CAR_Public/080429.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, April 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 84

                            Headlines

5-STAR TRUCK DRIVING: Settlement Reached in 2003 Class Lawsuit
ALBERTSON'S INC: CA Court Considers Settlement in "Ward" Case
BOEING CO: Ninth Circuit Favors Firm in Employment Bias Lawsuits
BOEING CO: Parties File Class Certification Briefs in ERISA Suit
CERTEGY CHECK: Settlement Notification in Data Breach Case Out

CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE: Babbitt Files Citigroup-Falcon Suit in FL
EVANSTON NORTHWEST: Accused of Antitrust Price Fixing in IL Suit
GEORGIA: Judge Allows Dougherty County Tax Revaluation Suit
HOBBY LOBBY: Recalls Egg Toys Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach
LIGGETT GROUP: Ill. Court Mulls Class Certification of "Cleary"

LIGGETT GROUP: No Hearing Set on Oral Arguments in "Brown" Case
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Still Faces Lawsuits Stemming From NYAG Case
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Still Ongoing in N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Md. ERISA Suit

MERCHANT MEDIA: Recalls Puzzles for Lead Paint Standard Breach
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Amended Complaints Filed D.C. Surcharges Suits
PACIFIC STEEL: Appeal of Court Decision in Nuisance Case Begins
PENNSYLVANIA: $35MM Settlement Reached in Bridgeport Fire Suit
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces Suit Over Exposed Customers' Information

PLAN TOY INC: Recalls Toy Penguins Due to Laceration Hazard
PRAXAIR INC: Still Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Welding Fumes
QIAO XING: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in NY for $2.4 Million
SUNVEST COMMUNITIES: Faces Nev. Suit Over Poorly Built Condos
SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Lawsuit in Calif.

SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Mulls Settlement in Labor Litigation
VALERO ENERGY: Reaud Morgan Launches Suit Over Overtime Payment
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces CA Suit Over Adjustable Rate Mortgages
WELLPOINT HEALTH: Continues to Face Calif. Hospitals' Litigation
WELLPOINT: Settles Certain Insurance Suits; Still Faces Others

XEROX CORP: "Carlson" Securities Suit Settled for $750 Million


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
AGRIA CORP: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Coughlin Stoia Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


5-STAR TRUCK DRIVING: Settlement Reached in 2003 Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of former students of 5-Star Truck
Driving School in Middletown, Middletown Journal relates, citing
a release issued April 23 by the Dayton-based Advocates for
Basic Legal Equality Inc.

Middletown Journal recounts that students of 5-Star alleged in a
2003 lawsuit filed in Butler County Common Pleas Court that the
school falsely guaranteed to get them jobs that would pay off
the high-interest loans for the Commercial Driver's License;
used unqualified instructors and inadequate hours of
instruction; and that a state CDL examiner pleaded guilty
following a probe to falsifying test results, which led to the
the revocation of more than 200 CDLs of former students by the
Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, the lenders and driver's
license test site agreed to settle the claims to end the cost
and uncertainty of litigation, according to the release.

A hearing is scheduled on May 23, 2008, to review the fairness
of the settlement terms, which calls for former students' loan
debts voided and partial refunds of payments.

The truck school, owned by the defunct Franklin Career Services
LLC of Louisville, Ky., is not party to the settlement, the
report says.

The former 5-Star students are represented by Equal Justice
Foundation of Columbus and the Dayton ABLE office, which will
administer the collection of forms and claim payment.  For
information, call (866) 837-8832.


ALBERTSON'S INC: CA Court Considers Settlement in "Ward" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California has yet to
approve the proposed settlement in the matter, "Joanne Kay Ward
et al. v. Albertson's, Inc. et al.," which was filed against
Albertson's Inc., an entity owned by Supervalu, Inc.

The suit, filed on Oct. 13, 2000, alleges that the company and
its subsidiaries -- Lucky Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores -- paid
terminated employees their final paychecks in an untimely
manner.  The suit sought statutory penalties.

On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action.  In
December 2007, however, the parties agreed to settle the matter,
subject to court approval, according to the Supervalu's
April 23, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 23, 2008.

Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S.  
grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three
retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food
and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


BOEING CO: Ninth Circuit Favors Firm in Employment Bias Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the
The Boeing Co. in an appeal that affects two employment
discrimination class action suits filed against the company in
Washington and Illinois.

                       Williams Litigation

In the Williams racial discrimination class action, which was
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, the company prevailed in a jury trial in December
2005.  The plaintiffs appealed the pre-trial dismissal of
compensation claims.   

                       Calendar Litigation

In the Calender racial discrimination class action, which was
filed with the U.S. Northern District of Illinois -- a spin-off
from Williams -– the plaintiffs dropped their promotions claim
on June 6, 2006, and put their compensation claims on hold
pending the outcome of the Williams appeal.  

On Feb. 27, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ruled in favor of Boeing on the Williams appeal, which
is expected to conclude both the Williams and Calender class
actions, according to the company's April 23, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/
-- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal
segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems,
Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems,
and Boeing Capital Corp.  


BOEING CO: Parties File Class Certification Briefs in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated class action suit against The Boeing
Co., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, have filed their respective briefs on the
certification of a class in the matter, which is currently
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class
action suit asserting allegations that Boeing is obligated to
provide vested lifetime retiree medical benefits to the
plaintiffs and all class members.

The plaintiffs alleged that the announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA.

The lawsuit also alleged that the collective bargaining
agreements and the medical plans obligate Boeing to provide
vested lifetime retiree health care benefits to the plaintiffs
and to all class members.

On Sept. 15, 2006, Boeing filed a lawsuit with the Northern
District of Illinois against the International UAW and two
retiree medical plan participants, seeking a declaratory
judgment confirming that the company has the legal right to make
changes to these medical benefits.

On June 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee directed the case to be transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The two
cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007.

The UAW filed a Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint on
Oct. 26, 2007, in which it sought to drop the retirees claim for
vested lifetime benefits based on successive collective
bargaining agreements and instead allege that the current
collective bargaining agreement is the sole alleged source of
rights to retiree medical benefits.  The company opposed the
motion.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the court granted the motion to amend the
complaint on the condition that the lifetime retiree benefits
claims are to be dismissed with prejudice.  

The plaintiffs' counsel is now considering whether to accept the
condition or withdraw the amended complaint.  In addition, both
parties filed Motions for Class Certification on Nov. 16, 2007,
and filed briefs on class certification on Feb. 28, 2008,
according to the company's April 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/
-- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal
segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems,
Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems,
and Boeing Capital Corp.


CERTEGY CHECK: Settlement Notification in Data Breach Case Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began in the United States and Puerto
Rico, as ordered by the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to alert people who:

     -- had a credit card;
     -- paid by check for an online or phone purchase;
     -- got cash at a casino; or
     -- had a check that bounced or was returned,

about a proposed settlement reached with Certegy Check Services,
Inc., and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., in a
class action lawsuit about stolen personal and financial
information.

The Class includes anyone in the United States and Puerto Rico
whose credit card, debit card, checking or demand deposit
account numbers or information was included in multiple
databases.  This includes millions of consumers who were
previously notified by their financial institution or Certegy
that their personal and financial information was stolen.

                        Case Background

In July 2007, Certegy, which provides check verification
services to major retailers, revealed that a former senior
database administrator stole data and sold the information to
marketing firms.  The company has filed a civil suit against the
former employee.

In October, a suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for
Middle District of Florida by the law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP
on behalf of customers whose info was sold to direct marketers
by a former employee (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 5, 2007).

Specifically, the defendants in the suit are: Certegy Check
Services, Inc.; Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.;
William G. Sullivan; and S&S Computer Services, Inc.

Initially, Certegy said about 2.3 million consumer records were
at issue, but later said an ongoing investigation determined 8.5
million consumer records were stolen.  

The company reiterated though that it has found no evidence
that the information was used for anything other than marketing
purposes.

                          Settlement

In March, Certegy offered to settle the class action lawsuit
over lost personal financial information of millions of
Americans last fall in an insider-related data breach (Class
Action Reporter, March 27, 2008).

The proposed settlement offers only partial help to some of the
8.4 million customers whose personal information was stolen by a
Certegy employee over a five-year period.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Certegy would also
offer:

   * credit and bank account monitoring,
   * identity theft reimbursement capped at $4 million,
   * reimbursement of some credit monitoring fees, and
   * enhanced security.

Moreover, the settlement calls for Certegy to give consumers a
free one-year subscription to Experian's Triple Alert, which is
a $4.95 monthly service that monitors credit reports for
evidence of fraudulent activity.  According SCMagazine, the plan
limits those eligible to about 1.25 million consumers whose
credit card or debit card information was stolen.

The settlement further calls for Certegy to monitor bank
accounts for evidence of fraud over a two-year period.  Roughly
4.25 million consumers whose account data were stolen would
qualify for this.

Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court
on March 21, 2008.

The U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida will hold
a final approval hearing August 22, 2008.

The suit is "Sellers v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:2007-cv-01020" filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Judge Timothy J. Corrigan
and Senior Judge Howell W. Melton, presiding, with referral to
Judge Thomas E. Morris.

Court appointed counsel are:

            Ben Barnow, Esq.
            Barnow and Associates, P.C.
            One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
            Chicago, Illinois 60602
            Phone: 312-621-2000  
            Fax: 312-641-5504

            Lance A. Harke, Esq.
            Harke & Clasby LLP
            155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 600
            Miami, FL 33130
            Phone: 305-536-8220
            Fax: 305-536-8229

            - and -

            Ralph K. Phalen, Esq.
            Law Office of Ralph K. Phalen
            Kansas City, Missouri


CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE: Babbitt Files Citigroup-Falcon Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche, P.A., of West Palm
Beach, Fla., announces that Robert Zeff TTEE FBO A. Robert Zeff
Revocable Living Trust U/A/D 10-15-97 has filed a class action
lawsuit on April 4, 2008, with the United States District Court
Southern District of Florida on behalf of the Trust and all
others similarly situated against Citigroup Alternative
Investments LLC, Citigroup, Inc. and Falcon Strategies Two B
LLC.

The Complaint alleges that Citigroup Alternative Investments
LLC, Citigroup, Inc. and Falcon Strategies Two B LLC violated
laws pertaining to fraud, negligent misrepresentation, 12(A)(2)
of the 1933 Securities Act and Florida Blue Sky Laws in the sale
and management of the Falcon Strategies Two B Fund.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Falcon Strategies
Two B was marketed to investors as an investment option with
capital preservation principals, low volatility and as an
alternative to other income providing investments.  However,
despite these assertions, the Complaint alleges that the Fund
managers implemented high-risk investment strategies that were
counter to the profile portrayed to investors.  These high-risk
investment strategies resulted in substantial losses to the
investors.

The Complaint alleges that anyone who purchased Falcon
Strategies Two B between September 30, 2005, and January 8,
2008, is a member of the putative class and has a potential
claim against the Defendants.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph A. Osborne, Esq.
          Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche, P.A.
          1450 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 100
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-684-2500


EVANSTON NORTHWEST: Accused of Antitrust Price Fixing in IL Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp. is facing a class-action
complaint filed on April 24, 2008, with the U.S. District Court
for the Nothern Disttrict of Illinois alleging it has raised and
fixed prices for health care at three North Shore hospitals -
Evanston, Glenbrook and Highland Park, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals and
entities who purchased inpatient and outpatient healthcare
services directly from defendant, its wholly-owned hospitals,
predecessors, or controlled subsidiaries and affiliates from at
least Jan. 1, 2000, to the present.

The plaintiffs allege that during the class period, ENH engaged
in illegal monopolization of the market for inpatient and
outpatient healthcare services in the geogrphic triangle formed
by ENH's three wholly-owned hospitals:

     -- Evanston Hospial
     -- Glenbrook Hospital and
     -- Highland Park Hospital.

Moreover the merger of these hospitals substantially lessened
competition in the relevant market.

The plaintiffs claim that in August 2007, the Federal Trade
Commission affirmed its 2004 complaint and the decision of an
administrative law judge that the 2000 merger between ENH and
Lakeland Health -- which led to ENH's acquisition of Highland
Park Hospital, formerly a competitor -- was immediately followed
by substantial prices increases and price fixing.

Because of ENH's unlawful conduct, as alleged, the plaintiffs
paid artificially inflated prices for healthcare services and,
as a result, have suffered antitrust injury to their business or
property.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether ENH has exercised monopoly power in the sale of
         healthcare services in the relevant geographic market;

     (b) whether ENH's alleged conduct violates Section 2 of the
         Sherman Act;

     (c) whether ENH's alleged conduct violates Section 7 of the
         Clayton Act;

     (d) whether the conduct of ENH, as alleged, caused injury
         to the business and property of the plaintiffs;

     (e) the effect of ENH's exercise of monopoly power on the
         prices of healthcare services sold by ENH and its
         wholly-owned hospitals during the class period; and

     (f) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiff and the other members of the class.

The plaintiffs ask the court to:

     -- determine that this action may be maintained as a class
        action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- adjudge that ENH has engaged in unlawful conduct in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC
        Section 2;

     -- adjudge that ENH has engaged in unlawful conduct in
        violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 USC
        Section 18;

     -- enter judgment for plaintiffs against ENH for three
        times the amount of damages sustained by the
        plaintiffs as allowed by law, together with the costs of
        this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- permanently enjoin ENH, its wholly-owned hospitals, its
        affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the
        officers, directors, partners, agents and employees
        thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act
        on their behalf, from, in any manner continuing or
        maintaining the unlawful exercise of monopoly power
        alleged and from adopting or following any practice,
        plan, program or device having a similar purpose or
        effect;

     -- order the divestiture of Highland Park Hospital, and
        associated assets, in a manner that restores Highland
        Park Hospital as a viable, independent competitor in the
        relevant market; and

     -- grant any other relief appropriate to correct or remedy
        the anticompetitive effects of ENH's acquisition of
        Highland Park Hospital or to restore Highland Park
        Hospital as a viable, independent competitor in the
        relevant market.

The suit is "Steven J. Messner et al. v. Evanston Northwestern
Healthcare Corp., Case No. 08CV2343," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge
Guzman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Fax: (312) 984-0001


GEORGIA: Judge Allows Dougherty County Tax Revaluation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 25, 2008, that about
15 property owners in Dougherty County, Georgia, filed a
purported class action lawsuit with the Dougherty County
Superior Court seeking equitable relief from a countrywide tax
revaluation.  Calling the action "unconstitutional, illegal,
null and void," the plaintiffs are asking the court to reinstate
property values based on the county's 2006 tax digest.

The lawsuit, which named Dougherty County Tax Director Denver
Hooten and members of the Board of Tax Assessors as defendants,
was assigned to Judge John Crosby, senior judge with the Tifton
Judicial Circuit.

Tax Director Hooten said that last year's countywide
reassessment of property values was the first since 1963 and it
boosted Dougherty's tax digest by some 20%, though local
governments later lowered their millage rates slightly.

However, the lawsuit asserted that the reassessment was
fundamentally flawed.

The firm hired to conduct the reassessment, Tyler CLT Division,
used a "mass appraisal" methodology, considering only square
footage and age to determine a home's value, ignoring comparable
sales and other relevant factors such as use, while agricultural
property was valued at a flat per-acre price, the suit alleged.

Of some 34,000 parcels reassessed, Dougherty officials have
reported that "slightly over 5,400 taxpayers filed appeals" of
the new values.

According to the complaint, the county also neglected to provide
a "nontechnical" explanation for increases of 15% or more as
required by Georgia law, then discouraged taxpayers during the
appeals process, scheduling hundreds of hearings at the same
time and stacking three adjunct boards of equalization with
members "disinclined to support the reduction of appraised
values."

In an update, Albany Herald On-line relates that the Dougherty
taxpayers scored a legal victory last week when Judge Crosby
refused to dismiss the case.

The report recounts that Tax Director Hooten and the board of
tax assessors filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that  
the taxpayers had adequate remedies at law through the appeals
process and in superior court, and denying many of the
plaintiffs' factual allegations.

In an order filed April 22, Judge Crosby denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss any of the complaint's 18 counts.

"We're just thrilled to death," Richard Thomas, a plaintiff in
the case and member of taxpayers' group Concerned Citizens of
Dougherty County, told Albany Herald.  "The community will
realize that we have a voice now," he said.

According to Albany Herald, though Dougherty’s tax digest has
been approved by the Department of Revenue, tax bills have been
mailed and many paid.  If the plaintiffs win the suit in a
likely jury trial, many taxpayers will be due refunds.

A Dougherty grand jury that convened in December also
recommended the values be set aside and taxpayers be billed at
2006 values.

The non-profit taxpayers' group has paid many legal fees through
donations, and needs $30,000-$40,000 more to continue the
litigation, Mr. Thomas further said.  


HOBBY LOBBY: Recalls Egg Toys Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., of Oklahoma City, Okla., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 13,000 Camouflage Eggs and Spinning Egg Top Toys.

The company said the paint on the toys contains excessive levels
of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard.  No injuries
were reported.

The Camouflage Easter Egg Treat Containers have Item #1031
printed on the front of the packaging and are white, brown and
green camouflage colors, sold in a package of eight eggs.  "Made
in China for Tony Development and Mfg Ltd; TST, Kin, HK" and UPC
code number 43078 01031 are printed on the back of the packing.

The Easter Spinning Egg Tops have Item # 1054 printed on the
front of the packaging and are multi-colored and come in
packages of a single egg and a rip cord.  "Made in China for
Tony Development and Mfg Ltd. TST, Kin, HK" and UPC code number
43078 01054 are printed on the back of the packaging.

These Camouflage Eggs and Spinning Egg Top Toys were
manufactured in China and are being sold at Hobby Lobby Stores
nationwide from January 2008 through March 2008.  The camouflage
egg sold for about $2.50 and the Spinning Top sold for about $2.

A picture of recalled Camouflage Easter Egg Treat Containers is
found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08229.jpg

Consumers should immediately take the recalled Camouflage Eggs
and the Spinning Egg Tops away from children and contact Hobby
Lobby to receive a $3 exchange card that can be used toward the
purchase of any other products sold at Hobby Lobby stores.

For additional information, contact Hobby Lobby toll-free at
(800) 326-7931 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at:
http://www.HobbyLobby.com


LIGGETT GROUP: Ill. Court Mulls Class Certification of "Cleary"
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois state court has yet to rule on a motion seeking for
class certification of the matter, "Cleary v. Philip Morris,
Inc.," which names Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector
Group Ltd., as a defendant, according to the company's Feb. 29,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit was filed in June 1998 with the Illinois state court.  
It was brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been
injured by:

       -- the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which
          defendants allegedly concealed material facts
          regarding the addictive nature of nicotine;

       -- the defendants' alleged acts of targeting their
          advertising and marketing to minors; and

       -- the defendants' claimed breach of the public's right
          to defendants' compliance with laws prohibiting the
          distribution of cigarettes to minors.

The plaintiffs request that the defendants be required to
disgorge all profits unjustly received through their sale of
cigarettes to plaintiffs, which in no event will be greater than
$75,000 each, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs.

In July 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  A class certification hearing occurred in
September 2007 and the parties are awaiting a decision.  

Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a  
holding company for a number of businesses through its wholly
owned subsidiary, VGR Holding Inc.  Vector Group is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC; and the development
and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free QUEST
cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette
products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the
real estate business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC,
which owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.  Douglas Elliman
Realty, LLC operates as a residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


LIGGETT GROUP: No Hearing Set on Oral Arguments in "Brown" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has yet to set a hearing on a
petition for review with regards to the purported class action,
"Brown v. The American Tobacco Co., Inc.," which names Liggett
Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., as a defendant.

In April 2001, in "Brown v. The American Tobacco Co., Inc.," a
California state court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and certified a class comprised of adult
residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants'
cigarettes "during the applicable time period" and who were
exposed to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities
in California.  

In March 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
decertify the class based on a recent change in California law.  

In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with
the California Supreme Court, which was granted in November
2006.  Oral argument has not yet been scheduled, according to
the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a  
holding company for a number of businesses through its wholly
owned subsidiary, VGR Holding Inc.  Vector Group is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC; and the development
and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free QUEST
cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette
products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the
real estate business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC,
which owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.  Douglas Elliman
Realty, LLC operates as a residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Still Faces Lawsuits Stemming From NYAG Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. and its subsidiary, Marsh Inc.,
continue to face several purported class action suits that stem
from  a lawsuit filed by the New York State Attorney General in
2004, which lawsuit has been settled.

                          NYAG Lawsuit

In January 2005, MMC and Marsh entered into an agreement with
the NYAG and the New York State Insurance Department to settle a
civil complaint filed in New York State court by NYAG in October
2004 and a related citation issued by the Insurance Department.

Among other things, the NYAG Lawsuit and the citation had
alleged that Marsh's use of market service agreements with
various insurance companies entailed fraudulent business
practices, bid-rigging, illegal restraint of trade and other
statutory violations.

Following the filing of the NYAG Lawsuit, numerous private party
lawsuits have been commenced against MMC, one or more of its
subsidiaries, and their current and former directors and
officers, relating to matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit.

                     New Jersey Litigation

Various putative class action suits purportedly brought on
behalf of policyholders have been consolidated into two actions
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (one
on behalf of a purported class of "commercial" policyholders and
the second on behalf of a purported class of "employee benefit"
policyholders).

The actions alleged a variety of legal theories, including those
related to state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, federal and
state antitrust and  Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act theories, and sought a variety of remedies,
including unspecified monetary damages, treble damages,
disgorgement, restitution, punitive damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has dismissed with prejudice all of the federal
antitrust and RICO claims and has dismissed without prejudice
all of the state law claims asserted in both actions.  The
plaintiffs have appealed.

                 Florida & New York Litigation

In July 2007, two putative class actions against MMC, Marsh,
certain insurers and other insurance brokers purportedly brought
on behalf of policyholders were filed with the U.S. District
Court of the Southern District of Florida and the Southern
District of New York.  

These actions relate to the same practices alleged in the NYAG
Lawsuit, but with respect to insurance coverage placed with
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London.  These actions have
been transferred to the District of New Jersey.

                State Court & Canadian Litigation

Four class or representative actions on behalf of policyholders
are pending in state courts.

Two putative class actions and an individual policyholder action
are pending in Canada.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a  
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh, the insurance broker, intermediary
and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter, the risk and reinsurance
specialist; Kroll, the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the
provider of human resources and related financial advice and
services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy.  
MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to
clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC conducts business
through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services,
Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a consolidated securities fraud
class action suit pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Marsh & McLennan Cos.,
Inc.

The suit was brought on behalf of individuals and entities who
purchased or acquired MMC's publicly traded securities during
the purported class period of Oct. 14, 1999, to Oct. 13, 2004.

The plaintiffs' pending complaint in this action names MMC,
Marsh, MMC's former chief executive, and one former Marsh
officer as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that MMC artificially
inflated its share price by making misrepresentations and
omissions relating to Marsh's market service agreements and
business practices.  They allege that MMC also failed to
disclose alleged anti-competitive and illegal practices at
Marsh, such as "bid-rigging" and soliciting fictitious quotes.

The complaint includes factual allegations similar to those
asserted in the New York Attorney General Lawsuit, as well as
factual allegations concerning alleged misconduct at MMC's
subsidiaries, and alleged conflicts of interest associated with
MMC's former private equity subsidiary, MMC Capital.

The complaint includes claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on MMC's
allegedly false or incomplete disclosures.

MMC has responded to the complaint and discovery in this matter
has commenced.

MMC reported no further development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-8144," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl
Kram presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

             Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP
             10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
             New York, NY, 10016
             Phone: 800-217-1522
             e-mail: info@bernlieb.com
             Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com/

                  - and -

             Grant & Eisenhofer PA
             1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
             Wilmington, DE, 19801
             Phone: 302-622-7000
             Fax: 302-622-7100
             e-mail: info@gelaw.com
             Web site: http://www.gelaw.com/


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Still Ongoing in N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the class action "In re Marsh
ERISA Litigation, Case No. 04-8157," which is pending with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc.

The proceeding, which consolidated 20 purported class actions
that were filed against MMC and other fiduciaries of the Marsh &
McLennan Stock Investment Plan, was brought on behalf of plan
participants and beneficiaries who invested in MMC common stock
at any time between July 1, 2000, and Jan. 31, 2005

The consolidated class action complaint names MMC and various
current and former employees, officers and directors as
defendants and alleges, among other things, that in view of the
purportedly fraudulent bidding activity and the receipt of
contingent commissions pursuant to market service agreements,
the defendants knew or should have known that the investment of
the Plan's assets in MMC stock was imprudent.

The consolidated complaint also asserts that certain defendants
failed to provide the Plan's participants with complete and
accurate information about MMC stock, that certain defendants
responsible for selecting, removing and monitoring other
fiduciaries did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, and that MMC knowingly participated in other
defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.

The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The amount of Plan assets invested in MMC stock at Oct. 13,
2004, (immediately prior to the announcement of the New York
Attorney General Lawsuit) was approximately $1.2 billion.

The consolidated complaint alleges that during the purported
class period, which extends from July 1, 2000, until Jan. 31,
2005, MMC's stock price fell from $52.22 to $32.50.

In December 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motions to dismiss filed by MMC and the other defendants.
Discovery is underway in this matter.

MMC reported no further development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Walsh v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-08157-SWK," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          T. David Copley, Esq. (dcopley@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, Washington 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-224-7557
          Fax: 206-623-3384

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq. (lgrant@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          Web site: http://www.cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          William Joseph Sushon, Esq. (wsushon@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          Times Square Tower
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 728-5693
          Fax: (212) 326-2061

               - and -

          Pamela Rogers Chepiga, Esq.
          Allen & Overy LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 610-6300
                 (212) 756-1125
          Fax: (212) 610-6399


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Md. ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in one of two purported class action suits
pending in Maryland against Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., and
Putnam Investments Trust, which was purchased by Great-West
Lifeco, Inc. from MMC, are appealing the dismissal of their
case, according to MMC's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Aside from MMC and Putnam, certain of the two companies' current
and former officers, directors and employees were named
defendants in purported class actions, one brought by
participants in an MMC retirement plan and the other brought by
participants in a Putnam retirement plan, which are generally
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The actions allege, among other things, that, in view of the
market-timing that was allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the
investment of the plans' funds in MMC stock and the Putnam Funds
was imprudent and constituted a breach of fiduciary duties to
plan participants.  Both actions seek unspecified damages and
equitable relief.

In September 2006, the action regarding the Putnam plan was
dismissed against all defendants; the plaintiff is appealing the
decision.  The action regarding the MMC plan has been stayed.

Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a global  
professional services firm providing advice and solutions in the
areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the parent
company of a number of risk experts and specialty consultants,
including Marsh, the insurance broker, intermediary and risk
advisor; Guy Carpenter, the risk and reinsurance specialist;
Kroll, the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the provider of human
resources and related financial advice and services; and Oliver
Wyman Group, the management consultancy.  MMC provides analysis,
advice and transactional capabilities to clients in more than
100 countries. MMC conducts business through three operating
segments: Risk and Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk
Consulting and Technology.


MERCHANT MEDIA: Recalls Puzzles for Lead Paint Standard Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Media Corp., of Framingham, Mass., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
198,000 Toy Puzzle Vehicle Sets.

The company said, the surface paints on the puzzle pieces and
components contain excessive levels of lead, violating the
federal lead paint standard.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes the 16 piece Puzzle Track Play sets also
known as Battery Operated Puzzle Vehicle sets.  QVC item number
T16876 is printed on the exterior of the brown box packaging.
The sets have plastic puzzle pieces that when put together form
a track with a battery operated train, fire engine or school bus
vehicle designed to run on the track.  Miniature street signs,
traffic cones, and a battery for the vehicle are also included
in the sets.

These recalled Toy Puzzle Vehicle Sets were manufactured in
China and were being sold by QVC televised shopping programs,
Web page, toll-free number, and Studio store from September 2002
through December 2007 for about $20.

A picture of the recalled Toy Puzzle Vehicle Sets is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08551.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy
puzzle sets away from children and return to QVC for a full
refund including shipping and handling.  Consumers who purchased
the recalled set from QVC's television program or at QVC.com
were sent a package by mail containing return information.
Consumers who purchased the recalled set at the QVC Studio store
should return the product to the store where purchased for a
full refund.

For additional information, contact QVC at (800) 367-9444
between 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. ET or visit the firm's Web site
at: http://www.qvc.com


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Amended Complaints Filed D.C. Surcharges Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated amended complaints were filed in several putative
class actions against Norfolk Southern Corp., and several other
major U.S. railroads that were consolidated in the District of
Columbia and are alleging that the individual railroads
conspired in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class actions have been filed
against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1 railroads in
various federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2008).   

On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial
Panel on Multi-district Litigation.

With respect to the antitrust class actions consolidated on Nov.
6, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consolidated
amended class action complaints were filed against NS and three
other railroads on April 15, 2008.  

The complaints allege violations of Federal antitrust laws and
other laws with regard to the railroads’ fuel surcharge
programs, according to the company's April 23, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- controls a   
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of
raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods
primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via
interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S.
and parts of Canada.  


PACIFIC STEEL: Appeal of Court Decision in Nuisance Case Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Steel Casting's appeal of a small claims court decision
in November 2007 which went against the company has began and is
expected to go on for the next two months, a spokesperson for
the steel foundry told the Berkeley Daily Planet.

Daily Planet recounts that the West Berkeley-based steel foundry
filed an appeal on Dec. 6, 2007, with the Alameda County
Superior Court against an earlier order awarding $35,000 in
damages to a group of West Berkeley neighbors who sued Pacific
Steel for loss of use and enjoyment of their property and mental
distress.

"The company disagreed with the decisions made by the judge,"
said Elisabeth Jewel, of Aroner, Jewel and Ellis, the public
relations firm representing Pacific Steel.  "They will be
appealing all of the judgments in each of the small claims
cases."

Daily Planet recalls that Judge Dawn Girard ruled at the
November hearing that nine of the 19 plaintiffs who filed the
small claims case in August 2006 would each get between $2,100
and $5,100 because of the "private nuisance created by Pacific
Steel," and "a real and appreciable invasion of the plaintiffs'
interests."

A majority of the plaintiffs had complained of a burnt copper-
like smell which they believed could be toxic.

Lead plaintiff Tom McGuire had called the November judgment "a
victory for the small guys."

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jacquelyn Tabor heard only
Mr. McGuire's case on April 23, 2008, to determine how the
remaining eight cases would proceed.

"I think PSC is grasping at straws, sucker punching, anything to
put up the facade of a case to wipe the toxic egg off their
face," Mr. McGuire told Daily Planet.  "There is so much
evidence that foul odors and noxious emissions are and have been
emanating from their smokestacks that to deny it or try to
defend it is folly."

Since the defendants' expert witness in small claims would not
be available for the trial, Mr. McGuire said the group had
brought in local activist LA Wood.  "We're going to have to win
this case based on our own strong and compelling testimony," he
said.

Judge Tabor is retired and is returning to court only for this
particular case.  The hearing will take longer than usual since
she will be working on the case only on Wednesdays, Ms. Jewel
told Daily Planet.

Berkeley-based attorney Tim Rumberger, Esq., intends to file a
class action lawsuit against Pacific Steel on behalf of
"thousands of neighbors," according to a press release his
office faxed to the Daily Planet late afternoon on April 21.

The lawsuit will seek an injunction to require the foundry to
"reduce its off-site toxic emissions impact to safe levels or
relocate from this neighborhood," and demands a "compensation to
the thousands of neighbors affected daily by the noxious odors
and toxins."

Daily Planet points out that Pacific Steel settled a lawsuit
with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and installed
a $2 million carbon absorption unit on Plant 3 to reduce
emissions and odor last year.  It also settled a lawsuit with
Communities for a Better Environment which required it to
install an air filtration system.


PENNSYLVANIA: $35MM Settlement Reached in Bridgeport Fire Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A multi-million-dollar settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit involving the largest fire in Montgomery County's
history, according to KYW News Radio 1060.

KYW News relates that after almost five years, the last of 16
defendants in the case settled on April 23, 2008, following a
five-week trial that had reached the jury deliberation stage.

The report recalls that the 2001 fire destroyed the Continental
Business Center in Bridgeport (Montgomery County), Pa.  Shanin
Specter, Esq., who represented the plaintiffs, said that an
investigation found that the fire had started in an electrical
circuit breaker panel.

"Those circuit breakers had gotten wet in a flood two years
earlier, and those breakers had not been replaced.  And over the
course of the next two years they had corroded, and arcing
occurred within the breaker box.  The box caught on the fire,
the fire spread from outside the box," Mr. Specter said.

Mr. Specter stated that the blame lies with those who didn't fix
the breaker, and tenants who had materials stored in an improper
way, which allowed the fire to spread.

More than 500 firefighters fought the blaze over three days, the
report recounts.  More than 100 businesses and individuals
suffered losses in the massive fire seven years ago.

The settlement, KYW News relates, has been valued at
$35 million.

Mr. Specter calls it a good outcome, saying "Our economic expert
testified in the case that the businesses and individuals who
lost their property in the fire and lost income, lost between 30
and 41 million dollars."


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces Suit Over Exposed Customers' Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Haven-based law firm Stratton Faxon dove into the fray over
People's United Bank's alleged failure to protect customers'
information from Dumpster divers, Rob Varnon writes for the
Connecticut Post.

Michael Stratton, Esq., partner and founder of Stratton Faxon,
told Connecticut Post that he notified an attorney for People's
United of his intention to seek class action status for a suit
filed on behalf of five customers who are worried that their
information could have been exposed to identity theft by the
bank's alleged failure to properly dispose of private
information.

"Some People's Bank customers were pretty upset," Mr. Stratton
said after reading a Connecticut Post report that Fairfield
resident James Hastings had spent months pulling many unshredded
papers listing private information, including account and Social
Security numbers, from trash bins at branches in Fairfield
County.

According to Connecticut Post, the bank did not know about
Mr. Hastings' activities until he showed up at its headquarters
with a video depicting him rummaging through the trash and
pulling out documents.  Mr. Hastings still has documents he
culled from branch Dumpsters, although police raided his home
and seized some documents.  The bank is suing Mr. Hastings and
the case began last week in Bridgeport Superior Court.

The bank alleges in its lawsuit that Mr. Hastings, as part of a
shakedown, asked to be hired as a security consultant.  Mr.
Hastings, who maintains he did this to expose a security flaw at
the bank so it could fix them, said he did ask for a consultant
position.

As with the proposed class action suit, Mr. Stratton said that
his firm would seek punitive damages, attorneys fees and credit
protection and monitoring services for the class of consumers
affected, or, if the case is not certified, for his firm's
clients.  The bank has promised credit monitoring for up to a
year for anyone whose information fell into Mr. Hastings' hands.

"We took a really hard look at it before proceeding," Mr.
Stratton said.  After a conversation with Mr. Hastings' lawyer,
which revealed Mr. Hastings could have information on as many as
1,500 customers, Mr. Stratton said he decided to move forward
with the lawsuit.

Mr. Stratton told Connecticut Post that the five customers his
firm represents have not been contacted by the bank as being
exposed by Mr. Hastings' trash digging.  However, Mr. Stratton
said the real concern is whether such disposal practices at
People's had been going on for years and if it was a statewide
problem.

The bank has more than 155 branches in Connecticut, according to
its Web site.

According to Mr. Stratton, he was shocked by the lapse in
security and even wrote in a news release, "It is obscene in the
day and age of identity theft for People's United to have no
system of shredding or incinerating documents."  Mr. Stratton
added that he will be seeking documents on what exactly People's
procedures were prior to this scandal emerging.

People's Chief Executive Officer and President Philip
Sherringham told investors during the bank's quarterly report
that he was horrified by the problem and it violated the bank's
security procedures.  He added that the bank was investing in
new shredders.


PLAN TOY INC: Recalls Toy Penguins Due to Laceration Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plan Toy Inc., of Mountain View, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
3,000 Toy Penguin Figures.

The company said the head of the penguin toy can detach,
exposing connectors with sharp points, presenting a laceration
hazard to consumers.

Plan Toys has received one report of the head of a penguin toy
detaching.  No injuries have been reported.

The wood penguin-shaped toy has a black head with rubber fins, a
yellow nose and a white body with red on the base.  The toy is
round-shaped and creates a soft bell jingle when spun.  The toy
measures about 3 inches in height and about 3 inches in
diameter.  "PLAN TOYS" and UPC number 084543521109 or EAN number
8854740052117 are printed on the outside of the packaging of the
toy.

These recalled Toy Penguin Figures were being manufactured in
Thailand and were being sold at specialty toy stores nationwide
and on-line from May 2007 through February 2008 for between $15
and $20.

A picture of the recalled Toy Penguin Figures is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08230.jpg

Consumers should immediately take the penguin toys away from
children and return them to the store where purchased to receive
a refund.  Consumers also can contact Plan Toys to receive
instructions on returning the penguin toys via mail for a
refund.

For additional information, contact Plan Toys toll-free at (866)
517-7526 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.plantoys.com


PRAXAIR INC: Still Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Welding Fumes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Praxair, Inc., continues to be a co-defendant with many other
companies in 427 lawsuits alleging personal injury caused by
manganese contained in welding fumes, according to the company's
April 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The company has never manufactured welding consumables.  Such
products were manufactured prior to 1985 by a predecessor
company of Praxair.

There are a total of 2,246 individual claimants in these cases.
The cases are pending in several state and federal courts.

The federal cases have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and, in most
instances, punitive damages.  

In the past, Praxair has either been dismissed from the cases
with no payment or has settled a few cases for nominal amounts.

There are seven proposed class actions seeking medical
monitoring on behalf of welders.  None of the class actions have
been certified; the judge overseeing the federal cases recently
denied a motion for a medical monitoring class action.

Praxair, Inc. -- http://www.praxair.com/-- is an industrial  
gases supplier in North and South America, Asia, and has
businesses in Europe.   


QIAO XING: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in NY for $2.4 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc. has settled a securities
fraud suit filed with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The proposed settlement provides for creation of a Settlement
Fund in the amount of $2,400,000.

The suit is filed on behalf of all persons and entities who:

     (1) purchased shares of Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc.
         (Qiao Xing, a company traded on the NASDAQ Global
         Select Market as XING) common stock between June 30,
         2004 and July 16, 2007, both dates inclusive;

     (2) purchased Qiao Xing call options between June 30, 2004
         and July 16, 2007, both dates inclusive; or

     (3) sold Qiao Xing put options between June 30, 2004 and
         July 16, 2007, both dates inclusive.

The Complaint charged Qiao Xing and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2007).

More specifically, the Complaint alleged 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 had materially overstated its net
         income for the years ended December 31, 2003, Dec. 31,
         2004, and December 31, 2005;

     (2) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

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

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

The Company shocked investors on July 17, 2007 when it disclosed
that it was forced to restate its previously issued financial
statements for the years ending December 31, 2003, 2004, and
2005.  The Company stated that "certain misstatements" were not
detected due to multiple deficiencies in the Company's system of
internal controls over financial reporting, including an
insufficient complement of personnel with accounting knowledge,
lack of an effective enterprise risk management system, lack of
an effective anti-fraud program and whistleblower system, and
lack of an independent and effective internal audit function.  
On this news, shares of Qiao Xing fell $2.93 per share, or 21%,
to close on July 17, 2007, at $11.04 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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

Deadline to file for exclusions is on June 16, 2008.  Deadline
to file objections is on June 20, 2008.  Deadline to file claims
is July 21, 2008.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a hearing on July 11, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.,
before Judge Denise Cote.

The suit is "In re Qiao Xing Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 07 cv 7097 (DLC)," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise Cote, presiding.

For more information, contact:

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 682-1818


SUNVEST COMMUNITIES: Faces Nev. Suit Over Poorly Built Condos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunvest Communities USA, is facing a class-action complaint
filed on April 24, 2008, with the District Court in Clark
County, Nevada alleging it fraudulently induced people to buy
poorly built condos and mismanaged the Desert Shores Villas
complex, a class action claims in Clark County Court, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Also sued are:

     -- Desert Shores Holdings,
     -- Realty Management,
     -- Country Home Loans, and
     -- The Condo Store.

This is a class action for damages in excess of the court's
jurisdictional requirement.

The plaintiffs asks the court:

     -- for damages in an amount jurisdictionally allowable by
        law;

     -- for punitive damages in an amount in excess of $10,000
        or an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- for reasonable attorney's fees together with costs for
        bringing this action; and

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

The suit is "Estate of William A. Forest et al. v. Sunvest
Communities USA, LLC, Case NO. A561629," filed with the District
Court for Clark County, Nevada.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John A. Gurtas, Esq.
          Micheline N. Fairbank, Esq.
          Armstrong Teasdale, LLP
          317 South Sixth Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89101


SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc., and its acquisition, Albertson's Inc., continue
to face a consolidated class action suit filed by assistant
managers with the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
California.

                        Gardner Litigation

In April 2000, a class-action complaint was filed against
Albertson's, as well as its wholly owned subsidiaries --
American Stores Co.; American Drug Stores, Inc.; Sav-on Drug
Stores, Inc.; and Lucky Stores, Inc. -- with the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California.

The suit, "Gardner, et al. v. American Stores Company, et al.,"
was filed by assistant managers seeking recovery of overtime
based on allegations that they were improperly classified as
exempt under California law.

In May 2001, the court certified a class with respect to Sav-on
Drug Stores assistant managers.

                       Rocher Litigation

A case with very similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug
Stores assistant managers and operating managers, was also filed
in April 2000 against Sav-on Drug Stores with the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California.

The suit, "Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.,"
was certified as a class action in June 2001 with respect to
assistant managers and operating managers.

The two cases were consolidated in December 2001.  New
Albertson's was added as a named defendant in November 2006.

The plaintiffs seek overtime wages, meal and rest break
penalties, other statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Supervalu reported no development in the matter in its April 23,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 23, 2008.

Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S.  
grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three
retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food
and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Mulls Settlement in Labor Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego  
has yet to approve the proposed settlement in a purported class
action against Supervalu, Inc., and its acquisition, Albertson's
Inc.  The suit alleges that the defendants failed to pay wages
for time worked during meal breaks by its non-exempt employees
working in key carrier positions.

Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint with the
California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego in
August 2004.  It was later certified as a class action.

The lawsuit also alleges that Albertson's failed to provide
itemized wage statements as required by California law and that
Albertson's failed to timely pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees as required by California law.  

It further alleges a violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and
penalties owed the members of the class certified, including
compensation of one hour of pay for rest or meal period
violations and wages for all time worked while employees were
clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the
premises during meal periods.

It further seeks to recover all past due compensation and
penalties for failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements and to pay all wages due at time of termination for
members of the class certified with interest from Aug. 6, 2000,
to the time of trial.

In December 2007, the parties agreed to settle the matter,
subject to Court approval, according to the Supervalu's
April 23, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 23, 2008.

Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S.  
grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three
retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food
and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


VALERO ENERGY: Reaud Morgan Launches Suit Over Overtime Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reaud, Morgan & Quinn law firm launched a new class action suit
against Valero Energy, alleging the oil giant circumvented
paying its contractors overtime by classifying workers' wages as
"per diem," Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit was filed on April 18, 2008, with the Jefferson County
District Court on behalf of class representative Ruston Benoit.
The suit also names Bay Ltd. as a defendant.

According to Southeast Texas Record, the lawsuit alleges that
Valero and Bay "wrongfully and artificially" classified Mr.
Benoit's and other workers' weekly wages as a "per diem" or per-
day pay to avoid paying them time-and-a-half.

The report relates that Mr. Benoit worked for Bay as an
electrical technician from March 31 through April 8 and, as
claimed in the suit, he worked "in excess of 40 hours per week."
According to the suit, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, those
hours were overtime and subject to compensation at one and one-
half times the worker's regular rate.

"Defendant artificially and knowingly attempted to characterize
a weekly payment as a 'per diem,' not subject to payment at a
rate of time-and-a-half.  Therefore, instead of paying full
wages of time-and-a-half for overtime, Defendant was able to pay
less than that amount through the artifice of paying a 'per
diem,'" the suit says.  "Bay's actions have amounted to a
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for which
recovery is allowed under Federal Law."

The suit also alleges that Bay agreed to pay $55.00 per day "per
diem", but failed to do so.  "Such failure constitutes a breach
of contract," the suit says.

Although Bay employed Mr. Benoit, the class representative
contends in his complaint that Valero "planned the manner in
which [he] was hired and the terms and conditions of his
employment and the decision to improperly characterize wages as
'per diem' and failed to pay the promised per diem. . . . "As
such, Defendant Valero is jointly and severally liable for the
damages incurred by Plaintiff and the Class."

Mr. Benoit and the class members claim they are entitled to
their unpaid overtime wages at one-and-one-half times their true
regular rate.  "Plaintiffs are additionally entitled to an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages resulting from
Defendant's willful violation of the FLSA.  Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover their attorney's fees, and pre-judgment and
post- judgment interest on all damages," the suit adds.

John Werner, Esq., of Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, is representing the
class.

The case has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd of the 172nd
Judicial District.  The action has been assigned Case No. E181-
622.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces CA Suit Over Adjustable Rate Mortgages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual Bank, FA is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging it failed to disclose that its adjustable
rate mortgages may negatively amortize, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is an action pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USCA
Section 1601, et seq., California's Business and Professions
Code, Sections 17200, 17500, et seq., and other statutory and
common law in effect.

Named plaintiff, Veronica LaTrease Jordan, brings this action
based on the defendant's failure to clearly and conspicuously
disclose to plaintiff and the class, in defendant's Option Arm
Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan documents and in three required
disclosure statements accompanying the loans:

     (i) the actual interest rate on which the payment amounts
         listed in the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statements
         are (12 CFR Section 226.17);

    (ii) that, in contradiction to the terms set forth in the
         plaintiff and the class Notes, following the payment
         schedule as disclosed by the defendant in the Truth in
         Lending Disclosure Statement will not pay both
         principal and interest and will result in negative
         amortization and the loss of equity in the borrower's
         home (12 CFR Section 226.19) and

   (iii) complete information regarding the various monthly
         payment choices the borrower would have and how the
         different options would affect the amount the borrower
         would pay for the life of the loan and the loss of
         equity in the borrower's home.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
individuals who received an Option ARM loan through defendant on
their primary residence located in the State of California.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's acts and practices violate the
         Truth in Lending Act;

     (b) whether defendant's conduct violated 12 CFR Section
         226.17;

     (c) whether defendant's conduct violated 12 CFR Section
         226.19;

     (d) whether defendant had a duty to disclose to plaintiff
         and the class important material information concerning
         their loans, including but not limited to:

         (1) the fact that the payment amounts listed in the
             Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement were
             insufficient to pay both principal interest;

         (2) the fact that the payment schedule was not based on
             the listed interest rate; and

         (3) the fact that negative amortization would occur if
             plaintiff and the class made the payments according
             to the schedule of payment defendant listed in the
             Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement;

     (e) whether defendant, by and through their officers,
         employees, and agents concealed, omitted and
         otherwise failed to disclose information it was
         mandated to disclose under TILA;

     (f) whether defendant failed to disclose the true variable
         nature of interest rates on adjustable rate mortgage
         loans and adjustable rate home equity loans;

     (g) whether defendant failed to properly disclose the
         processes by which negative amortization occurs,
         ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment
         structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans;

     (h) whether defendant's marketing plan and scheme
         misleadingly portrayed or implied that the interest
         rate or payment rate on Option ARM loans was fixed;

     (i) whether defendant failed to disclose, and by omission,
         failed to inform plaintiff and the class that the
         payment schedule was not based on the interest rate
         disclosed in the Note and Truth in Lending Disclosure
         Statement;

     (j) whether defendant failed to disclose, and by omission,
         failed to inform plaintiff and the class that the
         payment amounts listed in the Note and Truth in Lending
         Disclosure Statement are insufficient to cover the
         principal and interest;

     (k) whether defendant failed to disclose, and by omission,
         failed to inform plaintiff and the class that the
         negative amortization was certain to occur if plaintiff
         and the class made the payments according to the
         payment schedule provided by defendant;

     (l) whether defendant had a duty to disclose to plaintiff
         and the class important material information regarding
         all of the payment options available under the Option
         ARM loan;

     (m) whether defendant engaged in unfair business practices
         aimed at deceiving plaintiff and the class before and
         during the loan application process;

     (n) whether defendant's failure to apply plaintiff and the
         class members payment to principal as promised in the
         Note constitutes a breach of contract, including a
         breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

     (o) whether defendant breached the covenant of good faith
         and fair dealing;

     (p) whether the terms and conditions of defendant's Option
         ARM home loan are unconscionable, including but not
         limited to:

          (i) listing a payment amount and interest rate which
              bear no relation to each other;

         (ii) failing to state that negative amortization was
              certain to occur if the payment schedule provided
              by defendant was followed; and

        (iii) under the terms and conditions of these loans, the
              prepayment penalty provision;

     (q) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         declaratory relief, including but not limited to
         whether defendant's Option ARM loans violate the TILA;

     (r) whether plaintiff and the class are entitle to
         rescission under the TILA;

     (s) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         statutory damages under the TILA;

     (t) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to actual
         damages;

     (u) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         punitive damages; and

     (v) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         equitable relief, including but not limited to
         restitution and injunctive relief.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying this case as a class action and
        appointing plaintiff and her counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- actual damages according to proof;

     -- actual damages as permitted by law;

     -- consequential damages as permitted by law;

     -- statutory damages as permitted by law;

     -- punitive damages as permitted by law;

     -- rescission;

     -- equitable relief, including restitution;

     -- restitutionary disgorgement of all profits defendant
        obtained as result of its unfair competition;

     -- interest permitted by law;

     -- declaratory relief;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- such other relief as is just and proper.

The suit is "Veronica LaTrease Jordan et al v. Washington
Mutual, Case No. CV 08 2142," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Steven M. Tindall, Esq. (steventindall@rhdtlaw.com)
          Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 421-1800
          Fax: (415) 421-1700


WELLPOINT HEALTH: Continues to Face Calif. Hospitals' Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California, and BC
Life & Health Insurance Co. continue to face a purported class
action suit filed with a California state court.

The suit was filed on behalf of hospitals over alleged wrongful
rescission of individual health insurance policies.  It seeks to
recover for payment of claims denied where the member was
rescinded.

An amended complaint was recently filed adding the California
Medical Association and the California Hospital Association as
new plaintiffs in the suit.

WellPoint, Inc. reported nofurther  development in the matter in
its April 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

WellPoint, Inc. -- http://www.wellpoint.com-- is a commercial  
health benefits company serving approximately 34 million medical
members as of Dec. 31, 2006.


WELLPOINT: Settles Certain Insurance Suits; Still Faces Others
--------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California, and BC
Life & Health Insurance Co. managed to settle some lawsuits over
the wrongful rescission of individual insurance policies, but
continue to face several others.

In various California state courts, WellPoint and its
subsidiaries, Blue Cross and BC Life & Health, are defending a
number of individual lawsuits and several purported class action
suits alleging the wrongful rescission of individual insurance
policies as well as breach of contract, bad faith and unfair
business practices in a purported practice of rescinding new
individual members following the submission of large claims.

The parties have agreed to mediate most of these lawsuits and
the mediation has resulted in the resolution of some of these
cases, according to WellPoint, Inc.'s April 13, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

WellPoint, Inc. -- http://www.wellpoint.com-- is a commercial  
health benefits company serving approximately 34 million medical
members as of Dec. 31, 2006.


XEROX CORP: "Carlson" Securities Suit Settled for $750 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of $750 million has been reached in the consolidated
securities class action, "Carlson v. Xerox Corp., et al.," which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Initially consisting of 21 cases, the consolidated securities
class action, also names as defendants KPMG LLP, Paul A.
Allaire, G. Richard Thoman, Anne M. Mulcahy, Barry D. Romeril,
Gregory Tayler, and Philip Fishbach.

On Sept. 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order
granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended
complaint.  The defendants' motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot.  

According to the third consolidated amended complaint, the
plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action on
behalf of an expanded class consisting of all persons and
entities who purchased the company's common stock and bonds
between Feb. 17, 1998, and June 28, 2002, and who were
purportedly damaged thereby.  

The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims:

     -- each of the company, KPMG, and the individual defendants
        violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
        thereunder; and

     -- the individual defendants are also allegedly liable as  
        "controlling persons" of the company pursuant to Section
        20(a) of the 1934 Act.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a
fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on
purchasers of the company's common stock and bonds by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and
concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the
company's accounting and reporting practices and financial
condition.  

The plaintiffs further allege that this scheme deceived the
investing public regarding the true state of the company's
financial condition and caused the plaintiffs and other members
of the alleged class to purchase the company's common stock and
bonds at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC
investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which,
among other things, required the company to pay a $10 penalty
and restate its financials for the years 1997-2000, including
restatement of financials previously corrected in an earlier
restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper.  

The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
class members against all defendants, jointly and severally,
including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On Dec. 2, 2002, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On July 13, 2005, the court
denied the motion.  On Oct. 31, 2005, the defendants answered
the complaint.

On January 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  

On July 18, 2007, the Court entered an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, without prejudice to
renewal after the Court holds a pre-filing conference to
identify factual disputes the Court will be required to resolve
in ruling on the motion.  

The plaintiffs have filed notices of withdrawal of proposed
class representatives Sol Sachs, Leonard Nelson and Fernan
Cepero.

The Court has approved the plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of
proposed class representative Fernan Cepero (Class Action
Reporter,  Aug. 8, 2007).

The $750-million settlement ($670 million contributed by Xerox
Corporation and $80 million contributed by KPMG LLP) has been
proposed (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2008).

Deadline to file exclusions and objections is on July 1, 2008.
Deadline to file claims is on October 15, 2008.


An approval hearing will be held before the Honorable Alvin W.
Thompson in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, at 3:00 p.m., on October 7, 2008.
The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:99-cv-02374-AWT," which is pending with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W.
Thompson.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP
         10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor,
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 800-217-1522
         e-mail: info@bernlieb.com

              - and -

         Hurwitz & Sagarin
         147 North Broad St., P.O. Box 112
         Milford, CT 06460-0112,  
         Phone: 203-877-8000.

Representing the defendants are:

         Alfred U. Pavlis, Esq. (apavlis@dalypavlis.com)
         Daly & Pavlis, LLC,
         107 John St.,
         Southport, CT 06890
         Phone: 203-255-6700
         Fax: 203-255-1953

              - and -

         Andrew N. Vollmer, Esq.
         Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering,
         2445 M St. NW
         Washington, DC 20037-1420
         Phone: 202-663-6000


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced with the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of investors who purchased the American Depositary Receipts of
Agria Corporation pursuant and traceable to the Company's
initial public offering on or about November 6, 2007, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

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

The Company engages in the research and development and
production and sale of upstream agricultural products in the
People's Republic of China.  Agria conducts substantially all of
its operations in China through its contractual arrangements
with a consolidated affiliated entity, Primalights III
Agriculture Development Co., Ltd. (P3A), and a wholly-owned
subsidiary in China, Aero-Biotech Science & Technology Co., Ltd.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material
facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus were required to disclose
that, at the time of the IPO, the Company was already running
the risk of potentially damaging its relationship with P3A and
losing a member of its management team, thereby adversely
affecting its financial success.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased ADRs of Agria pursuant and traceable to the Company's
IPO on or about November 6, 2007.

For more information, contact:

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


AGRIA CORP: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, has filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the
American Depository Receipts of Agria Corporation pursuant or
traceable to the Company's November 6, 2007 Initial Public
Offering.

The Complaint alleges that Agria and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws.  The Company engages
in the research and development and production and sale of
upstream agricultural products in the People's Republic of
China.  Agria conducts substantially all of its operations in
China through its contractual arrangements with a consolidated
affiliated entity, Primalights III Agriculture Development Co.,
Ltd. (P3A), and a wholly-owned subsidiary in China, Aero-Biotech
Science & Technology Co., Ltd.

According to the Complaint, the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material
facts, omitted other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing its preparation.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
were required to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, the
Company was already running the risk of potentially damaging its
relationship with P3A and losing a member of its management
team, thereby adversely affecting its financial success.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 10,
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


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Coughlin Stoia Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
suit with the  United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of The First Marblehead
Corp. common stock during the period between August 10, 2006,
and April 7, 2008.

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

First Marblehead packages student loans given by banks and then
sells the packaged student loans as bonds.  The Company makes
money by charging fees for advising on the deals and helping
funnel the payments from the students to the bondholders.  The
prices the bonds command and, in turn, the commissions First
Marblehead charges, are boosted by a nonprofit organization
called The Education Resources Institute.  TERI promises to buy
student loans that are in default, which rescues bondholders
from losses.  This makes the bonds safer and thus more appealing
to investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose:

      (a) that the loans underlying the Company's bonds were
          experiencing increasing default rates;

      (b) that the guarantor of those loans -- TERI -- did not
          have the money to buy all of the loans that were in
          default;

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

      (d) that as a result of the foregoing, banks would look
          elsewhere to package their loans, which would have a
          negative impact on First Marblehead's business and
          operations.

On November 26, 2007, Friedman Billings Ramsey downgraded the
Company's stock citing the fact that TERI did not have enough
cash to buy the loans from First Marblehead that were going to
be in default.  Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock
fell $2.90 per share, or approximately 10%, to close at $27.10
per share, on heavy trading volume.

Then, on April 8, 2008, the Company announced that TERI had
filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Upon this news, shares
of the Company's stock fell $4.16 per share, or 54%, over the
next five trading days, as the investing public continued to
digest the news of TERI's bankruptcy and its effect on the
Company.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of First Marblehead common stock during the Class
Period.

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

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


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of iSTAR Financial Inc. pursuant or traceable to
the Secondary Public Offering on December 13, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges iSTAR and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

iSTAR is a finance company focused on the commercial real estate
industry.

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 experiencing "material change" to
         its continuing operations;

     (2) specifically, the Company's ability to operate was
         being adversely impacted by negativity in the credit
         markets;

     (3) that the Company's corporate loan and debt portfolio
         showed more than $200 million in unrecognized losses;

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

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On February 28, 2008, the Company announced that for the fourth
quarter of 2007, it would report a loss of $78.7 million, or
$0.62 per share.  The Company stated that the results were
impacted by $134.9 million of non-cash charges associated with
the impairment of two credits in its corporate loan and debt
portfolio.  Finally, the Company stated that it increased its
loan loss provisions by $113 million.

In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined
$2.66 per share, or 11.64 percent, to close on February 28, 2008
at $20.19 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  Shares
of the Company's stock continued to fall over the next several
days, closing on March 6, 2008 at $13.98.  This closing price on
March 6, 2008 represented a cumulative loss of $14.43, or over
50 percent, of the value of the Company's shares at the time of
its SPO just months prior.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact:

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





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *