004
for the restitution of brokerage fees and interest charged to
customers of The Cash Store and Instaloans.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the brokerage fees, in
combination with interest charged by The Cash Store and
Instaloans on their customer loans, constituted interest charged
in excess of the maximum rate prescribed by the Criminal Code of
Canada.

In 2006, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified under
the Class Action Proceedings Act, 1992, the class action (Class
Action Reporter, May 16, 2006).

The class had been determined to be any person in Canada,
resident outside of the provinces of British Columbia and
Alberta, who borrowed money as a 'Payday Loan' from a Cash Store
location, and who repaid the loan at a standard broker fee
charged by The Cash Store at:

     -- 22.54% of the loan amount to Mar. 11, 2004; and
     -- 25% of the loan amount after Mar. 11, 2004

on or after the due date of the loan.

Under the terms of the recently proposed settlement, Cash Store
Financial is to pay, an aggregate of $1.5 million in cash and
$1.5 million in credit vouchers to those customers of The Cash
Store and Instaloans, outside of Alberta and British Columbia,
who were advanced funds under a loan agreement and who repaid
the payday loan plus the brokerage fees and interest in full.

The credit vouchers may be used to pay existing outstanding
brokerage fees and interest or to pay brokerage fees and
interest which may arise in the future through new loans
advanced to the customer.  The credit vouchers are fully
transferable and have no expiry date.

In addition, Cash Store Financial is to pay the legal fees and
costs of the Class in an amount approved by the Court.

The settlement is conditional on the terms of the settlement
being approved by the court.  The settlement does not constitute
any admission of liability by Cash Store Financial.

Gordon Reykdal, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cash
Store Financial, stated that, "we are of the firm belief that
our broker/lender business model complies with existing
legislation and that our broker fees do not constitute interest.
Nevertheless, we believe it is in the best interests of all of
our stakeholders to settle this lawsuit so as to avoid further
expenses and management distractions in dealing with the suit."

Rentcash is the only payday advance broker in Canada publicly  
traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX:RCS).  Rentcash  
operates more than 424 stores across Canada under three banners:  
The Cash Store, Instaloans and Insta-rent.

The Cash Store and Instaloans act as brokers to facilitate  
payday advance services to income-earning consumers and provide  
two private-label debit cards, The Cash Store Cash Card and  
InstaWorld Debit Card, to those who may not be able to obtain  
them from traditional banks.

Insta-rent rents brand-name furniture, appliances, electronics  
and computers, with or without an option to purchase.  Insta-
rent operates primarily in The Brick and United Furniture  
Warehouse locations, which are part of The Brick Group, one of  
Canada's largest volume retailers of household furniture,  
mattresses, appliances and home electronics.

Rentcash employs more than 1,700 associates and is headquartered  
in Edmonton, Alberta.  For more information, contact: Gordon J.  
Reykdal, chairman and chief executive officer, Phone: (780) 408-
5118.


CONSECO INC: May 10, 2010 Jury Trial Set for IN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A May 10, 2010 jury trial is scheduled for a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Conseco,
Inc., and some of its former officers.

After the company's predecessor announced its intention to
restructure on Aug. 9, 2002, eight purported securities fraud
class action suits were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana.  These suits were filed on
behalf of persons or entities that purchased the predecessor's
common stock on various dates between Oct. 24, 2001, and Aug. 9,
2002.  

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allege
material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading
statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of
Conseco and alleged problems in Conseco Finance Corp.'s
manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the
artificial inflation of the company's Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all the cases were consolidated into one
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
captioned, "Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc.,
Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et
al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
with respect to the individual defendants on Dec. 8, 2003.

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the individual
defendants and on July 14, 2005, the matter was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Aug. 24,
2005, which motion was later denied.  

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
April 18, 2008.  The matter is scheduled for a jury trial on
May 10, 2010, according to Conseco, Inc.'s March 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-01332-DFH-TAB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Judge David Frank Hamilton
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, Esq. (laskido@hotmail.com)
         3858 Carson Street, Suite 204
         Torrance, CA 90503
         Phone: (310) 792-3948
         Fax: (310) 792-0600

              - and -

         Brian Joseph Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com)
         Law Offices Of Brian Barry
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307
         Los Angeles, CA 90046
         Phone: (310) 788-0831
         Fax: (310) 788-0841

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Kenneth Huffer, Esq.
         (steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com)
         Huffer & Weathers
         151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1850
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: (317) 822-8010
         Fax: (317) 822-8088

              - and -

         Robert J. Kopecky, Esq. (rkopecky@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis
         200 East Randolph Drive
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 861-2084
         Fax: (317) 660-0412

    
CONSECO INC: Settles Lawsuits Over Life Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc., and certain subsidiaries, including Conseco Life
Insurance Co., reached settlements in several purported class
action suits over its sale of life insurance policies in
Pennsylvania, and California, according to Conseco, Inc.'s
March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suits allege breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation
in relation to a change made in 2003 and 2004 in the way cost of
insurance charges are calculated by the company for life
insurance policies sold primarily under the names "Lifestyle,"
and "Lifetime."

                    Mangelson Litigation

Cases filed with the Superior Court, Hamilton County, Indiana
were consolidated as "Arlene P. Mangelson, et al. v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 29D01-0403-PL-211."

The consolidated case was settled in connection with the matter,
"In Re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Cost of Insurance Litigation,
Cause No. MDL 1610," which was pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

                   Cost of Insurance Cases

Four putative nationwide and statewide class actions filed with
the California state courts have been consolidated and are being
coordinated with the Superior Court of San Francisco County
under the new caption "Cost of Insurance Cases, Judicial Council
Coordination Proceeding No. 4384" (Judicial Council of
California).  

In November 2007, this matter was settled, with the exception of
the claims asserted by a certain plaintiff (who will be the sole
remaining plaintiff in this lawsuit).  

                      Schwartz Litigation
  
On Jan. 25, 2005, an amended complaint making similar
allegations captioned, "William Schwartz v. Jeffrey Landerman,
Diann P. Urbanek, Metro Insurance, Inc., Samuels Jacky Insurance
Agency, Conseco Life Insurance Co., Successor to Philadelphia
Life Insurance Co., Case No. GD 00-011432," was filed with the
Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
  
Additionally, Mr. Schwartz filed a purported nationwide class
action, "William Schwartz and Rebecca R. Frankel, Trustee of the
Robert M. Frankel Irrevocable Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life
Ins. Co. et al., Case No. GD 05-3742," with the Court of Common
Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  

On May 12, 2006, these two Schwartz cases were consolidated
under both original case numbers.

The Schwartz matters were settled in January 2008.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance, and other
insurance products.


CONSECO INSURANCE: CA Court Mulls Dismissal of Annuities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss Conseco Insurance
companies in a consolidated consumer lawsuit filed against them   
over sales of annuity products to seniors 65 years and older.

On Nov. 17, 2005, the complaint "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco
Insurance Co., f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Co., Case No.
C0504726," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity
in 2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed
national class over alleged:

      -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
         Corrupt Organizations Act;

      -- elder abuse;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and misleading advertising;

      -- breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of breach
         of fiduciary duty; and

      -- unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust.

On Jan. 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed with the same
court, "Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois
company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C06-
00537."  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003.  

Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and
that the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable
for seniors 65 years old and up.

On March 3, 2006, a first amended complaint was filed in the
Hansen case adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment
and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

In an order dated April 14, 2006, the court consolidated the two
cases under the original Hansen case number and retitled the
consolidated action, "In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity
Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation."

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part
and denied in part, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on April 27, 2007.

The second amended complaint includes the same causes of action
as the prior complaint, but added as defendants Conseco, Inc.,
Conseco Services, LLC, Conseco Marketing, LLC and 40|86
Advisors, Inc., while deleting Friou Jones as a named plaintiff.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint and it was granted in part and denied in part.  

A motion to dismiss Conseco Inc., Conseco Services, Conseco
Marketing and 40|86 Advisors was filed on Sept. 14, 2007, and a
ruling on the motion has yet to be entered.

Conseco, Inc. reported no 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 Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco Insurance Co., Case No.
5:05-cv-04726-RMW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Howard D. Finkelstein, Esq.
         Finkelstein & Krinsk
         501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101-3593
         Phone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425
         e-mail: fk@classactionlaw.com

         Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C.
         2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199

              - and -

         John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. (jstoia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

         Thomas A. Doyle, Esq. (Thomas.A.Doyle@bakernet.com)
         James J. Dries, Esq. (James.J.Dries@bakernet.com)
         Mark L. Karasik, Esq. (Mark.L.Karasik@bakernet.com)
         Baker & McKenzie, LLP
         130 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 3500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-8000
         Fax: 312-861-2899


CONSECO HEALTH: 5th Circuit Mulls Appeal in Policyholder's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal by Conseco Health Insurance Co. regarding the
certification of the suit, "Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case
No. 3:04-cv- 00784-JJB-CN."   

Initially, on Sept. 24, 2004, a purported statewide class action
suit, captioned, "Diana Doiron, et al. v. Conseco Health
Insurance Company, Case No. 61-534," was filed with the 18th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana.

In her complaint, the plaintiff claims that she was damaged due
to Conseco Health Insurance's failure to pay claims made under
her cancer policy, and seeks compensatory and statutory damages
along with declaratory and injunctive relief.

Conseco caused the case to be removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana on Nov. 3, 2004.

An order was issued on Feb. 15, 2007, granting the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The order specifically
certifies two sub-classes identifying them as the radiation
treatment sub-class and the chemotherapy treatment sub-class.

The company has appealed the certification order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and an oral argument was
heard by that court on March 3, 2008, according to Conseco,
Inc.'s March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00784-JJB-CN," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, Judge James J. Brady presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stanley P. Baudin, Esq. (sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com)
         Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP
         P.O. Drawer 71, 24110 Eden St.
         Plaquemine, LA 70764-0071
         Phone: 225-687-6396
         Fax: 225-687-6398

Representing the defendants is:

         Raymond J. Pajares, Esq.
         (rpajares@pajares-schexnaydre.com)
         Pajares & Schexnaydre, LLC
         103 Northpark Boulevard, Suite 110
         Covington, LA 70433
         Phone: 985-292-2000
         Fax: 985-292-2001


ESKOM: MPO and Solidarity Mull Suits Over Power Cuts
----------------------------------------------------
The Milk Producers Organisation and trade union Solidarity are
considering class action lawsuits against state-owned
electricity supplier Eskom over power cuts, African Energy News
Review reports.

According to MPO's MD Etienne Terre'Blanche, the body was
considering a class action against Eskom over power cuts, which
had cost the dairy industry around ZAR100 million per month.

Ms. Terre'Blanche told African Energy News that the collection
of information by milk farmers to quantify the effects of the
power shortages on their operations started two months ago, and
was likely to be completed next month.

Meanwhile, the report relates, trade union Solidarity announced
plans to investigate the possibility of civil claims against
Eskom, should the electricity crisis lead to job losses.

Spokesman Dirk Hermann shared with African Energy News that a
commission would be set up to investigate claims.  The
commission would be made up of a senior advocate, an expert in
the law of delict, an electricity supply expert and an
economist.

Solidarity general secretary Flip Buys said that while
industries need to reduce electricity consumption by 10%, a
worker who loses his job is disproportionately penalized as he
loses 100% of his income.

And now, the report adds, local governments are being dragged to
court over power cuts.  High Court Judge Jan Hugo recently
ordered the Durban Municipality to halt load shedding for resin
manufacturer Feltex Holdings' Durban plant until he delivers
judgment in the case.


FLORIDA: Compensation Phase in Broward County Canker Suit Starts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The compensation phase of a trial related to Florida's canker
eradication program has started, David Fleshler writes for the  
South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Wes Parsons, attorney for the Florida Department of Agriculture,
talked about the day the state agriculture inspector first found
out about the invasion of Asian-strain citrus canker in his
opening statement at the second phase of a trial to set
compensation for the thousands of Broward County homeowners who
lost their trees in the state-organized campaign against the
plant disease.

                    The Broward County Case

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

The case, pitting the thousands of Broward households against
the Department of Agriculture, is one of five class-action suits
filed in different counties seeking compensation beyond the $100
Wal-Mart voucher for the first tree destroyed and $55 cash for
each subsequent tree.

                  The Canker Eradication Program

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

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

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

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

                Judge Favored Broward Residents

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

This verdict, the Sun-Sentinel relates, cleared the way for the
next step, in which a jury is seated to decide how much
compensation should be paid.

The jury will be the ones to hear testimony from both sides and
decide how to set a value on the destroyed trees.

                       Jury Trial Begins

"Citrus canker is a bad problem for Florida," Mr. Parsons told a
newly seated 12-member jury in Broward Circuit Court in Fort
Lauderdale.  "It is a problem for homeowners.  Citrus canker is
a problem for the citrus industry."

On the other hand, in his opening statement, Robert Gilbert,
Esq., lead attorney for the Broward homeowners, zeroed in on the
day state and federal agriculture officials gathered in to plan
the response to the disease.  At that meeting, he said, state
officials settled on a policy of destroying residential citrus
trees near infected trees and acknowledged that the trees marked
for destruction had value and that $200 would be a low estimate.
In fact, a state official had asserted an average value of $435.

Although it may seem that the case is only about fruit trees,
the attorney said, it actually concerns Americans' basic right
to own property and hold the government accountable to pay for
any property it takes.

"It's about what the trees stood for and how in a country like
ours, the trees symbolize everything we hold sacred," Mr.
Gilbert said.

The Sun-Sentinel notes that Mr. Gilbert did not say how much
money homeowners are seeking per tree.  He said the department
kept detailed records of the size, type and condition of each
tree destroyed, so that it should be possible to establish
compensation rates for trees based on their size and quality.

The trial is expected to take about two weeks, the report points
out.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Mothers Pursue Suit Over Sugary Fruit Snacks
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth circuit has allowed two
mothers to pursue their class action suit accusing Gerber
Products Co. of deceptively dressing up sugar-loaded gummy
treats as healthy snacks for toddlers, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiffs Nakia Williams and Rita Tabiu, parents of small
children, brought the class action against Gerber Products
Company.

The mothers claim that Gerber falsely touts its Gerber Fruit
Juice Snacks as "nutritious" and "made with real fruit juice,"
and displays images of oranges, peaches, strawberries and
cherries on the packaging.  However, a quick look at the label
reveals the main ingredients are corn syrup and sugar, and the
only fruit juice is concentrated white grape juice.
     
They took issue with Gerber calling the saccharine product a
"snack," saying "candy," "sweet" or "treat" was more
appropriate.

Gerber later changed the name to Fruit Juice Treats, but denied
that the lawsuit had anything to do with the change.

An amended complaint alleged that Gerber deceptively marketed
its "Fruit Juice Snacks" a food product developed for toddlers.
It alleged eight causes of action, including tort claims for
misrepresentation and breach of warranty, as well as claims
under California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17200 et seq., and California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.

The plaintiffs challenged five features of the packaging used by
Gerber to sell its Fruit Juice Snacks.

     -- First, they challenged the use of the words "Fruit
        Juice" juxtaposed alongside images of fruits such as
        oranges, peaches, strawberries, and cherries.  They
        contended that this juxtaposition was deceptive because
        the product contained no fruit juice from any of the
        fruits pictured on the packaging and because the only
        juice contained in the product was white grape juice
        from concentrate.

     -- Second, they challenged a statement on the side
        panel of the packaging describing the product as made
        "with real fruit juice and other all natural
        ingredients," even though the two most prominent
        ingredients were corn syrup and sugar.

     -- Third, they challenged a separate statement on the
        side panel; namely, that Snacks was "one of a variety of
        nutritious Gerber Graduates foods and juices."

     -- Fourth, they challenged Gerber's decision to label
        the product a "snack" instead of a "candy," "sweet," or
        a "treat."

     -- Finally, they alleged that the phrase "naturally
        flavored" did not comply with applicable type size
        requirements.

Subsequently, Gerber filed a motion to dismiss the suit under
Rule 12(b)(6), which the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted last year.  The district court
found that Gerber's statements were not likely to deceive a
reasonable consumer, particularly given that the ingredient list
was printed on the side of the box and that the "nutritious"
claim was non-actionable puffery.  The plaintiffs timely
appealed.

The appellate court found that on-the-go parents should not have
to scour ingredient lists for labeling discrepancies.

"We do not . . . think that a busy parent walking through the
aisles of a grocery store should be expected to verify that the
representations on the front of the box are confirmed in the
ingredient list," Judge Pregerson wrote.

"We do not think that the FDA requires an ingredient list so
that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on the
ingredient list to correct those misinterpretations and provide
a shield for liability for the deception."

The suit "Nakia Williams et al. v. Gerber Products Co., Case No.
CV-05-01278," is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.


GOOGLE INC: Kabateck Brown Files Calif. Lawsuit for Ad Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Google Inc. is deceiving its customers into paying for ads they
do not want, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed
by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California in San Jose.

"This debunks Google's carefully cultivated image," said Brian
Kabateck, Esq., who is lead counsel on the case and Managing
Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner.

"Google is hurting its customers on two fronts.  Google is not
only taking money out of customers' pockets, it's derailing
their advertising strategies as well."

Kabateck recently won a multi-million dollar settlement from
Yahoo! and was part of an earlier $90 million settlement from
Google on behalf of advertisers who were victimized by "click
fraud" to which the company turned a blind eye.

AdWords is Google's primary advertising program and is the main
source of its revenue.  AdWords ads appear on Google.com as well
as on Google partner sites like Ask.com.  AdWords ads, however,
may also appear on third-party Web sites, which use AdSense, the
other side of the Google advertising model.

Google charges its advertising customers when someone "clicks"
on one of their ads.  During the sign-up process, users tell
Google the maximum that they are willing to pay per "click."

During this process, users encounter two adjacent boxes.  Into
the first, customers enter the amount they wish to pay per
"click" of an ad displayed on Google.com.  The second box is
marked "optional."  Into this box, a user can enter the amount
they would be willing to pay per "click" of an ad appearing on a
third party web page.  But leaving the box blank does not
prevent ads from appearing on third-party sites.

Instead, Google places the ads on third-party sites anyway.  And
users are automatically charged per click based on the amount
they entered into the first box. This suit arises from the fact
that both actions occur without the user being informed.

Ads on third-party sites are widely-acknowledged to be far less
effective (and therefore less valuable to the advertiser) than
ads on Google.com.  Google, of course, still profits greatly
from these ads.

"People go to Google hoping that some of its magic will rub off
on them, Mr. Kabateck added.  "Instead, Google's sleight of hand
deception is making their money disappear."

The suit is "Almeida v. Google, Inc., Case Number:
5:2008cv02088," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Magistrate Judge Howard R.
Lloyd, presiding.


HCA INC: Reaches Tentative Settlement for Tenn. ERISA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
HCA, Inc., reached a tentative settlement for a purported class
action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

On Nov. 22, 2005, Brenda Thurman, a former employee of an HCA,
Inc. affiliate, filed the complaint with the Tennessee federal
court on behalf of herself, the HCA Savings and Retirement
Program, and a class of participants in the Plan who held an
interest in the company's common stock, against the company's
chairman and chief executive officer, president and chief
operating officer, executive vice president and chief financial
officer, and other unnamed individuals.

The lawsuit, filed under sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) and (3), alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and to the plan
participants.

On Jan. 13, 2006, the court entered an order staying all
proceedings and discovery in the matter, pending resolution of a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the
related federal securities class action against the company.  

On Jan. 18, 2006, the magistrate judge signed an order:
  
      -- consolidating Ms. Thurman's cause of action with all
         other future actions making the same claims and arising
         out of the same operative facts;

      -- appointing Ms. Thurman as lead plaintiff; and

      -- appointing Ms. Thurman's attorneys as lead counsel and
         liaison counsel in the case.

On Jan. 26, 2006, the court issued an order reassigning the case
to Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

The company reached an agreement in principle to settle this
suit, subject to court approval, 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 "Thurman v. HCA, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
01001," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Judge William J. Haynes presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
         Bramlett Law Offices
         P.O. Box 150734
         Nashville, TN 37215-0734
         Phone: (615) 248-2828
         e-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
         Gainey & McKenna
         485 Fifth Ave., 3rd Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 983-1300
         Fax: (212) 983-0383

         Samuel K. Rosen, Esq. (srosen@whesq.com)
         Wechsler Harwood, LLP
         488 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-7400
         Fax: (212) 753-3630

              - and -

         Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com)
         Vianale & Vianale, LLP
         2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: (561) 392-4750
         Fax: (561) 392-4774

Representing the defendants are:

         James N. Bowen, Esq. (jimbowen@bowenriley.com)
         Amy E. Neff, Esq. (aneff@bowenriley.com)
         Steven Allen Riley, Esq. (sriley@bowenriley.com)
         Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC
         1906 West End Avenue
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Phone: (615) 320-3700


HCA INC: Concludes Suits in Tenn. and Del. Over Hercules Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
HCA Inc. concluded several lawsuits in Tennessee and Delaware
including a consolidated class action in relation to the
company's merger with a subsidiary of Hercules Holding II, LLC,
according HCA's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

In August 2006, HCA and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in six purported class actions filed with the
Tennessee and Delaware courts in relation to the merger it
entered with Hercules Holding and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Hercules Acquisition Corp. on July 24, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Aug.  21, 2006).

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Hercules Acquisition
will be merged with and into the company, with HCA continuing a
the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hercules Holding, which is owned by a consortium of private
investment funds affiliated with Bain Capital Partners  LLC,
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Merrill Lynch Global
Private Equity, collectively known as the Sponsors.  

The complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other
things, that the merger is the product of a flawed process, that
the consideration to be paid to the company's shareholders in
the merger is unfair and inadequate, and breach of fiduciary
duty.   

They further allege that the sponsors abetted the actions of the
company's officers and directors in breaching their fiduciary
duties to the company's shareholders.   

The complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction
preventing completion of the merger.  

On Aug. 3, 2006, the Chancery Court consolidated these actions
and all later-filed actions as "In re HCA Inc. Shareholder   
Litigation, Case No. 06-1816-III."

On Nov. 8, 2006, the company and the other named parties entered
into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs’ counsel in
connection with these actions.  These cases have now been
settled.

Two cases making similar allegations and seeking similar relief
on behalf of purported classes of then current shareholders have
also been filed in Delaware.

These two actions have also been consolidated under case number
2307-N and are pending with the Delaware Chancery Court, New
Castle County.  These cases have been dismissed in light of the
settlement of the related Tennessee cases.

HCA Inc. -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is a holding   
company whose affiliates own and operate hospitals and related
health care entities.


JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Sued Over Misclassified Cleaning Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jan-Pro Franchising International is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts alleging it cheats its cleaning employees by
misclassifying them as franchisees, selling them "franchises"
through misrepresentations, violates labor laws, and targets
immigrants for all this, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a national class action brought on behalf of workers who
have performed cleaning services for Jan-Pro.  The plaintiffs
have been subjected to systemic misrepresentations and breaches
of contract, the complaint states.

The three named plaintiffs say Jan-Pro abuses its workers by
"systemic misrepresentations and breaches of contract. . . .
Most notably, Jan-Pro purports to sell cleaning 'franchises,'
knowing it does not have sufficient business to satisfy its
obligations under its franchise agreements.  Individuals
purchase these 'franchises' for substantial sums of money, based
on Jan-Pro's misrepresentations about the guaranteed amount of
monthly income the franchises will provide."

The plaintiffs claim that Jan-Pro churns accounts by
manufacturing bogus "customer complaints" to take business away
from one of its victims to offer it to another.

The plaintiffs say Jan-Pro targets people who do not speak
English well for its deceptions, knowing they will not
understand the contracts, and misrepresents the hourly pay they
will receive.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- certification of this case as a national class action;

     -- certification of classes of Jan-Pro workers who
        performed work in states with particular statutory
        claims described in the complaint, including
        Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey;

     -- damages attributable to Jan-Pro's statutory and common
        law violations;

     -- statutory enhancement of damages as allowed by law;

     -- declaratory and injunctive relief, requiring Jan-Pro to
        cease its illegal practices; and

     -- any other relief to which the plaintiffs and the class
        may be entitled.

The suit is "Giovani Depianti et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising
International, Inc.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          18 Tremont Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02018
          Phone: (617) 367-7200


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Backdating Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has allowed a proposed class action suit
filed against information technology company Juniper Networks
Inc. and some of its senior officers and directors, Securities
Law360.  The suit alleges stock options backdating practices at
the company violated securities laws.

In his decision dated March 31, 2008, Judge Ware said that the
complaint met the pleading standards for claims that the company
and officers filed false registration statements and violated
control person liability standards under securities laws.

                         Case Background

On July 14, 2006, a purported class-action complaint captioned,
"Garber v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C-06-4327 MJJ,"
was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against Juniper Networks and certain of its
officers and directors.  

The Garber class action was brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Juniper Networks' common stock between Sept. 1, 2003, and
May 22, 2006.

On Aug. 29, 2006, another purported class-action complaint
captioned, "Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C 06
5303 JW," was filed with the same court against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.  

The Peters class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Juniper Networks' common stock between April 10, 2003, and
Aug. 10, 2006.

Both of these purported class actions allege that the company
and certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to
coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading
statements including, among others, incorrect financial
statements due to the improper accounting of stock option
grants.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the court appointed the New York City Pension
Funds as lead plaintiffs.  The lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on Jan. 12, 2007.  The
consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of, or those who otherwise acquired, Juniper
Networks' publicly traded securities from April 10, 2003,
through and including Aug. 20, 2006.

The consolidated suit alleges violations of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  

On Feb. 15, 2007, the parties agreed that plaintiffs may file an
amended consolidated complaint within 30 days after the company
files its restated financial statements with the U.S. Securities
Exchange Commission and the court-approved the stipulation on
Feb. 16, 2007.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Juniper Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:06-cv-04327-JW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge James Ware presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Bemporad, Esq. (rbemporad@ldbs.com)
         Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger & Cohen, P.C.
         White Plains Plaza, 1 North Broadway, 5th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10601-2310
         Phone: (914) 997-0500

              - and -

         William M. Audet, Esq. (waudet@audetlaw.com)
         Audet & Partners
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-982-1776
         Fax: 415-576-1776

Representing the defendants is:

         Joni L. Ostler, Esq. (jostler@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100


MANN BRACKEN: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Violations of Federal Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of clients of
Hess Kennedy, the Campos Chartered Law Firm and the Consumer Law
Center for violations of federal debt collection laws against
Mann Bracken, LLC, and Creditors Receivable Management, LLC.

"Our firm has been vigorously fighting for the rights of
consumers against collection agencies and now we have taken the
step to have a suit filed on behalf of our clients in order to
continue to aggressively pursue the rights of consumers," said
Laura Hess.

The suit is "Harstine et al v. Mann Bracken,LLC et al., Case
Number: 1:2008cv60529," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Judge Marcia G. Cooke,
presiding.


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington consolidating several
purported securities fraud class action suits against Northwest
Biotherapeutics, Inc.

On Aug. 13, 2007, a class action complaint was filed, naming the
Company; the chairperson of its board of directors, Linda
Powers; and its chief executive officer, Alton Boynton, as
defendants, and alleging violation of federal securities laws.

Five additional complaints were subsequently filed in other
jurisdictions asserting similar claims.  The complaints were
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between July 9, 2007, and July 18, 2007, and allege violations
of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses.

On Dec. 18, 2007, a consolidated complaint was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
consolidating the shareholder actions previously filed,
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.

The suit is "Michael C. Rosenblat, et al. v. Northwest
Biotherapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-01254," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          e-mail: info@hbsslaw.com

          Bernard M. Gross, Esq. (bmgross@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
          1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000

          Law Offices of Clifford A. Cantor, P.C.
          627 208th Ave. SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074
          Phone: 425.868.7813
          Fax: 425.868.7870

               - and -

          The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212.686.1060
          Fax: 212.202.3827
          e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


OIL COS: California Boat Owners Sue Over Ethanol-Blended Fuel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ten U.S. oil companies are facing a lawsuit in California for
allegedly selling ethanol blended fuel that damages marine fuel
tanks, Sarah Smith writes for the Ethanol Producer Magazine.

The suit, filed on April 7, 2008, seeks class action status on
behalf of all California boat owners with damaged fiberglass
tanks and all marine consumers who purchased ethanol blended
fuel in California.

The suit claims that in 2004, oil companies stopped using methyl
tert-butyl ether, which is a commonly used octane booster, when
many states banned it as a suspected pollutant.  The suit
alleges that the defendants substituted ethanol blended
gasoline, which was advertised as "unleaded fuel."  The
plaintiffs claim that the ethanol in the fuel mix caused resin
in fiberglass fuel tanks, used in about 10% of all boats, to
deteriorate.  Fiberglass is a series of threads bound together
by the resin.

Lead plaintiff Lawrence J. Turner claims that he spent $20,000
to replace the gas tank in his boat when the ethanol-blended
fuel caused the tank to corrode.  The suit says the dissolved
resin entered the fuel system and caused engine damage.

The report says that another issue in the case is phase
separation, when ethanol, which attracts water, sinks to the
bottom of a gas tank and the fuel rises to the top.  The lawsuit
claims this toxic mixture at the bottom of the tank is
particularly harmful to fiberglass tanks.


PEDERNALES ELECTRIC: Class Member Fights to Stop Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A member of a class in a case against officials of Pedernales
Electric Cooperative is opposing a proposed settlement of the
lawsuit because the agreement could exempt these officials from
accountability for any wrongful actions that may have occurred,
American-Statesman reports.

Carlos Higgins, a retiree and co-op member, sent an e-mail alert
to 150 members of the class on April 9, 2008, asking them to
register their objections to the settlement before an April 30
hearing at state District Judge John Dietz's court.

"It is an awful settlement.  It gives them a complete out for
anything now and forever, whether we know about it or whether we
don't," Mr. Higgins told American-Statesman.

The report relates that if Judge Dietz approves the settlement,
those who object have limited legal recourse.  The objecting
plaintiffs can file a motion for a new trial, or they can appeal
Judge Dietz's order to the 3rd Court of Appeals.  The lawsuit is
styled as a class action, and the settlement binds all current
members, numbering more than 220,000, to its terms.

Two legal experts who reviewed the 33-page document told
American-Statesman that the settlement gives the co-op's old
regime -- including its entire board of directors and former
executives Bennie Fuelberg and Will Dahmann -- full immunity
from civil actions brought by members, even if an ongoing review
by Chicago-based Navigant Consulting Inc. finds evidence of
negligence or breach of fiduciary duties.

"The settlement will bind the corporation and end all its rights
against these various officers and directors who are the
defendants," said John Coffee, a law professor and expert in
corporate law at Columbia University.  It also helps protect the
defendants from recovery of any money they received from
Pedernales.

The co-op's members may receive small credits on their electric
bills as part of the settlement.  But "you are not getting any
personal contribution from any of the defendants," Mr. Coffee
said.  "The individual defendants are escaping liability."

                            The Case

According to the report, excessive compensation is a major issue
in the member-led litigation, which led to the forced testimony
of top Pedernales executives, including Mr. Fuelberg, Mr.
Dahmann and former board president W.W. "Bud" Burnett.  All
three resigned after revelations about the pay of and perks
enjoyed by co-op executives and directors.

The lawsuit also sought removal of the entire board of
directors, reduction in executive compensation, return of
dividends to members and other governance changes.

                         The Settlement

American-Statesman recounts that on Jan. 7, 2008, the day after
$700,000 in credit card charges by defendants during a five-year
period were revealed, Judge Dietz ordered both sides to enter
settlement talks that he mediated, virtually ending discovery in
the case.

On March 10, the parties in the case reached the initial
settlement terms, pursuant to which the co-op's officials have
agreed to provide, if the money is available, $23 million in
credits to members over a five-year period.  The co-op has also
hired Navigant to conduct a review of its financial records and
governance practices.

Moreover, the settlement will also provide for up to $4 million
in attorneys' fees and plaintiffs' costs, including $1.4 million
which is not covered by the co-op's insurance firm and will be
paid directly out of co-op funds.  Up to five individually named
plaintiffs will be eligible for a "bonus" payment, to be
determined at an earlier April hearing in Judge Dietz's court.

                   The Navigant Investigation

American-Statesman also recalls that in January, the co-op
rejected lawmakers' request for the state auditor's office to
review its books and selected its own firm to perform the audit,
which was Navigant.


The lawmakers and the co-op agreed earlier this month that
Navigant will report its findings to the Public Utility
Commission first, creating an intermediary role for the state
agency.  The state auditor's office, however, will review and
comment on the findings, which could be available as early as
this summer or late this year.

                    Documents to be Released

"Legal settlements generally do not satisfy all parties
completely," Pedernales General Manager Juan Garza said.  "As
the vast majority of documents provided by PEC in the discovery
phase of litigation will be publicly released by Judge Dietz,
PEC will have the opportunity to move forward with complete
openness toward greater accountability.  It is time to focus on
the future."

The report points out that Judge Dietz plans to release
thousands of pages of documents turned over in the case that
remain under seal.


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Japan Air Pleads Guilty in Price-Fixing Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Japan Airlines decided to plead guilty last week in a freight
price-fixing cartel and agreed to pay a fine of US$110 million
(AU$117 million) for its role in the conspiracy, The Australian
reports.

According to The Australian, lawyers pursuing the class action
suit against Qantas Airways and other airlines say that JAL's
decision to plead guilty in the U.S. boosts their case.

Charges filed by the U.S. DoJ last week alleged that JAL engaged
in conspiracy in the U.S. and elsewhere to eliminate competition
by fixing cargo rates from April 1, 2000, to February, 2006.  It
said JAL was the biggest freight carrier during this period on
U.S.-Japan routes and earned almost $2 billion from its cargo
flights to and from the U.S.

"The price-fixing conspiracy inflicted a heavy toll on American
businesses and consumers," assistant Attorney-General Thomas
Barnett said.

Maurice Blackburn expects to represent more than 1,000
businesses affected by collusion between the airlines on freight
prices, the report says.

Qantas, British Airways, and Korean Air Lines have agreed to a
plea bargain with the U.S. Department of Justice.  Korean Air,
which is not a respondent in the class action, and British Air
were each fined US$300 million, while Qantas was fined US$61
million.

"This development means three out of the seven respondent
airlines in the Australian air cargo class action have now
pleaded guilty in the US and have agreed to substantial fines,"
Maurice Blackburn lawyer Kim Parker, told The Australian.

Ms. Parker said that the guilty pleas would be submitted to
court when the Australian trial begins and lawyers from the firm
would seek any documents JAL had given to the U.S. DoJ.  She
also said the firm was waiting for pleadings on the issue and
expected a decision soon because the hearing took place in
November 2007.

"Once we have that, there will be orders made for defenses to be
filed by the airlines and we start a process of discovery:
exchanging documents," Ms. Parker said.

The response of other regulators, including the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission, is still expected.  
Ms. Parker said her firm was also looking at claims by ACCC
investigators that the freight cartel began five years earlier
than previously thought.

Documents from a two-year secret ACCC investigation, released in
the Federal Court in March 2008, suggested widespread collusion
could have stretched back as far as 1995.  Documents suggest the
price-fixing could also relate to security surcharges airlines
imposed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the
U.S. and war-risk surcharges arising from the U.S. invasion of
Iraq in 2003.

Ms. Parker said Maurice Blackburn was watching the ACCC
investigation closely in light of the Federal Court revelations
and considering whether to extend their claim.  "As a result of
that we're presently reviewing whether we should extend the
claim to base rates as well as the surcharges just because of
the information that has come out of those documents," she said.

"And also we're just reviewing the period to see if the cartel,
in relation to base rates, started a lot earlier than 2000."

According to The Australian, ACCC documents suggest the
commission has been offering airlines discounts on their fines
of up to 30% if they agreed to settle and help with
investigations.  The documents indicate the ACCC has offered
settlement penalties of AU$5 million, AU$10 million and another,
considerably higher undisclosed amount.


SETON CAPITAL: Defrauded Homebuyers File Arizona Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Seton Capital Group, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
filed on April 16, 2008, with the Superior Court of the State of
Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa alleging it defrauds
homebuyers by taking and concealing yield-spread premiums -
kickbacks from lenders for putting customers in higher-cost
mortgages than they qualify for, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Bambi S. Johnson brings this proposed class
action for damages and injunctive relief from defendant's
deceptive mortgage-related sales practices.

The complaint alleges the defendant systematically engaged in
deceptive acts and practices by placing Arizona residents into
high interest rate mortgage loans when they qualified for lower
interest rate loans without telling the borrowers that they
qualified for better loans in order to collect kickback payments
from mortgage lenders, on top of origination fees and other
similar fees paid by borrowers.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of every Arizona
resident who, at anytime during the years 2000 to the present
entered into a mortgage loan brokered by defendant where
defendant collected a yield spread premium kickback payment from
the lenders that funded the loans.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order declaring that this action may be maintained as
        a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Arizona Rules
        of Civil Procedure;

     -- an order enjoining the defendant from continuing to
        accept kickback payments from lenders for placing
        borrowers in high cost loans without disclosing to
        borrowers the existence of the kickback payments, and
        the effect that the kickback payments and the higher
        interest rate will have on a borrower's mortgage loan;

     -- a refund of the wrongful amounts of mortgage loan-
        related interest charged to the plaintiff and class
        members;

     -- punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter
        similar wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant
        and other mortgage brokers; and

     -- an order awarding the plaintiff and class members
        all expenses, costs and disbursements incident to the
        prosecution of this action, including reasonable
        attorney's fees.

The suit is "Bambi Johnson et al. v. Seton Capital Group, Inc.,
Case No. CV2008-008419," filed with the Superior Court of the
State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com)
          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. (gwotkyns@bffb.com)
          Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC
          2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (602) 274-1100
          Fax: (602) 274-1199


TAKE-TWO: Investor Sues Over Electronic Arts Bid Rejection
----------------------------------------------------------
A Take-Two shareholder has filed a class action suit alleging
that the circumstances surrounding the publisher's refusal to
sell to Electronic Arts were fiscally irresponsible, mcvuk.com
reports.

According to the report, Take-Two disclosed the news in a filing
with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission.  The  stockholder,
Michael Maulano, filed the complaint on April 11, 2008, against
Take-Two and its eight-member board of directors with the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, where the publisher is
headquartered.

Mr. Maulano calls Take-Two's tactics a "breach of fiduciary
duty," and alleges that Take-Two's responses to EA's offer --
which came in at $26 per share -- contained "misleading and
incomplete" information.

Mr. Maulano claims "declaratory relief, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, damages, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses."

It is unclear how many other Take Two investors, if any, are
part of Mr. Maulano's class action suit, mcvuk.com relates.

Take-Two, in its SEC disclosure, said that it believes "these
claims lack merit," and that it intends to vigorously to defend
itself against them.


WEALTH ACADEMY: Sued Over Bogus Stock Trading Program
-----------------------------------------------------
The Wealth Intelligence Academy is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the Superior Court in California calling
its stock trading programs bogus, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

According to the report, the WIA defrauds its "students" by
charging them thousands of dollars to learn stock-trading
techniques that do not work, and advertising that "it was
'likely' that program participants would earn more than
$1 million."

Named plaintiff Dr. Alexander Kotler claims he fell for
defendant's pitch and paid $199 for an initial "Teach Me To
Trade" seminar.  At those classes, he says, he was persuaded to
pay $15,990 for a "Professional Trading Package."  After those
classes, Dr. Kotler says, the defendants persuaded him to pay
another $6,000 for a "mentor program."

"Like the seminars themselves, however, the mentor program was a
sham," the suit says.  "Despite numerous requests for assistance
from his 'mentor,' Dr. Kotler was never able to actually meet
with his mentor.  Though Dr. Kotler requested a refund for the
Mentor Program, WIA refused."

"Dr. Kotler also spent thousands of dollars on computer trading
program and monthly subscriptions recommended by WIA. These
programs, however, were primitive, outdated, unreliable and
slow, and, like the rest of the WIA system, unhelpful.

"After attending the seminars, Dr. Kotler spent between 10 to 12
hours, 5 days a week, for more than 10 months in an attempt to
implement the 'strategies' taught by WIA at the seminars.  He
eventually came to the conclusion, however, that it would be
virtually impossible for an individual trader to make money
trading in the stock market based on the formula taught by WIA,"
the suit adds.

Dr. Kotler demands punitive damages for fraud and violations of
consumer laws.

Wealth Intelligence Academy -- http://wiacademy.com-- is the  
only training institution of its kind in the world, providing
advanced real estate, business development, financial
investment, and asset protection training to students around the
globe.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., disclosed that a
securities class action has been commenced with the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of shareholders who acquired The Blackstone Group L.P.
securities pursuant to and traceable to the Company's initial
public offering on or about June 25, 2007.

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

For more information, contact:

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


CALAMOS GLOBAL: Abraham Fruchter Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers 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 issued in connection with
the September 2007 offering.

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

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:

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


CANDELA CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP,
commenced a class action suit with United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Candela Corporation from February 1, 2006, through
August 21, 2007, inclusive.

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

Candela manufactures and distributes clinical solutions that
enable physicians, surgeons, and personal care practitioners to
treat selected cosmetic and medical conditions using lasers,
aesthetic laser systems, and other advanced technologies.

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 was not able to remain competitive in
         the field;

     (2) specifically, the Company was not offering a
         competitive multi-configuration/multi-application
         device and was losing market share;

     (3) that the Company and Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc.
         had exchanged various communications concerning the
         prospect of patent litigation by Palomar, which if
         commenced would increase costs;

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

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

On August 10, 2006, the Company announced that it had filed a
claim against Palomar asserting that certain Palomar systems
infringed on upon patents held by Candela.  The Company stated
that it would seek an injunction and monetary damages.  Then, on
August 21, 2006, the Company shocked investors when it reported
that net income for the fourth quarter would be $0.10 per share,
well below the $0.23 per share analysts had expected.  The
Company announced that it was not satisfied with these results,
and that it would examine its position and the market and plan
to introduce new products in the first half of 2007.  Upon the
release of this news, the Company's shares declined $4.16 per
share, or 28.71 percent, to close on August 22, 2006 at $10.33
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 2,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


CREDIT SUISSE: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed with the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
American Depositary Receipts of Credit Suisse Group and U.S.
residents in citizens who purchased Credit Suisse stock between
February 15, 2007, and February 19, 2008, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Credit Suisse Group and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, specifically alleging that, throughout the
Class period, defendants failed to disclose the following:

     (1) record losses on deterioration in mortgage assets and
         collateralized debt obligations on its books caused by
         the high amount of no-collectible mortgages included in
         the portfolio;

     (2) internal controls were inadequate to ensure that losses
         on residential mortgage-related assets were accounted
         for properly; and

     (3) 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's ADRs collapsed to close at
$48.22 per ADR, a decline of almost 31%, from $69.61 per ADR in
early October 2007, on volume of 2.6 million ADR.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased the ADRs of Credit Suisse Group. between Feb. 17,
2007, and February 19, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 866-561-3600
          Fax: (215) 561-3000
          e-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com


SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
investors who purchased Select Shares or Investor Shares of the
Charles Schwab YieldPlus Fund .

Marketed to investors as a conservative investment, the Fund was
pitched to investors as being only marginally more risky than a
money market fund.  The Fund purported to deliver a high return
by investing in ultra-short term bonds.  The Fund was sold to
investors pursuant to a Prospectus, filed with the SEC, which
promised that the Fund would avoid risk by not investing in
illiquid instruments or by concentrating its investments in any
one industry.

In direct violation of the representations to investors, the
Fund focused its investments in high-risk mortgage-backed
instruments, including securities backed by subprime loans.
Contrary to its promises of diversification, the Fund
concentrated half of its assets in investments tied to
mortgages.  Moreover, approximately 40% of the Fund's assets
were locked into complex instruments such as Collateralized
Mortgage Obligations and Collateralized Debt Obligations that
were not liquid, and which the Fund could not readily sell.  
When the U.S. mortgage market collapsed, the Fund's investments
in these risky instruments plummeted in value.  By March 20,
2008, the Fund's assets had declined to approximately $2.5
billion from a high of over $13.0 billion as of May 30, 2007.

The complaint filed by Bernstein Litowitz on behalf of all
investors in the YieldPlus Fund asserts that Charles Schwab
Corp., Charles Schwab Management and other Charles Schwab
entities, together with several individuals employed by those
entities, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by registering and
selling the Select and Investor Shares of the Fund pursuant to
registration statements and prospectuses that contained untrue
information about the Fund, its investments and its risk
profile. The claim is asserted on behalf of all purchasers of
Investor and Select Shares of the Fund between March 17, 2005
and March 28, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq. (jerry@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, New York 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq. (blairn@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          12481 High Bluff  Drive, Suite 300
          Phone: (858) 720-3183
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com


WELLPOINT INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files IN Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of WellPoint, Inc. from January 23, 2008, through
March 10, 2008, inclusive.

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

WellPoint is the largest health benefits company in terms of
commercial membership in the United States.

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 medical costs were rising
         drastically, while at the same time the Company's
         reserves for medical costs were understated;

     (2) that the Company's growth in enrollment was in the less
         profitable sectors, such as self-funded members and
         products, and that the Company was not achieving
         sufficient new enrollment of Fully Insured Members;

     (3) that the Company's geographic diversity was not able to
         neutralize the adverse economic factors affecting the
         Company;

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

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

On March 10, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it reduced
its full year 2008 growth guidance from 15.3% to between 4% and
8% and stated that this would only occur if net realized gains
were about $0.06 per share.  Additionally, the Company decreased
its first quarter 2008 guidance from $1.44 per share to between
$1.16 and $1.26 per share, assuming net realized investment gain
of $0.06 per share.  The Company admitted that it had incurred
higher than expected medical costs and lower than expected Fully
Insured enrollment.  The Company also blamed is troubles on a
changing economic environment.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined
$18.66 per share, or 28.31 percent, to close on March 11, 2008,
at $47.26 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

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




                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *