---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 20, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 99

                            Headlines

AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Texas Suit Over Labor Law Violations
AGWAY: 2nd Circuit Splits Over Class Action Fairness Act's Scope
AIRLINES: Skycaps File Nationwide $2-Per-Bag Fee Suit in Mass.
APPLE INC: Consumers Seek $1.2BB in Damages Over Locked iPhones
BEAR STEARNS: May 19 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline

BIOVAIL CORP: Reaches $138M Settlement in US & Canada Litigation
CHICAGO TITLE: Faces Wash. Suit Over Deceptive & Illegal Charges
EL AL ISRAEL: Sued Over Postponed Flights After Labor Strike
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is June 9
FORMFACTOR INC: July 18 Hearing Set in Calif. Securities Lawsuit

FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Stockholder Derivative Lawsuit in Calif.
GLOBAL CASH: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on June 10
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Settlement of Buyout Suit
IMMIGRATION SERVICES: Immigrants Sue Over Citizenship Delays
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is June 9

IOMEGA CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over EMC Corp. Buy-Out
LIFE PARTNERS: Discovery Ongoing in Tex. Breach of Contract Suit
MOLSON COORS: Settles U.S. & Canadian Lawsuits Over 2005 Merger
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Violations Suit
NOTRE DAME CEMETERY: Families Launch CDN$8MM Over "Body Backlog"

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Plaintiff in Ky. Taxes Case to Amend Complaint
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Ohio Taxes Suit
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Court Denies Class Certification in "Fairview"
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued Over Alleged Purchase of Old Debts
SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Denies Review Petition in "Vroegh"

SANDISK CORP: June 3 Hearing Set for Flash Memory Antitrust Suit
SECURE COMPUTING: Calif. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Rosenbaum"
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Wash. Suit Over Voice Mail Roaming Charges
YAHOO! INC: Calif. Court Allows Transfer of Securities Suit
YAHOO! INC: Faces Lawsuits in Calif. & Del. Over Microsoft Offer


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CBEYOND INC: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
CITIGROUP INC: Milberg LLP Files Auction Rate Securities Suit
DOWNEY FIN'L: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Federman & Sherwood Files Suit in Michigan



                           *********


AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Texas Suit Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aegis Communications is facing a class-action complaint filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas alleging the company makes its call-center employees work
for free, off the books, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, Aegis violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime to thousands of
telephone-dedicated employees who perform work for the company
both before and after their assigned workshifts.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all current and
former "telephone-dedicated employees" who make calls to and
receive calls from Aegis' clients in Aegis' call centers.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- compensation for all hours worked at a rate not less
        than the applicable minimum wage;

     -- overtime compensation for all unpaid hours worked in
        excess of 40 hours in any workweek at the rate of one-
        and-one half times their regular rates;

     -- all unpaid wages and overtime compensation;

     -- an equal amount as liquidated damages as allowed under
        the FLSA;

     -- reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of this
        action as provided by the FLSA;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest
        rates allowed by law; and

     -- such other relief as to which plaintiffs and the opt-in
        plaintiffs may be entitled.

The suit is "Kevin Oliver et al v. Aegis Communications Group,
case No. 308 CV-828 K," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Meredith Mathews, Esq.
          Lee & Braziel, LLP
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Phone: 214-749-1400
          Fax: 214-749-1010


AGWAY: 2nd Circuit Splits Over Class Action Fairness Act's Scope
----------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split on
May 14 over the scope of a federal law designed to funnel
securities cases to the federal courts, Mark Hamblett writes for
the New York Law Journal.

The report says that, deciding a case of first impression, two
judges gave an expansive interpretation to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.  The majority ruled that an action over
the failure of a company to disclose it was insolvent should be
heard in federal court, even though it was brought under New
York state's consumer fraud law and did not involve nationally
traded securities.

NY Law Journal notes that Judges Dennis Jacobs and Amalya Kearse
ruled that plaintiffs seeking to hold the principals of Agway
Inc. and its accounting firm liable for issuing money-market
certificates while staying mum on the company's financial
troubles did not qualify for one of the exceptions to federal
jurisdiction in the act.  Judge Jacobs wrote for the majority.

Judge Rosemary Pooler dissented in "Estate of Barbara Pew v.
Cardarelli, 06-5703-mv," saying the majority "misconstrues the
plain language of the statute" and was engaged in the "judicial
redrafting" of the law.

NY Law Journal recounts that the case was brought as a putative
class action by people who bought Agway Certificates between
September 2000 and September 2002, and sought to hold
responsible Agway officers Donald P. Cardarelli and Peter J.
O'Neill, as well as the company's auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 27, 2005,
eight investors launched the lawsuit against Agway's former
executives and its auditors, alleging that they misled
investors by not disclosing the farm cooperative's financial
problems.  The investors, who are all New Jersey residents that
purchased more than $545,000 in money market certificates from
Agway between September 21, 2000, and September 30, 2002, filed
the suit in New York's Supreme Court in Onondaga County.  They
asked the court to let the matter go forward as a class action
lawsuit and award an unspecified amount of damages.

The investors named as plaintiffs in the case are the estate of
Barbara Pew, John Pew Jr., Harold Pew, Donna Pew, H. Nancy Hann,
Julia Hudasky and Kathleen Prickett.  

According to NY Law Journal, the defendants later removed the
case to the Northern District of New York, where the plaintiffs
amended their complaint to plead deceptive acts or practices
under the state consumer fraud statute.

Judge Norman Mordue dismissed the federal securities claim and
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

NY Law Journal further recalls that the plaintiffs returned to
state court in 2005 to plead only the state consumer fraud
claim.  Again, the action was removed to federal court, where
Judge Mordue agreed that he lacked jurisdiction because the suit
fell under an exception to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Judge Jacobs explained that one of the act's purposes was "to
provide a federal forum for securities cases that have national
impact, without impairing the ability of state courts to decide
cases of chiefly local import or cases that concern traditional
state regulation of the state's corporate creatures."

NY Law Journal notes that the Class Action Fairness Act
accomplished this goal by expanding federal jurisdiction and
giving appellate courts the jurisdiction to review orders
granting or denying remand to removed cases.

The defendants here petitioned for permission to appeal Judge
Mordue's remand order.  Over the plaintiffs' objections, the
circuit granted the petition.

Under Section 1453(c), "a court of appeals MAY accept an appeal
from an order of a district court granting or denying a motion
to remand," Judge Jacobs said.  "Here, we elect to entertain
defendants' appeal because the question of whether a state-law
deceptive practices claim can be predicated on the sale of a
security is removable under CAFA is important and consequential,
and a decision on the question will alleviate uncertainty in the
district courts."

The circuit also elected to decide the merits of the question.

Judge Jacobs said the certificates did not fit into two of
CAFA's exceptions because:

     (1) the certificates were not traded nationally and were
         not listed on any national exchange; and

     (2) the plaintiffs' claims did not concern corporate
         governance.

The only plausible exception to the removal provision here,
Judge Jacobs said, was the third one, spelled out in 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(9)(C), for actions related "to the rights,
duties (including fiduciary duties), and obligations relating to
or created by or pursuant to any security."

Judge Jacobs said the statute was ambiguous, but the court
concluded in the end that the third and final exception did not
apply.  He said the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act,
which bars state law class actions for fraud in connection with
securities traded on national exchanges, "carves out an
exception for actions that are based on the law of the state in
which the issuer is incorporated or organized and that concern
transactions with or communications to persons who already hold
the securities of the issuer."

The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, he said,
thereby creates "concurrent jurisdiction in cases that are
likely to have both national and local impact."

"CAFA's amendments to the diversity statute -- including its
exceptions -- proceed along similar lines, granting federal
courts jurisdiction over all class actions (with regard to
securities and otherwise) over $5 million in the aggregate even
if the class members are largely out of state," Jacobs said.
"Reading the provisions in context, we infer that diversity
jurisdiction is created under CAFA for all large, non-local
securities class actions, subject to the three exceptions
discussed above."

This conclusion was supported by an examination of the
legislative history, Judge Jacobs said.

The panel reversed Judge Mordue's order and remanded the case to
him for further proceedings.

Judge Pooler in her dissent said it was "obvious" the securities
at issue were covered by the exception in Section 1332(d)(9)(C),
NY Law Journal says.

"The instant suit plainly concerns Agway's failure to fulfill
its obligations with respect to the certificates and the
plaintiffs' consequent deprivation of their rights with respect
to the same," Judge Pooler wrote.  "If this suit therefore does
not solely involve a claim 'that relates to the rights . . . and
obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to' the
certificates, I am at a loss to understand why."

Robert I. Harwood, Esq., of Harwood Feffer, one of the attorneys
who represented the plaintiffs, said he and his colleagues are
weighing whether to seek a rehearing en banc.  "Here, CAFA was
intended to allow the removal of securities cases of national
importance from state court but at the same time, without
impacting traditional state regulation of state corporate
concern," Mr. Harwood said.  "This decision achieves exactly the
opposite."

Peter K. Vigeland, Esq., of WilmerHale argued the defense's case
before the circuit.  His co-counsel, Philip Anker, Esq., of
WilmerHale, declined to comment, NY Law Journal says.


AIRLINES: Skycaps File Nationwide $2-Per-Bag Fee Suit in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Airport skycaps filed a nationwide suit with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts accusing employers of
cheating them by paying them less than minimum wage and
discouraging tipping by charging a $2 per bag "baggage fee"
which customers falsely believe will be given to the skycaps,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class and collective action brought on behalf of
skycaps working at airports throught the United States. These
skycaps are directly employed by the defendant contractor
companies to provide curbside check-in service for a number of
major airlines, including:

          -- US Airways
          -- JetBlue and
          -- American Airlines.

Named defendants in the suit are:

          -- Huntleigh Corp.,
          -- Prime Flight Aviation Services,
          -- Flight Services & Systems,
          -- American Sales Management Organization, and
          -- Prospect Airport Services.

The plaintiffs bring claims under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.  Specifically, the
defendants have violated the FLSA by paying the skycaps less
than the federal minimum wage because they are not entitle to
take the "tip credit" against the minimum wage under the FLSA.

The skycaps say the baggage fee, imposed in 2005, has seriously
impaired their earnings, which were heavily dependent on tips,
and that they often end up working for less than minimum wage.

The skycaps say this unfair system has been imposed at major
airline counters, including United, US Airways, JetBlue and
American, at airports around the country, including O'Hare in
Chicago, Logan in Boston, Philadelphia International, Louis
Armstrong International in New Orleans, and Fort Lauderdale
Hollywood International in Florida.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- permission for skycaps throughout the country who are
        employed by the defendant contractors and are paid less
        than federal minimum wage to opt in to this action,
        pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;

     -- certification of subclasses of skycaps in states in
        which the defendants' actions violate state statutes
        relating to tipping and minimum wage, pursuant to Fed.
        R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- restitution for all wages lost by the skycaps as a
        result of defendants' actions;

     -- restitution for the full minimum wage (under the FLSA
        and applicable state statutes);

     -- liquidated and multiple damages as allowed by law,
        including treble damages under Massachusetts law;

     -- attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- an injunction ordering defendants to cease their
        violations of the law as described; and

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

The suit is "Carlos Borges Carreiro et al. v. Huntleigh Corp. et
al.," filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, PC
          18 Tremont Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-367-7200


APPLE INC: Consumers Seek $1.2BB in Damages Over Locked iPhones
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. and AT&T are up against a consumer class action suit  
seeking $1.2 billion in damages because the iPhone is locked to
AT&T's wireless network, Peter Franklin writes for Half Life
Source.  According to the report, the lawsuit is considered to
be one of the largest consumers class action suits filed.

The suit also notes that Apple will not allow unauthorized
applications on the iPhone.

Filed on behalf of Paul Holman in the State of Washington and
Lucy Rivello in California, the lawsuit explains that in the
United States, the SIM chip is locked to the wireless carrier,
not the hardware device.

Half Life Source notes that when Apple released the iPhone, it
tied the device to AT&T.  Switching out the SIM with one from
another carrier simply caused an error when the phone was
rebooted.  However, the cellular community quickly tackled the
iPhone and found several ways to unlock the phone, allowing
users to activate it using another carrier.

On September 24, 2007, Apple warned customers that unlocking the
phone could render it inoperable when future software updates
were applied, the report recounts.  Three days later, an iPhone
update was released that effectively bricked unlocked iPhones.

The lawsuit also contends that Apple did not discover that
unlocking applications would harm the iPhone as it stated on
September 24.  Rather, the suit says that Apple engineered the
software update to disable the phones on purpose.


BEAR STEARNS: May 19 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Gray, Esq., of the Law Office of Christopher J.
Gray, P.C., in New York City reminds investors who purchased the
common stock of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., between
December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008, inclusive, that the
deadline to file a motion to serve as lead plaintiff in the
securities class action filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York is May 19, 2008.

Additionally, investors who bought Bear, Stearns stock before
December 14, 2006, and held same through March 2008, as well as
investors who purchased Bear, Stearns securities other than
common stock, may also be able to assert individual claims that
are not included in the class action by filing their own
individual lawsuits.

Finally, employees of Bear, Stearns who incurred losses as a
result of the drop in the value of Bear, Stearns stock may be
entitled to assert certain claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 that are not available to non-
employee investors.

Bear, Stearns shareholders suffered staggering financial losses
as the company's shares lost more than 90 percent of their value
from March 13, 2008, to March 17, 2008.  On March 13, 2008,
Bear, Stearns announced it had received emergency financing from
JPMorgan Chase and the Federal Reserve, triggering a dramatic
selloff of the company's shares.  The bailout news was followed
by an announcement on Monday, March 17, 2008, that JPMorgan
Chase would acquire Bear Stearns for $2.00 per share.  On
March 24, 2008 the companies announced that they had modified
the merger agreement, with JP Morgan agreeing to offer to Bear,
Stearns shareholders $10.00 per share.

The complaint in the class action charges Bear, Stearns and
certain of its officers with violations of the federal
securities laws and alleges that as a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements concerning Bear, Stearns'
financial status, Bear, Stearns stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Christopher J. Gray, Esq.
          Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
          460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-838-3221
          Fax: 212-937-3139
          e-mail: newcases@cjgraylaw.com


BIOVAIL CORP: Reaches $138M Settlement in US & Canada Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz and Milberg LLP announced the proposed
$138-million settlement of a securities class action lawsuit
against Biovail Corporation and certain of its officers or
directors.

The settlement is in connection with these cases:

     * "In re Biovail Corporation Securities Litigation, Master
       File No. 03-CV-8917 (GEL)" filed before the United States
       District Court for the Southern District of New York; and

     * "Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan
       against Biovail Corporation, Eugene N. Melnyk, Brian H.
       Crombie, John R. Miszuk and Kenneth G. Howling, Court
       File No. 48172 CP" filed before the Ontario Superior
       Court of Justice.

The classes include all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Biovail Corporation on the New York Stock
Exchange or other U.S. stock exchanges or the Toronto Stock
Exchange or other Canadian stock exchanges during the period
from February 7, 2003, through and including March 2, 2004.

The U.S. and Canadian Actions are being resolved through a
single Settlement Fund.  However, there will be no distribution
of funds through the Canadian Action.  The only Proof of Claim
form that will be distributed is the claim form in the U.S.
Action.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on July 8, 2008.
Deadline to file claims is on September 8, 2008.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing at 11:00 a.m., on Aug. 8,
2008 before the Honorable Gerald E. Lynch.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hold a fairness
hearing at 10:00 a.m. on September 15, 2008.

Biovail Securities Suit Settlement on the net:
http://www.BiovailSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com/

For more information, contact:

          In re Biovail Securities Litigation
          c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
          Claims  Administrator
          Post Office Box 24640
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 877-465-5582


CHICAGO TITLE: Faces Wash. Suit Over Deceptive & Illegal Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Title Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington accusing it of charging deceptive and illegal fees
for reconveyance, splitting the fees, and illegally requiring
use of its own duplicate reconveyance services, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action for trebled damages and
injunctive relief under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq. and the statutes of 35
states and the District of Columbia against Chicago Title
Insurance.

The plaintiffs bring this action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons -- excluding
governmental entities, defendant subsidiaries and affiliates of
defendant -- who purchased directly, from defendant and its
affiliates and subsidiaries, escrow settlement services for
residential property in the United States during the five year
period preceding the filing of the complaint and who were:

     -- charged one or more reconveyance fees by defendant; and

     -- where defendant did not actually perform the service of
        preparing, processing and recording the reconveyance
        associated with the paid off loan in the underlying real
        estate transaction.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant has engaged in the alleged illegal,
         unfair and deceptive acts of charging duplicative,
         split, unearned and unreasonable reconveyance
         processing fees, as set forth;

     (b) the duration and scope of defendant's alleged illegal,
         unfair and deceptive acts;

     (c) whether defendants' acts were in violation of RESPA;

     (d) whether defendant's acts have caused damages to
         plaintiffs and other purchasers of escrow services from
         defendant;

     (e) whether defendant breached its fiduciary and agency
         duties to plaintiffs and the members of the class;

     (f) whether defendant has been unjustly enriched; and

     (g) whether defendant misrepresented or concealed from
         plaintiffs any of its violations as an agent or
         fiduciary, thereby delaying the accrual of any cause of
         action and tolling any otherwise applicable statutes of
         limitations.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order declaring that this action may be
        maintained as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, and for an order certifying
        this case as a class action and appointing plaintiffs as
        class representatives;

     -- an order declaring that:

          (i) plaintiffs and the class were charged duplicative,
              unearned and unreasonable fees for reconveyance by
              defendant;

         (ii) defendant was obligated to inform plaintiffs and
              the class that their prior lenders were providing
              reconveyance processing at no cost or had included
              charges for reconveyances processing in the
              amounts paid by plaintiffs and the class to pay
              off their prior loans;

        (iii) defendant required the use of a settlement
              services provider;

         (iv) defendant violated RESPA and the laws of the
              states by these acts and by failing to inform
              plaintiffs and the class of the true nature of the
              reconveyance fees that defendant charged and by
              failing to charge and collect only the agreed fees
              for the settlement services provide by defendant;

     -- an order declaring that defendant breached its
        fiduciary duty to plaintiffs and members of the class by
        carrying out the Reconveyance Scheme;

     -- an order issuing a permenent injunction requiring
        defendant to:

          (i) inform all customers and potential customers in
              writing that reconveyance processing may be
              performed by their prior lenders; and

         (ii) refund to customers any amounts collected as
              reconveyance fees where reconveyance processing
              was not in fact provided by defendant;

     -- an order requiring defendant to refund the illegal
        and deceptive charges for reconveyance fees to
        plaintiffs and the class;

     -- judgment for plaintiffs and the class on their
        claims in an amount to be proven at trial, for
        compensatory damages caused by defendant's unfair or
        deceptive practices; along with exemplary damages to
        each class member for each violation;

     -- judgment for plaintiffs and the class on their RESPA
        claim, in an amount to be proven at trial, for three
        times the amount of reconveyance fees paid to defendant
        by plaintiffs and the class;

     -- restitution of all improperly collected charges and
        interest, and the imposition of an equitable
        constructive trust over all such amounts for the benefit
        of plaintiffs and members of the class;

     -- an order awarding plaintiffs and the class their
        attorney's fees and costs; and

     -- such other and further relief as may appear necessary
        and appropriate.

The suit is "Marck Buschbeck et al v. Chicago Title Insurance,"
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbslaw.com)
          Tyler Weaver, Esq. (tyler@hbslaw.com)
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. (toml@hbslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594


EL AL ISRAEL: Sued Over Postponed Flights After Labor Strike
------------------------------------------------------------
A request has been filed before the Tel Aviv District Court to
recognize a class-action lawsuit against El Al Israel Airlines
Ltd. (TASE: ELAL) for damage cost to ticket holders for delayed
flights caused by a strike declared by the Histadrut (General
Federation of Labor in Israel) on November 29, 2006, Globes
Online reports.

The report relates that the ticket holders had reservations for
flights from Europe to Israel on November 30, 2006, from 7:00
p.m. and later.  These flights were delayed until December 1,
2006, or later, forcing passengers to stay at least one more
night overseas.

The claimant bought two El Al round-trip tickets from Tel Aviv
to Lisbon for herself and her husband.  She claims that the
return flight was delayed from 10:30 p.m. on November 30, 2006,
to 11:30 a.m. on December 1, 2006, and that El Al's explanations
for the delay failed to explain why the strike forced the delay
in the flight.  The strike ended on November 30, 2006, at 7:00
a.m.  She says that El Al should compensate her for the damages
incurred by the delay.


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is June 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a June 9, 2008 deadline
for investors to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of The First
Marblehead Corporation (NYSE: FMD) between August 10, 2006 and
April 7, 2008, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations during
the class period concerning, among other things, the level of
default rates in the company's portfolio and the default rates'
effect on the company's ability to securitize additional student
loan underwritings.

For more information, contact:

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


FORMFACTOR INC: July 18 Hearing Set in Calif. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 18, 2008 hearing is set for a consolidated securities
fraud class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against FormFactor, Inc.,
according FormFactor's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2008.

The purported stockholder class action, titled "Danny McCasland,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard
M. Freeman," was filed on Oct. 31, 2007, and names the company
and certain of its current officers, including one officer who
is a director, as defendants.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed two other purported
stockholder class action suits before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the captions:

      1. "Yuk Ling Lui, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
         Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman,"
         and

      2. "Victor Albertazzi, Individually and on Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
         Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman."

The plaintiffs filed these actions following the company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that
year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30,
2007.

The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and
Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
that the defendants knowingly issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results prior to the restatements.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages,
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

The three actions were later consolidated.  In April 2008, the
designated lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  

On or about May 5, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The Court has set a hearing
date of July 18, 2008.

The suit is "McCasland v. Formfactor, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
05545-SI," filed before the U.S. District Court for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Susan Illston presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

               - and -

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          (ashingler@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott, LLC
          600 B. Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert P. Varian, Esq. (rvarian@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: 415-773-5759

    
FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Stockholder Derivative Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc., is facing a consolidated stockholder
derivative lawsuit that was filed with the the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda, according to
the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2008.

Initially, two purported stockholder derivative actions were
filed starting Nov. 19, 2007.  The suits name the company as a
nominal defendant and certain of its directors and officers as
defendants.  

The first suit is captioned, "John King, Derivatively on Behalf
of Nominal Defendant FormFactor, Inc. v. Dr. Igor Y. Khandros,
Dr. Homa Bahrami, Dr. Thomas J. Campbell, G. Carl Everett, Jr.,
Lothar Maier, James A. Prestridge, Harvey A. Wagner, Ronald C.
Foster and Richard M. Freeman, and FormFactor, Inc."

Subsequently, another plaintiff filed a second purported
stockholder class action under the caption, "Joseph Priestley,
Derivatively on Behalf of FormFactor, Inc. v. Igor Y. Khandros,
Mario Ruscev, James A. Prestridge, Thomas J. Campbell, Harvey A.
Wagner, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Homa Bahrami, Lothar Maier,
William H. Davidow and Joseph R. Bronson, and FormFactor, Inc."

The plaintiffs filed the actions following the company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that
year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30,
2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and violated applicable law by issuing, and
permitting the company to issue, materially false, and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results prior to the restatements.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The two derivative action lawsuits have been consolidated, and a
consolidated amended complaint is expected to be filed in mid-
July 2008.

FormFactor, Inc. -- http://www.formfactor.com/-- designs,   
develops, manufactures, sells and supports precision
semiconductor wafer probe cards.  Semiconductor manufacturers
use the Company's wafer probe cards to perform wafer probe test
on the whole wafer in the front end of the semiconductor
manufacturing process.  FormFactor offers products and solutions
that are custom designed for semiconductor manufacturers' wafer
designs.  


GLOBAL CASH: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on June 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a June 10, 2008
deadline for investors to move to be a lead plaintiff in the
securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons
who purchased or acquired the common stock of Global Cash Access
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: GCA) pursuant or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering commencing September 22, 2005,
and who held such shares of GCA common stock until November 14,
2007.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning, among other things, the sufficiency of the
company's internal controls and their effect on the reporting of
the company's financial results, thereby artificially inflating
the price of GCA stock.

For more information, contact:

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


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Settlement of Buyout Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gave final
approval to the settlement of purported class action suits
involving the proposed buyout of Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.,
by private equity investors, according to Harrah's May 15, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The plaintiffs in the suits consider the $15.1-billion offer
from the buyout firms, which translates to a per share price of
$83.50, as too low.  They generally allege that the transaction
is an "apparent camouflaged management buyout," (Class Action
Reporter, March 31, 2008).

                        Delaware Lawsuits

On Oct. 5, 2006, Henoch Kaiman and Joseph Weiss filed a
purported class action complaint before the Delaware Court of
Chancery, Civil Action No. 2453-N, against Harrah's, its board
of directors and its sponsors (Apollo Global Management, LLC and
TPG Capital, L.P.), challenging the proposed transaction as
inadequate and unfair to Harrah's public stockholders.

Two similar putative class action complaints were subsequently
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery:

     1. "Phillips v. Loveman, et al., Civil Action No. 2456-
        N;" and

     2. "Momentum Partners v. Atwood, et al., Civil Action No.
        2455-N."

On Oct. 19, 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the three Delaware cases under the heading, "In Re Harrah's
Entertainment, Inc. Shareholder Litigation."

On Dec. 22, 2006, the Delaware plaintiffs' counsel filed an
amended and consolidated class action complaint against
Harrah's, its directors, and the Sponsors, and added as
defendants Apollo Management V, L.P., Hamlet Holdings, LLC, and
Merger Sub.

The consolidated complaint alleges that Harrah's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties and that the Sponsors
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in
entering into the merger agreement.

The consolidated complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed
transaction, compensatory and rescissory damages to the class,
and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

On Feb. 14, 2007, the defendants began to produce documents in
response to the Delaware plaintiff's initial discovery request.

                   Initial Nevada Lawsuits

On Oct. 3, 2006, Natalie Gordon filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the state district court in Clark County, Nevada,
Case No. A529183, against Harrah's, its board of directors and
the Sponsors, challenging the proposed transaction as inadequate
and unfair to Harrah's public stockholders.

Eight similar putative class actions were subsequently filed
with the Clark County district court:

      1. "Phillips v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. A529184;"

      2. "Murphy v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case
         No. A529246;"

      3. "Shapiro v. Alexander, et al., Case No. A529247;"

      4. "Barnum v. Alexander, et al., Case No. A529277;"

      5. "Iron Workers Tennessee Valley Pension Fund v.
         Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.
         A529449;"  

      6. "Staehr v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case
         No. A529385;"

      7. "Berliner v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. A529508;" and

      8. "Frechter v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. A529680."

All of the complaints name Harrah's and its current directors as
defendants.  Four of the complaints also name the Sponsors as
defendants.

One complaint further names two former directors of Harrah's as
defendants: Joe M. Henson and William Barron Hilton.  

On Oct. 6, 2006, the Clark County district court consolidated
these complaints under the heading, "In Re Harrah's Shareholder
Litigation," and appointed liaison counsel for the consolidated
action.  A consolidated class action complaint was subsequently
filed.

The consolidated complaint alleges that Harrah's Entertainment's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and the
Sponsors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty in connection with the proposed transaction.

The consolidated complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed
transaction, declaratory relief, compensatory and rescissory
damages to the class, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to the plaintiffs.

On Oct. 25, 2006, Harrah's removed the consolidated action to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada as "In Re
Harrah's Shareholder Litigation, Case 2:06-CV-01356," pursuant
to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.

On Nov. 27, 2006, plaintiffs Gordon, Phillips, Murphy, Shapiro,
and Barnum filed a motion for remand.  Also on that date,
plaintiff Iron Workers Tennessee Valley Pension Fund filed a
separate motion for remand.

On Dec. 5, 2006, plaintiff Frechter joined Iron Workers' motion
for remand.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the plaintiff in Iron Workers filed notice of
its intention to voluntarily dismiss its action.  Then,
plaintiffs Gordon, Phillips, Murphy, Shapiro and Barnum filed a
notice of withdrawal of their motion for remand.  

The court approved these notices on Jan. 9, 2007.

On Jan. 23, 2007, defendants moved to dismiss the remaining
actions pursuant to SLUSA.

On Feb. 5, 2007, plaintiffs Gordon, Phillips, Murphy, Shapiro
and Barnum filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, adding a claim that the December 2006 14A filings by
Harrah's with the SEC in connection with the merger were false
and misleading.

Accordingly, eight consolidated cases currently remain in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  

On Feb. 12, 2007, the court denied the Frechter motion for
remand under the SLUSA.  

On Feb. 23, 2007, the defendants filed a reply brief renewing
their request that the court dismiss the actions in their
entirety.

                  Subsequent Nevada Lawsuits

On Nov. 22, 2006, two putative class actions were filed with the
state district court in Clark County, Nevada against Harrah's
and its board of directors:

       1. "Eisenstein v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
          Case No. A531963;" and

       2. "NECA-IBEW Pension Fund v. Harrah's Entertainment,
          Inc., et al., Case No. A531965."

Both complaints allege that Harrah's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction.

The complaints seek, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief; neither of them seeks damages.

On Jan. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs in both actions filed a Joint
Motion to Designate Litigation as Complex, Consolidate Cases,
and for Appointment of Lead Counsel.  

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion, which had been scheduled
for Jan. 30, 2007, was vacated pursuant to a stipulation between
the parties, dated Jan. 25, 2007.

On Jan. 26, 2007, in accordance with the parties' Jan. 25, 2007
stipulation, the Clark County district court ordered the
consolidation of the Eisenstein and NECA-IBEW Pension Fund
complaints and appointed lead and liaison counsel.

                      Settlement Procedures

On March 8, 2007, Harrah's, its board of directors, and the
other named defendants in the Delaware and Nevada Lawsuits above
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs'
counsel in those lawsuits.  

Under the terms of the memorandum, Harrah's, its board of
directors, the other named defendants, and the plaintiffs have
agreed in principle that the Initial Nevada Lawsuits and the
Delaware Lawsuit will be dismissed without prejudice and,
subject to court approval, the Subsequent Nevada Lawsuits would
be dismissed with prejudice.

The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation of
settlement incorporating the terms of the memorandum of
understanding.

Harrah's, its board of directors, and the other defendants deny
all of the allegations in the lawsuits.  

Nevertheless, the defendants agreed in principle to settle the
purported class action litigations in order to avoid costly
litigation and mitigate the risk that the litigation may have
caused a delay to the closing of the Merger.

Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, Harrah's agreed to
provide certain additional information to stockholders that was
included in its definitive proxy statement dated March 8, 2007.

In addition, Harrah's or its successor has agreed to pay the
legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, up to a certain
limit and subject to approval by the court, and the costs of
providing notice to the class.

Class members have the right to opt out of the proposed
settlement.  However, the defendants have the right to terminate
the proposed settlement if the holders of more than a designated
amount of shares elect to opt out.

The entry of a final judgment and the grant of a release against
Harrah's, its board of directors and the other named defendants
will not affect the rights of any stockholders who timely and
validly request exclusion from the settlement class pursuant to
applicable law.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the Stipulation was submitted to a district
court in Nevada, where it was approved and an order was entered
for notice and a hearing in this matter.  

On April 21, 2008, a settlement hearing was held requesting
final approval of the settlement.  On April 29, 2008, the court
entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement,
dismissing the action, and granting plaintiffs' request for
fees.

With the settlement having been approved by the Nevada district
court, the company intends to seek the dismissal, without
prejudice, of the Delaware Lawsuit.

Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.harrahs.com/-- is   
gaming company that owns, operates, and manages about 50 casinos
(under such names as Bally's, Caesars, Harrah's, Horseshoe, and
Rio), primarily in the U.S. and the U.K. Operations include
casino hotels, dockside and riverboat casinos, and Native
American gaming establishments.  


IMMIGRATION SERVICES: Immigrants Sue Over Citizenship Delays
------------------------------------------------------------
A local immigration law firm is suing federal authorities over
bureaucratic delays in citizenship applications and wants the
lawsuit granted with class-action status, St. Petersburg Times
reports.

According to St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg attorney
Arturo Rios Jr., Esq., called the delays -- which in some cases
have taken years -- "unreasonable and unlawful."

The report notes that immigration officials are required by law
to make a decision on citizenship within 120 days of an
applicant's naturalization interview.  Since 2002, the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services has required applicants to
pass an FBI "name check."

Mr. Rios said that the extra step is not mentioned in the law,
which requires a decision to be made by a set deadline.  He
estimates the FBI name checks have caused a delay in at least
60,000 citizenship applications nationwide.

"If there's a law that says you have to have it in 120 days, you
have to abide by that," Mr. Rios told St. Petersburg Times.

Mr. Rios said that about 1,000 immigrants across Central Florida
may be eligible to sign onto the Tampa lawsuit if a judge grants
it class-action status.

The government agencies being sued include:

   -- the U.S. Attorney General,

   -- the Department of Homeland Security secretary,

   -- the FBI director, and

   -- a director for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
      Services.

According to the report, two Tampa Bay area women are the named
plaintiffs in the complaint.  Elizabeth Bello-Camp is a native
of the Dominican Republic and Samira Suljic is a native of
Bulgaria.  Mr. Rios said that Ms. Bello-Camp passed her
citizenship interview in 2006 and has been waiting since then to
become a naturalized citizen.  Ms. Suljic, on the other hand,
passed her interview process in 2005.

"The impact to these individuals is great," Mr. Rios shared.
"They can't vote.  We have an election year where immigration is
a key issue.  A lot of these individuals have family members who
may be impacted."

Mr. Rios also told St. Petersburg Times that the delays also
cause losses in Social Security benefits and potential problems
being readmitted into the United States when traveling abroad.

The report says that immigration officials have not commented on
the specific lawsuits, but say it now takes an average of 16 to
18 months for a foreign-born resident with a green card to
become a citizen.  That estimate is from the time immigrants
apply to the time they are called for an interview and exam.
Federal officials say the FBI name check is part of that
process.


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is June 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a June 9, 2008 deadline
for investors to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Inverness
Medical Innovations, Inc. in the company's secondary public
offering on or about November 14, 2007.

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

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market in connection with the secondary public offering,
concerning significant and severe integration issues that the
company was then experiencing which were then impacting the
company's continuing operations, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Inverness Medical stock.

For more information, contact:

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


IOMEGA CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over EMC Corp. Buy-Out
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Iomega Corp. have filed a class-action complaint
before the Superior Court of the State of California, county of
Vista-North County claiming Iomega's proposed sale to EMC Corp.
for $3.85 a share is an unfairly low price, CourtHouse News
service reports.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants knowingly or recklessly
violating their fiduciary duties, including their duties of
loyalty, good faith and independence owed to shareholders, or
are aiding and abetting others in violating those duties.

the defendants also owe the company's stockholders a duty of
truthfulness, which includes the disclosure of all material
facts concerning the proposed transaction and, particularly, the
fairness of the price offered for the stockholders' equity
interest.

This action is brought on behalf of all owners of Iomega common
stock and their successors in interest, except defendants and
their affiliates.

The plaintiffs ask the court for an order:

     -- declaring this action to be a class action and
        certifying named plaintiff as the class representative
        and his counsel as class counsel;

     -- enjoining, preliminarily and permanently, the proposed
        transaction;

     -- in the event that the transaction is consummated prior
        to the entry of the court's final judgment, rescinding
        it or awarding plaintiff and the class rescissory
        damages;

     -- directing that defendants account to plaintiff and the
        other members of the class for all damages caused by  
        them and account for all profits and any special
        benefits obtained as a result of their breaches of their
        fiduciary duties;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs of this action, including a
        reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of
        plaintiff's attorneys and experts; and

     -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class
        such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Feivel Gottlieb et al v. Stephen David et al., Case
No 37-2008-00054149-CU-MC-NC," filed before the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Vista-North County.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          James K. Lo, Esq.
          Harrington Foxx Dubrow Canter
          1055 W. Seventh St., 29the Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-486-3222
          Fax: 213-623-7929


LIFE PARTNERS: Discovery Ongoing in Tex. Breach of Contract Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action suit "Earl
Parchia, et al. v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No. 2006-2258-4,"
which was filed against Life Partners, Inc., in the 170th
District Court of McLennan County, Texas.

Although the suit purports to represent a class of persons
similarly situated, the court has not certified it as a class
action.

The complaint, filed on June 9, 2006, alleges breach of contract
in connection with advising purchasers of premiums, which come
due on policies in which the escrow for premiums has been
exhausted.  The suit also alleges that the company breached the
its contract with purchasers by selecting life insurance
policies insuring the lives of individuals who were not actually
terminally ill.   

Although the company has filed a partial motion for summary
judgment and discovery has been authorized, there has been no
significant action in the case matter since Feb. 29, 2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 16,
2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 29, 2008.

Life Partners Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.lphi.com/-- is  
engaged in facilitating viatical and life settlement transfers.  
Life Partners is the parent company of Life Partners, Inc.  LPI
conducts business under the registered service mark Life
Partners.  The company's revenues are principally derived from
fees for facilitating the purchase of viatical and life
settlement contracts.  A viatical  settlement is the sale of a
life insurance policy by a terminally ill person to another
party.  By selling the policy, the insured receives an immediate
cash payment to use as he or she wishes.  The purchaser takes an
ownership interest in the policy at a discount to its face value
and receives the death benefit under the policy when the viator
dies.  


MOLSON COORS: Settles U.S. & Canadian Lawsuits Over 2005 Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Co., formerly Adolph Coors Co., settled for
$6 million several purported class action suits in both the
United States and Canada in relation to its 2005 merger with
Molson, Inc., according to the company's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 30, 2008.

Beginning in May 2005, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed against Molson Coors in the U.S. and Canada,
including federal courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial
courts in Ontario and Quebec.  

The suits allege, among other things, that the company,
including Molson Inc. and certain of the company's officers and
directors misled stockholders by failing to disclose first
quarter (January-March) 2005 U.S. business trends prior to a
merger vote in January 2005.

The Colorado federal case has been transferred to the Delaware
federal court.  The Delaware federal lawsuits also allege that
the company failed to comply with U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.  

The Quebec Superior Court heard arguments in October 2007
regarding the plaintiffs' motion to authorize a class in that
case.  The company opposed the motion.

During the first quarter of 2008, the company agreed in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel in all pending securities
cases in Delaware, Quebec, and Ontario to settle all claims on a
worldwide basis.  

Pursuant to the settlement, the company would pay $6 million,
which would be paid by the company's insurance carrier.

Molson Coors Brewing Co. (MCBC) -- http://www.molsoncoors.com/
-- formerly known as Adolph Coors Co., is principally a holding
company, and its operating subsidiaries include Coors Brewing
Company, operating in the U.S.; Coors Brewers Limited, operating
in the United Kingdom; Molson Canada, operating in Canada, and
its other corporate entities.  MCBC, through its subsidiaries
are engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling of malt
beverage products.  MCBC has three operating segments: Canada,
the U.S. and Europe.  Each segment manufactures, markets and
sells beer and other beverage products.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of the second
amended complaint in a purported class action lawsuit filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the company, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

A former company employee filed the putative class action suit
in October 2006 against the company and a number of its current
and former officers and directors.  The action purports to be
brought on behalf of all participants in the company's 401(k)
plan.  It alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to plan participants under Sections 404, 405, 409
and 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 et seq., by allowing
plan participants to purchase and to hold and maintain company
stock in their plan accounts without disclosing to those plan
participants the historical stock option practices.

The complaint seeks equitable restitution, attorneys' fees and
an order enjoining defendants from violations of ERISA.

At the defendants' behest, the Court, on Dec. 14, 2007,
dismissed the ERISA action with prejudice as against the company
and certain of the individual defendants including all of the
company's current directors who have been named as defendants
and without prejudice against certain of the individual
defendants including one current employee of the company.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the plaintiff (joined by three new proposed
class representatives) filed the second amended complaint
against the company, three of the individual defendants who had
been dismissed from the action without prejudice, and three new
defendants who are former employees of the Company.

The second amended complaint asserts the same allegations.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Taylor v. McKelvey et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08322-
AKH," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
         (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
         Gainey & McKenna, LLP
         295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-1300
         Fax: 212-983-0383

Representing the defendants are:

         Evan T. Barr, Esq. (ebarr@steptoe.com)
         Steptoe & Johnson
         750 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 1900
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-506-3918
         Fax: 212-506-3961

              - and -

         Geoffrey Shannon Stewart, Esq. (gstewart@jonesday.com)
         Jones Day
         222 East 41st Street
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-326-3939
         Fax: 212-755-7306


NOTRE DAME CEMETERY: Families Launch CDN$8MM Over "Body Backlog"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A year after a labor dispute paralyzed Notre Dame des Neiges
cemetery, a group of families is seeking permission to launch a
class-action lawsuit seeking CDN$8 million in damages, according
to Canwest News Service.

The report notes that a backlog of 498 bodies was created after
burials at Notre Dame des Neiges cemetery -- considered as
Canada's largest cemetery -- were put on hold during the May to
September 2007 lockout.  The families say 50 of those are still
not buried.

However, the cemetery says the number is just a tenth of the
figure stated in the claim, Canwest News relates.  That number
is "absolutely false," Yoland Tremblay, general manager of the
Fabrique de la Paroisse Notre Dame de Montreal, which manages
the cemetery, told Canwest News.

"In fact, there are exactly five bodies remaining from the
labour conflict," Mr. Tremblay said, adding those five families
have not been able to arrange a time to have a graveside
service.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Plaintiff in Ky. Taxes Case to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter, "Louisville/Jefferson County Metro
Government v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.," which also names Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc., as a defendant, filed an unopposed motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint that would remove the
class action allegations in the case.

The putative class action suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky on Sept. 21, 2006, by
the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government on behalf of
itself and a putative class of Kentucky cities, counties and
townships that have enacted transient room taxes.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
conversion, money had and received, unjust enrichment, a
constructive trust, and a declaratory judgment.  

On Dec. 15, 2006, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to
make certain changes to the identity of the defendants.  That
motion was granted, and, on Jan. 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed
its amended complaint.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which
request was denied by the court on August 10, 2007.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order denying their dimissal
request, or, in the alternative, certification of interlocutory
appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court or the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  

On Nov. 9, 2007, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendants'
motion for reconsideration.  Both motion for reconsideration and
motion to strike are pending with the court.  

The plaintiff has recently stated its intent to seek to amend
its amended complaint to withdraw its class allegations.  On
April 18, 2008, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint, which removes the
class action allegations, according to the company's May 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global    
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Ohio Taxes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a consolidated lawsuit filed by the Cities of Findlay,
Columbus and Dayton, in Ohio, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to remove the class action allegations in the matter,
which names Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., as a defendant.

                     Findlay Litigation

The suit "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.," was
filed on Oct. 25, 2005, as a putative class action complaint
with the Common Pleas Court of Hancock County, Ohio.  It was
filed by the City of Findlay on behalf of itself and a putative
class of Ohio cities, counties and townships that have enacted
occupancy or excise taxes on lodging.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio
Revised Code Chapter 1345, et seq., conversion, a constructive
trust and a declaratory judgment.  

On Nov. 22, 2005, Orbitz Worldwide and certain other defendants
removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.  On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint.

On July 26, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consumer Sales Practices Act claims and denied their
motion as it pertains to the other claims.  

On August 2, 2007, the City of Findlay filed a motion seeking
leave to amend its complaint in order to withdraw its claims on
behalf of a state-wide class of Ohio cities, counties and
townships that have enacted occupancy or excise taxes on
lodging.  On Aug. 15, 2007, the court granted that motion and an
amended complaint withdrawing those class allegations was filed.  

On Sept. 4, 2007, the defendants answered the amended complaint.  

                 Columbus, Dayton Litigation   

The suit, "City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al.," was filed on Aug. 8, 2006, as a putative class action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  It was filed by the cities of Columbus and
Dayton on behalf of themselves and a putative class of Ohio
cities, counties and townships that have enacted occupancy or
excise taxes on lodging.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, a
constructive trust and a declaratory judgment.   

On Sept. 25, 2006, Orbitz and other defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint.  On Sept. 27, 2006, the company and other
defendants moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, where the City of Findlay
case is pending.  

On Jan. 8, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation that the case be transferred to the Northern
District of Ohio.  The plaintiffs objected to the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendations.  

On July 10, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio transferred the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio.  

On July 23, 2007, the court in the Northern District of Ohio
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
Consumer Sales Practices Act claims and denied their dismissal
request as it pertains to the remaining claims, adopting the
reasoning of the court's opinion on the motion to dismiss in the
City of Findlay case.  

On Aug. 31, 2007, the defendants answered the complaint.   

                         Consolidation

On Nov. 5, 2007, the parties in all complaints jointly moved to
consolidate the City of Columbus action with the City of Findlay
action for pre-trial purposes, and that motion was granted on
Nov. 6, 2007.  

On Feb. 19, 2008, the cities of Columbus, Dayton and Findlay
moved to amend their respective complaints to drop all class
action allegations and to add nine additional Ohio
municipalities as plaintiffs.   That motion is still pending.

In the consolidated City of Findlay, Ohio and Cities of Columbus
and Dayton, Ohio cases, the plaintiffs -- on Feb. 27, 2008 --
amended their complaint to remove the class action allegations,
according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global    
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Court Denies Class Certification in "Fairview"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
denied a motion for certification of a class in the matter,
"City of Fairview Heights v. Orbitz, Inc., et al.," which names
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., as a defendant.

The putative class action complaint was filed on Oct. 5, 2005,
in the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois, by the City of Fairview Heights on behalf of
itself and a putative class of Illinois taxing authorities that
are allegedly authorized to impose a tax on the business of
renting hotel rooms.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, similar laws in other states, conversion
and unjust enrichment.  

On Nov. 28, 2005, the company and certain other defendants
removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, and in January 2006, the defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint.

On Feb. 10, 2006, the City of Fairview Heights moved to remand
the action to state court.  

On July 12, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims, except for the tax claim.  The court also
denied the plaintiff's motion to remand.  

On Aug. 1, 2007, the City of Fairview Heights moved for class
certification.  

On March 31, 2008, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  The case is now proceeding as an
individual action on behalf of the City of Fairview Heights
only, according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global    
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued Over Alleged Purchase of Old Debts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California claims that Portfolio Recovery
Associates, of Norfolk, Va., buys old alleged debts for pennies
on the dollar, some of which are time-barred, and then sues to
try to collect, without verifying them and without evidence,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This case involves money, property or their equivalent, due or
owing or alleged to be due or owing from a natural person by
reason of a consumer credit transaction.  As such, this action
arises out of "consumer debt" and "consumer credit" as those
terms are defined by Cal. Civ. Code Section 1788.2(f).

The plaintiff requests for:

     -- an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 USC Section
        1692k(a)(1) in an amount to be adduced at trial, from
        defendant;

     -- an award of statutory damages of $1,000, pursuant to 15
        USC Section 1692k(a)(2)(A);

     -- an award of costs of litigation and reasonable
        attorney's fees, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1692k(a)(3);

     -- an award of actual damages pursuant to California Civil
        Code Section 1788.30(a) in an amount to be adduced at
        trial, from defendant;

     -- an award of statutory damages of $1,000, pursuant to
        Cal. Civ. Code Section 1788.30(b); and

     -- an award of costs of litigation and reasonable
        attorney's fees, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code Section
        1788.30(c).

The suit is "Gary L. Litchenberg et al. v. Portfolio Associates,
LLC., Case No. 08 CV 0867 W LSP," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
          Hyde & Swigart
          411 Camino del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Phone: 619-233-7770
          Fax: 619-297-1022


SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Denies Review Petition in "Vroegh"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court denied a petition that sought for
the review of a decision by the First District of the California
Court of Appeal affirming the final approval of a settlement in
the matter, "Willem Vroegh, et al. v. Dane Electric Corp. USA,
et al.," which is a class action suit against SanDisk Corp., and
a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products.

The consumer class action suit was filed before the Superior
Court of the State of California for the City and County of San
Francisco on Feb. 20, 2004.  It alleged false advertising,
unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit,
misrepresentation and violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedy Act.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of flash
memory products, claimed that the defendants overstated the size
of the memory storage capabilities of such products.  It sought
restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties have reached a settlement of the case, which
received final approval from the Court on Nov. 20, 2006.  

Four objectors to the settlement filed appeals of the Court's
final approval order.  However, on Nov. 30, 2007, the First
District of the California Court of Appeal affirmed in full the
trial court's judgment and final approval of the settlement.

The objectors then filed petitions for the Court of Appeal to
rehear the matter en banc, which petitions were denied on
Dec. 21, 2007.  

The objectors have now filed petitions with the California
Supreme Court, currently pending under Case No. S159760, asking
the Supreme Court to review of the decision of the Court of
Appeal.  Those petitions were denied on Feb. 27, 2008, according
to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2008.

The Company has since paid all amounts due and distributed all
class benefits required under the terms of the settlement
agreement.


SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops,    
markets and manufactures products and solutions in a variety of
form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware
technologies.


SANDISK CORP: June 3 Hearing Set for Flash Memory Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 3, 2008 hearing is set for a consolidated class action
suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, entitled, "In re Flash Memory Antitrust
Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086," which named SanDisk Corp.
as a defendant.

Between Aug. 31 and Dec. 14, 2007, SanDisk, along with a number
of other manufacturers of flash memory products, was sued before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
in eight purported class action complaints.

On Feb. 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated
into two complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one
on behalf of indirect purchasers, with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California in a purported class
action captioned, "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Case No. C07-0086."

The plaintiffs allege that the company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in
violation of state and federal laws.

The lawsuits purport to be on behalf of purchasers of flash
memory between Jan. 1, 1999, through the present.  

The lawsuits seek an injunction, damages, restitution, fees,
costs, and disgorgement of profits.

On April 8, 2008, the company, along with its co-defendants,
filed motions to dismiss the direct purchaser and indirect
purchaser complaints.  The company, along with co-defendants,
also filed a motion for a protective order to stay discovery.

The hearing on the motions to dismiss and the motion for a
protective order staying discovery are set for June 3, 2008.

On April 22, 2008, direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss.  The company's,
along with co-defendants', reply to the oppositions will be due
May 13, 2008.

The hearing on the motions to dismiss and the motion for a
protective order staying discovery are set for June 3, 2008,
according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case
No. C07-0086," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

          C. Donald Amamgbo, Esq. (Donald@Amamgbolaw.com)
          Amamgbo & Associates, APC
          7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510-615-6000
          Fax: 510-615-6024

               - and -

          Robert M. Bramson, Esq. (rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

Representing the company is:

          Amy Elise Keating, Esq. (amy.keating@bingham.com)
          Bingham McCutchen LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-393-2000 x2262
          Fax: 415-393-2286


SECURE COMPUTING: Calif. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Rosenbaum"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied a motion that sought for the dismissal of the matter,
"Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
00392-SC," which named Secure Computing Corp. and certain of its
directors and officers of the company as defendants.

The suit was filed against the company by Rosenbaum Capital,
LLC, on Jan. 19, 2007.  The alleged plaintiff class includes
persons who acquired the company's stock between May 4, 2006,
through July 11, 2006.

Rosenbaum Capital was appointed lead plaintiff in the action,
and thus filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007.

The amended complaint alleges generally that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about our business condition and
prospects for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  It seeks unspecified
monetary damages.  

After plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss, but did not prevail on
that motion, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00392-SC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Judge Samuel Conti,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

           Elizabeth C. Guarnieri, Esq. (ecg@classcounsel.com)
           Green Welling, LLP
           595 Market Street, Suite 2750
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Phone: 415-477-6700
           Fax: 415-477-6710

Representing the defendants is:

           Michael L. Charlson, Esq.
           (michael.charlson@hellerehrman.com)
           Heller Ehrman LLP
           275 Middlefield Road
           Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506
           Phone: 650/324-7000
           Fax: 650 324-0638


T-MOBILE USA: Faces Wash. Suit Over Voice Mail Roaming Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington alleging it bilked customers on roaming charges for
voice mail notifications and unanswered calls outside the United
States, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiff Anthony Daniels brings this action against T-Mobile
for:

     -- declaratory relief,
     -- restitution,
     -- damages,
     -- equitable relief, and
     -- costs, including attorneys' fees,

arising from violations of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act, the consumer protection statutes of California, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all T-Mobile
customers in the United States who have been charged substantial
roaming rates for voicemail notifications and unanswered calls
while traveling outside the United States .

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether T-Mobile adequately disclosed its roaming
         charges for the voicemail notifications and unanswered
         calls its customers receive while traveling outside the
         United States;

     (b) whether T-Mobile's practices constitute unfair and
         deceptive acts and practices in violation of Washington
         and California state law;

     (c) whether T-Mobile's charging for voicemail notifications
         and unanswered calls was a breach of its contracts with
         the plaintiff and the other members of the Class;

     (d) whether the plaintiff and the other class members
         were damaged as a result of T-Mobile's practices; and

     (e) whether T-Mobile was unjustly enriched at the expense
         of the plaintiff and the other class members.

The plaintiff brings this action to enjoin T-Mobile from
continuing its unfair and deceptive practices, and for damages
attributable to T-Mobile's unfair and deceptive practices.


The suit is "Anthony Daniels et al v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. (cacantor@comcast.net)
          Law Offices of Clifford A. Cantor, P.C.
          627 208th Ave. SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          Phone: 425-868-7813
          Fax: 425-868-7870


YAHOO! INC: Calif. Court Allows Transfer of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted a motion that sought for the transfer to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California of a
consolidated securities fraud class action against Yahoo! Inc.

On May 11, 2007, the first of two purported securities class
actions was filed against Yahoo! and certain of its officers and
members of the board of directors.  The lawsuit was filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky, under the caption, "Ellen Rosenthal
Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv03125."

The second lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California by Manfred Hacker, under the
caption, "Manfred Hacker v. Yahoo! Inc et al., Case No.
2:2007cv03902."

These actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and, on Dec. 21, 2007, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed against Yahoo! and
certain individual defendants, including current and former
officers and a former director and officer.  

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who
purchased Yahoo!'s common stock between April 8, 2004, and
July 18, 2006.  They allege that the defendants engaged in a
scheme to inflate Yahoo!'s share price by making false and
misleading statements regarding Yahoo!'s operations, financial
results, and future business prospects in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The plaintiffs also allege that the individual defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of the Section 20(A) of
the Securities Exchange Act, and as control persons are subject
to liability under Section 20(A) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of alleged insider trading
proceeds, and other equitable relief.

At the defendants' behest, the Court, on March 10, 2008,
transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to Yahoo!'s May 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The consolidated suit is "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03125-CAS-FMO," pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Christina A. Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nate Bear, Esq. (nbear@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0853

               - and -

          Mark I. Labaton, Esq. (mlabaton@kreindler.com)
          Kreindler and Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-622-6469

Representing the defendants is:

          Jordan Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-7000


YAHOO! INC: Faces Lawsuits in Calif. & Del. Over Microsoft Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. is facing several lawsuits in California and
Delaware in connection with Microsoft Corp.'s unsolicited
proposal to acquire the company, according to the company's
May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

                     California Lawsuits

Since Feb. 1, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County,
against Yahoo! Inc., the members of the company's board of
directors, and selected former officers of the company by
plaintiffs Edward Fritsche, the Thomas Stone Trust, Tom Turberg,
Congregation Beth Aaron, and the Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System.

The California Lawsuits were consolidated, and on March 12,
2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint was filed, captioned, "In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder
Litigation," in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint alleges
that the Yahoo! Board of Directors breached fiduciary duties in
connection with Microsoft's unsolicited proposal to acquire
Yahoo!.  The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 28, 2008, the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted
the defendants' motion to stay the Consolidated Amended Class
Action and Derivative Complaint pending resolution of similar
proceedings pending with the Delaware Court of Chancery.

                       Delaware Lawsuits

Since Feb. 11, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in Delaware Court of Chancery against Yahoo! and members
of its Board of Directors by plaintiffs The Wayne County
Employees' Retirement System, Ronald Dicke, and The Police and
Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit along with The
General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund and
Vernon A. Mercier.

Two of the Delaware Lawsuits (by plaintiff Wayne County and by
plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union) were voluntarily
dismissed.

All of the remaining Delaware Lawsuits were consolidated,
wherein the appointed lead plaintiff is the Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit.

The plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuits purport to assert class
claims on behalf of all Yahoo! stockholders, except defendants
and their affiliates and generally allege that defendants
breached fiduciary duties by rejecting Microsoft's Feb. 1, 2008,
unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo! without fully informing
themselves whether Microsoft would offer additional
consideration and alleging that defendants are not acting in the
best interests of stockholders and are seeking to entrench
themselves through a series of defensive initiatives.

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

Pursuant to a case management order, the defendants are
responding to expedited discovery proceedings in the cases.  On
March 24, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to set
an expedited trial date in May 2008.

Yahoo! reported no further development in the cases in its
regulatory SEC filing.

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

CBEYOND INC: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Cbeyond, Inc., during the period November 1, 2007,
to February 21, 2008, inclusive.

The defendants are Cbeyond and its founder, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, James F. Geiger. Cbeyond provides
telecommunications services to small businesses, including local
and long distance telephone services, T-1 Internet access and
Internet-based applications.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants misled investors by issuing false and misleading
statements about Cbeyond's operations and financial condition,
and by omitting information about the Company's business that
would have been material to the investing public.

An important financial metric to Cbeyond, and investors and
analysts who follow the Company, is the churn rate.  Churn is
the percentage of subscribers to a service that discontinue
their subscription to that service in a given time period.  In
order for a company like Cbeyond to increase its profits, its
growth rate must exceed its churn rate.

According to the Complaint, Cbeyond maintained an artificially
low churn rate to demonstrate its ability to keep growing and
drive up the Company's inflated share price, so that insiders
could sell their own personal holdings.  However, once the true
facts were revealed that the Company's churn rate was
substantially higher than previously estimated and would remain
elevated for at least the following quarter, the stock price
plummeted, to the harm of Cbeyond investors.

Since closing at $18.76 per share on February 22, 2008,
Cbeyond's stock price has continued to drift lower and is
currently trading at approximately $17.00 per share,
significantly below the $37.04 per share average price that
insiders received on their shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Ze'eva Kushner Banks, Esq. (zbanks@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Katie King, Esq. (kking@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          1230 Peachtree St NE
          2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA  30309
          Phone: 404-607-6888
                 404-607-6826
                 1-888-873-3999
                 404-873-3900
          Web site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com/


CITIGROUP INC: Milberg LLP Files Auction Rate Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit before
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of persons or entities that purchased auction
rate securities from Citigroup, Inc., or related entities
between May 8, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, and who
continued to hold such securities as of February 13, 2008.

The complaint in this action alleges, among other things, that
Citigroup and its affiliates acted in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934, as well as the
Investment Advisors Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et. seq.

The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in deceptive
conduct in connection with the marketing and sale of ARSs (which
are municipal bonds, corporate bonds or preferred stocks with
interest rate or dividend yield components which are set through
auctions).

ARSs usually have intermediate to long-term maturities,
typically 30 years, or, in the case of preferred stocks, no
maturity date.  Since being introduced in 1984, the market for
ARSs has increased significantly, and, prior to the auction
market's collapse in February 2008, was valued in the aggregate
at approximately $330 billion.

The complaint also alleges, among other things, that defendants
marketed and sold ARSs to investors as liquid and cash
equivalents, and suitable alternatives to other cash equivalent
investments such as money market funds or certificates of
deposit (CDs), using uniform and standardized sales pitches
created and approved by company management.

The complaint further alleges that many holders of ARSs marketed
and sold by Citigroup and other broker-dealers have been unable
to liquidate their investments or exit their positions in these
securities following the collapse of the market caused by
Citigroup's and other broker-dealers' cessation of their prior
routine and pervasive support for these auctions and the ARS
market in February 2008, and that the collapse of the ARS market
had a significant negative impact on the reported value of these
securities.

The complaint further alleges, among other things, that
Citigroup and the other defendants failed to disclose:

     (a) that these securities were in fact not cash equivalents
         or suitable alternatives to investments such as money
         market funds or CDs;

     (b) the true liquidity risks associated with ARS
         investments; and

     (c) that in fact no real market for these securities could
         or would exist as it did were it not for defendants'
         and other broker-dealers' constant and pervasive
         creation of and support for the ARS market and
         auctions.

For more information, contact:

         Jerome M. Congress, Esq. (jcongress@milberg.com)
         Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milberg.com)
         Kent A. Bronson, Esq. (kbronson@milberg.com)
         Milberg LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 800-320-5081
         e-mail: contactus@milberg.com


DOWNEY FIN'L: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Downey
Financial Corp. common stock during the period between Oct. 16,
2006, and March 14, 2008.

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

Downey is a savings and loan holding company.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Downey's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $74.85 per share in June 2007.

On October 10, 2007, Downey announced that it expected to incur
an operating loss for the 2007 third quarter due to the
continued weakening in the housing market.  Then, before the
market opened on March 17, 2008, Downey released its monthly
selected financial results for the 13 months ended February 29,
2008, which showed a significant increase in non-performing
assets to almost 11% of total assets, up from 1.2% in May 2007.

Downey had to restructure debt for many borrowers to avoid
having their loans fail.  On this news, Downey's stock dropped
to close at $18.82 per share on March 17, 2008, a decline from
$19.14 per share on March 14, 2008, and a decline of 68% from
$59 per share on October 9, 2007.

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:

     (a) defendants' portfolio of Option ARMs contained millions
         of dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many
         of which were backed by subprime mortgage loans;

     (b) prior to the Class Period, Downey had seen
         Countrywide's growth and had started to get more
         aggressive in acquiring loans from brokers such that
         the loans were extremely risky;

     (c) defendants failed to properly account for highly
         leveraged loans such as mortgage securities;

     (d) Downey had very little real underwriting, which led to
         large numbers of bad loans that would cause huge
         numbers of defaults; and

     (e) Downey had not adequately reserved for Option ARM
         loans, the terms of which provided that during the
         initial term of the loan borrowers could pay only as
         much as they desired with any underpayment being added
         to the loan balance.

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

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins,Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


MGIC INVESTMENT: Federman & Sherwood Files Suit in Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against MGIC Investment Corporation.

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

The class period is from February 6, 2007, through February 12,
2008.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federamn & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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