CAR_Public/080526.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, May 26, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 103
  
                            Headlines

ABRA AUTO: Settles Minn. Labor Code Violations Suit for $1 Mln.
ALBERTSON'S INC: Supervalu Settles "Ward" Case for $15 Million
AMERICAN ITALIAN: E&Y Settles Mo. Securities Suit for $3.5 Mln.
APPLERA CORP: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase
APPLERA CORP: Connecticut Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Dismissal Bid v. N.Y. Suit Still Pending
AVERY DENNISON: Certification of UPM-MACtac Merger Suit Affirmed
AVERY DENNISON: Seeks Dismissal of Label Stock Lawsuit
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Court Still to Consolidate Biotech Rice Suit
DAVITA INC: Faces Suit in California Over Labor Code Violations

FALCON STRATEGIES: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Citigroup's Tender Offer
GENTA INC: N.J. Securities Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval
GIBBY'S WINE: Quality Management Files Identity Theft Lawsuit
GLOBAL CASH: Grant & Eisenhofer Expands Class Period in NY Suit
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Lead Plaintiff Yet to be Named in "Cole" Suit

HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Fla. Court Still to Consolidate ERISA Suits
HEALTHCARE GIANTS: Dolin Thomas Files Lunch Break Breach Suits
IMPAC FUNDING: Continues to Face Mortgage-Related Litigation
IMPAC FUNDING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Alleging TILA Violations
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Litigation
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Complaint
JEVIC TRANSPORTATION: Laid-Off Workers Sue Over WARN Act Breach
MERCK & CO: Settles Vioxx Deceptive Advertising Suit for $58Mln.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Wis. Securities Lawsuit for $16 Mln.

NCAA: Accused of Fleecing Fans Thru Illegal Lottery
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Mortgage Servicing MDL
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: May 2008 Hearing Set for Approving $9M Deal
PLEXUS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
REWARDS NETWORK: "Bistro Executive" Suit Settlement Finalized

TEPPCO PARTNERS: Continues to Face Unitholder's Lawsuit in Del.
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS: To Pay $355,000 to Resolve Overtime Lawsuit
VATICAN: Attorney Wants to Question Pope About Sex Abuse Cases
WASHINGTON: Suit Alleging Bias in Work Release Program Settled
WESLEY A. SNYDER: Dismissal of Lawsuit v. Banks Appealed


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Bernstein Litowitz Files N.Y. Securities Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Girard Gibbs Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Susman Godfrey Files Ohio Securities Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in Mich.



                           *********


ABRA AUTO: Settles Minn. Labor Code Violations Suit for $1 Mln.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class-action suit against ABRA Auto Body and
Glass, Inc., have proposed a total settlement of $1 million,  
glassBYTEs reports.

The class action suit was filed against the company in 2007
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota by
Thomas Hale and Justin Schreckenstein, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (Class Action Reporter, July 23,
2007).  The complaint alleges that the company required customer
service managers and customer service representatives to work
overtime without pay and that it did so by misclassifying them
as "managerial," which exempted them from overtime pay.

According to glassBYTEs, if the current settlement stipulation
is approved, to calculate the allocation of the settlement fund,
plaintiffs in the class will calculate the number of months each
worked at ABRA between July 1, 2004, and April 30, 2008.  Then,
all plaintiffs' months worked will be added together, and the
total amount of the remaining fund (minus attorneys' fees, costs
and the settlement administrator's costs), to arrive at an
average dollar amount per month.  Each plaintiff would then
multiply the average per-month amount by the number of months he
worked at ABRA, according to court documents filed in the case.

In addition, the plaintiffs in the class are requesting that the
two named plaintiffs receive payments of $7,500 each "in
recognition of their time and effort in serving the class," in
addition to their regular settlement payments.

According to court documents, the settlement fund allocation
will be performed by the plaintiffs, their counsel and Rust
Consulting, without any input or direction from ABRA.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has given
preliminary approval of the plan, and will provide final review
of the settlement plan and plaintiffs' other requests at a
hearing on July 29, 2008.

The court has appointed Rust Consulting as the settlement
administrator.

The suit is "Hale et al. v. ABRA Auto Body and Glass, Inc., Case
No. 0:07-cv-03367-PAM-JSM," filed before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, under Judge Paul A. Magnuson,
with referral to Judge Janie S. Mayeron.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles V. Firth, Esq. (firth@halunenlaw.com)
          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq. (halunen@halunenlaw.com)
          Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq. (jozwiak@halunenlaw.com)
          Halunen & Associates
          220 S 6th St Ste 2000
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-605-4098
          Fax: 612-605-4099

Representing the defendant are:

          Joseph M. Sokolowski, Esq.
          Lindsay J. Zamzow, Esq.
          Fredrikson & Byron P.A.
          200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1425
          Phone: +1 612-492-7000
          Fax: +1 612-492-7077
          Web site: http://www.fredlaw.com/


ALBERTSON'S INC: Supervalu Settles "Ward" Case for $15 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc., which bought out Albertson's, Inc., in 2006,  
agreed to a $15-million settlement of the matter, "Joanne Kay
Ward et al. v. Albertson's, Inc. et al.," Jack Katzaneck of The
Press-Enterprise reports.

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

On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action.  In
December 2007, however, the parties agreed to settle the matter,
subject to court approval (Class Action Reporter, April 29,
2008).

The $15-million settlement will be shared by employees who
retired or were fired by Albertsons, Sav-on Drug stores and
Lucky supermarkets between Sept. 29, 1996, and Dec. 31, 2004,
according to court documents.

Workers who resigned and gave their supervisors at least 72
hours notice could also be part of the class if they did not get
their final checks, including their accrued vacation pay, on
their last day.

The settlement could lead to payments of about $300 for members
of the class-action suit, who would be paid in cash and
merchandise cards. However, the 11 former employees who are
named as plaintiffs would each receive $10,000, and Albertson's
also will pay $3.5 million in legal fees.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge is expected to approve
the settlement on a final basis on Aug. 18, 2008.

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


AMERICAN ITALIAN: E&Y Settles Mo. Securities Suit for $3.5 Mln.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernst & Young has settled its part of a class-action shareholder
lawsuit involving American Italian Pasta Co., filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Jennifer Mann of The Kansas City Star reports.  The report says
that E&Y agreed to pay $3.5 million.

Kansas City Star recounts that shareholders have filed lawsuits
against American Italian since August 2005 when the firm started
reviewing its accounting practices.  The suits accuse the
company of improper inventory, underreporting marketing
allowances paid to distributors and improperly capitalizing
costs that should have been listed as expenses.

American Italian then said it is withdrawing financial results
for the last three years because they contained errors in
accounting for product promotion and overhead costs.

Seven of the suits were consolidated in December 2005 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).  In March, Judge Ortrie Smith
granted certification to the consolidated lawsuit designating
three Iron Workers' Union locals as lead plaintiffs (Class
Action Reporter, March 28, 2007).  The ironworkers' locals had
hired Kent T. Perry & Co. LC, of Overland Park as local counsel.  
Judge Smith accepted Perry & Co.'s motion to make the New York
law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross lead
counsel.

According to Kansas City Star, a settlement was reached
resolving the federal securities law claims asserted in the
consolidated class action pending in federal court in Kansas
City, styled, "In re American Italian Pasta Company Securities
Litigation (Case No. 05-CV-0725-W-ODS)."  The federal securities
law claims will be settled for approximately $25 million,
comprised of $11 million in cash, all of which will be
contributed by the company's insurers, and $14 million in the
company's common shares.

The proposed Ernst & Young settlement, which must be approved by
the plaintiffs, would provide 15 cents a share before expenses.

American Italian, one of the largest pasta makers in North
America, has not filed any financial reports with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for almost three years and has said it
will restate financials going back to 2000.

The suit is "In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge
Ortrie D. Smith.  

The plaintiffs' lead counsel is:

          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, New York 10017-5516
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665
          URL: http://www.pomlaw.com/


APPLERA CORP: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corp. and Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., continue to face a
certified class action lawsuit filed by Molecular Diagnostics
Laboratories before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia over alleged anticompetitive practices.

Molecular Diagnostics filed the complaint against the defendants
on Sept. 23, 2004.  The complaint was amended in July 2006.   

The amended complaint alleges anticompetitive conduct in
connection with the sale of Taq DNA polymerase.  The
anticompetitive conduct is alleged to arise from the prosecution
and enforcement of U.S. Patent No. 4,889,818.   

The patent is assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche, with whom Applera
has a commercial relationship covering, among other things, the
patent and the sale of Taq DNA polymerase.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs, expenses,
injunctive relief, and other relief, as the court deems proper.

On July 5, 2006, the court certified the case as a class action.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
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 "Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories v. Hoffmann-La
Roche, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-01649-HHK," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Henry H.
Kennedy, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paul Thomas Gallagher, Esq. (pgallagher@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
         1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005-3934
         Phone: 202-408-4600
         Fax: 202-408-4699

              - and -

         Scott E. Gant, Esq. (sgant@bsfllp.com)
         Boies, Schiller & Flexner
         5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 800
         Washington, DC 20015
         Phone: 202-237-2727

Representing the defendants are:

         Joanne M. Guerrera, Esq. (joanne.guerrera@weil.com)
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, L.L.P.
         1501 K Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-682-7153
         Fax: 202-857-0939

              - and -

         Heather Holden Brooks, Esq. (holden_brooks@aporter.com)
         Arnold & Porter, LLP, 555 12th Street, NW  
         Washington, DC 20004-1206
         Phone: 202-942-6309
         Fax: 202-942-5999


APPLERA CORP: Connecticut Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corp. and some of its officers continue to face a
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Applera-Celera
Genomics stock in the company's follow-on public offering of
Applera-Celera Genomics stock completed on Feb. 6, 2000.  

In the offering, the company sold an aggregate of approximately
4.4 million shares of Applera-Celera Genomics stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share.  

The suit was commenced with the filing of several complaints in
April and May 2000.  An amended consolidated complaint was filed
on Aug. 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or
misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged
opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its
supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to provide
patent protection to the company's genomic-based products.

Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought, or intended
to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the
complaint also alleges that the company did not adequately
disclose the risk that the Celera Genomics group would not be
able to patent this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission,
costs and expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper.

On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class
action.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Applera Corp. -- http://www.applera.com/- through its Applied   
Biosystems unit makes instrumentation systems, along with
related consumables, software, and services, that let life
sciences researchers analyze nucleic acids, proteins, and small
molecules.  It's Celera unit is primarily engaged in genomics
and proteomics research, seeking out diagnostic markers and
developing molecular diagnostic products.

    
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Dismissal Bid v. N.Y. Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action suit pending against
Authentidate Holding Corp. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the company and
certain of current and former officers and directors.  The
plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  

The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service could
cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did not
meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005
that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company had
not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock
declined.  The class action complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On Oct. 5, 2005, the court consolidated the class action suits
as "In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A.
No. 05 Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board
of Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in
January 2006, asserting the same claims as the prior complaints
and also alleged that the company violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain
patentable technology.

In July 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety.  Certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and the
plaintiffs were given leave to replead those claims, which were
not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which does not assert any claims relating to the company's
patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the
prior complaint.  The second amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.

The company requested to have the second amended complaint
dismissed, which request is pending before the court.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
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 "In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Laura Taylor Swain, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard William Gonnello, Esq.
         (rgonnello@entwistle-law.com)
         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         (aentwistle@entwistle-law.com)
         Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
         (jwhitman@entwistle-law.com)
         Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-894-7200
         Fax: 212-894-7272

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants is:

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq. (irwin.warren@weil.com)
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8000
         Fax: 212-833-3148


AVERY DENNISON: Certification of UPM-MACtac Merger Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by Avery Dennison Corp. in connection with a ruling by
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
granting class-action status to the lawsuit, "Sentry Business
Products, Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-
cv-01999-TIV," has been denied.

On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc., filed the
purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Avery Dennison in
relation to a proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene and the Morgan
Adhesives (MACtac) division of Bemis Co., Inc.  The suit seeks
treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices.  

Ten similar complaints were later filed in various federal
district courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On Jan. 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily
dismissed its complaint, leaving a total of 10 named plaintiffs.    
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb. 16, 2004,
which the company answered in March 2004.

On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to
class certification and merits discovery, and limited the
initial phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness
of class certification.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On
Jan. 20, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint.

On Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed
class.  The defendants opposed this motion.  On March 1, 2007,
the court heard oral argument on the issue of the
appropriateness of class certification.  

On Aug. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay imposed
on discovery, which request the company opposed.  

On Nov. 19, 2007, the court certified a class consisting of
direct purchasers of self-adhesive label stock from the
defendants during the period from Jan. 1, 1996, to July 25,
2003.

The company filed a petition to appeal the decision on Dec. 4,
2007, which petition was later denied, according to the
company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29,
2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its  
regulatory SEC disclosure.

The suit is "Sentry Business Products, Inc. v. Avery Dennison
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-01999-TIV," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. (sweltman@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
         39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-357-0370

Representing the company are:

         Joshua N. Holian, Esq. (joshua.holian@lw.com)
         J. Thomas Rosch, Esq. (Tom.Rosch@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins LLP
         505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-646-8343
         Fax: 415-395-8095


AVERY DENNISON: Seeks Dismissal of Label Stock Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corp., UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary,
Raflatac, is seeking the dismissal of one of several purported
class action suits filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of
label stock in various state courts, according to the company's
May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29,
2008.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed a purported class action
suit before the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
California, on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock.  
The suit asks treble damages and other relief for alleged
unlawful competitive practices.  

Three similar complaints were filed with various California
courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the parties, the
California Judicial Council ordered the cases coordinated for
pretrial purposes.  The cases were assigned to a coordination
trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco County on
March 30, 2004.  

On Jan. 21, 2005, American International Distribution Corp.
filed a purported class action suit on behalf of indirect
purchasers with the Superior Court for Chittenden County,
Vermont.

Similar actions were then filed by Richard Wrobel, on Feb. 16,
2005, in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas; and by
Chad and Terry Muzzey, on Feb. 16, 2005, with the District Court
of Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Judy Benson filed a purported multi-state
class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Circuit
Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.  

The Nebraska, Kansas and Vermont cases are currently stayed.  

The defendants filed a motion on March 30, 2006, to dismiss the
Tennessee case.  This request is pending.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
SEC regulatory filing.

Avery Dennison Corp. -- http://www.averydennison.com/-- is    
engaged in the production of pressure-sensitive materials,
office products and a variety of tickets, tags, labels and other
converted products.  It also manufactures and sells a variety of
office products, and other converted products and other items
not involving pressure-sensitive components, such as binders,
organizing systems, markers, fasteners, business forms, as well
as tickets, tags, and imprinting equipment for retail and
apparel manufacturers.  


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Court Still to Consolidate Biotech Rice Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri has yet to decide whether to consolidate
several lawsuits over genetically engineered rice under one
class-action suit that would include thousands of rice farmers
throughout the United States, Christopher Leonard writes for
Forbes.

The cases were based on damages the plaintiffs sustained
resulting from the contamination of the U.S. rice supply with
unapproved, genetically-modified rice seed traits developed and
tested by Bayer CropScience AG and related entities (Class
Action Reporter, May 10, 2007).

The contamination of the U.S. rice supply -- with not less than
two distinct genetically modified rice traits, LLRICE601 and
LLRICE 604 -- has caused significant economic damages to U.S.
rice producers and has substantially diminished their ability to
cultivate, market, or otherwise distribute their rice crops.

The suits were brought on behalf of rice farmers based upon
economic damages they suffered from contamination of their crops
with an unapproved genetically modified strain of rice seed
produced by Bayer Cropscience, a German-based agriculture
company.  Discovery of the contamination in the farmers' rice
supply led to a dramatic drop in U.S. rice prices.

The suits actions seek to hold Bayer, the developer of the
genetically modified rice traits, accountable for the market
losses and other economic and related damages they have caused
U.S. rice producers.

Judge Perry heard arguments in the case that hinged on whether
farmers suffered economic damage after a strain of Bayer
CropScience's experimental rice was released into the food
supply in 2006.  She, however, made no rulings yet, but if she
grants the suit class-action status, it could have potentially
enormous implications for the biotech seed industry.  Every
major biotech seed company grows experimental biotech crops
outdoors.

The U.S. rice farmers say the companies should be held liable
for any economic losses on global grain markets if experimental
strains escape and crimp export markets.

Bayer attorney Mark Ferguson, Esq., said that making dozens of
lawsuits into a single class-action against his client would be
impractical because it would include any rice farmer who set a
price for their crop after Liberty Link was released in August
2006.

"This kind of uncertainty makes the class completely
unmanageable," said Mr. Ferguson, who is with the Chicago-based
firm Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott.

The suit is "In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, Master
Docket No. 4:06MD1811 CDP," pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq. (levitt@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
          Phone: 312-984-0000
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/

               - and -

          Don Downing, Esq.
          Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1826
          Phone: 800-451-2950 (Toll Free)
                 314-241-5620
          Fax: 314-241-4140
          Web site: http://www.grayrittergraham.com/

Representing the defendants is:

          Mark E. Ferguson, Esq.
          (mark.ferguson@bartlit-beck.com)
          Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
          Courthouse Place
          54 West Hubbard Street
          Chicago, Illinois 60610
          Phone: 312-494-4404
          Fax: 312-494-4440


DAVITA INC: Faces Suit in California Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. is facing a purported class action suit filed before
the Superior Court of California over its alleged violations of
the state's labor code requirements, 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, 2007.

In February 2007, the company was served with a complaint filed
by one of its former employees who worked in one of its chronic
facilities as a reuse technician.

The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among
other things, that the company failed to provide rest and meal
periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing such
rest or meal periods, and failed to comply with certain other
California labor code requirements.

The company reported no development in the matter in its SEC
disclosure.

DaVita Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- operates kidney  
dialysis centers and provides related renal care services
primarily in dialysis centers and in contracted hospitals across
the U.S.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated or provided
administrative services to 1,359 outpatient dialysis centers
located in 43 states and the District of Columbia, serving
approximately 107,000 patients.  The business includes dialysis
and related services and other ancillary services and strategic
initiatives, which relate primarily to its core business of
providing renal care services.  


FALCON STRATEGIES: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Citigroup's Tender Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who have tendered or are being asked to
tender their shares of Falcon Strategies Two LLC, a fund
affiliated with defendant Citigroup, Inc., in connection with a
tender and exchange offer, on the basis of a Confidential Tender
and Exchange Offer Memorandum, dated May 8, 2008, that contains
materially misleading statements and omissions.

The Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Delaware law.

Defendant Falcon is a Delaware limited liability company that
was purportedly formed on April 27, 2004 to serve as a multi-
strategy fixed income alternative seeking to provide investors
with absolute returns, current income and portfolio
diversification.  The Company, which commenced operations on
October 29, 2004, claimed to invest in a select combination of
fixed income strategies to achieve attractive risk-adjusted, and
in some cases "absolute," returns.

The Complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, Falcon's
investment approach was not conservative but was instead highly
leveraged on the condition of the credit markets and liquidity
in the bond markets.  In this regard, Falcon's investments were
more akin to derivatives.  According to the Complaint, in fact,
Falcon employed municipal bond arbitrage, carried commercial
debt obligations and held asset-backed mortgage instruments that
were intrinsically tied to the condition of the credit and bond
markets.  Moreover, Falcon heavily invested in funds under the
Citigroup umbrella that employed these investment strategies.
When these markets failed, the underlying investments declined
in value.

In connection with the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff also
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
the Tender Offer until Falcon and other named defendants correct
the allegedly false and misleading Tender Memorandum to enable
investors to make an informed decision about whether to tender
their shares.  In particular, Plaintiff alleges that the Tender
Memorandum is materially false and misleading because it fails
to disclose these material facts:

     -- the present and potential value of the Company's assets
        and shares, as well as the makeup of those assets and
        the Company's individual investments;

     -- the nature of any claims that Defendants are requiring
        investors to release as a condition to the acceptance of
        any tendered shares;

     -- the nature, scope and subject matter of the U.S.
        regulatory inquiry to which Citigroup is responding as
        well as any related civil litigation; and

     -- the events leading up to the investors' massive losses,
        the Tender Offer and the wind-up and liquidation of the
        Company's assets and operations.

The Court has not yet set a date for Plaintiff's preliminary
injunction motion and there can be no assurance that the Court
will set a date for the injunction hearing.  If the Tender Offer
is not enjoined by the Court (or voluntarily extended by
Defendants), it will expire according to its terms on June 30,
2008.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


GENTA INC: N.J. Securities Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to give final approval to the proposed settlement in a
consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed against
Genta, Inc.

In 2004, numerous complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey against Genta and certain
of its principal officers on behalf of purported classes of the
company's shareholders who purchased its securities during
several class periods.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action and allege
that the company and certain of its principal officers violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements regarding Genasenser for the treatment of
malignant melanoma that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the company's securities.  

The shareholder class action complaint sought monetary damages
in an unspecified amount and recovery of plaintiffs' costs and
attorneys' fees.

The company subsequently reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle the class action litigation in
consideration for the issuance of 2.0 million shares of common
stock of the company (adjusted for any subsequent event that
results in a change in the number of shares outstanding as of
Jan. 31, 2007) and $18.0 million in cash for the benefit of
plaintiffs and the shareholder class.  The cash portion of the
proposed settlement will be covered by the company's insurance
carriers.

Effective June 25, 2007, the company and the plaintiffs executed
a written Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement which was
filed with the Court on Aug. 13, 2007, seeking preliminary
approval.

The unopposed Settlement was granted preliminary approval by the
Court on Oct. 30, 2007.  The Court held a hearing on the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the
settlement on March 3, 2008.  

At the end of the hearing, the Court indicated it was inclined
to approve the settlement.  A written decision on the final
approval motion is expected but has not yet been issued,
according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Genta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:04-cv-02123-JAG-MCA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.,
with referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610-668-7987
          Fax: 610-660-0450
          e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          825 Third Avenue - 30th Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212-838-7797
          Fax: 212-838-7745
          e-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

               - and -

          Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 7663
          Phone: 201-845-9600
          e-mail: info@njlawfirm.com


GIBBY'S WINE: Quality Management Files Identity Theft Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Management and Consulting Services, a Rolling Meadows,
Ill. corporation, filed a class action suit against Geneva wine
company Gibby's Wine Den over Gibby's Wine's receipt practices,
Matt Hanley of the Aurora Beacon News reports.

The lawsuit accuses the company of allegedly handing out
receipts that included too much of the customer's credit card
information.

Filed on April 13, 2008, the suit claims that an unidentified
customer received a computer-generated receipt that showed the
customer's credit card expiration date.  The suit says that
thieves -- sometimes diving into trash bins -- can use the last
four digits of a credit card and the customer's expiration date
to commit identity fraud.

The suit is seeking damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation,
plus attorney's fees.

According to the report, Gibby's is just the latest company to
be hit by the controversial class-action credit card receipt
lawsuits.

The suits stem from the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act of 2003, which was designed to protect consumers from
identity theft.  FACTA required various steps be taken by credit
card companies and retailers, and made one free credit report
available to all consumers.


GLOBAL CASH: Grant & Eisenhofer Expands Class Period in NY Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Richmond Retirement System, an institutional
investor represented by the law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
will move the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York to be appointed lead plaintiff for an expanded class
consisting of all those who purchased Global Cash Access
Holdings, Inc. securities during the period between Sept. 22,
2005 to November 14, 2007, inclusive, whether or not such
purchases are traceable to the Company's IPO.

Earlier, prior notices have been published announcing the filing
of class action lawsuits on behalf of all those who purchased
securities of GCA pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering which commenced on September 22, 2005,
and who held such shares of GCA until November 14, 2007, and
asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, respectively 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k,
771(a)(2) and 77o, against the following defendants:

     -- GCA;

     -- current and former directors Kirk Sanford, Karim
        Maskatiya, and Robert Cucinotta;

     -- controlling shareholders M&C International and Summit
        Partners, L.P., and

     -- underwriters Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. and JP Morgan
        Securities Inc.

As indicated in those notices, the deadline by which to file
motions for appointment as lead plaintiff in the pending
lawsuits is June 10, 2008.

If the City of Richmond Retirement System is appointed lead
plaintiff of the Expanded Class, it intends to file a
consolidated complaint asserting claims on behalf of the
Expanded Class against certain of GCA's officers and directors
and other defendants for violating the federal securities laws,
including claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), and
78t, respectively, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint will allege that:

     (a) GCA lacked adequate internal controls, or disregarded
         such controls, resulting in the Company's failure to
         accurately account for the amount of commissions
         payable to the Company's customers;

     (b) GCA improperly calculated such commissions and breached
         the terms of contracts with its customers;
  
     (c) GCA's failure to properly compute and account for
         commissions payable to the Company's customers resulted
         in the Company understating its operational expenses
         and overstating its gross profit margins and net income
         for the periods ending December 31, 2005, and December
         21, 2006, and for the quarters ended March 31 and June
         30, 2007;

     (d) GCA made false and misleading statements regarding the
         Company's internal controls and financial performance
         throughout the Expanded Class Period; and

     (e) the subsequent disclosure of these facts resulted in a
         significant decline in the Company's stock price,
         causing substantial damage to members of the Expanded
         Class.

For more information, contact:

          John Garger , Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          Chase Manhattan Centre
          1201 N. Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 212-262-7484
                 302-622-7000


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Lead Plaintiff Yet to be Named in "Cole" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
yet to appoint a lead plaintiff in the matter, "Cole v. Health
Management Associates, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00484-MMH-
SPC."

On Aug. 2, 2007, the company and three of its senior executive
officers and directors were named as parties to a putative class
action suit styled, "Florence Cole et al. v. Health Management
Associates, Inc. et al."

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all similarly
situated persons who purchased the company's securities during
the period Jan. 17, 2007, through July 30, 2007.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that HMA violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by making allegedly false and misleading statements in
certain disclosures regarding its provision for doubtful
accounts related to self-pay patients.

Three identical purported stockholder class action complaints
were subsequently filed in the Florida District Court.  One of
the three plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed its complaint without
prejudice and the two other plaintiffs consolidated their
complaints with the Cole Action.

In addition, three other purported stockholders who did not file
complaints filed motions to be appointed as the lead plaintiff;
however, one of the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew its motion.

The Florida District Court has not yet determined which
plaintiff or other person will be designated as lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, 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 "Cole v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00484-MMH-SPC," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Marcia Morales
Howard, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-867-1156
          Fax: 212-504-8343

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Abbey & Gardy, LLP
          2l2 E. 39th St.
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-889-3700

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          Paskowitz & Associates
          60 E. 42 nd St., 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-685-0969

               - and -

          Maya S. Saxena, Esq. (msaxena@saxenawhite.com)
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431-7781
          Phone: 561-394-3399
          Fax: 561-394-3382


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Fla. Court Still to Consolidate ERISA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
yet to rule on motions that seek for the consolidation of
several purported class action lawsuits against Health
Management Associates, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 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.

On or about Aug. 20, 2007, HMA and certain of its executive
officers and directors were named as defendants in a suit
entitled, "Ingram v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-CV-00529," which was filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  

The suit purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of
all participants in or beneficiaries of the Health Management
Associates, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan during the period
Jan. 17, 2007, through Aug. 20, 2007, and whose participant
accounts included HMA's common stock.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants:

     -- breached their fiduciary responsibilities to Plan
        participants and their beneficiaries under the
        Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
        amended, and neglected to adequately supervise
        the management/administration of the Plan,

     -- failed to communicate complete, full and accurate
        information regarding the Plan's investments in HMA's
        common stock, and

     -- had conflicts of interest.

Three similar purported ERISA class action complaints were
subsequently filed in the Florida District Court in October and
November 2007.

The plaintiff in the first additional complaint, "Freeman v.
Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-CV-
00673," brought charges against HMA, its directors, 10
unidentified members of the Plan's Retirement Committee and ten
unidentified defendants who had the responsibility for selecting
the Plan's investment funds and monitoring the performance of
those funds.

The plaintiffs in the second and third complaints brought their
actions against HMA, the Plan's Retirement Committee and thirty
unidentified members of the Plan's Retirement Committee who were
employees and senior executives at HMA.

The two latter actions are entitled, "O'Connor v. Health
Management Associates, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-CV-00683," and
"DeCosmo v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-CV-00741."

The plaintiffs in the Ingram, Freeman and O'Connor actions moved
to consolidate their actions and be appointed as joint lead
plaintiffs; however, the Florida District Court has not yet
ruled on this motion.

The suits awards of unspecified monetary damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.  Legal counsel for certain plaintiffs wrote
letters to the Plan's Retirement Committee claiming that their
preliminary calculations indicate the Plan suffered losses of at
least $60 million.

Health Management Associates, Inc. -- http://www.hma.com/--  
operates general acute-care hospitals in non-urban communities.
Services provided by its hospitals include general surgery,
internal medicine, obstetrics, emergency room care, radiology,
oncology, diagnostic care, coronary care and pediatric services.
The Company also provides outpatient services, such as one-day
surgery, laboratory, x-ray, respiratory therapy, cardiology and
physical therapy. In addition, some of its hospitals provide
specialty services in, among other areas, cardiology, neuro-
surgery, oncology, radiation therapy, computer-assisted
tomography (CT) scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
lithotripsy and obstetrics. As of December 31, 2007, Health
Management Associates, Inc. operated 59 hospitals with a total
of 8,458 licensed beds in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and
West Virginia.


HEALTHCARE GIANTS: Dolin Thomas Files Lunch Break Breach Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester employment law firm Dolin, Thomas and Solomon LLP
filed class-action lawsuits against Kaleida Health and Catholic
Health System for lunch break violations, Jonathan D. Epstein of
the Buffalo News reports.

The suits accuse the health-care giants of not paying hourly
employees for lunch or meal periods that were interrupted or
missed.  They claim that the two hospital systems automatically
deduct the time for meal periods from employees' pay, even if
workers did not receive their full time off.

For more information, contact:

          Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP
          The Strong-Todd House
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607-2152
          Phone: 585-272-0540
          Fax: 585-272-0574
          e-mail: info@theemploymentattorneys.com
          Web site: http://www.theemploymentattorneys.com/


IMPAC FUNDING: Continues to Face Mortgage-Related Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Funding Corp. continues to face several purported class
action lawsuits in various courts alleging that the mortgage
loan originators violated the respective state's statutes by
charging excessive fees and costs when making second mortgage
loans on residential real estate, according to company's May 21,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                       Gilmor Litigation

On June 27, 2000, a complaint captioned, "Michael P. and Shellie
Gilmor v. Preferred Credit Corporation and Impac Funding
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court for Clay
County, Missouri, as a purported class action lawsuit alleging
that the defendants violated Missouri's Second Loans Act and
Merchandising Practices Act.  

In July 2001, the Missouri complaint was amended to include IMH
and other Impac-related entities.  A plaintiffs class was
certified on Jan. 2, 2003.  

On Jan. 27, 2006, the company filed pleadings in response to the
Sixth Amended Complaint, including motions to dismiss.  No
opposition has yet been filed by the plaintiffs.

                       Baker Litigation

On Feb. 3, 2004, a complaint captioned, "James and Jill Baker v.
Century Financial Group, Inc, et al.," was filed in the Circuit
Court of Clay County, Missouri, as a purported class action
lawsuit alleging that the defendants violated Missouri's Second
Loan Act and Merchandising Practices Act.

An answer was filed on March 7, 2005, and limited discovery has
taken place since then.

                      Searcy Litigation

On Oct. 2, 2001, a complaint captioned, "Deborah Searcy, Shirley
Walker, et al. v. Impac Funding Corporation, Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc. et. al.," was filed in the Wayne County Circuit
Court, State of Michigan, as a purported class action suit
alleging that the defendants violated Michigan's Secondary
Mortgage Loan Act, Credit Reform Act and Consumer Protection
Act.  

A motion to dismiss an amended complaint has been filed, but not
yet ruled upon.

                        Similar Cases

All of these purported class action lawsuits are similar in
nature in that they allege that the mortgage loan originators
violated the respective state's statutes by charging excessive
fees and costs when making second mortgage loans on residential
real estate.

The complaints allege that IFC was a purchaser, and is a holder,
along with other affiliated entities, of second mortgage loans
originated by other lenders.  

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits are seeking damages that include
disgorgement of interest paid, restitution, rescission, actual
damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, pre-judgment
interest and punitive damages.  

No specific dollar amount of damages is specified in the
complaints.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.impaccompanies.com/  
-- is an acquirer, originator, seller and investor of non-
conforming Alt-A residential mortgages and commercial mortgages
and multi-family mortgages.  The Company operates four core
businesses: long-term investment operations, mortgage
operations, commercial operations and warehouse lending
operations.  The long-term investment operations primarily
invest in adjustable rate and, to a lesser extent, fixed rate
Alt-A mortgages and commercial mortgages that are acquired and
originated by its mortgage and commercial operations.  The
mortgage operations acquire, originate, sell and securitize
primarily Alt-A adjustable rate mortgages and fixed rate
mortgages from correspondents, mortgage brokers and retail
customers.  The commercial operations originate commercial
mortgages that are primarily adjustable rate mortgages.  The
warehouse lending operations provide short- term financing to
mortgage loan originators.


IMPAC FUNDING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Alleging TILA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Funding Corp. and Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., are
facing a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California over alleged
violations of the Truth in Lending Act.

On Oct. 4, 2007, a purported class action matter was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Impac Funding and Impac Mortgage, entitled "Vincent
Marshell v. Impac Funding Corporation, et al."

The action alleges violations of Truth in Lending Act, Violation
of California Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et
seq., breach of contract, and an additional claim under Business
and Professional Code Section 17200.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose pertinent information in a clear conspicuous manner as
called for in the Truth in Lending Act, and that they misled the
plaintiff.

The action seeks to recover actual damages, compensatory
damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, rescission,
reasonable attorneys fees and costs, statutory damages, a
disgorgement of all profits obtained as a result of the unfair
competition, equitable relief including restitution and such
other relief as is just and proper.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. reported no development in the
matter in its May 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Vincent D Marshell v. IMPAC Funding Corporation et
al., Case No. 5:07-cv-01290-AG-CT," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Andrew J. Guilford, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq. (jberns@jeffbernslaw.com)
         Jeffrey K. Berns Law Offices
         19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
         Tarzana, CA 91356
         Phone: 818-961-2000

              - and -

         Michael A. Bowse, Esq. (mbowse@dskbwg.com)
         Browne and Woods
         450 North Roxbury Drive, 7th Flr
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4231
         Phone: 310-274-7100
         Fax: 310-275-5697


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., is facing a purported class
action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

On Dec. 17, 2007, a purported class action matter was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
against IMH and several of its senior officers entitled, "Sharon
Page v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al."

The action is a complaint for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act in relation to the company's
401(k) plan.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, breach of duty
to avoid conflicts of interest, allegations of co-fiduciary
liability and knowing participation in a breach of fiduciary
duty by IMH.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by failing to prudently
and loyally manage the plans investment in IMH stock by
continuing to offer IMH stock as an investment option and to
make contributions in stock, provide complete and accurate
information to participants, and monitor appointed plan
fiduciaries and provide them with accurate information.

The complaint seeks monetary payment to the plan for the losses
in an amount to be proven, injunctive and other appropriate
equitable relief, a constructive trust on amounts by which any
defendant was unjustly enriched, an appointment of one or more
independent fiduciaries, actual damages, reasonable attorney
fees and expenses, taxable costs, interests on these amounts and
other legal or equitable relief as may be just and proper.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. reported no development in the
matter in its May 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Page v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc et al., Case
No. 8:07-cv-01447-AG-MLG," filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge Andrew J.
Guilford, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         e-mail: service@ssbla.com

              - and -

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
         Gainey and McKenna
         295 Madison Avenue, 4th Fl
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-1300

    
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
according to company's May 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, a purported class action complaint was filed on
Aug. 17, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against the company and several of its
senior officers entitled, "Sheldon Pittleman v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al."

The action alleges against all defendants violations of Section
10(b) and 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) and against the individual defendants violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants caused the company's
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices through false and
misleading statements, and intentional or reckless disregard of
basic accounting principles.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages for all damages
sustained as a result of the defendants actions, including
reasonable costs and expenses and other relief as the court may
deem proper.

On Oct. 3, 2007, a similar case was filed in the same Court
entitled, "Richard Abrams v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et
al."

This action asserts allegations similar to those in the
Pittleman action and also seeks similar recovery.

The two cases were then consolidated.  A consolidated complaint
captioned, "Sheldon Pittleman v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,
et al.," was filed on Jan. 8, 2008.  

A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants on March 10,
2008, and that motion is still pending.

The suit is "Sheldon Pittleman, et al. v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00970," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
         369 Lexington. Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, New York
         Phone: 212-983-9330
         Fax: 212-983-9331

         Gardy & Notis, LLP
         440 Sylvan Avenue
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632
         Phone: 201-567-7377
         Fax: 201-567-7337
         e-mail: info@gardylaw.com

              - and -

         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA)
         1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067
         Phone: 310-201-915
         Fax: 310-201-916
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

    
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S District Court for the Central District of California
granted a motion that sought the dismissal of an amended
complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class action suit
filed against Impac Mortgage Holding, Inc.

From Jan. 10, 2006, through Feb. 28, 2006, six purported class
action complaints were filed against the company and its senior
officers and all but one of its directors.   

The plaintiffs in the suits are:  

     -- Earl Schriver, Jr. (suit filed Jan. 10, 2006),  
     -- Jeff Dayton (suit filed Jan. 13, 2006),  
     -- Joseph Mathieu (suit filed Jan. 18, 2006),  
     -- Fred Safir and Wilma Libar (suit filed Jan. 26, 2006),  
     -- Ronald Kelner (suit filed Feb. 1, 2006), and  
     -- Miroslav Bardos (suit filed Feb. 9, 2006).  

The complaints were brought on behalf of persons who acquired
the company's common stock during the period of May 13, 2005,
through Aug. 9, 2005.   

The plaintiffs allege claims against all defendants for
violations under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  They also claim against the
individual defendants of violations of Section 20  (a) of the  
Exchange Act.  

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants caused the company's
common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices through
false and misleading statements related to the company's
financial condition and future prospects and that the individual
defendants improperly sold holdings.  

The complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages
sustained as a result of the defendants' actions, including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the
court may deem just and proper.

On May 1, 2006, the court approved the consolidation of the
federal securities class actions and appointed lead plaintiff
and lead counsel.

A consolidated complaint captioned, "In re Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV-06-00031-
CJC.," was filed.  

A motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Complaint was
filed on Dec. 21, 2007, and the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice on May 19, 2008, according to
company's May 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case no. 8:06-cv-00031-CJC-RNB," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge Cormac J. Carney, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
  
         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         David Goldberger, Esq.
         Scott and Scott
         600 B. Street, Suite 1500
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-233-4565
         
              - and -  

         Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharo and Rudoff
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0857

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter W. Devereaux, Esq. (peter.devereaux@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins
         633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
         Phone: 213-485-1234


JEVIC TRANSPORTATION: Laid-Off Workers Sue Over WARN Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jevic Transportation, Inc., allegedly violated federal labor law
this week when the trucking company abruptly terminated
approximately 1,200 employees shortly before it sought
bankruptcy protection, according to lawyers for workers who sued
the company in Delaware federal court.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of former Jevic employees
Casimir Czyzewski and Jeffrey Oehlers, who worked at the
company's Delanco, N.J., facility.  According to the Complaint,
the company was required by the federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act to give at least 60 days advance
written notice of the employee terminations and continue paying
certain wages, salary, and benefits during the notice period in
accordance with federal law.

The former employees are represented by Adam T. Klein, Esq.,
Jack A. Raisner, Esq., and Rene S. Roupinian, Esq., of Outten &
Golden LLP, in New York.

The workers' lawyers will seek to have the lawsuit certified as
a class action that includes all persons who were terminated
without cause at Jevic Transportation facilities on or about
May 19, 2008.  The suit seeks WARN Act-required wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay,
pension and 401(k) contributions, and other benefits that would
have been paid or covered during the notice period, and
attorneys' fees and litigation-related costs.

The defendants are:

     -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.,
     -- Jevic Holding Corp.,
     -- Creek Road Properties, LLC, and
     -- Sun Capital Partners, Inc.

Mr. Raisner said, "We allege that the Jevic Transportation
employees are entitled to the protections of the WARN Act.
Employers bound by the WARN Act and other labor laws cannot be
allowed to compound the difficulties of abruptly laid-off
employees."

The case is "Casimir Czyzewski, Jeffrey Oehlers, et al., v.
Jevic Transportations, Inc., Jevic Holding Corp., Creek Road
Properties, LLC and Sun Capital Partners, Inc., Case No. 08-
11006-BLS; Adversary Proceeding No. 08-50662-BLS," filed before
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-245-1000
          Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com/


MERCK & CO: Settles Vioxx Deceptive Advertising Suit for $58Mln.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania, along with 28 other states and the District of
Columbia, reached a $58-million settlement with Merck over
allegations of deceptive advertising related to the drug, Vioxx.  
Pennsylvania will receive more than $2.9 million.

The settlement is the largest ever for a multi-state consumer
protection drug case.

Attorney General Tom Corbett said that in 1999, Merck allegedly
launched an aggressive and deceptive advertising campaign which
misrepresented the safety and improperly concealed the increased
risks associated with Vioxx.

"Using Merck's Vioxx, which was a prescription pain relieving
drug, carried an increased risk of having a heart attack or
another serious cardiovascular side effect," Mr. Corbett said.  
"Merck allegedly knew about this, but continued to misrepresent
the safety of their product in their advertisements until they
finally admitted that Vioxx caused serious side effects and
pulled the product from the market in 2004."

Mr. Corbett said that early on, Merck aggressively marketed
Vioxx directly to consumers.  This practice drove hundreds of
thousands of consumers to seek prescriptions for the drug before
doctors had a chance to gain experience with it and understand
the side effects.

"Consumers need clear information about the risks associated
with prescription drugs so that they can make well-informed
decisions about their health care," Mr. Corbett said.  "This
settlement addresses all of our concerns and will restrict
Merck's ability to deceptively promote any of their products."

Mr. Corbett also said that Merck allegedly engaged in
"ghostwriting" positive articles and studies relating to Vioxx.

"Ghostwriting can be a particularly deceptive practice," Mr.
Corbett said.  "Some of these articles looked as though they
were being published by an independent doctor or organization,
but they were allegedly written by people who worked for, or had
some sort of interest, in Merck."

Mr. Corbett said that after Vioxx was removed from the market in
2004, more than 25,000 private lawsuits were filed by consumers
who were affected by the product.  But, unlike those suits, this
agreement will force Merck to change their practices.

As part of the settlement, Merck has agreed to:  

     -- Pay $58 million to the states involved.

     -- No longer engage in "ghostwriting."

     -- Refrain from using scientific data deceptively when
        marketing to doctors.

     -- Delay any direct-to-consumer television advertising for
        a pain medication if recommended by the FDA.

     -- Submit all television advertising campaigns to the FDA
        before release for review and to adhere to any
        recommendations by the FDA.

In addition to Pennsylvania, this settlement includes Arkansas,
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of
Columbia.

The agreement was filed in Commonwealth Court by Chief Deputy
Attorney General Thomas M. Devlin and Deputy Attorney General
Nicole L. VanOrder of the Attorney General's Health Care
Section.

           General Information on VIOXX Class Action

Since December 2005, Slater & Gordon has been running the
Peterson class action for VIOXX victims. The lead applicant in
the case is Graeme Peterson, a Melbourne man who suffered a
heart attack after several years' use of VIOXX.

In early 2006, the case was moved to the Federal Court of
Australia, and Slater & Gordon reached agreements with a number
of other Australian law firms to take over the conduct of their
claims.  This means that all of these VIOXX claims can be dealt
with by the courts together, through the Peterson class action,
and that the claims can be resolved faster than individual VIOXX
proceedings could.

Throughout 2007, the parties to the case have been exchanging
evidence and preparing their cases for the first trial in the
class action, which will likely occur in 2008.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Wis. Securities Lawsuit for $16 Mln.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Healthcare (f/k/a Merge Technologies) has entered into an
agreement in principle to settle consolidated securities class-
action suits filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin for $16 million, WTN News reports.

Between March 22, 2006, and April 26, 2006, seven putative
securities class action suits were filed on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired shares of the company's common stock
between Aug. 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006.

The defendants in the suit include the company; Richard A.
Linden, its former president and chief executive officer; and
Scott T. Veech, its former chief financial officer.  One of the
suits also names Brian E. Pedlar, former president of Cedara
Software Corp. and former senior vice president, who served as
interim co-president and co-chief executive officer from July 2,
2006 to Aug. 18, 2006.  One case has been voluntarily dismissed.

The cases arise out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement
that the company would revise its results of operations for the
fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, as well
as its investigation of allegations made in anonymous letters
received by the company.  

The lawsuits allege that the company and individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  It seeks damages in
unspecified amounts.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the suits on July 16,
2007.  The plaintiff filed its response brief afterward (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 21, 2008).

The agreement in principle provides for the settlement, release
and dismissal of all claims asserted against Merge and the
individual defendants in the litigation.  In exchange, Merge
Healthcare has agreed to a one time cash payment of $3,025,000
to the plaintiff and Merge's primary and one of its excess D&O
insurance carriers have agreed to a one time cash payment of
$12,975,000 to the plaintiff, for a total of $16 million.

The settlement is subject to, among other things, the closing of
the financing described above, the drafting and execution of the
final settlement documents, and the approval of the settlement
by the court.

The suit is "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00349-RTR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Judge Rudolph T. Randam presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel M. Shanley, Esq.
         DeCarlo & Connor
         533 S. Fremont Ave., 9th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706
         Phone: 213-488-4100
         Fax: 213-488-4180

              - and -

         Paul J. Geller, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

         David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
         (david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com)
         Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
         525 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1900
         Chicago, IL 60661-3693
         Phone: 312-902-5200
         Fax: 312-577-4481


NCAA: Accused of Fleecing Fans Thru Illegal Lottery
---------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster (Nasdaq: IACI) and the National Collegiate Athletic
Association were hit with a class-action lawsuit claiming the
two organizations violated racketeering laws by forcing ticket
purchasers to pay a non-refundable fee to enter what the lawsuit
claims is an illegal lottery for the right to purchase tickets
to high-profile sporting events including college basketball
tournament games.

"The NCAA and Ticketmaster have come up with a scheme that would
make a Vegas bookie blush," said Rob Carey, Esq., partner at
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, and the attorney representing the
named plaintiff.  "We will show that this NCAA practice has
illegally taken millions of dollars out of consumers' pockets."

Ticketmaster, a subsidiary of InterActiveCorp, was named in the
lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, along with defendant NCAA.  The defendants are
located in California and Indiana, two states in which lotteries
are illegal unless run by the state or licensed charities.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants have created two types
of lotteries, one for the preliminary rounds and one for the
"Final Four," the final three games of the extraordinarily
popular college basketball playoff held each spring.

People who want to purchase face-value tickets to preliminary-
round NCAA basketball games must participate in a lottery by
sending in an application requesting up to eight tickets, the
suit says.  Applicants must pre-pay the full ticket price for
all the games in that round, along with a $10 "service fee" to
take part in the lottery.

According to the suit, if the applicant wins the lottery, the
NCAA releases the tickets, but if the applicant is not selected,
the NCAA refunds only the ticket price while pocketing the fee.

The scheme is even more brazen for Final Four games and is a
practice the NCAA has engaged in for years, the complaint
states.

According to Carey, Final Four fans are required to submit an
application to purchase tickets, but each application can
include up to 10 entries, each requiring a separate $6 entry fee
-- dubbed a "handling fee" by the NCAA -- along with full
payment for all 20 tickets.

"The rub is that you are limited to winning once, so if one of
your entries is selected, your other nine are null and void, but
the other nine entry fees go right into the pockets of the NCAA
and Ticketmaster."

Mr. Carey also noted that the NCAA and Ticketmaster require
applicants to make what is in effect an interest-free loan to
the NCAA for the entire amount the tickets would cost.  The
defendants profit from the interest earned by depositing the
full ticket prices sent in by lottery participants and holding
the losers' money for months, well beyond the date of the
alleged lottery.

The complaint cites cases in which the NCAA and Ticketmaster
held fans' funds from losing lottery bids for about five months
before refunding the money.  In one example, the NCAA stopped
accepting applications to an event on May 31, 2006, but
reimbursements weren't issued until October of 2006, according
to the complaint.

"We plan to show that the defendants created a scheme that lines
their own pockets by forcing fans to engage in illegal gambling
to try to get game tickets," Mr. Carey added.  "Gambling can be
extremely lucrative for the defendants when you have hundreds of
thousands of fans willing to give away $100 or more to win a
chance to buy at most two of only 5,000 tickets."

Mr. Carey added that it appears the NCAA and Ticketmaster have
been intentionally vague in disclosing how many tickets are
available through the lottery.

"We know that the number of tickets made available in past
lotteries has been a small fraction of the total number of
seats," Mr. Carey said.  "We intend to show that the NCAA and
Ticketmaster have created a gambling venture with terrible
chances of winning -- a scheme perfect for generating millions
in excess profits at the expense of the fans."

According to the lawsuit, only 4,600 tickets were distributed
through the lottery system for the 2008 Final Four in San
Antonio, while the NCAA and Ticketmaster received an estimated
100,000 entries.

"The lottery creates virtually no downside to the NCAA or
Ticketmaster because they aren't losing anything, they can only
sell the tickets at face value," Carey added.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all fans that submitted an
application for tickets to an NCAA championship tournament --
including women's basketball and men's hockey -- and paid a fee
to enter a drawing for the right to purchase one or more tickets
from 1998 until the present.

The lawsuit lists several charges against the NCAA and
Ticketmaster including violations under the state and federal
RICO Acts based on gambling violations, unjust enrichment, and
civil conspiracy.  Additional counts against the NCAA include
violations of the Indiana Consumer Protection Act and monies had
and received.

Tempe, Arizona resident Tom George is the named plaintiff in the
case. George is an avid college basketball fan, and has
participated in the NCAA lottery for a number of years.

For more information, contact:

          Rob Carey, Esq., (Rob@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: +1-602-224-2626

               - or -

          Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com)
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: +1-206-443-9357


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. Mortgage Servicing MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corp. and Ocwen Federal Bank FSB,0 along with
several other defendants, are seeking the dismissal of the
second amended consolidated class action complaint captioned "In
re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL-
1604, Master Docket No. 04cv2714."

On April 13, 2004, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation granted Ocwen Financial's petition to transfer and
consolidate a number of lawsuits against itself, Ocwen Federal
Bank FSB, and various third parties arising out of the servicing
of the plaintiffs' mortgage loans into a single case to proceed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under caption styled, "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB
Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1604."

Currently, there are approximately 63 lawsuits against the Bank
and OCN consolidated in the MDL Proceeding involving 91 mortgage
loans that the company currently services or previously
serviced.  Additional similar lawsuits have been brought in
other courts, some of which may be transferred to and
consolidated in the MDL Proceeding.  

The borrowers in many of these lawsuits seek class action
certification.  Others have brought individual actions.

No class has been certified in the MDL Proceeding or any related
lawsuits.

On May 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint containing various claims under federal
statutes, including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and bankruptcy laws, state
deceptive trade practices statutes and common law.

The claims are generally based on allegations of improper loan
servicing practices, including:

       -- charging borrowers allegedly improper or unnecessary
          fees such as breach letter fees, hazard insurance
          premiums, foreclosure-related fees, late fees,
          property inspection fees and bankruptcy-related fees;

       -- untimely posting and misapplication of borrower
          payments; and

       -- improperly treating borrowers as in default on their
          loans.

While the Amended Complaint does not set forth any specific
amounts of claimed damages, the plaintiffs are not precluded
from requesting leave to amend further their pleadings or
otherwise seek damages should the matter proceed to trial.

On April 25, 2005, the trial court entered an Opinion and Order
granting the Bank partial summary judgment finding that, as a
matter of law, the mortgage loan contracts signed by plaintiffs
authorize the imposition of breach letter fees, foreclosure-
related fees and other legitimate default-related fees.  

The trial court explained that its ruling was in favor of
defendants to the specific and limited extent that plaintiffs'
claims challenge the propriety of the above-mentioned fees.

On May 16, 2006, after having denied a motion to dismiss based
on federal preemption, the trial court granted the company's
motion to take an interlocutory appeal on the issue.

On July 29, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit granted the company's request to hear the appeal.  On
June 22, 2007, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion holding
that many of the claims were preempted or failed to satisfy the
pleading requirements of the applicable rules of procedure and
directing the trial judge to seek clarification from the
plaintiffs regarding various aspects of the Amended Complaint so
as to properly determine which particular claims are to be
dismissed.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which contains servicing practices allegations
similar to those set forth in the first amended complaint.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on the
grounds that the claims are preempted and are deficient as a
matter of law, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
regulatory SEC disclosure.

The suit is "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing
Litigation, MDL-1604, Master Docket No. 04cv2714," filed before
the the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr., presiding.


OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: May 2008 Hearing Set for Approving $9M Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York set
a hearing this month in connection with the approving of a
proposed $9,000,000 settlement in the class action, "In re OSI
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-
05505-JS-WDW."

                        Case Background

On or about Dec. 16, 2004, several purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York against the company, certain of
its current and former executive officers, and the members of
its board of directors.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's common stock during certain
periods in 2004, which periods differed in the various
complaints.  

The court appointed a lead plaintiff who, on Feb. 17, 2006,
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint seeking to
represent a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock during the period from
April 26, 2004, through Nov. 22, 2004.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
material misstatements and omissions concerning the survival
benefit associated with company's product, Tarceva and the size
of the potential market of Tarceva upon FDA approval of the
drug.  It alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

On April 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Briefing on this motion was
completed on June 21, 2006.

In an opinion dated March 31, 2007, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the dismissal motion.  Specifically, the
Court dismissed claims against some of the individual defendants
and dismissed the Section 11 and 15 claims, but granted the
plaintiff 30 days leave to replead the Section 11 claim in
accordance with the Court's order and to renew the Section 15
claim.

The plaintiff did not amend, and thus those claims were
dismissed with prejudice.

The parties have reached an agreement to settle the action for
$9.0 million.  Approximately $500,000 will be paid by the
company, and the balance of the settlement will be paid by its
insurer.  

The parties have submitted the agreement to the Court for
approval and a hearing on the matter was scheduled for this
month, 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 "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
Joanna Seybert, with referral to Judge William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

              - and -

         Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. (frank@spornlaw.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, PC.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046
         Fax: 212-267-8137

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         Dechert LLP
         Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19104
         Phone: 215-994-4000


PLEXUS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plexus Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action suit that remains pending with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Initially, two securities class action complaints were filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin in June 2007 against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.

On Nov. 7, 2007, the two actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated class-action complaint was filed in February 2008.

Aside from the company, the consolidated complaint names these
individual-defendants:

     1. Dean A. Foate, president, chief executive officer and    
        a director of the company;

     2. F. Gordon Bitter, the company's former senior vice
        president and chief financial officer; and

     3. Paul Ehlers, the company's former executive vice
        president and chief operating officer.

The consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and
seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the company's
statements regarding its defense sector business in early
calendar 2006.

In April 2008, Plexus filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action 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 29, 2008.

The company reporter no further development in the matter.

The suit is "Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension
Trust, et al. v. Plexus Corp., et al.," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 866-264-3995
          Fax: 414-482-8001
          e-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com

               - and -

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/


REWARDS NETWORK: "Bistro Executive" Suit Settlement Finalized
-------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement in a purported class action suit filed
against Rewards Network, Inc., became final on Sept. 24, 2007,
after no appeal was taken against it and after court approval,
according to Rewards Network's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

                       Case Background

On May 25, 2004, Bistro Executive, Inc.; Westward Beach
Restaurant Holdings, LLC; and MiniBar Lounge filed a complaint
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the company and
its subsidiaries (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2007).  

The plaintiffs were all participants in the company's dining
credits Purchase Plan and their respective owners.

The complaint was brought as a putative class action and alleges
that amounts paid by the company under the Dining Plan
constituted loans in violation of California usury laws and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

The suit seeks, among other relief, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief, including disgorgement of all purported
"interest" and profits earned by the company from the Dining
Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege to be a significant
portion of an amount in excess of $300 million, and treble
damages for all purported "interest" paid within one year prior
to the filing of the complaint.   

On June 25, 2004, the action was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was granted, certifying two classes as:

      i. all California restaurants which, from May 25, 2000 to   
         May 25, 2004, participated in the Dining Plan and which   
         took a cash advance from the company pursuant to its      
         California Dining Plan agreements;: and   

     ii. all persons who, from May 25, 2000 to May 25, 2004,   
         guaranteed payment of cash advances underlying the   
         company's California Dining Plan agreements.  
  
On July 20, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California issued a decision denying the company's
motion for summary judgment and granting the plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' usury and usury-based
claims.  The district court did not reach any determination
regarding monetary relief.

On Aug. 23, 2006, the district court issued an order granting
the company's motion to certify an issue for interlocutory
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the 9th Circuit granted the company's petition
for an interlocutory appeal of the district court's summary
judgment ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and setting a
briefing schedule for the appeal that contemplates that briefing
will be completed in March 2007.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the company entered into an initial agreement
with the representative plaintiffs to settle the litigation on
behalf of a settlement class.  The settlement agreement became
formal in March 2007.

On Aug. 23, 2007, the District Court issued an order granting
formal approval of the settlement.  The deal became final on
Sept. 24, 2007, after no appeal was taken.

Under the settlement, the "Settlement Class" is defined to
include:

       -- all California merchants that, during the period of
          May 25, 2000 through Dec. 31, 2004 participated in the
          Company's dining credits program and received a cash
          advance during that period from the Company pursuant
          to the pre-October 2004 versions of the Company's same
          contracts, and

       -- any person who from May 25, 2000 to Dec. 31, 2004,
          guaranteed the merchant's obligations under the
          relevant contracts.

The suit is "Bistro Executive Inc., et al. v. Rewards Network
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

         John S. Purcell, Esq. (johnpurcell@quinnemanuel.com)
         Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. (danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com)
         James E. Doroshow, Esq.
         (jamesdoroshow@quinnemanuel.com)
         Chandra L. Gooding, Esq.                 
         (chandragooding@quinnemanuel.com)
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges
         865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
         Phone: 213-624-7707
                213-443-3000
         Fax: 213-624-0643
              213-443-3100

              - and -   

         Anat Levy, Esq. (alevy96@aol.com)
         Anat Levy and Associates
         8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Phone: 310-358-3138

Representing the defendants are:

         Scott M. Pearson, Esq.
         Daniel A. Rozansky, Esq.
         Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
         Stroock Stroock & Lavan
         2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
         Phone: 310-556-5800
         Fax: 310-556-5959
         e-mail: lacalendar@stroock.com


TEPPCO PARTNERS: Continues to Face Unitholder's Lawsuit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (Parent Partnership), continues to face a
lawsuit filed by a TEPPCO unitholder in the Court of Chancery of
New Castle County in the State of Delaware.   
  
On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of
TEPPCO Partners, filed the complaint, in his individual  
capacity, as a putative class action on behalf of:

     -- Parent Partnership's other unitholders, and  
     -- derivatively on its behalf.  

The suit concerns proposals made to TEPPCO's unit holders in its
definitive proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Sept. 11, 2006, and other transactions
involving the Parent Partnership and Enterprise or its
affiliates (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007).   

The complaint named the company as a nominal defendant.  It also
named as defendants:  
      
      -- Texas Eastern Products Pipeline;  

      -- the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products;  

      -- the parent companies of Texas Eastern Products,
         including EPCO Inc., a privately held company  
         controlled by Dan L. Duncan;  

      -- Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and certain of its  
         affiliates; and

      -- Dan L. Duncan.   

The complaint alleges that certain of the transactions proposed
in the proxy statement, including a proposal to reduce the Texas
Eastern Products' maximum percentage interest in the company's
distributions in exchange for limited partner units, are unfair
to its unit holders and constitute a breach by the defendants of
fiduciary duties owed to its unit holders and that the Proxy
Statement fails to provide its unit holders with all material
facts necessary for them to make an informed decision whether to
vote in favor of or against the proposals.   

The complaint further alleges that, since Mr. Duncan acquired
control of Texas Eastern Products in 2005, the defendants, in
breach of their fiduciary duties to the company and its unit
holders, have caused the company to enter into certain
transactions with Enterprise or its affiliates that are unfair
to it or otherwise unfairly favored Enterprise or its affiliates
over the company.

These transactions are alleged to include the Jonah Gas
Gathering Company joint venture entered into by the company and
an Enterprise affiliate in August 2006, the sale by the company
to an Enterprise affiliate of the Pioneer plant in March 2006
and the impending divestiture of company's interest in MB
Storage in connection with an investigation by the Federal Trade
Commission.  

As more fully described in the Proxy Statement, the Audit and
Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern
Products recommended the Issuance Proposal for approval by the
Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products.   

The complaint also alleges that Richard S. Snell, Michael B.
Bracy and Murray H. Hutchison, constituting the three members of
the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of
Texas Eastern Products, cannot be considered independent because
of their alleged ownership of securities in Enterprise and its
affiliates and their relationships with Mr. Duncan.

The complaint seeks an order:

     -- requiring the Parent Partnership to issue a proxy  
        statement that corrects the alleged misstatements and  
        omissions in the Proxy Statement;  

     -- enjoining the Oct. 26, 2006 meeting of unitholders  
        provided for in the Proxy Statement;  

     -- rescinding transactions in the complaint that have been  
        consummated, or awarding rescissory damages in respect  
        thereof, including the impending divestiture of our  
        interest in MB Storage;  

     -- awarding damages for profits and special benefits  
        allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the  
        alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and  

     -- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees  
        and expenses of his attorneys and experts.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

TEPPCO Partners, L.P. -- http://www.teppco.com/-- is a common   
carrier pipeline of refined products and liquefied petroleum
gases in the U.S.


TEXAS INSTRUMENTS: To Pay $355,000 to Resolve Overtime Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was brought against Texas Instruments
Inc., alleging that the chip maker withheld overtime pay from
certain employees of its manufacturing plants.

In a recent development in the suit, BizJournals relates that
both parties reached a settlement wherein Texas Instrument
agreed to pay more than $355,000 to resolve allegations against
it.

BizJournals notes that pursuant to the settlement agreement, as
stated in a filing with the federal district court in Dallas
earlier this month, $65,000 of the settlement payout will be
divided up among an unknown number of affected Texas Instruments
employees.  In addition, Texas Instruments also agreed to pay
each plaintiff $1,100, and legal fees equal to $250,000 will be
paid by the company, along with $40,000 in court costs.

Sources told BizJournals that it is still unclear from the court
filings how many plaintiffs will participate in the settlement.


VATICAN: Attorney Wants to Question Pope About Sex Abuse Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisville attorney William McMurry, Esq., is seeking a court
order to question Pope Benedict XVI in an ongoing church sex
abuse case, saying the holy father is the most knowledgeable
person alive about what the Catholic Church knew about sex abuse
allegations, the Associated Press reports.

According to the AP, Mr. McMurry said that because the pope is
81 years old, he may not be available to give testimony later in
the case.  "The passage of time not only raises questions of
Pope Benedict XVI's continued availability but also increases
the likelihood that his memory of events dating back many years
will grow less reliable," Mr. McMurry said.

The report says that Mr. McMurry's request comes in a suit
brought by three men alleging that the Vatican orchestrated a
cover-up of priests sexually abusing children in the United
States since 1962.  Mr. McMurry is seeking class-action status,
saying there are thousands of victims nationally.

U.S. District Judge John Heyburn II ruled in January 2007 that
the men may pursue their claim that top church officials should
have warned the public or local authorities of known or
suspected sexual abuse of children by priests in the Archdiocese
of Louisville.  Judge Heyburn dismissed a large chunk of the
lawsuit.

The report points out that along with the accusations against
the Vatican, the suit challenges the constitutionality of the
U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, which generally gives
immunity to foreign countries from most lawsuits.

Mr. McMurry said that this law violates the plaintiffs' rights
to a trial on the merits of the case. Mr. McMurry also claims
that the law does not apply to the Holy See because of its dual
role as a religious institution and country.

The Bush administration defended the law, saying that the U.S.
government has recognized the Vatican as a country since 1984
and that the president alone, not the court system, may
recognize a country, the AP recalls.

The case is currently being considered by the U.S. 6th Circuit
Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

The AP notes that before becoming pope, Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger was the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of
Faith and oversaw reports of sexual abuse by priests.  That
office, along with its predecessor, the Congregation of the Holy
Office, were directly involved with the investigation of sexual
abuse by clerics.  Mr. McMurry said that would give Pope
Benedict XVI an unparalleled knowledge of the scope of sex abuse
complaints.

"A witness is either important and crucial to this case or not,"
Mr. McMurry said.  "The pope has certain knowledge relevant to
this case."

Jeffrey Lena, Esq., the Berkeley, Calif.-based attorney for the
Vatican, had little to say about the motion, the AP says.  "It's
novel . . . It's not appropriate,"  Mr. Lena said.

The case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Pope
Benedict XVI may not live long enough to testify if the case is
returned for trial, the AP notes Mr. McMurry as saying.

The AP report says that many lawsuits stemming from the U.S.
clergy sex abuse crisis have named the pope, the Vatican and
other high-ranking church officials but have failed.  
Plaintiffs' lawyers who have sought to challenge that protection
often could not serve Vatican officials with the papers, among
other logistical problems.


WASHINGTON: Suit Alleging Bias in Work Release Program Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
The state Corrections Department reached a preliminary
settlement in a class action that claims the state prison
system's work release program discriminates against disabled
inmates, the Associated Press reports.

Inmate Rickey Peralez filed the suit in October 2006 against the
state Corrections Department.  Mr. Peralez, who suffers from
arthritis, claims the department would not let him participate
in work release despite being qualified because he used a
wheelchair and could not climb stairs.  

Work release allows certain minimum-security inmates who are in
the last six months of their prison sentences to live supervised
in a halfway house, and get jobs, go to school or seek
treatment.

In Aug. 2007, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kelly Arnold of Tacoma
certified a class in the action (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,
2007).  The class certified consists of all Corrections
Department inmates who have been denied some participation in
work release because of their disability since Oct. 30, 2003.

The lawsuit seeks lost wages for all inmates in the class, along
with unspecified punitive and emotional distress damages for
Mr. Peralez.

The prisons agency says it will pay about $300,000 under the
recent settlement.  It would include $30,000 for the main
plaintiff and $1,800 each to 166 offenders who were part of the
class-action lawsuit.

The DOC also plans to change the way it assigns inmates to work-
release facilities, and will pay lawyer's fees as determined by
U.S. District Court.


WESLEY A. SNYDER: Dismissal of Lawsuit v. Banks Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------
A Fleetwood couple who claim to be victims of failed mortgage
broker Wesley A. Snyder ask a federal court to overturn its  
dismissal of their class action lawsuit against the banks that
served Snyder, Reading Eagle reports.

Reading Eagle recounts that Douglas and Andrea Jones had sued
ABN Amro Mortgage Group and about two dozen other banks in Berks
County Court, claiming that the banks should have monitored
Snyder's activities.

The banks had the case transferred to federal court in
Philadelphia, where Judge James T. Giles dismissed it on
April 11, 2008.  Judge Giles ruled that Snyder had not been
acting as the banks' agent, so they had no obligation to monitor
the mortgage broker.

According to Reading Eagle, Snyder's Personal Financial
Management Inc. in Exeter Township collapsed in September 2007.
When it did, more than 800 mortgagors allegedly discovered that,
collectively, they owed $25 million more than they believed and
were paying higher interest rates than Snyder had promised them.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Bernstein Litowitz Files N.Y. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of its client
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund and purchasers of the
securities of American International Group, Inc., during the
period from May 11, 2007, through May 9, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, AIG and the
individual defendants, Chief Executive Officer Martin J.
Sullivan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Steven J. Bensinger, Senior Vice President and Chief Risk
Officer Robert Lewis and Joseph Cassano, the former head of AIG
subsidiary American International Group Financial Products,
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading press releases, financial statements, filings with
the SEC and statements during investor conference calls.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants repeatedly reassured investors that AIG had
successfully insulated itself from the recent turmoil in the
housing and credit markets due to its superior risk management.
In particular, defendants touted the security of AIGFP's "super
senior" credit default swap portfolio, making numerous
statements that this portfolio was secure and that AIG's method
for accounting for the valuations of this portfolio accurately
reflected its value.

Investors began to learn the truth regarding AIG's financial
condition and the Company's exposure to the mortgage market
when, on February 11, 2008, the Company disclosed that its
outside auditor had determined that there was "material weakness
in its internal control" over the financial reporting and
oversight relating specifically to its accounting for the CDS
portfolio, and that the Company was revising the loss valuations
it previously reported.  Under the new valuations, losses on the
CDS portfolio more than quadrupled -- from the $1.4 billion
reported on the CDS portfolio just weeks before to over
$4.5 billion.

Two weeks later, on February 28, 2008, AIG disclosed that the
market valuations on the CDS portfolio would increase to $11.5
billion and revealed for the first time that the Company had
notional exposure of $6.5 billion in liquidity puts written on
collateralized debt obligations linked to the sub-prime mortgage
market.  Finally, on May 8, 2008, the Company disclosed that
market valuation losses on the CDS portfolio for the quarter
climbed an additional $9.1 billion, for a cumulative loss of
$20.6 billion, and that the Company was expecting actual losses
on the portfolio to be about $2.4 billion.  As a result of these
disclosures, the price of AIG stock plunged from a Class Period
high of $75.24 per share on June 5, 2008, to $38.37 per share on
May 12, 2008, wiping out tens of billions of dollars in
shareholder value and causing damage to the class.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and that Defendants Sullivan and
Bensinger violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

For more information, contact:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400


BANK OF AMERICA: Girard Gibbs Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate
Securities from Bank of America Corp., Banc of America
Investment Services, Inc., and Banc of America Securities, LLC
between May 22, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, and who
continued to hold such securities as of February 13, 2008.

The class action is brought against Bank of America, Banc of
America Investment Services, and Banc of America Securities.

The Complaint alleges that Bank of America violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of
auction rate securities and the auction market in which these
securities traded.

Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt
securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set
at periodic "auctions."  Auction rate securities generally have
long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials
and top-down management directives, Bank of America offered and
sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid
cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money
market mutual funds.  According to the Complaint, holders of
auction rate securities sold by Bank of America and other
broker-dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in
these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008, of
all major broker-dealers including Bank of America to "withdraw
their support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest
rates paid on auction rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Bank of America failed to disclose
the following material facts about the auction rate securities
it sold to the class:

     (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives,
         like money market funds, but were instead, complex,
         long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity
         dates, or longer;

     (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the
         time of sale because Bank of America and other broker-
         dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating
         the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of
         liquidity and stability;

     (3) Bank of America and other broker-dealers routinely
         intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set
         rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed
         auctions; and

     (4) Bank of America continued to market auction rate
         securities as liquid investments after it had
         determined that it and other broker dealers were likely
         to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and
         that a "freeze" of the market for auction rate
         securities would result.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 21,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 866-981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Susman Godfrey Files Ohio Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Murphy Murphy Moul + Basil L.L.P. have
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of certain
current and former shareholders of Huntington Bancshares
Incorporated whose shares of stock in Waterfield Mortgage
Company, Incorporated, were converted into shares of stock in
Sky Financial Group, Inc., in connection with Sky Financial's
October 2006 acquisition of Waterfield, and then converted into
shares of stock in Huntington in connection with Huntington's
July 2007 merger with Sky Financial.

The complaint names Huntington, Marty E. Adams, and Kevin T.
Thompson as defendants.  The complaint alleges that Huntington,
as successor in interest to Sky Financial, violated sections 11
and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and that Adams and
Thompson are liable because, under section 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, they were Control Persons of Sky Financial.

The complaint seeks damages for members of alleged class who
sold shares of stock in Huntington during the class period from
November 16, 2007 to the present, or who continue to hold shares
of stock in Huntington.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 21,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Geoffrey L. Harrison, Esq.
          (gharrison@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
          Phone: 713-653-7807
          Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com/

               - and -

          Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq. (moul@mmmb.com)
          Murphy Murphy Moul + Basil L.L.P.
          Phone: 614-488-0400
          Web site: http://www.mmmb.com/


MGIC INVESTMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Wis. 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 Eastern
District of Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of MGIC Investment
Corporation common stock during the period between October 12,
2006, and February 12, 2008.

The complaint charges MGIC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  MGIC, through its subsidiary, provides private mortgage
insurance to the home mortgage lending industry in the United
States.

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, MGIC stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching its Class
Period high of $70.09 per share in February 2007.

On February 13, 2008, MGIC issued a press release announcing its
fourth quarter 2007 results and reporting a net loss for the
quarter of $1.47 billion, including an after-tax charge of
$33 million related to equity losses incurred by Credit-Based
Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC, a joint venture between
MGIC and Radian Group Inc.  As a result of this news, MGIC's
stock fell $1.57 per share to close at $12.61 per share on
February 13, 2008, a one-day decline of 11%.  This was the
lowest price at which MGIC's stock had traded in over thirteen
years.

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) the Company's investment in C-BASS was materially
         impaired as C-BASS was experiencing increasing margin
         calls and C-BASS investments were declining in value at
         a significant rate;

     (b) the Company was materially overstating its financial
         results by failing to properly value its investment in
         C-BASS and by failing to write down that investment in
         a timely fashion in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles; and

     (c) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
         losses and defaults related to its book of business
         related to insurance written in 2005 through most of
         2007 than it had previously disclosed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of MGIC common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


MGIC INVESTMENT: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., commenced a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of MGIC Investment Corporation during the period from
February 6, 2007, through February 12, 2008.

MGIC operates, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, as a
credit enhancement company that provides credit protection
products and financial services to mortgage lenders and other
financial institutions.  One of MGIC's affiliates is Credit-
Based Asset Serving and Securitization, which is engaged in the
business of investing in credit-sensitive residential mortgage
assets.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendant issued materially false and materially misleading
statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose that:

     (a) the C-BASS acquisition of Fieldstone adversely affected
         C-BASS liquidity;

     (b) the Company's $516 million investment in C-BASS was
         materially impaired;

     (c) the Company's loss reserves were inadequate in light of
         the worsening housing market and increases in defaults
         and foreclosures;

     (d) the Company's Wall Street bulk transaction business was
         experiencing substantial losses and no reserves were
         established to absorb the losses; and

     (e) because of the increases in losses and drain on
         liquidity, MGIC was not adequately capitalized.

On July 30, 2007, after the market closed, MGIC issued a press
release announcing that the value of its investment in C-BASS
was "materially impaired."  In response to this announcement, on
July 31, 2007 the price of MGIC's common stock declined from
$45.44 per share to $38.66, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Then, on February 13, 2008, MGIC disclosed that it lost
$1.47 billion, or $18.17 a share, in the fourth quarter of 2007.  
The Company blamed the loss, in part, on a $1.2 billion "premium
deficiency reserve" relating to Wall Street bulk transactions.
On February 13, 2008, MGIC's stock price closed at $12.61 a
share, which represented a nearly $60 a share decline from the
Class Period high.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 15,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862





                            *********

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  * * *