CAR_Public/080507.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 90

                            Headlines

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Sixth Circuit Reverses ERISA Suit Dismissal
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Phony Bills
ARMSTRONG WORLD: Faces Suit in Ca. Over Employment Law Issues
CALIFORNIA: Hooper Lundy Sues on Behalf of Medi-Cal Providers
CIGNA CORP: Connecticut Court Considers Appeal in "Amara" Case

CIGNA CORP: Plans Renewed Motion to Dismiss Manage Care Case
COMCAST: June 18 Hearing Set for Dismissal Motion in "Brantley"
COMCAST CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Pennsylvania
COMCAST CORP: Fast Internet Connection Ads Prompts D.C. Lawsuit
CRUM & FORSTER: Ruling in Suit Dismissal Appeal Expected in 2009

DRUG COS: Digitalis Drugs are Dangerous, Missouri Suit Claims
EMBARQ CORP: Still Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Kansas
ENBRIDGE INC: Wants Customers to Shoulder Lawsuit Settlement
GOODMAN MFG: Recalls Heating and Cooling Units for Fire Hazard
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: N.Y. Court Dismisses Suit Over Information Leak

HERCULES OFFSHORE: Texas Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over TODCO Deal
MICHIGAN: Tree Case Against Warren Now Certified as Class Action
MORGAN STANLEY: $16MM Deal in Gender/Race Bias Suit Opposed
NAM TAI: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court
NATIONAL CITY BANK: Faces PA Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination

NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Past Guests Sue Over Restaurant Reservations
OKK TRADING: Recalls Toy Robots Violating Lead Paint Standards
PARMALAT SPA: Reaches $36MM Settlement in U.S. Shareholders Suit
PEP BOYS: California Court Considers Settlement in Labor Case
SONY CORP: SXRD Rear-Projection Suit Settlement Gets Approval

STYLEMARK INC: Recalls Sunglasses for Lead Paint Standard Breach
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Defective Water Heater
YAHOO!: Amends Delaware Stockholder Suits Over Microsoft Offer


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit
FORCE PROTECTION: Berger & Montague Files S.C. Securities Suit
LEHMAN BROS: Dyer & Berens Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Sixth Circuit Reverses ERISA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the
dismissal of a purported class action suit against American
Electric Power Co., Inc., which alleged violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to American Electric's
May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
three putative class actions were filed against AEP, certain
executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging
violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an
investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP
stock.  The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  

The defendants are American Electric Power Co., Inc.; American
Electric Power Service Corp.; E. Linn Draper, Jr.; and Thomas V.
Shockley, III.

In July 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification and dismissed all claims without prejudice.

In August 2007, the appeals court reversed the trial court's
decision and held that the plaintiff did have standing to pursue
his claim.  The appeals court remanded the case to the trial
court to consider the issue of whether the plaintiff is an
adequate representative for the class of plan participants.

The company reported no further development in the matter.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio Judge Algenon L. Marbley,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
         Stull, Stull and Brody
         6 East 45th Street
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230
         e-mail: ssbny@aol.com

         James Edward Arnold, Esq. (jarnold@cpaslaw.com)
         Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-469-1400

              - and -         

         Joseph J. Braun, Esq. (jjbraun@strausstroy.com)
         Strauss & Troy - 1
         The Federal Reserve Bldg.
         150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor
         Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
         Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
         Charlie L. Divine, Esq.
         Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
         Issa Mikel, Esq.
         George S. Wang, Esq.
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017-3954
         Phone: 212-455-2000
         Fax: 212-455-2502
         Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Phony Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriGas Partners, L.P., is facing a clas-action complaint filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
alleging the company defrauded customers by continuing to bill
them for propane, "which invoices remarkably included beginning
and ending readings reflecting purported propane usage," though
the homes and the meters had been destroyed in the October 2007
wildfires, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges that AmeriGas has engaged in conduct
violative of the laws set forth by failing to read and
accurately read the meters and similar devices relating to
propane to be furnished to plaintiff and the class, which has
resulted in inaccurate billings and overcharging to plaintiff
and the class.

Named plaintiff Timothy Deehan claims, "Notwithstanding the
total loss of Plaintiff's home, Plaintiff continued to receive
invoices from the Defendant, which invoices remarkably included
beginning and ending readings reflecting purported propane
usage.  Included in the destruction was the AmeriGas propane
meter."

By its actions, AmeriGas misrepresented the fact that it reads
the meters and related devices and, based thereon, sent its
customers inaccurate and in many cases inflated bills not
commensurate with their actual propane usage.  By its actions,
AmeriGas has reaped unearned financial gains, all to the
detriment of the plaintiff and the class.  AmeriGas' conduct is
in breach of the agreement it has with plaintiff and members of
the class and further subjects it to liability in tort and
pursuant to applicable statutes as alleged.

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons in California
who have within the past four years contracted with AmeriGas for
the purchase of propane and which purchase required monthly or
some other periodic reading of a meter or similar device.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether each class member received invoices
         representing the fact that the defendant read and
         accurately read their propane meters to determine usage
         and, in turn, charges for said usage;

     (b) whether the defendant's conduct of failing to read its
         customers meters to determine their propane usage,
         despite its representations via invoicing and other
         materials to the contrary, was in violation of its
         agreements with the class;

     (c) whether the defendant engaged in unfair, deceptive and
         unlawful practices that violated California Business &
         Professions Code Section 17200;

     (d) whether the defendant engaged in conduct violative of
         California Public Utilities Code Sections 451;

     (e) whether the defendant breached its contractual
         obligations;

     (f) whether the defendant made intentional or negligent
         misrepresentations;

     (g) whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief; and

     (h) whether the plaintiff and the class have sustained
         damages and, if so, the proper measure of those
         damages.

The plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- certify this action as a class action;

     -- preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendant from
        engaging in the alleged conduct;

     -- disgorge any ill-gotten profits from the defendant;

     -- award the plaintiff and each class member civil
        penalties under California Public Utilities Code Section
        2107;

     -- distribute any amount recovered on behalf of the class
        via fluid recovery or cy pres recovery where necessary
        to prevent the defendant from retaining the benefits of
        its wrongful conduct;

     -- award general and special damages according to proof;

     -- award exemplary punitive damages;

     -- award attorneys' fees as authorized by statute
        including, but not limited to, the provisions of
        California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, and
        as authorized under the "common fund" doctrine, and as
        authorized by the "substantial benefit" doctrine;

     -- award costs of suit; and

     -- award pre-judgment interest at the legal rate.

The suit is "Timothy Deehan et al v. AmeriGas Partners, LP, Case
No. 37-2008-00063132-CU-BC-CTL," filed with the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Harry W. Harrison, Esq.
          James Patterson, Esq.
          Cary A. Kinkead, Esq.
          Harrison Patterson & O'Connor LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-756-6990
          Fax: 619-756-6991


ARMSTRONG WORLD: Faces Suit in Ca. Over Employment Law Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Inc., is facing a purported class
action suit in California state court regarding employment law
issues.

The suit arises in the ordinary course of business, according to
the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Armstrong disclosed no further details regarding the case.

Armstrong World Industries, Inc. -- http://www.armstrong.com/--  
is a producer of flooring products and ceiling systems for use
primarily in the construction and renovation of residential,
commercial and institutional buildings.  Through its U.S.
operations, and U.S. and international subsidiaries, the Company
designs, manufactures and sells flooring products (primarily
resilient and wood flooring) and ceiling systems (primarily
mineral fiber, fiberglass and metal) worldwide.  It also
designs, manufactures and sells kitchen and bathroom cabinets in
the U.S.  The Company's business segments include Resilient
Flooring, Wood Flooring, Building Products and Cabinets.


CALIFORNIA: Hooper Lundy Sues on Behalf of Medi-Cal Providers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc., filed a class action complaint
against the State of California on behalf of a coalition of
seven major health care provider organizations seeking to halt a
10% cut in Medi-Cal and Denti-Cal reimbursement rates scheduled
to take effect July 1, 2008.

Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the suit seeks an
immediate injunction to block the scheduled reduction in Medi-
Cal payments.  The seven members of the plaintiff coalition
include:

     1. the California Medical Association,

     2. the California Hospital Association,

     3. the California Dental Association,

     4. the California Association for Adult Day Services,

     5. the American College of Emergency Physicians State
        Chapter of California,

     6. the California Pharmacists Association, and

     7. the California Association of Public Hospitals and
        Health Systems.

"The cuts agreed to by the Legislature and signed into law by
the governor in February were invoked illegally, as lawmakers
failed to consider the likely impact of such cuts on Medi-Cal
beneficiaries," said lead plaintiff counsel Craig Cannizzo,
Esq., of Hopper, Lundy & Bookman.  "If allowed to go into
effect, these cuts will devastate the Medi-Cal program as care
to our most vulnerable population will be jeopardized."

State and federal law (42 C.F.R. Sect. 447.204) requires that
Medi-Cal payments to providers "must be sufficient to enlist
enough providers so that services under the (Medi-Cal) plan are
available to recipients at least to the extent that those
services are available to the general public."

"If the 10 percent cut is implemented, this mandate will not be
met," said co-plaintiff counsel Lloyd Bookman, Esq.  "Providers
will not be able to pay vendors, and in some cases, employees.
Furthermore, patients unable to receive timely care will be
forced to seek care at already overburdened emergency
departments."

For more information, contact:

          Craig Cannizzo, Esq.
          Lloyd Bookman, Esq.
          Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, California 90067-2517
          Phone: 415-875-8511
                 310-551-8185
          Mobile: 415-728-4917
                  310-418-2879


CIGNA CORP: Connecticut Court Considers Appeal in "Amara" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to issue a decision in connection with an appeal in the
purported class action filed against CIGNA Corp. and the CIGNA
Pension Plan over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

On Dec. 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed the suit against the
company and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan
who earned certain Plan benefits prior to 1998.  

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that:

      -- the Plan violated ERISA by impermissibly conditioning
         certain post-1997 benefit accruals on the amount of
         pre-1998 benefit accruals that these conditions are not
         adequately disclosed to plan participants; and

      -- the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
         older employees.  

The plaintiffs were granted class certification on Dec. 20,
2002.  They seek equitable relief.

A non-jury trial began on Sept. 11-15, 2006.  Due to the court's
schedule, the proceedings were adjourned and then the trial was
completed on Jan. 25, 2007.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor
of CIGNA Corp. and the CIGNA Pension Plan on the age
discrimination and wear away claims and finding in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims.  

The court ordered the parties to file briefs on remedies, if
any, to be awarded to the plaintiff on the claims.  Thus, the
plaintiffs filed their brief on March 17, 2008.

The Company filed its reply brief on April 16, 2008, and the
plaintiffs filed a reply on April 25, 2008.  Oral argument was
held on April 30, 2008, according to the company's May 1, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Amara v. CIGNA Corp., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-
02361-MRK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, Judge Mark R. Kravitz presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. (stephen.bruce@prodigy.net)
         805 15th St., NW Suite 210
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-289-1117
         Fax: 202-371-0121

              - and -

         Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq. (tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com)
         Moukawsher & Walsh
         Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209
         Hartford, CT 06106
         Phone: 860-278-7000
         Fax: 860-548-1740

Representing the defendants are:

         Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com)
         Robinson & Cole
         280 Trumbull St.
         Hartford, CT 06103-3597
         Phone: 860-275-8209
         Fax: 860-275-8299

              - and -

         Jeremy Blumenfeld, Esq. (jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
         1701 Market St.
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
         Phone: 215-963-5258
         Fax: 215-963-5001


CIGNA CORP: Plans Renewed Motion to Dismiss Manage Care Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Corp. intends to file a renewed motion to dismiss the
matter entitled "Amer. Dental Ass'n v. CIGNA Corp., et. al.,"
according to the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

On April 7, 2000, several pending actions were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in
a multi-district litigation proceeding captioned, "In re Managed
Care Litigation."  

The consolidated cases include:

       -- "Shane v. Humana, Inc., et. al.," (The Company’s
          subsidiaries added as defendants in August 2000),

       -- "Mangieri v. CIGNA Corporation," (filed Dec. 7, 1999
          with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
          of Alabama),

       -- "Kaiser and Corrigan v. CIGNA Corporation, et. al.,"
          (class of health care providers certified on March 29,
          2001) and

       -- "Amer. Dental Ass’n v. CIGNA Corp., et. al.," (a
          putative class of dental providers).

In 2004, the Court approved a settlement agreement between the
physician class and the Company.  

A dispute over disallowed claims under the settlement submitted
by a representative of certain class member physicians is
proceeding to arbitration.  

Separately, in April 2005, the Court approved a settlement
between the Company and a class of non-physician health care
providers.  

Only the Amer. Dental Ass'n case remains unresolved.  The
Company intends to file a renewed motion to dismiss the case.

CIGNA Corp. -- http://www.cigna.com/-- is an investor-owned  
health service organization in the U.S.  The Company's
subsidiaries are providers of healthcare and related benefits,
the majority of which are offered through the workplace,
including healthcare products and services; group disability,
life and accident insurance, and workers' compensation case
management and related services.  CIGNA's revenues are derived
principally from premiums, fees, mail order pharmacy, other
revenues and investment income.  The Company operates in five
business segments: HealthCare; Disability and Life;
International; Other Operations, and Run-off Reinsurance.


COMCAST: June 18 Hearing Set for Dismissal Motion in "Brantley"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 16, 2008 hearing is scheduled for a motion seeking the
dismissal of a purported class action suit entitled, "Rob
Brantley et al v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:2007cv06101," which names Comcast Corp. as a defendant.

The company was among the defendants named in the purported
class action lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2007.

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Rob Brantley,
       -- Darryn Cooke,
       -- William Costley,
       -- Beverly Costley,
       -- Christina Hills,
       -- Michael B. Kovac,
       -- Michelle Navarrette,
       -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
       -- Joseph Vranich.

The defendants in the case are:

       -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
       -- Viacom Inc.,
       -- The Walt Disney Company,
       -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Cable Inc.,
       -- Comcast Corp.,
       -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
       -- Cox Communiations, Inc.,
       -- The Directv Group, Inc.,
       -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
       -- Charter Communications, Inc., and
       -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video
programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who
distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which
preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers
on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of
federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages for the loss of their ability
to pick and choose the specific channels to which they wish to
subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor
defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a
la carte basis.

The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video
service provided by one of the distributor defendants.

In December 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.  

On March 12, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, with
permission for the plaintiffs to replead their complaint.  On
March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint.

The company filed a renewed motion to dismiss this amended
complaint on April 22, 2008.  The court has scheduled a hearing
on the motion for June 16, 2008, according to the company's
May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
          Blecher & Collins
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-622-4222

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk and Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2005

          John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6321


COMCAST CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp., Comcast Chief Executive Officer Brian Roberts,
and other top executives continue to face a securities fraud
lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The executives are accused of inflating share price through
false and misleading reports while dumping 585,792 of their own
shares at artificially high prices, for more than $15 million.

Named plaintiff Marilyn Clark brought this action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of
all those who purchased the publicly-traded securities of
Comcast between Feb. 1, 2007, and Dec. 4, 2007, inclusive, and
who were damaged, thereby.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         defendants' acts as alleged;

     (b) whether statements made by defendants to the investing
         public during the class period misrepresented material
         facts about the business and operations of Comcast;

     (c) whether the price of Comcast common stock was
         artificially inflated during the class period; and

     (d) whether to what extent the members of the class have
         sustained damages and the proper measure of damages;

The plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- determine that this action is a proper class action,
        designating the plaintiff as lead plaintiff and
        certifying her as a class representative under Rule 23
        of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
        plaintiff's counsel as lead counsel;

     -- award compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and
        the other class members against all defendants, jointly
        and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
        defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at
        trial, including interest; and

     -- award the plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
        fees and expert fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 1,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Marilyn Clark et al. v. Comcast Corp. et al., Case
No. 08-CV-00052," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Harvey Bartle, III,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

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


COMCAST CORP: Fast Internet Connection Ads Prompts D.C. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Randolph LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against
Comcast Corp. in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia
on behalf of its client, Dr. Sanford Sidner, and all Washington,
D.C. citizens who have subscribed to Comcast's high-speed
Internet service during the past three years, Access
Intelligence reports.

The Complaint alleges that Comcast advertises and represents
that it provides the "fastest Internet connection" and
"unfettered access to all the content, services, and
applications that the Internet has to offer."

These representations allegedly are false because Comcast
intentionally blocks or otherwise impedes its customers' access
to peer-to-peer file-sharing applications.

According to the Complaint, Comcast surreptitiously impersonates
the computers of users attempting to share files and sends
forged "reset packets" that instruct the transmitting computers
to stop sending data.  Thus, users of peer-to-peer applications
are denied full access to the Internet despite paying for a
service that Comcast promises is "unfettered" and the "fastest"
available.

"Comcast promises that it does not block access to any online
applications, including peer-to-peer services, but then it turns
around and does exactly that," said August J. Matteis, Jr.,
Esq., of Gilbert Randolph, who represents the plaintiff.
"Comcast deliberately hinders customers from getting the full
benefits of the service they purchased, and it does so in an
underhanded and deceptive manner."

Dr. Sidner claims that his service frequently stops or slows to
a crawl when he uses file-sharing applications.  "I've been a
Comcast customer for several years, and I feel betrayed.  I'll
bet most paying customers out there have no idea that Comcast is
secretly blocking and slowing down their high-speed Internet
service.  It cuts at the heart of the service we all purchased.
It's just outrageous behavior."

Over the past several months, Comcast repeatedly has denied that
it blocked or "throttled" peer-to-peer exchanges.  It finally
admitted the existence but not the extent of its activities in a
recent filing with the Federal Communications Commission.
Comcast came under fire last week after it attempted to defend
its service-limiting practice by stating that peer-to-peer
applications place "excessive burdens" on its network.
BitTorrent, the company that created the dominant protocol for
file-sharing, reacted angrily, noting that Comcast's actions are
anti-competitive.

"This lawsuit demonstrates that consumers are rightfully
outraged over Comcast's secretive bait-and-switch tactics," said
Markham C. Erickson, the Executive Director of the Open Internet
Coalition.  "The company's behavior already has attracted the
attention of the FCC and Congress. Now the courts are involved.
If Comcast doesn't change its behavior, the word 'Comcastic' is
going to become a synonym for fraud."

Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com/--  
is a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer
entertainment and communication products and services.

For more information, contact:

          August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
          (matteisa@gilbertrandolph.com)
          Ellen R. Katkin, Esq. (katkine@gilbertrandolph.com)
          Gilbert Randolph LLP
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-772-1923
                 202-772-1960


CRUM & FORSTER: Ruling in Suit Dismissal Appeal Expected in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit is expected to
issue a decision by 2009 with regard to an appeal by the
plaintiffs of the dismissal of a purported class action suit
over allegations that Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. violated
both the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
antitrust statutes, according to Crum & Forster's May 1, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The company and U.S. Fire, among other insurance companies and
insurance brokers, have been named as defendants in the class
action filed by policyholders alleging, among other things, that
the defendants used contingent commission structure to deprive
policyholders of free competition in the market for insurance.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class
consisting of all persons who, between Aug. 26, 1994, and the
date of the class certification, engaged the services of any one
of the broker-defendants and who entered into or renewed a
contract of insurance with one of the insurer defendants.

In October 2006, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, subject to the
plaintiffs' filing of an amended statement of their case.

The plaintiffs then filed their "supplemental statement of
particularity," and amended case statement.  In response, the
defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the suit.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice.   On
Sept. 28, 2007, the court dismissed the RICO case with prejudice
and declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs' state law claims.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial
court's dismissals with the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third
Circuit.

The plaintiffs' opening brief was filed and served on Feb. 19,
2008.  Opposition briefs were filed on April 7, 2008.  

The plaintiffs filed their reply brief on April 24, 2008.  A
final ruling is not expected from the Court of Appeals before
early 2009.  The company and U.S. Fire continue to be named as
defendants.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com/--  
through its eight subsidiaries, offers an array of property/
casualty insurance products to businesses, including management
liability, automobile, and workers' compensation coverage.


DRUG COS: Digitalis Drugs are Dangerous, Missouri Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri claims heart drugs Digitek and
Bertek poison patients by giving them potentially fatal
digitalis toxicity, particularly if they have kidney problems,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named as defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Actavis Totowa, LLC
     -- Mylan Laboratories
     -- UDL Laboratories, Inc. and
     -- Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Named plaintiff Bobby White brings this action on behalf of all
persons residing in the United States who purchased Digitek or
Bertek, pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to recover compensatory, equitable, actual and
punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The class includes all citizens, residents, or domiciliaries of
the United States who have purchased Digitek or Bertek and such
citizens', residents and domiciliaries' estates,
representatives, administrators, spouses, children, relatives
and "significant others" as their heirs or survivors.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' failure to give adequate and timely
         warning of the dangers of the Digitek and Bertek
         constitutes negligence and negligence per se;

     (b) whether defendants concealed adverse information from
         plaintiff and the Digitek and Bertek class regarding
         the testing and safety of the Digitek and Bertek;

     (c) whether defendants violated applicable state consumer
         protection laws;

     (d) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to
         recover compensatory, exemplary, punitive and other
         damages as a result of defendants' unlawful conduct;

     (e) what is the proper mechanism for assessing and awarding
         damages and administering other relief to the class
         members, including relief to reduce the threat of
         future harm to class members;

     (f) whether defendants designed, manufactured, and
         marketed a defective product;

     (g) whether defendants failed to identify the safety
         concerns of Digitek and Bertek shown in reports and
         studies;

     (h) whether defendants' conduct in designing,
         manufacturing, failing to warn, selling and
         marketing Digitek and Bertek fell below the duty of
         care owed by defendants to plaintiff and members of the
         plaintiff class;

     (i) whether defendants recklessly delayed reporting the
         double dose of digoxin in Digitek and Bertek to the
         FDA, the medical community, pharmaceutical community,
         other regulatory authorities, the public, the
         defendants and the plaintiff class action members;

     (j) whether defendants intentionally delayed reporting of
         the double dose of digoxin in Digitek and Bertek to the
         FDA, the medical community, pharmaceutical community,
         other regulatory authorities, the public, the
         defendants and the plaintiff class action members;

     (k) whether defendants violated Federal statutes in not
         timely reporting the double dose of digoxin in Digitek
         and Bertek;

         timely reporting the double dose of digoxin in Digitek
     (l) whether defendants violated Federal regulations in not
         and Bertek;

     (m) whether defendants violated State statutes in not
         timely reporting the double dose of digoxin in Digitek
         and Bertek;

     (n) whether defendants violated State regulations in not
         timely reporting the double dose of digoxin in Digitek
         and Bertek;

     (o) whether defendants negligently, recklessly or
         intentionally concealed information about the safety
         and proper efficacy of Digitek and Bertek from the
         plaintiff and the plaintiff class, as well as their
         physicians, hospitals, healthcare professionals and the
         FDA;

     (p) whether defendants watered down and diluted the
         actual risk of and safety concerns of Digitek and
         Bertek;

     (q) whether defendants under-reported the adverse events
         associated with Digitek and Bertek;

     (r) whether defendants are strictly liable in tort for
         selling a defective product;

     (s) whether defendants' conduct constitutes fraudulent
         concealment;

     (t) whether defendants' conduct constitutes fraudulent
         misrepresentations;

     (u) whether defendants' conduct constitutes negligent
         misrepresentations;

     (v) whether defendants' conduct constitutes negligence;

     (w) whether defendants are liable for intentional and/or
         negligent infliction of emotional distress; and

     (x) whether defendants breached express warranties.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class, appointing plaintiff as
        class representatives and appointing Peterson &
        Associates, Inc. as counsel to the class;

     -- equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief, including
        enjoining defendants from distributing Digitek and
        Bertek;

     -- damages in an amount to determined at trial;

     -- prejudgment and post judgment interest at the maximum
        rate allowable at law;

     -- treble, exemplary, and punitive damages in an amount
        to be determined at trial;

     -- the costs and disbursements incurred by plaintiff and
        class members in connection with this action, including
        reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- all statutory damages;

     -- disgorgement of defendants' profits from the sale of
        Digitek and Bertek; and

     -- such other and further relief under all applicable state
        of federal law and any relief the court deems just and
        appropriate.

The suite is "Bobby White et al. v. Actavis Totowa, LLC," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David M. Peterson, Esq.
          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Nicholas S. Clevenger, Esq.
          Christine Howard, Esq.
          Park Plaza Building
          801 W. 47th Street, Suite 107
          Kansas City, Missouri 64112
          Phone: 816-531-4440
          Fax: 816-531-0660


EMBARQ CORP: Still Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Embarq Corp. continues to faces a purported class action suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
accusing the company of illegally terminating health-care
benefits, including medical and prescription drug coverage and
life insurance, for all Medicare-eligible employees.

The complaint, filed in December 2007, alleges Embarq of having
immediately told its shareholders that the terminations would
save the company $40 million a year (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 4, 2008).

This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, and other
equitable relief, as well as damages and other monetary relief,
to redress the deprivation of rights secured to plaintiffs and
the members of the class and sub-class by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 1001, et. seq.

The plaintiffs are retired employees of various national,
regional and local telecommunications operating and supply
companies, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Embarq.  They
seek relief for these unlawful actions by the defendants:

     (1) the elimination of company-sponsored and company-paid
         medical and prescription drug coverage and coverage
         subsidies provided to Medicare-eligible retirees and
         their Medicare-eligible dependents; and

     (2) the elimination of company-sponsored and company-paid
         life insurance coverage provided to retirees and their
         dependents, including such coverage provided to
         retirees of Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company
         who are participants in the Carolina Telephone and
         Telegraph Company Voluntary Employees Beneficiary
         Association Plan, also known as the Sickness Death
         Benefit Plan.

The plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
persons, including all plan participants and all eligible spouse
and dependent plan beneficiaries, whose rights to medical,
prescription drug, and life insurance benefits or premium
subsidies have been adversely affected by the terminations,
reductions and changes in retiree benefits which were announced
by Embarq on July 26, 2007.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

      (a) whether the members of the class have been or will be
          unlawfully excluded from and deprived of their rights
          under the defendants' ERISA benefit plans and whether
          the defendants breached the terms of these plans and
          breached their strict ERISA fiduciary duties to the
          plaintiffs and the members of the class;

      (b) whether the defendants violated ERISA by cutting off
          Grand-fathered Life Insurance benefits to the members
          of the class who have a right to participate in the
          VEBA; and

     (c) whether the plaintiffs and the members of the class are
         entitled to the relief prayed for.

The plaintiffs ask the court to:

      -- declare that the actions of defendants are in
         violations of ERISA and issue a preliminary and
         permanent injunction reinstating and restoring to the
         plaintiffs and the members of the class the subject,
         medical, prescription drug and life insurance benefits
         and compelling defendants to provide these benefits to
         them for the remainder of their lifetimes;

      -- order equitable reformation of the plans described in
         the lawsuit to reinstate these benefits and provide
         that these benefits shall not be reduced below the
         levels provided to the plaintiffs and the members of
         the class on July 25, 2007;

      -- order an accounting of all profits and savings realized
         by the fiduciary defendants and attributable either to
         their misrepresentation or omission of material
         information about the benefits, or to their elimination
         of retiree medical, prescription drug, and life
         insurance benefits, or to their inducement of
         plaintiffs and the members of the class to retire
         early, including all such profits and savings relating
         to salary, compensations, pension benefits, fringe
         benefits, and all other payroll and overhead costs that
         were avoided by the fiduciary defendants as a result of
         inducing them to retire early;

      -- order a surcharge on the fiduciary defendants, and
         grant restitution and other monetary relief, to make
         the plaintiffs and the members of the class whole for
         all losses caused by the unlawful actions of the
         fiduciary defendants, including payment of all medical
         benefits, prescription drug benefits and subsidies, and
         life insurance benefits, including death benefits, that
         have been improperly withheld from plaintiffs and the
         members of the class as of the time of judgment;

      -- declare that the plaintiffs and the class members are
         vested in the retiree medical and prescription drug
         benefits provided by defendants at the time of their
         retirements, or that these benefits cannot otherwise be
         reduced or terminated;

      -- declare that the plaintiffs and the class members
         are vested life insurance benefits provided by
         defendants at the time of their retirements, or that
         theses benefits cannot otherwise be reduced or
         terminated;

      -- declare that the plaintiffs and the class members
         are entitled to receive in the future retiree medical
         benefits, prescription drug benefits and subsidies, and
         life insurance benefits, unreduced from those promised
         to them at the time of their retirements;

      -- award reasonable attorney's fees, expenses and costs
         pursuant to 29 USC Section 1132(g); and

      -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 1,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "William Douglas Fulghum et al. v. Embarq Corp. et
al., Case No. 07-CV-2602 KHV/JPO," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Diane A. Nygaard, Esq. (diane@nygaardlaw.com)
          Jason M. Kueser, Esq. (jason@nygaardlaw.com)
          The Nygaard Law Firm
          4501 College Boulevard, Suite 260
          Leawood, Kansas 66211
          Phone: 913-469-5544
          Fax: 913-469-1561

          Alan M. Sandals, Esq. (asandals@sandalslaw.com)
          Scott M. Lempert, Esq. (slempert@sandalslaw.com)
          Sandals & Associates, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 1850
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-825-4000
          Fax: 215-825-4001

          Stewart W. Fisher, Esq. (sfisher@gmf-law.com)
          Glenn, Mills & Fisher, P.A.
          Post Office Drawer 3865
          Durham, NC 27702
          Phone: 919-683-2135
          Fax: 919-688-9339

               - and -

          Richard T. Seymour, Esq. (rick@rickseymourlaw.net)
          Law Office of Richard T. Seymour, PLLC
          1150 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-862-4320
          Fax: 800-805-1065


ENBRIDGE INC: Wants Customers to Shoulder Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario government has been asked to review a decision by
the provincial energy board that will allow Enbridge Inc. to
make its customers pay the full cost of settling a class-action
lawsuit filed as a result of its former illegal late fee rates,
Canwest News Service reports.

Gord Garland, the Toronto-based economist who initiated the
successful class-action lawsuit, has filed a petition under the
provisions of the Ontario Energy Board Act, which formally asks
the provincial Cabinet to order a review.

The cost of settling the lawsuit "should be borne by their
shareholders, not their customers," said Mr. Garland.  The
Ontario Energy Board's decision has effectively "made the
customers pay twice," he stated.

Canwest News recounts that Enbridge originally agreed to pay
CDN$22 million to settle the lawsuit after the Supreme Court of
Canada ruled in 2004 that the effective annual interest rate of
its late fees was above what was permitted under the Criminal
Code.  "As a matter of public policy, a criminal should not be
permitted to keep the proceeds of his crime," wrote Justice
Frank Iacobucci.

The ruling led to utilities across the country lowering their
late fee rates, which used to be 5% of a customer's monthly
bill, the report points out.

Enbridge then asked the energy board to allow it to impose a
special charge on customers so it could recover the $22-million
payment as well as all legal costs and interest charges.  The
board, Canwest News further recalls, ruled in favor of Enbridge
in a decision released in February 2008 and concluded that it
was not bound by the findings of the Supreme Court.

As a result, the report notes, all Enbridge residential
customers, even those who always paid their bills on time, will
face an additional total charge of about CDN$13.50 spread over
the next five years.

There could be wider implications, Canwest News relates, because
all other utilities in Ontario are facing similar class-action
lawsuits over their late fees and may ask the energy board to
pass on these costs.

After the energy board ruling was issued, Ontario Premier Dalton
McGuinty said he was concerned by the impact of the decision and
would seek advice from Energy Minister Gerry Phillips.

Canwest News cites a spokesman for Minister Phillips as telling
the National Post last month that the government could not take
any action unless a petition was filed under the Energy Board
Act.  The act permits Cabinet to order the board to review any
of its decisions, once a petition has been filed.

"My hope is that Cabinet would stay the order," said Mr.
Garland, who filed the petition on April 30, 2008.

According to Canwest News, Enbridge is in the process of
receiving a final "order" from the board that will permit it to
implement the special charge.  That is not expected to take
effect before July 1.


GOODMAN MFG: Recalls Heating and Cooling Units for Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goodman Manufacturing Co. L.P., of Houston, Texas, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 1,000 Package Gas-Electric Heating and Cooling
Units.

The company said the serial plates on the units contain
inaccurate information that could result in the use of
undersized installation wiring, posing a fire hazard.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Goodman single package gas-electric heating
and cooling units with model numbers:

      -- GPG13480901AC,
      -- GPG13481151AC,
      -- GPG13600901BB,
      -- GPG13601151BB, and
      -- GPG13601401BB,

and with serial numbers beginning 0712, 0801, and 0802.  The
model and serial numbers are found on the serial plate attached
to the control compartment door on the front of the unit.

These recalled heating and cooling units were manufactured in he  
United States and were being sold by heating and cooling
equipment dealers nationwide from December 2007 through February
2008.

A picture of the recalled heating and cooling units is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08555.jpg

Goodman is directly contacting consumers with the recalled units
to arrange for a free replacement of the serial plates and free
inspection of the installation wiring.

For additional information, contact Goodman at 800-394-8084
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or
visit the company's Web site at: http://www.goodmanmfg.com


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: N.Y. Court Dismisses Suit Over Information Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a purported class action against Harley-Davidson,
Inc., and the Harley Owners Group.

The suit was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York on Jan. 22, 2007, but has been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Feb. 23, 2007.  

The complaint alleges that the company was negligent in failing
to properly safeguard, protect and keep confidential the
personal "Customer Identifiable Information" that was stored on
a company laptop computer that was lost on or about Aug. 14,
2006.  

The complaint also alleges that Harley-Davidson breached
fiduciary duties and made false and fraudulent representations
and warranties to its customers that it would keep confidential
and safeguard and protect the personal customer information in
its possession.  It seeks unspecified damages.

On April 5, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  

On March 20, 2008, the U.S. District Court Southern District of
New York granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit,
according to the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Shafran v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01365-GBD," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge George B. Daniels
presiding.

Representing the defendant is:

         Stephen Randall Neuwirth, Esq.
         (stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com)
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP
         51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Phone: 212-702-8100 x8165
         Fax: 212-702-8200


HERCULES OFFSHORE: Texas Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over TODCO Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas,
dismissed a consolidated class action lawsuit against Hercules
Offshore, Inc., in relation to TODCO's proposed acquisition of
the company, according to the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On March 19-20, 2007, two stockholder lawsuits were filed in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, both alleging that the
board of directors of TODCO breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the proposed acquisition of TODCO by Hercules
Offshore, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, March 4, 2008).

The first suit, pending in the 333rd Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16397, is a purported
stockholder class action against the TODCO directors, and
contains claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

The second suit, pending in the 269th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16357, is a stockholder
derivative action purportedly filed on behalf of TODCO against
the TODCO directors and the company, and contains:

     -- claims for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
        care, candor, good faith and fair dealing;

     -- corporate waste;

     -- unlawful self dealing; and

     -- claims that the defendants conspired, aided and abetted
        and assisted one another in a common plan to breach
        these fiduciary duties.


Both complaints allege, among other things, that the TODCO
directors engaged in self-dealing in approving the proposed
acquisition by the Company by advancing their own personal
interests or those of TODCO's senior management at the expense
of the stockholders of TODCO, utilized a defective sales process
not designed to maximize stockholder value, and failed to
consider any value maximizing alternatives, thus causing TODCO
stockholders to receive an unfair price for their shares of
TODCO common stock.
The second suit also alleges that the Company conspired, aided
and abetted or assisted in these violations.

The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction
preventing the completion of the acquisition by the company,
rescission if the acquisition is consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of plaintiffs upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants, attorneys' fees and
expenses associated with the lawsuit and any other equitable
relief the court deems just and proper.

On Aug. 29, 2007, the two lawsuits were consolidated and
transferred to the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended
shareholder derivative and class action petition seeking, among
other things, rescission of the merger, damages not in excess of
$174 million for the class action claims and not in excess of
$30 million for the derivative claims, rescission of certain
stock options, a constructive trust in favor of plaintiffs, and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 14, 2008, the court dismissed all of the derivative
claims.  In light of that ruling, the plaintiffs confirmed to
the court that the only defendants remaining in the case were
the TODCO directors.

On April 24, 2008, the court granted the defendants' motion
seeking dismissal of the remaining class action claim against
those directors, resulting in a dismissal of all remaining
claims in the consolidated case.

The period during which the plaintiffs may appeal this decision
has not yet expired.   

Hercules Offshore, Inc. -- http://www.herculesoffshore.com/--     
provides shallow-water drilling and liftboat services to the oil
and natural gas exploration and production industry in the Gulf
of Mexico, and internationally.  


MICHIGAN: Tree Case Against Warren Now Certified as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Supreme Court has put an end to a seven-year
appellate battle in a class action lawsuit against the City of
Warren by ruling that the case, brought over property damage
caused by trees planted by the city in front of residents'
homes, can now proceed as a class action.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court denied the city's request for
review of the decisions of the Michigan Court of Appeals and the
Macomb County Circuit Court, which both held that the case was
appropriate for class action treatment.

The case involves claims that the trees planted by the city
caused damages on a city-wide basis to homeowners' sewer lines
and other property.  The class includes approximately 7,000
homeowners damaged by city practices and policies.

The case will now proceed in the trial court before Judge James
M. Biernat as a class action.

The attorney for the homeowners, Gerard Mantese, Esq., stated,
"I am pleased that the appellate battle is now behind us and we
can proceed to obtain fair and just compensation for these
homeowners, many of whom are on fixed incomes and cannot afford
the necessary repairs to their sewer lines and property damage
caused by the city."


MORGAN STANLEY: $16MM Deal in Gender/Race Bias Suit Opposed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Feb. 12, 2008, that the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted preliminary approval to a proposed $16-million
settlement of a class action suit filed against Morgan Stanley
alleging gender and racial discrimination under state and
federal law.

In an update, Dow Jones Newswires relates that several current
and former Morgan Stanley financial advisors are raising
objections to the proposed settlement.

According to Dow Jones, eight former and current Morgan Stanley
financial advisors filed a document with the court on April 28,
2008, seeking the denial of class-action certification and final
approval of the settlement, which faces a final verdict by mid-
June.

                        Case Background

On June 22, 2006, Morgan Stanley was named in two purported
class action suits alleging gender discrimination under various
state and federal statutes.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted final approval to the settlement reached in
"Joanne Augst-Johnson v. Morgan Stanley, Case No. 06-
01142."  The approved settlement resolved all of the class-wide
and individual plaintiffs claims and included, among other
things, a payment to the settlement fund and certain
programmatic relief.  The second-biggest U.S. securities firm by
market value agreed to pay $46 million in this suit, which
claimed that it discriminated against women.

A similar class action suit, captioned, "Jaffe, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley DW, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-03903-TEH," was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The California suit was originally filed as a gender
discrimination case by Daisy Jaffe, a white female broker, who
claimed she was wrongfully terminated.  Ms. Jaffe's suit was
later changed into a race-and-gender bias case after Denise
Williams, an African-American broker, claimed that the firm
discriminated against her on the basis of race.  An additional
lead plaintiff, Margaret Benay Curtis Bauer, was later added in
an amended complaint.

The suit was brought by the three women on behalf of 1,300 black
and Latino workers claiming they received less pay and fewer
promotions than whites.  

Morgan Stanley agreed to resolve the alleged discrimination
claims in the California suit by setting up a $16-million
settlement fund and establishing programs to boost diversity in
its work force.  Morgan Stanley denied any wrongdoing.

Under the settlement, Dow Jones points out, the firm also agreed
to work with industrial psychologists to develop hiring,
retention and development initiatives for African-American and
Latino financial advisors and broker trainees.

The industrial psychologists, Kathleen Lundquist and Irwin
Goldstein, will annually review account distributions and
related compensation data rankings of African-American and
Latino financial advisors.  They will also make recommendations
to ramp up the participation of minorities in partnerships, and
to increase their receipt of retiring brokers' books of
business.  The firm will also be reviewed by an external
diversity monitor.

Furthermore, Morgan Stanley has agreed to make significant
changes to its power-ranking system, which ranks brokers on
performance to determine the distribution of accounts of
departing brokers.  This system is crucial for brokers who wish
to increase the assets they manage or oversee, Dow Jones
explains.

The settlement was approved on an interim basis by the court and
a hearing was scheduled for June 16, 2008, to determine final
approval for proposal.

                         The Objections

Dow Jones notes that the objectors claim that the "Jaffe"
settlement was negotiated by lawyers without the plaintiffs'
participation.

The objectors argue that the sole client who hired the lawyers
at that time, Ms. Williams, was not consulted over the
settlement provisions.  The objectors also argue that there was
a "lack of clients" that led to an inadequate and unfair
settlement of the suit.

Shortly after the settlement provisions were released late last
year, Ms. Williams dropped out as one of the lead plaintiffs,
Dow Jones says.  Ms. Williams joined a group of 21 current and
former Morgan Stanley brokers who informed the court this week
that they are opting out of the proposed settlement.  She is
also pursuing a separate race discrimination suit of her own.

"Clients, not lawyers, own their claims," the objectors said in
the court document.  "As a result, we will never know what
agreement would have resulted had Morgan Stanley been forced to
debate and negotiate with their real opponents, African-America
FAs."

Specifically, the objectors are class-action members Debra
Frazier, Jonathan Glover, Latrissa Gordon, Peter Meme, Marshell
Miller, Jerome Senegal, Marilyn White, and Kenneth Winn.  They
are not part of an earlier group that sought to oppose the
proposed settlement before it was approved on the interim by the
federal court in February.  The earlier objectors were
predominantly claimants of a similar race discrimination case
filed in Chicago by 14 former and current African-American
Morgan Stanley employees, mostly financial advisors.

Kelly Dermody, Esq., one of the lawyers who represented the
class, told Dow Jones that the objectors' allegations were
already raised by earlier oppositionists and were rejected by
the court when it gave preliminary approval to the settlement
earlier.

Jim Wiggins, a Morgan Stanley spokesman, shared with Dow Jones
that "Morgan Stanley continues to believe the settlement is
fair, will meaningfully help to advance diversity among
financial advisors, and deserves final approval."

Moreover, the objectors also questioned the appointment of Ms.
Lundquist, saying she has defended employers' policies in a race
discrimination case that was settled for $80 million.  The
objectors also claimed that she is currently serving as an
expert witness in defending Eastman Kodak in a nationwide race
discrimination case filed against the company.

The objectors further claimed that they would not have approved
the power ranking system for account distributions, Dow Jones
notes.  Given alleged ongoing discrimination at the firm against
African-Americans, non-black brokers, according to the
objectors, "will fare better under the power ranking, ensuring
that African-Americans will lose out in future account
distributions."

The suit is "Jaffe, et al v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., Case
Number: 3:2006cv03903," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, the Hon. Thelton E.
Henderson, presiding.


NAM TAI: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nam Tai Electronics has settled the remaining individual claims
for the consolidated suit, "Rocco v. Nam Tai Electronics et al.,
Lead Case No. 03-cv-01148-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Originally, the suit was commenced on Feb. 20, 2003 against the
company and certain of its directors.  The named plaintiffs
purport to represent a putative class of persons who purchased
the company's common shares from July 29, 2002, through Feb. 18,
2003.

The plaintiffs have asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege
that misrepresentations and omissions were made during the
alleged class period concerning the partial reversal of an
inventory provision and a charge to goodwill related to the
firm's LCD Products segment.

The company has filed an answer to the amended and consolidated
complaint and oral argument on the plaintiffs' most recent
motion for class certification was held on Feb. 1, 2007.

In Sept. 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York denied the plaintiffs' motion seeking class
certification for the consolidated suit (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 10, 2007).

The court decided that Lead Plaintiff Douglas Ward has the right
to proceed to prosecute the case as an individual claim or he
can seek leave to appeal the decision of the Court.

On March 17, 2008, the Company settled Mr. Ward's remaining
individual claims.  In the settlement, Nam Tai denied any
wrongdoing or liability and paid no penalty or material amount
to dispose of the litigation, which has been dismissed by the
court with prejudice.

The suit is "Michael Rocco v. Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. et al.,
Civil Action No. 03-CV-1148," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (Srudman@cauleygeller.com)
          David AVI Rosenfeld, Esq. (Drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP   
          200 Broadhollow Road, Ste 406
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP
          100 Park Ave.
          New York, NY, 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0881
          Fax: 212-883-7081

Representing the company is:

          Stuart W. Gold, Esq. (Sgold@cravath.com)
          Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP
          825 Eighth Ave.
          New York, NY, 10019
          Phone: 212-474-1000
          Fax: 212-474-3700


NATIONAL CITY BANK: Faces PA Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
National City Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging it racially discriminates against minority homebuyers
in violation of the Fair Housing Act, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all
minority persons in the United States who obtained a residential
mortgage loan from National City, inclusive of all National City
affiliates and subsidiaries, and were harmed by defendants'
racially discriminatory policies and practices.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants have a policy or practice of
         discriminating against class members by charging them
         higher interest, fees and other costs for home mortgage
         loans than it charges to Caucasians with similar credit
         scores or creditworthiness;

     (b) whether the defendants have policies or practices that
         have had a disparate impact upon minority borrowers;

     (c) whether the defendants' policies and practices have
         caused damage and injury to the plaintiffs and the
         class entitling them to injunctive and declaratory
         relief, and the measure of that relief;

     (d) whether the defendants can articulate a legitimate non-
         discriminatory reason for their practices and
         procedures which are discriminatory;

     (e) whether the defendants have any business justification
         for practices and procedures that cause a disparate
         impact upon minorities;

     (f) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to
         these practices; and

     (g) whether the plaintiffs and class members have sustained
         damages, and, if so, the proper measure of those
         damages.

The plaintiffs ask the court to:

     -- certify this case as a class action and certify named
        plaintiffs to be adequate class representatives and
        their counsel to be class counsel;

     -- enter a judgment, pursuant to 15 USC 1691e(c) and 42
        USC Section 3613, declaring the acts and practices of
        defendants, complained of to be in violation of the
        Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and
        the Civil Rights Act;

     -- grant a permanent or final injunction, pursuant to 15
        USC Section 1691e(c) and 42 USC Section 3613(c),
        enjoining defendants, and defendants' agents, employees,
        affiliates and subsidiaries from continuing to
        discriminate against plaintiffs and the members of the
        class because of their race through further use of any
        discretionary pricing policies or any non-risk-related
        discretionary pricing policy employed by defendants;

     -- order defendants, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(c)
        and 42 USC Section 3613(c), to monitor and audit
        racial pattern of its financings to ensure the cessation
        of discriminatory effects in its home mortgage
        transactions;

     -- order disgorgement, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(c),
        of all disproportionate non-risk charges imposed on
        minorities by defendants' discretionary pricing
        policies; and order the equitable distribution of such
        charges, as restitutionary relief, to all appropriate
        class members;

     -- order actual and punitive damages to plaintiffs and the
        class pursuant to 42 USC Section 3613(c);

     -- award plaintiffs the costs of this action, including the
        fees and costs of experts, together with reasonable
        attorneys' fees, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(d)
        and 42 USC Section 3613(c);

     -- order the establishment of a constructive trust from
        which plaintiffs and the class may seek restitution; and

     -- grant plaintiffs and the class such other and further
        relief as the court finds necessary and proper.

The suit is "John Rodriguez et al v. National City Bank et al,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Joseph A. Weeden, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Past Guests Sue Over Restaurant Reservations
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California-resident has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Norwegian Cruise Line because she could not get reservations in
any of its specialty restaurants on her eight-day cruise on the
Norwegian Star, Cruise Critic reports.

The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida claims that NCL lied to passengers with its
advertising and has a secret class system onboard.

Eva Gularte and her sister and mother, represented by Paul M.
Hoffman, Esq., sued NCL for damages, saying their November 2007
vacation was ruined when they could not dine in Le Bistro,
Cagney's or any of NCL's other specialty restaurants.  The suit
asks for "compensatory damages . . . including the cost of the
cruise and costs incidental such as hotel, meals and
transportation."

The plaintiffs' argument is that NCL's advertisements state
passengers are "free to dine where and when you want" and "you
could dine in a different restaurant every night of your
cruise."  However, the suite guests allegedly get preferential
reservations, and the plaintiffs argue that these "upper class"
passengers effectively take all the tables in the better
restaurants, leaving no space for the "hoi polloi."

The plaintiffs are suing on counts of fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of implied covenant of fair dealing,
and deceptive and unfair trade practices.

According to Cruise Critic, NCL has no comment about the case at
this time.


OKK TRADING: Recalls Toy Robots Violating Lead Paint Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------
OKK Trading Inc., of Commerce, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
2,000 Interchange Robot Toys.

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

The recalled robot toys were sold as a four piece set with
various colored robots each carrying a gun in one hand and a
shield in the other.  "Interchange Robot" is printed on the
outside packaging of the product.

These recalled toy robots were manufactured in China and were
being sold at dollar stores nationwide from October 2007 through
December 2007 for about $1.

A picture of the recalled toy robots is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08246.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take these robot toys away
from children and return the toys to the store where purchased
for a refund.

For additional information, contact OKK Trading toll-free at
877-655-8697/OKK-TOYS between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at:
http://www.okktrading.com


PARMALAT SPA: Reaches $36MM Settlement in U.S. Shareholders Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parmalat S.p.A. said it will issue new stock valued at more than
$36 million to settle a class-action suit filed against it in
the U.S. Southern District Court of New York, the Associated
Press reports.

Under the agreement, Parmalat will issue to class members
10.5 million existing shares "in full satisfaction of any and
all claim asserted against it in the class action, worldwide,"
the AP notes, citing a statement released by the company.  Those
shares would be valued at $36.8 million at the current market
price.

Parmalat will also pay up to EUR1 million ($1.55 million) of the
cost of notifying the class members of the settlement, the
statement said.

The AP recounts that the lawsuit was brought on behalf of former
Parmalat shareholders and other investors who claimed they were
damaged by Parmalat's 2003 collapse.

The settlement, according to the report, removes the threat of a
suit that had been weighing on the Italian dairy group's stock.
Parmalat shares jumped on the news of the settlement.

The dairy firm, which collapsed under EUR14 billion of debt and
relisted in 2005, said in the statement that the settlement "is
in the best interest of its shareholders to avoid the
distraction and expense of further litigation, and diminishes
uncertainty in the value of its stock."

"The amount to be paid according to the settlement is
significantly lower than expected. We were factoring in the
issue of approximately 100 million shares to settle the class
action," Santander analysts said.  "The news is surely positive,
as it somewhat reduces, according to our calculations, the
number of potential new shares to be issued and the relative
dilution on our valuation."

Parmalat said the shares to be issued for the settlement are
part of a package already set aside by the company to satisfy
late claims, the AP notes.  The transaction will result in a
0.5% dilution of Parmalat equity, it said.

                        Case Background

Investors, led by Hermes Focus Asset Management Europe, Ltd.,
commenced the class action lawsuit against Parmalat's former
management, banks and auditors, alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The investors purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. and
its subsidiaries and affiliates between and including January 5,
1999, and December 18, 2003, in reliance on the company's
materially false and misleading financial statements and other
public statements.  The investors sought more than
$8,000,000,000 in damages after they lost their money when
Parmalat collapsed in December 2003 due to substantial operating
losses that had been concealed for over a decade.

The settlement with Parmalat follows two $25 million settlements
investors reached last summer with Credit Suisse Group and BNP
Paribas' Banca Nazionale del Lavoro.

Grant & Eisenhofer, which represents Hermes, served as co-lead
counsel to Parmalat investors.  Managing partner Stuart Grant
noted, "We are very pleased with the settlement reached with the
company, bringing total investor recovery obtained so far in the
Parmalat case to approximately $90 million.  We will also
continue to press claims against other defendants whom we allege
defrauded investors over a period of years prior to Parmalat's
ultimate collapse in 2003."

Remaining defendants in the ongoing case include Citigroup and
Bank of America, as well as accounting firms Deloitte & Touche
and Grant Thornton, along with certain individuals and Italian
law firms.

Dr. Enrico Bondi, Parmalat's current chief executive officer who
was installed by the Italian government to run the company
immediately after its collapse, has sued various financial
institutions and accounting firms before courts in the U.S. and
in Italy seeking damages for the dairy giant's demise.

                      About Parmalat

Headquartered in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A.
-- http://www.parmalat.net/-- sells nameplate milk products
that can be stored at room temperature for months.  It also has
about 40 brand product lines, which include yogurt, cheese,
butter, cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and
vegetable sauces, soups and juices.

The company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on
Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139).  Gary
Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, represent the Debtors.  When the U.S. Debtors filed
for bankruptcy protection, they reported more than US$200
million in assets and debts.  The U.S. Debtors emerged from
bankruptcy on April 13, 2005.

Parmalat S.p.A. and its Italian affiliates filed separate
petitions for Extraordinary Administration before the Italian
Ministry of Productive Activities and the Civil and Criminal
District Court of the City of Parma, Italy on Dec. 24, 2003.
Dr. Enrico Bondi was appointed Extraordinary Commissioner in
each of the cases.

On June 22, 2004, Dr. Bondi filed a Sec. 304 Petition, Case No.
04-14268, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Three Cayman Islands-based special-purpose vehicles created by
Parmalat were placed under separate winding up petitions before
the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands in January 2004.  Gordon
I. MacRae and James Cleaver of Kroll (Cayman) Ltd. serve as
liquidators in the cases of Dairy Holdings Ltd., Parmalat
Capital Finance Ltd., and Food Holdings Ltd.  On Jan. 20, 2004,
the Liquidators filed Sec. 304 petitions, Case No. 04-10362, in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of Parmalat Finance, et al.  Gregory M.
Petrick, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, and Richard
I. Janvey, Esq., at Janvey, Gordon, Herlands Randolph, represent
the Finance Companies in the Sec. 304 case.

The Honorable Robert D. Drain presides over the Parmalat
Debtors' U.S. cases.  On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Court granted
Parmalat permanent injunction.


PEP BOYS: California Court Considers Settlement in Labor Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California court is yet to approve on a final basis the
settlement for one particular claim common among several
purported labor class actions filed against The Pep Boys-Manny,
Moe & Jack.

During the fourth quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007,
the Company was served with four separate lawsuits brought by
former associates employed in California, each of which lawsuits
purports to be a class action on behalf of all current and
former California store associates.  

One or more of the lawsuits claim that the plaintiff was not
paid for:

       -- overtime,
       -- accrued vacation time,
       -- all time worked (i.e. "off the clock" work), and
       -- late or missed meal periods or rest breaks.

The plaintiffs also allege that the Company violated certain
record keeping requirements arising out of the foregoing alleged
violations.  

The lawsuits:

       -- claim these alleged practices are unfair business
          practices,
       
       -- request back pay, restitution, penalties, interest and
          attorney fees, and

       -- request that the Company be enjoined from committing
          further unfair business practices.

During the third quarter of 2007, the Company reached a
settlement in principle regarding the accrued vacation time
claims, according to the company's April 30, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack -- http://www.pepboys.com/-- is    
an automotive retail and service chain.  The Company operates in
one industry, the automotive aftermarket.  It is engaged
principally in the retail sale of automotive parts, tires and
accessories, automotive repairs and maintenance and the
installation of parts.


SONY CORP: SXRD Rear-Projection Suit Settlement Gets Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert P. Patterson of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved the settlement and
attorneys' fees in a class action suit against Sony Corp.,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

In 2006, several class-action complaints were filed against Sony
Corp. for its SXRD rear-projection televisions, whose defective
'optical block' caused spreading green or yellow stains on the
screen.

The complaint alleges a design defect in all rear projection,
high-definition SXRD televisions, manufactured and marketed by
Sony beginning September 2005.  The design defect is alleged to
exist known as the "Optical Block," the central component of a
projection television that projects the video image onto the
screen.

The complaint alleges that the defect causes a green haze in the
middle of the screen, a yellow stain appearing at the edge of
the screen and expanding over time, or other color anomalies on
the screens of the televisions.  The complaint further alleges
that Sony was unable to permanently repair the defect, and that
consumers were forced to pay for replacement Optical Blocks at a
cost of more than $1,500 if the defect manifested after one year
manufacturer's warranty expired.

The complaint is on behalf of a class consisting of all end user
consumers in the United States who purchased or received as
gifts the televisions.

In May 2007, Sony agreed to settle the action under the terms of
the proposed settlement agreement.

The settlement is intended to ensure that class members are
reimbursed for expenses they may have incurred for repairs
relating to the green or yellow issue, and that class members
whose televisions manifest a green or yellow issue in the future
can have the Optical Block replaced in-home without cost and
with maximum convenience.  The settlement is also designed to
reimburse class members for any expense they might incur prior
to the effective date of the settlement in connection with the
repair of an Optical Block.

The settlement covers roughly 175,000 TVs bought from September
2006 through July 2007, for about $4,000 to $5,000 apiece.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement.  Judge Patterson Jr. also approved $1.6 million in
attorneys fees, and on May 2, granted final approval to the
settlement.

The suit is "In Re: Sony SXRD Rear Projection Television Class
Action Litigation, Case No. 06 Civ. 5173(RPP)," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Robert P. Patterson, Jr., presiding.


STYLEMARK INC: Recalls Sunglasses for Lead Paint Standard Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
StyleMark Inc., of Ormond Beach, Fla., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
144,000 Children's Sunglasses.

The company said the surface paint in the orange lettering on
the temples of the sunglasses contains excessive levels of lead,
violating the federal lead paint standard.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled children's sunglasses have Main Street Drag
characters on the bottom of one lens.  The sunglass frames have
dark metallic blue or dark metallic red fronts and gray
checkered sides.  "Main Street Drag" is printed in orange at the
temples.  Style number DI25K7116 is printed on the left temple.
No other styles are included in this recall.

These recalled sunglasses were manufactured in China and were
being sold at Payless, Walgreen's, Academy Sports, and CVS
stores nationwide from October 2007 through March 2008 for
between $6 and $9.

Pictures of the recalled sunglasses are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08239a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08239b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled
sunglasses away from children and contact StyleMark for
instructions on returning the sunglasses for a free replacement
pair.

For additional information, contact StyleMark toll-free at 866-
928-1913 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.stylemark.net


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Defective Water Heater
-----------------------------------------------------------
Buyers of Whirlpool water heaters sold at Lowe's have about two
months to file claims in the settlement of a class action
lawsuit that alleged the water heaters were defective, Joseph S.
Enoch writes for ConsumerAffairs.Com.

The report recounts that more than 1,000 consumers have filed
complaints with ConsumerAffairs.Com saying the thermocouple in
their Flame Lock or Flame Guard Whirlpool water heaters
continuously breaks down leaving them without hot water --
sometimes for days.

The thermocouple is a safety device that cuts off the flow of
gas should the pilot light go out thereby preventing gas from
leaking out, Richard Doherty, Esq., one of the lawyers who
defended consumers in the class action lawsuit, explained.

The report points out that these water heaters, which Whirlpool
started selling in 2000, incorporated a new safety standard, the
flammable vapors-ignition-resistance standard, which gas water
heater manufacturers voluntarily implemented in conjunction with
the Consumer Product Safety Commission February 2000.

"This was a new technology," Mr. Doherty said.  "The old style
with the open flame at the bottom has been done away with
because there was the possibility of gas leaks.  Now you have a
sealed combustion chamber."

However, the combustion chamber in these Whirlpool water
heaters, which were actually manufactured by the American Water
Heater Company, collected a considerable amount of dust and lint
which eventually restricted oxygen to the flame.

"Things would get clogged underneath the hot water heater and
fire needs oxygen and the flame is reaching to get oxygen
basically away from where the flame is designed to be because
it's not getting enough oxygen," Ms. Doherty said. "As it gets
over toward the thermocouple it trips it."

ConsumerAffairs.Com first reported on this apparent defect
almost two years ago and soon after, Whirlpool and the American
Water Heater Company updated their design, Mr. Doherty noted.  
They "upgraded the manifold door assembly with a resettable
thermal cutoff switch," Mr. Doherty said.  "The original ones
were called single-use so if that thing went you had to get a
new one. The new one is resettable like a fuse in a fusebox."

While consumers who have purchased Flame Lock and Flame Guards
since 2007 have not shared the frustrations of older customers,
anyone who purchased one of the models between 2000 and 2006 is
eligible for the upgraded parts, according to the settlement's
Web site, http://www.waterheatersettlement.com/

Those consumers are entitled to the upgraded manifold door
assembly shipped free to them or receive reimbursement for any
previously upgraded manifold door assembly and shipping costs
previously incurred.

The settlement does not cover installation costs.

Consumers who paid for replacement thermocouples can be
reimbursed $15 per thermocouple up to $30.  Consumers who
experienced more than three thermocouple failures and then
replaced their water heater are eligible for $150.

Class members must postmark their claims by June 28, 2008.  
Claim forms can be downloaded at
http://www.waterheatersettlement.com/

The defendants in the case, Whirlpool, Lowe's and A.O. Smith,
which purchased American Water Heater Company, have never
admitted the water heaters were defective, Mr. Doherty said.

The defendants did not return calls from ConsumerAffairs.Com for
comment.


YAHOO!: Amends Delaware Stockholder Suits Over Microsoft Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two public pension funds represented by Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP and Bouchard Margules & Friedlander,
P.A., the Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for the proposed class
of all Yahoo! Inc. shareholders, will pursue their consolidated
class action lawsuit against Jerry Yang and the other members of
the Yahoo board of directors to obtain redress for the Yahoo
directors' breach of their fiduciary duties in thwarting a
merger proposal by Microsoft Corporation.

That case, captioned "In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 3561-CC," is pending in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware before Chancellor William B. Chandler
III.

The Class Action Reporter reported on March 4, 2008, that since
Feb. 11, 2008, three separate shareholder lawsuits have been
filed against Yahoo! Inc., and the members of the company's
Board of Directors by these plaintiffs:

   1. The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System,

   2. Ronald Dicke, and

   3. The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
      Detroit along with The General Retirement System of the
      City of Detroit.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to assert class claims on
behalf of all Yahoo! stockholders, except defendants and their
affiliates.

The plaintiffs generally allege that defendants breached
fiduciary duties by rejecting Microsoft Corp.'s Feb. 1, 2008
unsolicited offer to acquire Yahoo! Inc. without fully informing
themselves whether Microsoft would offer additional
consideration and that defendants are not acting in the best
interests of shareholders and are seeking to entrench
themselves.

One of the Delaware Lawsuits alleges that the Board of Directors
have pursued various blocking transactions, adopted an employee
severance plan, and a shareholder rights plan in violation of
fiduciary duties.

The complaints in the Delaware Lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, as well as an
award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 5, 2008, Chancellor Chandler entered an Order of
Consolidation appointing Co-Lead Counsel, consolidating the
actions previously filed in the Court of Chancery, and
designating the complaint filed by the Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit and the General Retirement System
of the City of Detroit as the operative complaint.

On March 12, 2008, Chancellor Chandler entered an Amended Order
of Consolidation providing that any future cases arising from
the same facts shall be consolidated as part of the Detroit
Funds' consolidated class action.

The actions taken by Jerry Yang this past weekend confirm what
the Detroit Funds alleged in their original complaint, "The
Yahoo Board, in its desperation to pull off a 'Just Say No to
Microsoft' defense, is fighting off a non-coercive 62% premium
offer by pursuing all manner of value-destructive third party
deals."

The plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel will continue to vigorously
prosecute breach of fiduciary claims against the Yahoo Board.
Counsel have already engaged in significant discovery, including
receiving documents from defendants and third parties and taking
depositions of Yahoo executives and a Yahoo adviser.

Bernstein Litowitz partner Mark Lebovitch, Esq., stated, "If
Jerry Yang wants to understand why Yahoo shareholders are so
unhappy, he should go to his new favorite search engine --
Google -- and look up the phrase 'breach of fiduciary duty.'"

"Yang's willingness to put the heart of Yahoo's search function
in Google's hands to preclude a Microsoft bid representing a
70%-plus premium demonstrates that Yang was never negotiating in
good faith," noted Mr. Lebovitch.

The plaintiffs will file an amended complaint that will
encompass the most recent events, incorporate evidence already
obtained through the discovery process, and seek recovery of
damages for the massive loss in shareholder value caused by Yang
and Yahoo's Board.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet   
brand.  To its global users, it provides owned and operated
online properties and services.  To its advertisers, it
provides tools and marketing solutions.  Many of Yahoo!'s
services are free to its users.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC filed a shareholder class action
lawsuit against First Marblehead Corporation.  The complaint
charges First Marblehead Corporation and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that 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.

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

For more information, contact:

          Holzer & Holzer, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, Georgia 30338
          Phone: 770-392-0090
                 888-508-6832 (toll free)
          Fax: 770-392-0029


FORCE PROTECTION: Berger & Montague Files S.C. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of Force Protection, Inc.
(Nasdaq: FRPT) common stock between August 14, 2006, and
March 17, 2008.

Force Protection is a manufacturer of ballistic- and blast-
protected vehicles.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, financial results and prospects.

Specifically, defendants continually boasted that Force
Protection's dominance in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
market was due to its superior product design and rapid delivery
rates.  However, the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, in a report dated June 27, 2007, questioned both of
these claims and also criticized the awarding of contracts to
Force Protection on a sole source basis without competitive
bidding.

Then, on February 29, 2008, after the market closed, Force
Protection announced it would delay the filing of its 2007 Form
10-K and restate its financial statements for the three-and-
nine-month period ended September 30, 2007.

On this news, Force Protection's stock collapsed to close at
$3.58 per share on March 3, 2008, a one-day decline of 12.9%. On
March 17, 2008, Force Protection announced that it would delay
filing its 2007 Form 10-K a second time due to the "scope of the
work‚" involved in identifying accounting errors and restating
its prior financial statements.  As a result of this new  
announcement, Force Protection's stock price dropped an
additional 23.5% to $1.37 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

         contractual delivery deadlines, which made it likely
     (1) Force Protection was having persistent problems meeting
         that the U.S. Government would purchase fewer MRAPs
         from Force Protection in the future;

     (2) the Company maintained an inadequate financial system
         of accounting, which also made it likely that the U.S.
         Government would do less business with Force Protection
         in the future;

     (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls contrary to the representations in its SEC
         filings;

     (4) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with GAAP; and

     (5) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report its
         financial results at least for the three- and nine-
         months ended September 30, 2007.

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

For more information, contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Berger & Montague , P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-875-3000
                 1-888-891-2289


LEHMAN BROS: Dyer & Berens Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP disclosed that a proposed class-action lawsuit
on behalf of purchasers of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
securities between September 13, 2006, and July 30, 2007, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Lehman and the
other defendants failed to fully disclose:

     (i) the nature and extent of Lehman's exposure to losses
         incurred from trading in subprime mortgage backed
         derivatives;

    (ii) the nature and extent of its exposure to losses
          incurred from CDOs;

   (iii) the nature and extent of its exposure to losses
         incurred from mortgage backed security originations;

    (iv) that the Company had materially overvalued its
         positions in commercial and subprime mortgages and in
         securities tied to these mortgages;

     (v) that the Company had inadequate reserves for its
         mortgage and credit related exposure;

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

   (vii) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, Colorado 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764  
          Fax: 303-395-0393


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *