CAR_Public/080505.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 5, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 88

                            Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces Several Suits Over Cerberus Buyout
ATARI INC: Shareholder Says Proposed Sale Price is "Unfair"
AUTO PARTS MANUFACTURERS: Suit Alleges Price Fixing Conspiracy
BABY BOTTLE MAKERS: Face Missouri Lawsuit Over "Toxic" Bottles
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Judge OKs $210MM-Settlement in Price-Fix Suit

CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Court Gives Final OK to Global Crossing Deal
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Fends Off Mutual Fund Suits and Faces Others
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Subprime Mortgage-Related Suits in NY & CA
DVI INC: Davis Certifies PA Suit Against All Other Defendants
DVI INC: "Merrill Lynch" $4.5MM Securities Suit Deal Gets OK

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: 8-Year Suit Gets Class-Action Status
FLORIDA: Lawsuit Seeks Fair Gasoline Prices in Warmer States
GRAND TRAVERSE: Settles Employee Paychecks Lawsuit for $78,000
HEALTH INSURERS: Conspire to Cheat Patients on Reimbursement
K. HOVNANIAN: Homeowners Near Bomb Range Sue Builder

MCCORMICK & SCHMICK'S: EEOC Sues Over Racial Discrimination
MICHAEL BAKER: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is May 12
PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Marshall" Litigation
PRICELINE.COM INC: Provides Limited Discovery in "Bush" Matter
R.J. REYNOLDS: Oregon Sup. Ct. Affirms "Lowe" Case Dismissal

SMITH BARNEY: $33-Mln. Deal in California Sex Bias Suit Approved
UNITED STATES: Dead Soldiers' Parents Sue for $40 Billion
WELLS FARGO: Texas Lawsuit Alleges Bank Forecloses Illegally
* George Brown Joins Gibson Dunn in Silicon Valley


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in Florida
WENDY'S INTL: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in Ohio



                           *********


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Faces Several Suits Over Cerberus Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (NYSE: ACS) is facing several
lawsuits filed in connection with the attempted buyout of the
company by founder Darwin Deason and Cerberus Capital Management
LP.

The suits generally allege claims related to breach of fiduciary
duty, and are seeking class action status.

The plaintiffs in each case purport to be ACS stockholders
bringing a class action on behalf of all of the company's public
stockholders.  Each plaintiff alleges that the proposal
presented to the company by Mr. Deason and Cerberus on March 20,
2007, to acquire the company's outstanding stock is unfair to
shareholders because the consideration offered in the proposal
is alleged to be inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair
process.

According to a Feb. 13, 2008 report of the Class Action
Reporter, six cases were filed with the Delaware Chancery Court:

     1. "Momentum Partners v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett,
        Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston
        Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Dennis McCuistion,
        Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus
        Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2814-VCL,"
        filed on March 20, 2007.

     2. "Mark Levy v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, John
        Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J.
        Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated
        Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
        Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2816-VCL," filed on
        March 21, 2007.
   
     3. "St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
        Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
        A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
        Robert B. Holland, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.,
        Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Affiliated Computer
        Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2821-VCL," filed on
        March 22, 2007, with the Court of Chancery of the
        State of Delaware in and for New Castle County,.

     4. "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
        System v. Darwin Deason, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A.
        Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
        Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
        and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
        No. 2839-VCL," filed on March 26, 2007, with the Court
        of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
        Castle County.

     5. "Edward R. Koller v. Darwin Deason, Frank A. Rossi, J.
        Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated
        Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
        Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2908-VCL," filed on
        April 20, 2007, with the Court of Chancery of the State
        of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

     6. "Suzanne Sweeney Living Trust v. Darwin Deason, Lynn
        R. Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
        A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
        Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
        and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
        No. 2915-VCL," filed on April 24, 2007, with the Court
        of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
        Castle County.

On May 4, 2007, the six Delaware buy-out cases were consolidated
into one case, pending with the Delaware Chancery Court,
entitled, "In Re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 2821-VCL."

Subsequently, on Oct. 30, 2007, Cerberus withdrew its offer to
acquire ACS.

On Nov. 2, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs, adding
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties related to the events
surrounding the resignation of the outside directors, according
to the company's Feb. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

ACS management expects that the Company may continue to incur
costs related to our evaluation of strategic alternatives and
these lawsuits.

The company's management also believes that these costs,
although material and possibly recurring, are not related to the
Company's ongoing operations and that excluding them helps to
provide a more meaningful representation of the Company's
operating performance.

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com/--
provides business process outsourcing and information technology
services to commercial and government clients.


ATARI INC: Shareholder Says Proposed Sale Price is "Unfair"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atari Inc., which is the target of a buyout offer by majority
investor Infogrames Entertainment SA, was sued by a shareholder
who claims that the proposed $11-million sale price for the rest
of the company is "financially unfair," Bloomberg News reports.

Shareholder Christian M. Stanley filed his complaint on
April 18, 2008, with the Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington,
and seeks class-action status to represent all Atari
shareholders.  He also asks the court to enter an order barring
the deal between the company and Infogrames.

The lawsuit contends that directors at Atari and Infogrames
failed to evaluate the transaction and engage in an auction with
third parties.

"The proposed transaction lacks any of the fundamental hallmarks
of fairness," Mr. Stanley's lawyers wrote in the complaint.
"Approval of the proposed transaction is a foregone conclusion.
The company's minority shareholders thus will have no voice
whatsoever in approving or rejecting the proposed transaction."

Directors of Infogrames should have structured the deal in a
"fair and non-coercive" manner, allowing Atari shareholders to
consider the proposal without threat of "economic retaliation or
intimidation," the complaint states.

Bloomberg recounts that Infogrames, which owns about 51% of
Atari, offered last month to buy the remaining 49% of Atari that
it does not already own for $1.68 per share.  The report also
recalls that Atari, which has reported one profitable quarter in
the past three years, said in November 2007 that it would stop
producing new video games to focus on distribution.  

Bloomberg also says that Infogrames, known as Europe's third-
largest video-game publisher, under previous management sold
Atari's assets to lower its own debt, reducing Atari's ability
to create new games and build sales.  


AUTO PARTS MANUFACTURERS: Suit Alleges Price Fixing Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on April 23, 2008, asserting
that a number of auto parts manufacturers conspired to fix
prices for replacement oil, air, fuel and transmission filters,
Ann Knef writes for St. Clair Record.

Manasek Auto Parts -- doing business as Undercare Warehouse --
filed the complaint with U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois against:

          * Champion Laboratories,
          * Cummins Filtration, Inc.,
          * The Donaldson Co.,
          * Baldwin Filters, Inc.,
          * Bosch, Mann + Hummel, and
          * ArvinMeritor, Inc.

The suit contends that a former national sales manager for
Champion will testify that the defendants "conspired and agreed
to coordinate prices, rig bids and allocate customers from at
least January 1, 1999, to the present."

According to St. Clair Record, Undercare Warehouse claims that
its case arises in part from a sworn affidavit executed on
March 25 by the former employee of "two of the Defendants named
herein," in another lawsuit pending with the federal court in
East St. Louis.  "[T]his affidavit and additional specific
allegations detail Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy," the
complaint states.

"Many of the allegations contained herein, particularly those
with respect to the specifics of meetings between the
Defendants, are based on alleged recorded conversations and the
personal knowledge of this former employee, who served as a
National Accounts and Division Sales Manager for Defendant
Champion."

According to the complaint, the defendants artificially inflated
prices for filters, thereby causing plaintiffs antitrust injury.
"Defendants' actions constitute per se violations of Section 1
of the Sherman Act," the complaint states.

The Sherman Act, St. Clair Record explains, was the first U.S.
government action to limit cartels and monopolies.

The action seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the
plaintiffs and a nationwide class of direct purchasers of
filters.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          Carey & Danis, LLC
          8235 Forsyth Blvd. Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (800) 721-2519 (Toll Free)
                 (314) 725-7700
          Fax: (314) 721-0905

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650
          Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-496-8282  
          Fax: 215-496-0999

          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C.
          1835 Market Street, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
          Phone: (215) 567-6565   
          Fax: (215) 568-5872

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Boni & Zack, LLC
          Bala Cynwyd, Pa.


BABY BOTTLE MAKERS: Face Missouri Lawsuit Over "Toxic" Bottles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rights For America attorneys Robert H. Weiss, Esq., and Stephen
Murakami, Esq., along with two prominent Class Action law firms
from Missouri -- Scharnhorst Ast & Kennard, P.C., and The Hodges
Law Firm -- filed a billion-dollar consumer class action lawsuit
against five leading baby bottle manufacturers:

             1. Avent America,
             2. Evenflo,
             3. Gerber,
             4. Handi-Craft (Dr. Brown's), and
             5. Playtex

for their use of Bisphenol A in polycarbonate plastic baby
bottles and toddler training cups.

The lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri pursuant to Missouri Consumer
Protection Laws on behalf of the infants and children of
Missouri and the United States who were unknowingly exposed to
BPA through their use of plastic baby bottles and training cups.

Mr. Weiss filed the first of such lawsuit last spring in
California against the same baby bottle manufacturers, according
to a report by the Class Action Reporter on March 14, 2007.  
That case is pending with the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
before Judge Victoria Chaney.

Bisphenol-A or "BPA" was originally examined in the 1930s for
use as a synthetic estrogen however it is primarily used today
in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics for its clear and
shatterproof qualities.  Studies have shown that BPA can
activate estrogen receptors that lead to the same effects as the
body's own estrogens.  Exposure to BPA has been linked to
lowered sperm count and infertile sperm in men, developmental
toxicity, carcinogenic effects, and possible neurotoxicity.
Infants are especially vulnerable and are believed to be at
greater risk from the effects of BPA, which acts as a powerful
hormone that can interfere with an infant's normal brain and
sexual development.

Mr. Weiss and Rights For America said that they are committed to
protecting infants and will not stop until the infants of
America are protected.

The suit is "Sullivan et al v. Avent America, Inc. et al., Case
Number: 4:2008cv00309," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, Judge Richard E. Dorr,
presiding.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Judge OKs $210MM-Settlement in Price-Fix Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two British-based airlines will pay trans-Atlantic passengers a
combined $210 million (EUR134.65 million) to settle a lawsuit
that accused them of colluding to gouge flyers with fuel
surcharges, AP WorldStream reports.

According to AP WorldStream, the settlement agreement was
granted preliminary approval by U.S. District Court Judge
Charles Breyer in San Francisco on April 25, 2008.

Pursuant to the settlement, British Airways PLC and Virgin
Atlantic Airways will refund one-third of the surcharge paid by
each of the airlines' trans-Atlantic passengers between Aug. 11,
2004, and March 23, 2006.  

Judge Breyer has scheduled a final approval hearing for the
settlement on Sept. 12, 2008.

AP WorldStream recounts that the class action lawsuit was  filed
on behalf of 5.1 million passengers who bought tickets in the
United Kingdom and another 2.1 million passengers who purchased
tickets in the United States.

The report further recalls that British Airways paid in 2007
nearly $550 million (EUR352.65 million) to U.S. and British
officials and pleaded guilty to price fixing after admitting to
conspiring with Virgin.  Virgin was not fined or charged because
it blew the whistle on the conspiracy and began cooperating with
U.S. and U.K. officials in March 2006.

Virgin executives told investigators that the company tipped off
British Airways seven times between 2004 and 2006 that it was
planning to increase fuel surcharges.  Criminal investigations
were also launched on both sides of the Atlantic.

The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating price
fixing allegations throughout the industry over the last several
years.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 24, 2008,
Japan Airlines decided to plead guilty and pay a fine of $110
million (EUR70.53 million) for its role in the conspiracy to fix
rates for international cargo shipments.

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

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

Qantas' chief executive officer said in November 2007 that U.S.
and foreign antitrust regulators were investigating up to 30
airlines for similar conduct, AP WorldStream notes.

Similar price fixing class action lawsuits against the other
carriers are pending.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Court Gives Final OK to Global Crossing Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted final approval to the settlement of a class action suit
filed against Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Citigroup, Inc.;
and Citigroup Global Market Holdings, Inc., styled, "In Re:
Global Crossing, Ltd. Securities Litigation."

The suit also named as defendants certain of Global Crossing's
officers and current and former employees.  The consolidated
complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 6, 2005).  

The purported class action complaint asserted claims under the
federal securities laws alleging that the defendants issued
research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and failed
to disclose conflicts of interest with Global Crossing in
connection with published investment research.  

On March 22, 2004, the lead plaintiff amended its consolidated
complaint to add claims on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Asia Global Crossing.

The added claims assert causes of action under the federal
securities laws and common law in connection with the Company's
research reports about Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing
and for its roles as an investment banker for Global Crossing
and as an underwriter in the Global Crossing and Asia Global
Crossing offerings.  

The Citigroup related defendants moved to dismiss all of the
claims against them on July 2, 2004.  The plaintiffs and the
Citigroup related defendants have reached an agreement in
principle on the terms of a settlement of this action.

In March 2005, the plaintiffs and the Citigroup-related
defendants reached a settlement of all claims against the
Citigroup-related defendants, including both research and
underwriting claims, and including claims concerning losses in
both Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing, for a total of
$75 million.  

The Court granted preliminary approval of the  settlement on
March 8, 2005, and on July 8, 2005, granted final approval and
rejected all objections to the settlement, according to Shearson
Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West.  Both
have Citigroup Global Markets, a unit of Citigroup Inc., as its
commodity broker.

The suit is "In Re: Global Crossing Ltd. Securities &  'ERISA'
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-md-01472-GEL," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Gerard E. Lynch, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
         Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
         Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 N. Market St.
         Wilmington, DE, 19801
         Phone: (302) 622-7149
         Fax: (302) 622-7100
         Web site: http://www.globalcrossinglitigation.com


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Fends Off Mutual Fund Suits and Faces Others
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., sought and obtained the
dismissal of several suits in connection with the sale of mutual
funds.  The company, however, continues to face other
complaints.

Initially, the company was named in several class action suits
and derivative litigations pending in various Federal District
Courts arising out of its alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, including the Investment Company Act, and
common law -- including breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.

The claims concern practices in connection with the sale of
mutual funds, including allegations involving market timing,
revenue sharing, incentive payments for the sale of proprietary
funds, undisclosed breakpoint discounts for the sale of certain
classes of funds, inappropriate share class recommendations and
inappropriate fund investments.

The litigations involving market timing have been consolidated
under the Multi District rules in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, and the litigations involving revenue
sharing, incentive payment and other issues are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these litigations generally seek unspecified
compensatory damages, recessionary damages, injunctive relief,
costs and fees.  

In the principal cases concerning revenue sharing, incentive
payment and other issues, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated and amended complaint on Dec. 15, 2004.

Citigroup moved to dismiss the claims and the motion was
granted.  An appeal is pending and will be fully briefed by
April 15, 2008.

Several derivative actions and class actions were also dismissed
against Citigroup defendants in the MDL action, according to
Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West.  Both
have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as
its commodity broker.

Citigroup, Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/homepage/
-- is a diversified global financial services holding company
whose businesses provide a range of financial services to
consumer and corporate customers.  The Company is a bank holding
company.  As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into
four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards,
Institutional Clients Group and Global Wealth Management.  The
Company has more than 200 million customer accounts and does
business in more than 100 countries.  In July 2007, the Company
merged with Citigroup Japan Investments LLC, a 100% subsidiary
of the Company.  In July 2007, Citigroup completed the
acquisition of Old Lane Partners, L.P. and Old Lane Partners,
GP, LLC.  In August 2007, Citigroup acquired The BISYS Group,
Inc.  In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized its consumer group
into two global businesses: Consumer Banking and Global Cards.


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Subprime Mortgage-Related Suits in NY & CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., along with numerous others, face several
lawsuits by shareholders of entities that originated subprime
mortgages, and for which Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
underwrote securities offerings.

These actions assert that Citigroup Global violated Sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising
out of allegedly false and misleading statements contained in
the registration statements and prospectuses issued in
connection with those offerings.

Specifically, Citigroup Global Markets has been named as a
defendant in:

       -- two putative class action lawsuits brought by
          shareholders of American Home Mortgage Investment
          Corp., pending with the U.S. District Court for the
          Eastern District of New York; and

       -- three putative class action lawsuits brought by
          shareholders of Countrywide Financial Corp. and its
          affiliates, pending with the U.S. District Court for
          the Central District of California.

Citigroup has not yet responded to the complaints in these
actions.  A motion to remand to California state court has been
filed in one of the Countrywide-related actions, according to
Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West.  Both
have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as
its commodity broker.

Citigroup, Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/homepage/
-- is a diversified global financial services holding company
whose businesses provide a range of financial services to
consumer and corporate customers.  The Company is a bank holding
company.  As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into
four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards,
Institutional Clients Group and Global Wealth Management.  The
Company has more than 200 million customer accounts and does
business in more than 100 countries.  In July 2007, the Company
merged with Citigroup Japan Investments LLC, a 100% subsidiary
of the Company.  In July 2007, Citigroup completed the
acquisition of Old Lane Partners, L.P. and Old Lane Partners,
GP, LLC.  In August 2007, Citigroup acquired The BISYS Group,
Inc.  In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized its consumer group
into two global businesses: Consumer Banking and Global Cards.


DVI INC: Davis Certifies PA Suit Against All Other Defendants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clint Krislov, Esq., of Krislov & Associates, Ltd. -- lead
plaintiff's counsel in the securities class action "In Re DVI,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336,"  -- said
that Judge Legrome D. Davis granted class certification against
all the other defendants -- DVI officers and directors; Thomas
Pritzker; Pritzker Organization LLC; Dolphin Medical, Inc.;
OnCure Technologies Corp.; PresGar Imaging, LLC; Radnet
Management, Inc.; Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; and Deloitte &
Touche LLP.

On May 2, 2008, the Class Action Reporter reported that Cooley
Godward Kronish has achieved a victory in the securities class
action, in which the firm represented one of the defendants,
Clifford Chance.

The plaintiffs alleged that Clifford Chance was liable under a
10-b(5) scheme liability theory for a fraud allegedly
perpetrated by its former (and now defunct) client, DVI, a
medical equipment finance company.

According to the CAR report, the district court denied class
certification as to Clifford Chance, holding that the fraud on
the market presumption did not apply since no public statements
were attributed to the firm and the firm had not engaged in any
conduct that could be relied upon by investors.

But in an e-mail message to CAR, Mr. Krislov clarified that
Judge Davis made exacting analysis of sophisticated efficient
market issues, and certified the case to proceed for purchasers
of DVI, Inc. securities, both stock and notes, for the entire
requested period 1999 through 2003.  

Moreover, according to Judge Davis' order, Cedar Street Fund,
Cedar Street Offshore Fund and Kenneth Grossman were appointed
as class representatives.  Krislov & Associates and Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP, were appointed as class counsel and liaison
counsel, respectively.

According to Mr. Krislov, "As lead plaintiff's counsel, we
intend to pursue an appeal to the Third Circuit on the
Stoneridge issue and ask the court to determine that Clifford
Chance's crafting the 'workaround' to evade disclosure of
accountant letters documenting material weaknesses in DVI's
internal controls was precisely the type of activity that would
render Clifford Chance liable to investor claims, even after the
Stoneridge decision."

The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-CV-5336," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis.

For more information, contact:

          Clint Krislov, Esq. (Clint@krislovlaw.com)
          Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
          Civic Opera Building-Suite 1350
          Chicago, IL   60606
          Phone: 312-606-0500
          Fax:312-606-0207
          Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com/


DVI INC: "Merrill Lynch" $4.5MM Securities Suit Deal Gets OK
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania  
granted approval to a partial settlement with Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc., one of the named defendants in the case "In Re DVI,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336."

In an email message, Clint Krislov, Esq., of Krislov &
Associates, Ltd. -- lead plaintiff's counsel in the securities
class action -- said that on April 30, 2008, the court approved
the partial settlement of the PSLRA claims against Merrill
Lynch, for $4.5 million.

                         Case Background

In 2003, DVI, Inc., was named defendant in a lawsuit filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  
  
The suit alleged that the company issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between Nov. 7, 2001, and
June 27, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of DVI's   
publicly traded securities.   
  
The complaint alleged that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:
  
      -- that the company had failed to timely write down the   
         value of certain assets which had become impaired;   
   
      -- that the company's accounting and financial reporting   
         policies and procedures for non-systematic (non-  
         recurring) transactions were inadequate;   
  
      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and   
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial   
         condition of the company; and   
  
      -- that as a result, the values of the company's assets,   
         net income and earnings per share were materially   
         overstated at all relevant times.   
  
The class period ended June 27, 2003.  On that date, DVI shocked
the investing public when it announced that the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission had rejected its March 30, 2003
quarterly report because an independent auditor had not reviewed
it.
  
The company also disclosed that it was continuing to consider
the need for the accounting change, and, if adopted, its net
income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003, its earnings per
share for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net
income for the fiscal year 2002 would all be drastically
reduced.
  
Specifically, $1.4 million, or 44.47%, its earnings per share
for the nine months ended March 31, 2003, was reduced by $0.10,
or 44.45% and its net income for fiscal year ended June 30,
2002, was reduced by $1.395 million or 34.12%, reduced the
company's net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003.
  
Investor reaction was swift and negative, with DVI stock falling
from a close of $5.84 on June 26, 2003 to a close of $4.30 on
June 27, 2003, or a single-day decline of more than 26% on very
high trading volume.

The class consists of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of DVI (its common stock and 9
7/8% Senior Notes), between Aug. 10, 1999, and Aug. 13, 2003,
both dates inclusive.

In March 2008, the lead plaintiffs in the class action entered
into a partial settlement with Merrill Lynch (Class Action
Reporter, March 14, 2008).

The settlement terms include releases of the Settlement Class'
claims asserted against Merrill Lynch, brought pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The lead plaintiffs have settled their claims against Merrill
Lynch, which was a former lender to DVI and underwriter in
certain "securitization" transactions, for cash payment of
$4,500,000.

The final amount distributed to Settlement Class Members will
depend upon the amount of interest earned on these funds and the
amount of Court-approved attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
and Notice and Administration Costs.

The parties to this litigation do not agree on the amount of
damages per Common Share and per Senior Note that would be
recoverable if the Settlement Class were to prevail on each
claim alleged.  The parties also do not agree as to whether the
Settlement Class suffered damages, the amount thereof and how to
measure damages.

The lead plaintiffs are proposing the Settlement because, upon
consideration of, among other things, the record, the potential
damages, the strength of the Settlement Class' claims and the
risks and cost of continued litigation, the Settlement provides
substantial recovery to the Settlement Class, is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and is preferable to continued
litigation.

Merrill Lynch denies any liability or wrongdoing, but desires to
resolve the claims asserted in the suit.

Deadline to file claims is on July 7, 2008.

The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-CV-5336," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis.

For more information, contact:

          Clint Krislov, Esq. (Clint@krislovlaw.com)
          Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
          Civic Opera Building-Suite 1350
          Chicago, IL   60606
          Phone: 312-606-0500
          Fax:312-606-0207
          Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: 8-Year Suit Gets Class-Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed eight years ago against EchoStar Communications
by thousands of its retail distributors was certified as a
class-action lawsuit on April 22, 2008, by Arapahoe County
District Judge John Wheeler, the Denver Post reports.

The report relates that Judge Wheeler issued a strongly worded
ruling in which he blamed EchoStar for demonstrating "a
willingness and proclivity for drawing out legal proceedings as
long as humanly possible and burying their opponents in
paperwork and filings."

More than 20,000 direct and indirect retailers of EchoStar's
satellite television service claim that they are owed years of
past-due commissions and fees.  

EchoStar is now doing business as Dish Network.


FLORIDA: Lawsuit Seeks Fair Gasoline Prices in Warmer States
------------------------------------------------------------
Florida drivers pay among the nation's highest gas prices
because of high taxes and the state's lack of refineries and
pipelines, South Florida Sun-Sentinel says.

Now, according to the report, consumer advocates are taking
legal action on another issue they say has Florida and other
warmer states paying more to power their vehicles: hot fuel.

When gasoline gets hot, it expands and takes up more space and
provides less energy and fewer miles per gallon than fuel that
is colder, the Sun-Sentinel explains.

With gas prices breaking record levels, and projected to rise
more by summer, advocates are taking aim at a century-old
federal standard that allows the oil industry to set prices
based on the nation's annual average temperature of 60 degrees.

The Sun-Sentinel says that because of the regulation, motorists
in warmer states such as Florida -- with an average annual
temperature of 82.4 degrees -- get fewer miles per gallon for
the gas they buy than those in cooler states.  Florida residents  
pay up to 9 cents more per gallon than motorists in the
Northeast, Midwest and colder regions, according to consumer
watchdog groups.

The report relates that hot fuel has prompted more than 35
class-action lawsuits nationwide, two congressional hearings and
an inquiry by the General Accountability Office, Congress'
investigatory arm.  Texas and California also are studying the
issue.

Advocates, according to the Sun-Sentinel, claim that U.S. oil
companies are overcharging consumers in warmer states and argue
that the current pricing structure should change.

Industry leaders say they are following federal regulations.

Jim Smith, president of Florida Petroleum Marketers and
Convenience Store Association, told the Sun-Sentinel that the
lawsuits have no merit and disputed the scientific claims
advocates have made.  "There's no scientific study backing up
this issue," he said.

Judy Dugan, founder and research director for Oilwatchdog.org,
said there is strong scientific support for the advocates'
allegations and that motorists in warmer states are not getting
a fair shake at the pump.

"Florida is a money-making machine for gas stations and,
ultimately, refiners because of hot fuel," said Mr. Dugan, whose
consumer advocacy group is based in Santa Monica, California.  
"At Florida's average gas temperature, motorists are losing four
cents a gallon.  In summer's higher temperatures, it will often
be double that."

Dick Suiter, a retired National Institute of Standards and
Technology expert who has examined the issue, said there is
little debate among scientists.  "It is commonly known that
temperature affects the volume and quality of gasoline," said
Mr. Suiter, who is an expert in this area after spending more
than 11 years at NIST, the federal agency in charge of advancing
measurement science, standards and technology.

Mr. Suiter said that new temperature-sensing "smart pumps" that
calibrate fuel prices at the station could ensure fairness in
the marketplace.  He added that regulation requiring the
technology might be needed if the industry doesn't introduce it.

In an effort to calculate the costs of hot fuel, the House
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy tracked nationwide average
temperatures during warm months, gasoline consumption for those
months and gasoline prices in 2006 and 2007.

Hot fuel cost consumers $1.5 billion more in summer 2007 for gas
than they would have spent if stations used "smart pumps,"
according to a report submitted by the subcommittee.

In Florida alone, hot fuel cost motorists $260 million over a
12-month period in 2006 and 2007, according to the report.

The plaintiffs in the class-action suits claim that gas
retailers generate extra profits by collecting fuel taxes on
each retail gallon they sell, but remitting taxes to the
government based on the number of wholesale gallons they sell,
which are adjusted for temperature.

According to the Sun-Sentinel, all the class-action lawsuits --
including those filed in Florida, California, Arizona and Texas
-- were combined recently and are waiting to be tried in front
of a federal judicial panel in Kansas City, Mo., said George
Zelcs, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The attorney said the suit alleges gasoline sold in warmer
states is an average of 10 degrees warmer than the industry
standard.  The suit aims to require gas stations to install
"smart pumps," which are now used in Hawaii and Canada.

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced legislation last
year requiring gas stations to install "smart pumps," which cost
between $4,400 and $7,300 per pump.

"We have the technology to change that, and there's no good
reason not to utilize it," Mr. McCaskill said in a statement.
"The least we can do in Congress is ensure consumers are getting
what they pay for."

Groups such as Public Citizen, Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, Consumers Union, Foundation for Taxpayer
and Consumer Rights, Consumer Federation of America and U.S.
Public Interest Research Groups have endorsed the proposed
legislation.

Major oil companies and independent operators, on the other
hand, have opposed changes in the law, arguing that retrofitting
pumps to calculate fuel sales based on temperature won't save
consumers money.

"On the surface, this litigation claims to be a service to
consumers," said Margaret Chabris in a statement issued by 7-
Eleven Inc.  "But temperatures change throughout the day.
Consumers don't want prices to change with every rise or drop of
temperature."

John Siebert, an advocate for the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, said many truck drivers are struggling to
make a profit, and they are angry about the money they are
losing on fuel.


GRAND TRAVERSE: Settles Employee Paychecks Lawsuit for $78,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a class action lawsuit between the
Grand Traverse Resort & Spa and a group of resort employees over
money withheld from their paychecks that was used for resort
marketing, Traverse City Record Eagle reports.

According to Traverse City Record, the resort agreed to pay
$78,000 in aggregate to around 150 current and former resort
workers in a settlement filed with the 13th Circuit Court on  
April 21, 2008, for approval.

The report recounts that the resort was sued last summer over
alleged violations of state employment and wage laws over $150
bi-weekly paycheck deductions for numerous employees at its
health spa that were used to help fund the resort's marketing
efforts.

The deductions were initiated by the resort's former owners, KSL
Recreation Inc., the report notes.  They eventually were phased
out by the current owners, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and
Chippewa Indians, after the tribe bought the resort in 2003.

A statement issued by the resort last week said that the
plaintiffs dismissed their allegation that charged that tips and
commissions on retail products were not properly paid.


HEALTH INSURERS: Conspire to Cheat Patients on Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of major health insurers are facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut alleging conspiracy to depress reimbursements for
out-of-network medical services thereby forcing patients to pay
a greater share of the cost, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named as defendants in the complaint are:

          -- Ingenix Inc.
          -- UnitedHealth Group
          -- Oxford Health Plans
          -- Aetna, Inc.
          -- Cigna Corp.
          -- Empire BlueCross BlueSheild
          -- Humana Inc.
          -- Group Health Insurance, Inc.
          -- Health Insurance Plan of New York
          -- HealthNet Inc.

Named plaintiff Jeffrey M. Weintraub claims that the conspiracy,
which had begun by Jan. 1, 2004, and continues up to the
present, forces policyholders to pay "unlawfully inflated out-
of-pocket expenses."

Mr. Weintraub brings this case as a class action on behalf of
all persons who received unlawfully depressed reimbursements
from defendants for out-of-network services and therefore paid
unlawfully inflated out-of-pocket expenses during the period
beginning at least Jan. 1, 2004, and continuing through the
present.

He further claims the defendants used the Ingenix database "to
determine their 'reasonable and customary' rates.  The Ingenix
database uses the Defendants' billing information to calculate a
reasonable and customary rate for individual claims by assessing
how much a similar type of medical service would typically cost,
generally taking into account the type of service, physician,
and geographical location."

However, the complaint states, "A recent New York Attorney
General investigation shows that the reasonable and customary
rates produced by Ingenix were remarkably lower than the actual
cost of typical medical expenses.  By manipulating the
reasonable and customary rate, the Defendants were able to keep
their reimbursements artificially low and force patients to
absorb a higher share of the costs for out-of-network services."

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a fraudulent and
         deceptive scheme of improperly manipulating and
         using improperly manipulated USCRs used the basis for
         out-of-network reimbursement;

     (b) whether defendants artificially lowered reimbursements
         for out of network medical services;

     (c) whether it was the policy and misleading information
         regarding the extent of out-of-network coverage
         provided under their plans;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in a pattern and practice
         that caused plaintiff and class members to incur  
         excessive out-of-pocket expenses under their plans;

     (e) whether defendants engaged in a pattern of deceptive
         and fraudulent activity intended to defraud
         plaintiff and the class members;

     (f) whether defendants formed enterprises for the purpose
         of carrying out the out-of-network reimbursement
         scheme;

     (g) whether defendants used the U.S. mails and interstate
         wire facilities to carry out their conspiracy and
         agreement;

     (h) whether the defendants used the U.S. mails and
         interstate wire facilities to carry out their
         conspiracy and agreement;

     (i) whether defendants' conduct violated RICO;

     (j) whether defendants are liable to plaintiff and the
         class members for damages for conduct actionable under
         the various state consumer protection statutes;

     (k) whether defendants engaged in a combination or
         conspiracy to lower, fix, stabilize and maintain UCRs;

     (l) the duration and extent of the combination or
         conspiracy alleged;

     (m) whether defendants, and each of them, was a participant
         in the combination or conspiracy alleged;

     (n) whether defendants formed an enterprise for the purpose
         of carrying out their conspiracy agreement;

     (o) whether the alleged combination and conspiracy violated
         Section 1 of the Sherman Act; and

     (p) whether Aetna's conduct violated Connecticut law.

The plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- determine that this action may be maintained as a class
        action pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and declare the
        plaintiff as representative of the Federal Class, and
        the Aetna Class and his counsel as counsel for those
        classes;

     -- determine the conduct alleged be unlawful under federal
        and Connecticut law;

     -- award the plaintiff and the appropriate classes
        Connecticut law, including any disgorgement, trebling or
        monetary damages as provided for under federal
        punitive damages allowable under law;

     -- enjoin defendants from continuing the unlawful
        activities alleged;

     -- award the plaintiff and the classes their costs in the
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees
        and all other expenses as provided by law; and

     -- grant the plaintiff and the class members such other,
        further, and different relief as the nature of the case  
        may require or as otherwise determined by the court to
        be just, equitable and proper.

The suit is "Jeffrey M. Weintruab et al. v. Ingenix, Inc., Case
No. 3:08CV654," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David R. Scott, Esq. (drscott@scott-scott.com)
          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. (aflawrence@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott, LLP
          P.O. Box 192
          108 Norwich Ave.
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (860) 537-5537
          Fax: (860) 537-4432


K. HOVNANIAN: Homeowners Near Bomb Range Sue Builder
----------------------------------------------------
Some homeowners who live near the old Pinecastle Jeep Range in
Orange County are taking legal action against their
neighborhood's builder -- K. Hovnanian -- according to WESH.com.

The report recounts that the Army Corp of Engineers found old
army munitions on the land in 2007.  Residents said the value of
their property has dropped significantly since the discovery and
they fear the land they live on is unsafe.

The Army Corp, WESH.com relates, has found and destroyed more
than 100 buried military explosives in the area, which is also
near Odyssey Middle School.

The report recalls that plaintiff Tom Beard purchased a home in
Tivoli Village in East Orlando after he got married a year and a
half ago.  Mr. Beard's excitement over his new home and starting
a family turned into anxiety when he and his neighbors learned
last year that the area they lived in used to be home to a World
War II bombing range.

"I hear bombs go off, my house rattles when they set off the
100-pound bomb the other day," Mr. Beard told WESH.com.

Mr. Beard's neighbor, Tara Naran, said that "We can't even move
right now, our values have gone down so much and no one really
wants to move to this area because of the bombs."

"Some builders have already stepped up and on their own hired
people to come in and clear, and our builder didn't," Mr. Beard
told WESH.com.

Residents said they love where they live and want to stay where
they are, but they have no other choice but to take legal
action.  They said that the Army Corp has told them it will
check their land for bombs, but they were not given a time
frame.


MCCORMICK & SCHMICK'S: EEOC Sues Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class
action lawsuit against McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurant
Inc., alleging race discrimination against black applicants and
employees at its two Baltimore restaurants, the Associated Press
reports.

The EEOC alleges that the restaurant's management refused to
hire black applicants for publicly visible positions at its
Baltimore restaurants for a period spanning January 1, 1998, to
present.  The jobs included servers, cocktail servers,
host/hostess and bartender.

A spokeswoman for the restaurant chain, however, told AP that
the company is "an equal employment opportunity employer."


MICHAEL BAKER: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is May 12
------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP reminds shareholders that May 12, 2008, is
the deadline for investor-plaintiffs to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities fraud class action pending with the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of Michael Baker Corp. between March 19, 2007, and
February 22, 2008, inclusive.

The firm is also continuing its investigation of claims against
Michael Baker that could extend the class period back to
August 15, 2006.

The Complaint, filed in April, charges Michael Baker and certain
of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, April 2, 2008).

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants:

     (1) falsely reported Michael Baker's financial results for
         the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and the first
         three quarters of fiscal 2007;

     (2) falsely stated that the Company's financial statements
         were prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles; and

     (3) falsely stated that the Company had adequate internal
         and financial controls.  As a result of the foregoing,
         the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading at all relevant times.

After the close of the market on February 22, 2008, Michael
Baker announced that it would be restating its previously issued
financial statements for the first, second and third quarters of
2007, because of "errors" in those financial statements.

According to the Company, the purported errors related primarily
to the improper recognition of revenue on domestic managed
services projects in the Company's Energy business segment
during these periods.  Among other things, as a result of the
restatement, Michael Baker's previously reported net income of
$18.0 million for the first nine months of 2007 was materially
overstated by as much as $12.5 million.  The Company also
disclosed that it was still evaluating whether the false
financial reporting would impact its previously issued audited
consolidated financial statements for the year 2006.

Upon that announcement, shares of Michael Baker fell from its
close of $36.10 on February 22, 2008, to $27.57 the next day of
trading -- a drop of nearly 24% on extraordinary volume.  The
day before that announcement, Michael Baker announced Robert L.
Shaw, was retiring as Michael Baker's CEO, effective that day.

Notably, this restatement is the second restatement announced by
Michael Baker within the past three years.  On August 15, 2006,
Michael Baker had announced that a restatement involving the
Company's previously issued financial results for fiscal years
2000 through 2004, and its related financial statements for each
of the quarters of 2003 and 2004 and the first quarter of 2005,
was "behind" it -- thereby suggesting that Michael Baker had
adequate internal controls.  The recently announced restatement
casts doubt on that notion.

For more information, contact:

          Klafter & Olsen LLP
          1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
          Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202/261-3553
          Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com/


PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Marshall" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "Marshall,
et al. v. priceline.com, Inc.," which was filed with the
Superior Court of the state of Delaware for New Castle County.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals
filed the suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
similarly situated consumers.  

The complaint alleged that the company violated the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Section 2511, et
seq., relating to its disclosures and charges to customers to
cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances
nationwide, and service fees.  

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2005.  
It also moved to stay discovery until a determination of its
motion to dismiss the complaint and the Court granted that stay
on May 11, 2005.  

On June 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
asserts claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for
breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.  

The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.   

On Oct. 31, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss.  

The court dismissed all claims arising under the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act.  It also dismissed all claims for breach of
contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing
that relate to Company's charges for service fees.  

The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the breach of
contract and implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims
as they relate to the Company's charges to consumers to cover
taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances.  

The parties are currently conducting discovery.  The plaintiffs
have stated their intent to seek leave to amend their complaint,
according to the company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Provides Limited Discovery in "Bush" Matter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com, Inc. provided limited discovery in the purported
consumer class action, "Bush, et al. v. Cheaptickets, Inc., et
al.," which was filed against the company with the Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles.

The putative class action complaint was filed on Feb. 17, 2005,
with the Los Angeles county court by Ronald Bush and three other
individuals on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated California consumers against the company and
several other defendants (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007).  

The complaint alleges that each of the defendants engaged in
acts of unfair competition in violation of Section 17200
relating to their respective disclosures and charges to
customers to cover taxes under the ordinances of the City of Los
Angeles and other California cities, and service fees.  

The complaint seeks restitution, relief for alleged conversion,
including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and imposition of
a constructive trust.  

On July 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
adding claims pursuant to California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, Civil Code Section 1750, et seq. and claims for breach of
contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.  

On Dec. 2, 2005, the court ordered limited discovery and ordered
that motions challenging the amended complaint would be
coordinated with any similar motions filed in the City of Los
Angeles action.

Since that time, the Company has provided limited discovery and
opposed the plaintiffs' motion to compel further discovery,
according to the company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Oregon Sup. Ct. Affirms "Lowe" Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon State Supreme Court issued its ruling on an appeal
regarding the dismissal of a medical monitoring class action
suit against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc., and several other
cigarette manufacturers.

"Lowe v. Philip Morris, Inc.," which was filed in November 2001
with the Circuit Court in Multnomah County, Oregon, was
dismissed by a judge on Nov. 4, 2003, for failure to state a
claim in an action seeking creation of a court-supervised
program of medical monitoring, smoking cessation and education,
and recovery of attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 6, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's dismissal.  

On March 20, 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court granted the
plaintiffs' petition for review.  Oral arguments were heard on
Sept. 5, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2008).  The
Supreme Court recently ruled that the trial court's dismissal of
the complaint and the intermediate appellate court's unanimous
decision affirming that ruling were correct.

"We are pleased with the Court's decision," said Martin L.
Holton III -- general counsel for R.J. Reynolds.

Reynolds American, Inc.  -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--     
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.   
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


SMITH BARNEY: $33-Mln. Deal in California Sex Bias Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted preliminary approval to a $33-million settlement with
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. -- doing business as Smith Barney
-- in a lawsuit filed on behalf of all women employed as
financial advisors in:

     (i) the United States branches of Smith Barney's retail
         brokerage division at any time from August 24, 2003
         through March 1, 2008; or

    (ii) the California branches of Smith Barney's retail
         brokerage division at any time from June 25, 2003
         through March 1, 2008.

In 2006, five female financial advisors filed an amended class
action with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, charging sex discrimination at Smith Barney.  The
filing amends a class action complaint filed in March 2005 by
adding additional plaintiffs from Southern California and
Florida, and amplifies the allegations in the original class
action complaint.

The original plaintiffs -- Renee Fassbender-Amochaev, Deborah
Orlando and Kathryn N. Varner, and two new plaintiffs, Ivy So
and Lisa Strange Weatherby -- claim that they were discriminated
against with respect to their compensation at Smith Barney.  

Specifically, the women allege that Smith Barney:  

     -- systemically discriminates against women in allocating  
        business opportunities;

     -- discriminates in the account distribution process,  
        routinely assigning smaller and less valuable accounts  
        to female brokers, including those who outperform their  
        male counterparts, than to male brokers;

     -- fails to provide women with the same level of sales  
        support, administrative support, and other support as it  
        provides to men; and

     -- maintains a corporate culture hostile to female  
        professionals.

In 2007, Citigroup Inc. and the female financial advisors at
Smith Barney, the retail brokerage arm of Citigroup, "reached
substantive agreements on the monetary terms" of a settlement of
the gender bias lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2007).

The parties entered into a four-year settlement agreement that
received preliminary Court approval recently. It includes
comprehensive injunctive relief regarding compensation, account
distribution policies, partnership arrangements, branch manager
promotions, retention, diversity training, and complaint
processing, among other things.

The settlement calls for the appointment of an independent
Diversity Monitor and an independent Industrial Psychologist to
effectuate the terms of the Agreement. In addition, the
settlement establishes a class monetary fund of $33 million,
plus interest as of December 15, 2007.  A Claims Administrator
is expected to determine the allocation of monies among class
members.

Adam Klein stated, "We are pleased that the Court took the next
step in the settlement process."

Cyrus Mehri, Esq., explained, "The programmatic relief in this
agreement will level the playing field for distribution of
business opportunities going forward.  We are very proud of our
named plaintiffs for being catalysts for change."

"The court order is a positive step for the plaintiffs and the
class," said Kelly M. Dermody, Esq., a partner at Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Co-Lead Class Counsel.

The settlement was the result of intensive negotiations
supervised by experienced neutral mediator Hunter Hughes, Esq.,
of Atlanta, Georgia.

The suit is "Amochaev et al. v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,  
Case No. 3:05-cv-01298-PJH," filed with the U.S. District court
for the Northern District of California, under Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton and with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq. (ealexander@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         3319 West End Avenue, Suite 600
         Nashville, TN 37203-1074
         Phone: 615-313-9000
   
         Lisa M. Bornstein, Esq. (lbornstein@findjustice.com)
         Sandi Farrell, Esq. (sfarrell@findjustice.com)
         Cyrus Mehri, Esq. (cmehri@findjustice.com)
         Anna M. Pohl, Esq. (apohl@findjustice.com)
         Mehri & Skalet PLLC
         1250 Connecticut  
         Avenue, Suite 300
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-822-5100
         Fax: 202-822-4997

              - and -

         Piper Hoffman, Esq. (ph@outtengolden.com)
         Adam T. Klein, Esq. (atk@outtengolden.com)
         Justin M. Swartz, Esq. (jms@outtengolden.com)
         Outten & Golden LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005  

Representing the defendants are:

         Jay Cohen, Esq. (jaycohen@paulweiss.com)
         Beth Susan Frank, Esq. (bfrank@paulweiss.com)
         Audra Jan Soloway, Esq. (asoloway@paulweiss.com)
         Daniel John Toal, Esq. (dtoal@paulweiss.com)
         Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP
         1285 Avenue of Americas
         New York, NY 10019-6064
         Phone: 212-373-3000
         Fax: 212-373-2399  

              - and -

         Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq. (heinickema@mto.com)
         Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
         560 Mission Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco
         CA 94105-2907
         Phone: 415-512-4000
         Fax: 415-512-4077


UNITED STATES: Dead Soldiers' Parents Sue for $40 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------
Parents of a soldier who died fighting in Iraq have sued an
Arizona man for more than $40 billion over anti-war t-shirts
being sold that use the names of soldiers killed in action.

The Tennessee couple, Robin and Michael Read, are seeking class-
action status for their lawsuit against Dan Frazier, saying he
is using the names of the dead soldiers without permission.

The lawsuit seeks to award more than $4 billion in compensatory
damages and $36.5 billion in punitive damages to the survivors
of all U.S. service members killed since September 11, 2001.

The Reads originally filed a lawsuit naming only themselves as
plaintiffs and seeking $10 million in damages.

Mr. Frazier is selling t-shirts which list the names of all the
service men and woman killed during the fighting in Iraq and
proclaims "Bush Lied They Died" across the front.  He contends
he is covered by the First Amendment guaranteeing his right to
free speech.

According to the complaint filed in Tennessee, the Reads say Mr.
Frazier has no right to profit from the sales.


WELLS FARGO: Texas Lawsuit Alleges Bank Forecloses Illegally
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
claiming the bank is "particularly deceptive" in foreclosing on
homes by falsely accusing homebuyers who have filed for
bankruptcy of being delinquent on their mortgages, by assessing
"hundreds of millions of dollars" for debts that were already
paid, and by abusing the bankruptcy code, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

"Wells Fargo's policies and practices are particularly
deceptive, the complaint states, "insofar as they involve the:

     (1) intentional concealment of the fact that Wells Fargo
         has not properly accounted for debtors' bankruptcy
         plans and payments,

     (2) deceptive demands for payment of debts that are not
         owed but are presented to the debtors as actually owed
         and

     (3) intentional concealment of added fees and expenses when
         in fact federal bankruptcy law requires Wells Fargo to
         make application for such fees and expenses to the
         bankruptcy court.

"These policies and practices are not the result of neglect or
indifference but are deliberately unfair, oppressive, malicious
and unconscionable.  Such misconduct has been documented in this
case and throughout the United States.  In formulating and
executing these policies, Well Fargo has shown its complete
disrespect and disdain for the Code and its evident belief that
it is above the law.

"Defendants' motives are purely economic.  Through the policies
outlined herein, Wells Fargo has appropriated substantial
profits by flouting the requirements of the Code and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendants' wrongful conduct is
compounded daily by its continued collection and foreclosure
efforts."

Named plaintiff Braylon Haynes brings this action pursuant to
Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., on behalf of all
residential mortgage customers of Wells Fargo in the United
States who filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding prior to
Oct. 16, 2005, and received a Chapter 13 discharge but to whom
Wells Fargo nonetheless represented that their mortgages were in
arrears of that they owed any fees, charges or expenses not
specifically approved by an order of a United States Bankruptcy
Court.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying this case as a class action pursuant
        to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. and appointing Mr. Haynes
        and his counsel as its representatives;

     -- an order directing defendants to give notice to the
        members of the proposed class and an opportunity to be
        heard;

     -- declaratory judgment that defendants' conduct violates
        11 USC Sections 362, 506, 524, 1322(a)(1), 1322(b)(5),
        1326(c), 1327(a) and 1328 of the Bankruptcy Code, and
        Bankruptcy Rule 2013(a) and 15 USC Section 1692e;

     -- an injunction restraining defendants from engaging in
        debt collection practices and foreclosures that are in
        violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
        the United states Bankruptcy Code;

     -- actual and statutory damages, including attorneys' fees,
        for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act;

     -- compensatory damages, including attorneys' fees and
        costs, and punitive damages or sanctions, for illegal
        collection and attempted collection of debts that were
        treated and are being treated through debtors' Chapter
        13 plans;

     -- disgorgement, restitution and attorneys' fees and costs,
        and punitive damages and sanctions, for defendants'
        violation of the Code, collection and attempted
        collection of unapproved attorney's fees and other fees
        in violation of Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code and
        Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a); and

     -- an order finding the defendants in contempt under 11 USC
        Section 105 of the Code and awarding plaintiff and the
        class members appropriate relief including attorneys'
        fees and costs, sanctions and other such relief
        including attorneys' fees and costs, sanctions, and
        other such relief deemed appropriate by the court.

The suit is "Braylon Haynes et al. v. Wells FArgo Bank, NA, et
al., Case No. 2:08-CV-183(TJW/CE)," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James A. Holmes, Esq. (jh@jamesholmeslaw.com)
          The Law office of James A. Holmes, PC
          605 South Main Street, Suite 203
          Henderson, TX 75654
          Phone: (903) 657-2800
          Fax: (903) 657-2855


* George Brown Joins Gibson Dunn in Silicon Valley
--------------------------------------------------
George Brown, Esq., has joined Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as a
partner in the Palo Alto office.  Previously a partner with
Heller Ehrman, he will continue to focus his practice on
securities litigation and accountants' liability.

"George will be a terrific addition to the firm," said Ken
Doran, Esq., Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn.  "We have one of
the top securities litigation and regulation practices in the
country, and it is our priority to continue to build on our
successful platform.  George's experience in complex securities
and accountants' liability cases, as well as his experience
leading corporate investigations, will be an asset for our
clients."

"George will bring needed capacity to the firm and particularly
to the Bay Area securities litigation practice," said Russell
Hansen, Partner-in-Charge of the Palo Alto office.  "We look
forward to having him enhance our visibility in the Bay Area in
this arena."

"Gibson Dunn's securities litigation practice is impressive, and
I'm looking to expand my practice on the firm's broader platform
and to leverage the synergies with the firm's DC securities
regulatory practice," said Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown practices in the areas of complex securities
litigation, accountants' liability and corporate governance.  He
has represented officers, directors, board committees and the
professionals who serve those corporate constituencies in class
action securities litigation, internal company investigations,
regulatory and grand jury investigations, derivative actions,
arbitration proceedings, and related matters.  He regularly
represents accounting firms in a wide variety of disputes
proceedings and regulatory settings.

Prior to joining the firm, Brown practiced with Heller Ehrman
and O'Melveny & Myers.  He was also previously a law professor
at UCLA School of Law, where he taught contracts, business
associations, and securities regulation courses.  He was a
licensed Certified Public Accountant.  He has served on the
Board of Directors for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in
San Francisco since 2005.

He received a joint JD/MBA in 1988 from UCLA, where he served as
editor-in-chief of the National Black Law Journal.

Gibson Dunn is a recognized leader in the defense of securities
class actions, derivative litigation, and SEC enforcement
actions.  Consistently ranked as one of the top securities
litigation practices in the country, in 2007 Gibson Dunn was
ranked as one of the top firms in securities litigation in the
United States by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and Securities Law
360.  In addition, the firm's securities litigation partners
have been honored individually by various organizations as among
the best nationally, and in key jurisdictions, such as New York
and California.

Lawyers in Gibson Dunn's Securities Litigation Practice Group
bring unparalleled experience to every matter.  The firm's
partners include nationally recognized securities class action
defense counsel, as well as a number of former senior officials
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the NASD, and the
Department of Justice (including two former U.S. Attorneys and
more than 20 former Assistant U.S. Attorneys). Members of Gibson
Dunn's Securities Litigation Practice Group are consistently on
the "short list" of top securities litigators in the country.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP -- http://www.gibsondunn.com/-- is  
a leading international law firm.  Consistently ranking among
the world's top law firms in industry surveys and major
publications, Gibson Dunn is distinctively positioned in today's
global marketplace with more than 900 lawyers and 14 offices,
including Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., Orange
County, San Francisco, Palo Alto, London, Paris, Munich,
Brussels, Dubai, Century City, Dallas and Denver.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. filed a
securities class action lawsuit with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of The Blackstone Group L.P.
pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial public offering
on or about June 22, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933.

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

According to the complaint, on or about June 21, 2007,
Blackstone filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration
Statement, for the IPO.

Thereafter, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms
part of the Registration Statement, became effective and,
including the exercise of the over-allotment, more than 133
million shares of Blackstone's common stock were sold to the
public at $31 per share, thereby raising more than $4 billion.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose that certain of the Company's portfolio companies were
not performing well and were of declining value and, as a
result, Blackstone's equity investment was impaired and the
Company would not generate anticipated performance fees on those
investments or would have fees "clawed-back" by limited partners
in its funds.

On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the full year of 2007 and the fourth
quarter of 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007.  Among
other disclosures, Blackstone announced that it was writing down
its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by
$122 million.  As of April 15, 2008, Blackstone common stock
traded in a range of $17-$17.50 per share, approximately 45%
below the IPO price of $31.00 per share.

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

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector Roseman & Kodroff
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
          Toll-free: 888-844-5862
          e-mail: classaction@srk-law.com
          Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


CITIGROUP INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed by Holzer Holzer & Fistel,
LLC, with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the Citigroup
Inc. Falcon Strategies Two B LLC Hedge Fund who purchased the
fund from September 30, 2005, through January 8, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that Citigroup Inc. and others violated the
federal securities laws by misrepresenting the degree of risk of
the fund.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, Georgia 30338
          Phone: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)


WENDY'S INTL: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed by Holzer
Holzer & Fistel, LLC, with the Common Pleas Court of Franklin,
Ohio, against Wendy's International, Inc., and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of Company shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges that certain individual directors and
officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the sale of the Company to Triarc Companies,
Inc.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, Georgia 30338
          Phone: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)




                            *********

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  * * *