---

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

           Wednesday, February 6, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 26

                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wants Case Transferred to Federal Court
APPLE CANADA: Court Favors Plaintiffs in iPod Levy Litigation
APPLE COMPUTER: iTunes-iPod Tie-Up Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
APPLE COMPUTER: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion in "Vogel" Litigation
APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Bader" Litigation

APPLE INC: Plaintiff Files Third Amended Complaint in iPod Suit
APPLE INC: Calif. Court Denies Judgment Bid in "Branning" Case
CIBO NATURALS: Undeclared Nuts in Basil Pesto Prompts Recall
DRUG COS: Suit Filed in Nevada Court vs. Vytorin, Zetia Makers
ENBRIDGE GAS: Ontario Energy Board OKs Deferral Account Balance

ENERGY CONVERSION: HR Vice Pres. Defends Firm in Allegations
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court Upholds Securities Suit in Calif.
LIBERTY NATIONAL: Sued by Haitians for Discriminatory Policies
MINNEAPOLIS: Judge Denies Motion to Strike Allegations in Suit
NATIONWIDE PAYDAY: S.C. Judge Certifies Payday Loan Lawsuits

OHIO: Supreme Court Says Traffic Cameras are Legal
OPTION ONE: Faces IL Suit Over "1-4 Family Rider" on Home Loans
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Del. Suit Challenges Truck Stop Deals
TYSON FOODS: Sept. 16 Trial Slated for FLSA Litigation in Tenn.
TYSON FOODS: To File Writ of Certiorari in "De Asencio" Lawsuit

TYSON FOODS: Ala. Court Denies Motion in "M.H. Fox" Litigation
TYSON FOODS: Georgia Court Certifies Class in FLSA Litigation
TYSON FRESH: Eight Circuit Reverses Ruling in "Schumacher" Case
TYSON FOODS: April 8 Hearing Set for Del. Shareholder Suit Deal
WSB FINANCIAL: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wash.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN DENTAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
SLM CORP: Alfred Yates Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wants Case Transferred to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Inc., which is being sued by a former
passenger on behalf of several other customers, has filed a
notice to have the case moved to federal court, Northwest
Arkansas Times reports.

According to NA Times, lead plaintiff Catherine Ray, who filed
the suit on Dec. 27, 2007, through the law offices of Paul S.
Hudson and Odom Law Firm, claims that she was confined to an
aircraft against her will for several hours on Dec. 29, 2006,
while on the ground in Austin, Texas.  Ms. Ray states that she
and other passengers were not permitted to leave the aircraft
until more than 13 hours after boarding when the flight was
diverted to Austin from Oakland, California, en route to
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The specific legal claims asserted by the class suit include
negligence, breach of contract, false imprisonment, breach of
contract and deceit/fraud, the report points out.

The notice to move the case to federal court was filed with the
Washington County Circuit Court by the airline's attorneys,
Trish Hollenbeck writes for the NA Times.  The notice states
that American Airlines filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.

With the airline's filing, it has effected the move, and the
circuit court may no longer proceed until the case is remanded,
the report explains.

NA Times says that America Airlines' notice states that grounds
for moving the case to federal court include that claims
asserted in the suit exceed $5 million.  It said that there are
about 12,000 members of the alleged class, and that at least one
member of the class is a citizen of a state different from
American Airlines.  The notice states that American Airlines is
incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its main place
of business in Texas.

Representing the Plaintiff are:

          Odom Law Firm
          No. 1 East Mountain
          P.O. Drawer 1868
          Fayetteville, AR 72702
          Phone: (479) 442-7575
          Web site: http://www.odomfirm.com/

               - and -

          Law Offices of Paul S. Hudson P.C.
          4411 Bee Ridge Road #274
          Sarasota, Florida 34233
          Phone: 410-940-8934
          Fax: 240-391-1923


APPLE CANADA: Court Favors Plaintiffs in iPod Levy Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court sided with the plaintiffs in the purported
class action, "St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc.," which is
seeking for the refund by Apple Canada, Inc. of the Canadian
Private Copying Levy that was applied to the iPod purchase price
in Quebec.

The plaintiffs filed the case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on
Aug. 5, 2005.  The Canadian Private Copying Levy was applied to
the iPod purchase price in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003, and
Dec. 14, 2004, but later declared invalid by the Canadian Court.  

A class certification hearing took place Jan. 13, 2006.  On
Feb. 24, 2006, the court granted class certification and notice
was published during the last week of March 2006.  

The trial was conducted on Oct. 15, and 16, 2007.  On Jan. 11,
2008, the Court issued a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor.  

The Court ruled that despite the Company's good faith efforts
with the levy refund program, the Company must pay the amount
claimed, and that the class is comprised of 20,000 persons who
purchased an iPod in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003, and Dec. 14,
2004.

The Court ordered the Company to submit a statement of account
showing the amount received by the Canadian Private Copying
Collective, and the amount that has already been paid to class
members in Quebec under the Company’s levy refund program.

The Court also ordered the parties to submit further briefing
regarding the collective recovery award by Feb. 23, 2008,
according to Apple Computer's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,   
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE COMPUTER: iTunes-iPod Tie-Up Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the purported class action, "Black v. Apple
Inc.," voluntarily dismissed his case against the Apple
Computer, Inc., which was accused of illegally tying iTunes
music and iPods sales, according to Apple Computer's Feb. 1,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Originally, the suit was filed by Fredrick Black with the
Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida on Aug. 27, 2007.  

The suit alleges that the Company is attempting to maintain a
monopoly by precluding customers from using non-iTunes downloads
on iPods and from using iTunes music on non-iPod MP3 players.

It also alleges that the Company's alleged monopolization
violates the Florida Antitrust Act and the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.  

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Sept. 28, 2007, and filed a
motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Oct. 12, 2007.  The Company's
motion to transfer was granted on Oct. 17, 2007.

The plaintiff and the Company entered into a Stipulation for
Voluntary Dismissal on Nov. 19, 2007, and the Court entered
plaintiff's dismissal of all claims with prejudice on Nov. 20,
2007.  The matter is concluded.

The suit is "Black v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-05402-JCS,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Judge Joseph C. Spero presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          William Thomas Cotterall, Esq.
          Tripp Scott
          110 SE 6th Street, 15th Floor
          P.O. Box 14245
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302-4245
          Phone: (954) 525-7500
          Fax: (954) 761-8475

Representing the defendant are:

         Lara T. Kollios, Esq.
         Jones Day
         555 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-875-5710
         Fax: 415-875-5700
         e-mail: lkollios@jonesday.com

              - and -

         Janet T. Munn, Esq.
         Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C.
         200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2100
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: (305) 375-7592
         Fax: (305) 982-1521

    
APPLE COMPUTER: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion in "Vogel" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc., filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion
for leave to file a first amended consolidated class action
complaint in the matter, "Vogel v. Jobs et al.," which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The plaintiff filed the purported class action on Aug. 24, 2006,
against the company and certain of the company’s current and
former officers and directors, alleging improper backdating of
stock option grants to maximize certain defendants' profits,
failing to properly account for those grants and issuing false
financial statements.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff.  

On March 23, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
several classes of holders of the Company's stock and asserts
claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act as well as state law.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to
various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an
accounting and damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2007, which was
heard on Sept. 7, 2007.  

On Nov. 14, 2007, the Court issued an order dismissing all
securities claims with prejudice, and held that any amended
complaint could only be styled as a derivative case.

On Dec. 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
first amended consolidated class action complaint.  

On Jan. 23, 2008, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff's
motion for leave, according to Apple Computer's Feb. 1, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
05208-JF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310/209-2468
          Fax: 310/209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Mary Sikra Thomas, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000
          e-mail: mthomas@gelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: (650) 473-2600
          Fax: (650) 473-2601
          e-mail: dfurbush@omm.com


APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Bader" Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing a final judgment by the Santa Clara
County Superior Court that completely dismissed a purported
class action titled "Bader v. Anderson, et al.," filed against
Apple, Inc.,according to the Company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.

On May 19, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed the purported
shareholder derivative action with the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, naming as defendants Apple, each of its then
current executive officers, and members of its board of
directors.

The suit is asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
material misstatements and omissions and violations of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition).

The lead plaintiff alleged that the Company's March 14, 2005
proxy statement was false and misleading for failure to disclose
certain information relating to the Apple Computer, Inc.
Performance Bonus Plan, which was approved by shareholders at
the annual meeting held on April 21, 2005.

The lead plaintiff, who brought the suit also on the Company’s
behalf, made no demand on the Board of Directors, stating that
any demand is excused.  The lead plaintiff also sought
injunctive and other relief for purported injury to the Company.  

On July 27, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that, in addition to the purported derivative claims,
adoption of the bonus plan and distribution of the proxy
statement describing that plan also inflicted injury on her
directly as an individual shareholder.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the Court sustained the defendants' demurrer
to the amended complaint, with leave to amend.  The plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on Feb. 7, 2006, and the
Company filed a demurrer.  

After a hearing on June 13, 2006, the Court sustained the
demurrer without leave to amend as to the non-director officers
and with leave to amend as to the directors.

On July 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint,
which purported to bring claims derivatively as well as directly
on behalf of a class of common stockholders who have been or
will be harmed by virtue of the allegedly misleading proxy
statement.

In addition to reasserting prior causes of action, the third
amended complaint included a claim that the Company violated the
terms of the plan, and a claim for waste related to restricted
stock unit grants to certain officers in 2003 and 2004 and an
option grant to the company’s chief executive in January 2000.

The Company filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint.  On
Jan. 30, 2007, the Court sustained the Company’s demurrer with
leave to amend.  

On May 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint.  
The Company filed a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint,
which the court sustained, without leave to amend, on Oct. 12,
2007.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Court entered a final judgment in favor of
defendant and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.

On Nov. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,   
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Plaintiff Files Third Amended Complaint in iPod Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Apple, Inc., filed a third amended complaint in the matter,
which alleges that defects in Apple's iPod causes hearing loss
to users.

The action, titled "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc.,"
specifically alleges that the company's iPod music players, and
the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective
in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the
risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users.  

The Birdsong Action was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006, with
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  
It asserts causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana
class of iPod purchasers.  

A similar action, "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed
on Jan. 31, 2006, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California asserting California causes of action on
behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the
four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006.   

The Birdsong Action was transferred to the U.S. District Court
with the Northern District of California, and the Patterson
Action was dismissed.  

An amended complaint was subsequently filed in "Birdsong,"
dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California
law-based claims equivalent to those in "Patterson."  

After the company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006,
plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second
amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2007.  

That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches
of implied and express warranties, violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent
misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-
class.  

On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
California law-based claims.  The court held a hearing on the
motion to dismiss on June 4, 2007, but has not yet issued a
ruling.

On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007.
On Dec. 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the
Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on Jan. 11, 2008,
according to Apple Computer's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,  
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Calif. Court Denies Judgment Bid in "Branning" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court denied a motion for
judgment on the pleadings made by Apple Computer, Inc. in a
class action, that alleges that the company violated
California's trade laws, according to Apple Computer's Feb. 1,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action, styled,
"Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc." with the San Francisco
County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005.  

The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business
Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly
unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to,
allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor
warranties.  

Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of
trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song
Beverly Act.  Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other
relief.

On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company’s motion to
transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.  On
May 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two
new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a
claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California
Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a claim for
false advertising.  

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the
court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005.  The court
granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended
complaint on Dec. 29, 2005.

The plaintiffs' amended complaint adds three additional
plaintiffs and alleges many of the same factual claims as the
previous complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as
new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts
for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the
opening of the Apple Retail stores.  

Plaintiffs continue to assert causes of action for unfair
competition (17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright
Act and allege new causes of action for fraud, conversion and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on
Jan. 31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006, on 16
of 17 causes of action.  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new
complainant.  The company filed a demurrer, which was granted in
part on Sept. 9, 2006.  The plaintiffs filed a further amended
complaint on Sept. 21, 2006.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  On
Nov. 30, 2007, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, which the Court denied.


Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,    
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


CIBO NATURALS: Undeclared Nuts in Basil Pesto Prompts Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Cibo Naturals of Seattle, Washington, is recalling 20,700
containers of 6oz Classic Basil Pesto, because it may contain
undeclared pine nuts.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pine nuts
(tree nuts) run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

Cibo Naturals 6oz Classic Basil Pesto was distributed throughout
the United States through retail grocery stores.

The product is sold in 6oz clear plastic containers, under the
label Cibo Naturals Classic Basil Pesto. The lot numbers that
may contain undeclared pine nuts are 34007344, 34007345, and
34007346. This lot number information is printed in black ink on
the bottom of the container.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing pine nuts was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of pine nuts. Subsequent investigation
indicated the problem resulted from a process deviation in our
mixing procedures.

Consumers who have purchased Cibo Naturals Classic Basil Pesto
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-800-588-7782.


DRUG COS: Suit Filed in Nevada Court vs. Vytorin, Zetia Makers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The firm of White, Meany and Wetherall, LLP, filed a lawsuit
against Merck & Company Inc. and Schering-Plough Corporation,
both  manufacturers of cholesterol drugs Vytorin and Zetia, for
allegedly misleading thousands of Nevada heart patients into
believing the drugs were more effective than generic ones, The
Forex Market reports.

According to the report, the lawsuit, filed with the U.S.
District Court in Reno, also alleges that Merck and Schering-
Plough deliberately delayed for nearly two years a controversial
internal study that raised questions about whether Vytorin and
Zetia are more effective than similar non-brand drugs.  The
study was released last month under pressure from the Congress.

Forex Market cites Geoffrey White, Esq., as saying that the
suit, which seeks class-action status, could provide damages for
more than 10,000 Nevadans who use the drugs.

"The drugs are way, way overpriced, and they really are no
different than the generic form.  It really is an outrageous
fraud what these two companies have done to Nevadans," Mr. White
told Forex Market.  Nevada users could collect damages between
what they or their insurance company paid for the two drugs and
what they could have paid for the generic form, Mr. White added.

The lawsuit seeks to recoup the difference in cost between
generic cholesterol drugs that cost about one-third as much as
Vytorin or Zetia, the report notes.

The defendant-companies stated that they will put up a defense.
"Vytorin and Zetia have been shown to reduce LDL [low-density
lipoprotein] cholesterol in numerous clinical studies and they
have been approved by the FDA for that indication," Merck
spokeswoman Amy Rose shared with Forex Market.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the
country, including in California, Florida, New York and Ohio.

Schering-Plough Corporation manufactures, markets, and sells
the prescription drug Zetia.  Zetia is a cholesterol-lowering
drug, which acts by diminishing the absorption of cholesterol
through the intestines.

Merck Corporation, Inc., manufactures, markets and sells the
prescription drug Vytorin which is Merck's brand-name composite
drug consisting of a proprietary combination of Zetia and Zocor.
The drug Zocor is a statin, which reduces low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol in the
blood.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Geoffrey White, Esq.
          White, Meany and Wetherall, LLP
          3185 Lakeside Dr.
          Reno, Nevada 89509
          Phone: (775) 828-9999
          Fax: (775) 828-9998
          e-mail: attorney@whiteandmeany.com


ENBRIDGE GAS: Ontario Energy Board OKs Deferral Account Balance
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Energy Board issued a decision relating to Enbridge
Gas Distribution Inc.'s application for an order approving the
balance in the 2007 Class Action Suit Deferral Account and
disposition of that balance.

The balance in the Account is a result of the resolution of a
long standing class action lawsuit related to late payment
penalties.  Parties to the lawsuit reached a settlement
involving payment of CDN$22 million.  This settlement was
approved by the Ontario Superior Court on December 8, 2006.

The issue for the Board was whether the court-approved amount
and related amounts should be recovered from ratepayers.

The Board found that all costs (settlement, legal fees and
interest) in the Class Action Suit Deferral Account are
recoverable from ratepayers.

The estimated impact for a five year recovery period is CDN$2.70
per year for a residential customer.

The Ontario Energy Board regulates the province's electricity
and natural gas sectors in the public interest. It envisions a
viable and efficient energy sector with informed consumers
served by responsive regulatory processes that are effective,
fair and transparent.

                       Case Background

In February 1995, the Ontario Court of Justice, General Division  
issued a judgment on a threshold issue in favor of the company  
dismissing the class action.  The court concluded that the  
company's late payment charge is not interest payable on a  
credit transaction, but is an incentive to customers to pay  
their bills by a certain date.  The court held that Section 347  
of the Criminal Code of Canada, which deals with interest on  
credit transactions, did not apply.  

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal  
regarding that decision in September 1996.  The plaintiff was  
granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the  
decision of the Court of Appeal.  The Supreme Court of Canada  
heard the appeal in March 1998 and the decision of the court was  
issued in October 1998.  The court allowed the appeal, set aside  
the summary judgment dismissing the action, and remitted the  
action back to the Ontario Court (General Division) for  
proceedings in accordance with the Ontario Class Proceedings  
Act, 1992.  

Further motions for summary judgment and related matters brought  
by both the plaintiff and the company were argued during March  
2000.  In April 2000, the court released Reasons for Decision in  
which it dismissed the plaintiff's claim.  In May 2000, the  
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ontario Court of  
Appeal.  The appeal was heard in March 2001.  

In December 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the  
plaintiff's appeal relating to the plaintiff's action against  
the company claiming that the approved late payment penalty  
charged to customers was contrary to Canadian federal law.

On Feb. 1, 2002, the company changed its late payment penalty  
from a one-time five percent charge to a one-time two per cent  
charge on current gas charges.  These charges were made pursuant  
to rate orders issued by the Ontario Energy Board.  

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the plaintiffs' appeal of a  
lower court decision upholding the dismissal of the class action  
filed against the company in the Ontario Court of Justice  
(General Division) by a customer claiming that the company's  
Ontario Energy Board-approved late payment penalties charged to  
customers were contrary to Canadian federal law.

The claim sought CDN$112.0 million in "restitutionary payments"
and other relief and was brought on behalf of all people who
were customers of the company and who had paid or been charged
for late payment penalties since April 1, 1981.  The action has
not been certified by the court as a class proceeding although
the Class Proceedings Committee established under the Ontario
Class Proceedings Act 1992 decided that it would fund the
action.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal by the plaintiff of  
the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in October 2003 and the  
court has reserved its decision.

On April 22, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada released its  
decision requiring the company to repay a portion of amounts  
paid to it as late payment penalties from April 1994.  The total  
amount of late payment penalties billed between April 1994 and  
February 2002 -- when the company's late payment penalty was  
revised -- was approximately $74 million.

Based on further direction from the Ontario Energy Board,  
company's late payment penalty was changed again in October 2005  
to a monthly time-based late payment penalty of 1.5 per cent of  
the outstanding balance on a customer's account.

                        The Settlement

In 2006, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. entered into a
settlement agreement in the proposed class action related to
late payment penalties charged by the company in the past (Class
Action Reporter, July 24, 2006).

Under the settlement, the company will donate $9 million to the
Winter Warmth Fund prior to the end of January 2007.

The settlement also required the company to make payments of  
approximately CDN$10.2 million to class counsel on account of
the plaintiff's legal fees and expenses and a payment of  
approximately CDN$2 million to the Class Proceedings Fund,
operated by the Law Foundation of Ontario.   

The total amount to be paid by the company in connection with  
the settlement is CDN$21.2 million.  The company said its
agreement to settle the matter on this basis does not constitute
any admission of liability on its part.

Initially launched by the company, Toronto Hydro and the United  
Way in 2004, other Ontario natural gas and electric utilities  
have since joined the Winter Warmth Fund.  The Winter Warmth  
Fund provides eligible low-income customers of participating  
utilities with financial assistance for the payment of their  
natural gas and electricity bills.   

Late payment penalty revenues are included in the company's  
estimate of revenues for the year and therefore accrue to the  
benefit of all customers, reducing the cost of providing  
distribution services.  The Ontario Energy Board approves these  
estimates and resulting rates each year.  The company intends to  
apply to the OEB for recovery of the proposed payments resulting  
from the settlement of this action.

Enbridge Gas Distribution -- http://www.enbridge.com/-- is  
owned by Enbridge Inc., a Canadian-based company that is leader
in energy transportation and distribution in North America and  
internationally.  It provides distribution services to
1.8 million customers in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and
New Brunswick, and in New York State.


ENERGY CONVERSION: HR Vice Pres. Defends Firm in Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Feb. 1, 2008, that Energy
Conversion Systems of Dunn is facing a class action that accuses
it of failing to reimburse former employees for their
contributions to a mandatory Wage Investment Plan.

CAR reported that Dunn attorney Brent Adams, Esq., filed the
complaint on behalf of two dozen former employees who did not
receive reimbursement when the company paid some amount to
workers in 2007.  Mr. Adams is requesting jury trial in Wake
County Superior Court.

The plaintiffs are:

     * Connie Pope               * Delma Ricky Wood
     * Annie McNair              * Johnny Bryant
     * Jeff Thomas               * Gwendolyn A. Poe-Pittman
     * Jeremy McLamb             * Michael Floyd
     * Mabeline Harris           * Deborah Register
     * Martin Denton             * Sandra Frazier
     * Linda Herring             * Sharon Coley
     * Francine Reese            * Gloria Devone
     * Vivian C. Bordley         * Martha Turlington
     * Linda Pittman             * Alice Smith
     * Saundra Jorge             * Rosa Crowell
     * Agnes Holden              * June Gilliam

In an update, Steve Reed of Dunn Daily Record writes that ECS
responded to the lawsuit.

ECS Vice President of Human Resources Patrick Reagan, according
to the Daily Record, reasoned that some of the former employees
named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit were repaid their lost wages.  
Some of the others named in the suit did not participate in the
wage cut at all because they weren't employed at the time, he
explained.

Mr. Reed notes that ECS stated it had to do an across-the-board
reduction of wages and salaries.  Mr. Reagan pointed out that
this involved a 5% reduction for most employees, a 10% reduction
for top executives and a 25% reduction for the chief executive
officer.

"Unlike most companies who have had to take such action, ECS
made the promise that when the company was able to do so, not
only would it restore wages to previous levels, but that it
would repay the lost wages with interest," the Daily Record
quotes Mr. Reagan as saying.

"ECS is proud that in 2005 not only were we able to restore
wages to the previous level, but we gave a wage increase on top
of that," Mr. Reagan said.

Mr. Reagan recounted that in early 2007, ECS repaid with
interest the wages employees had given up, Mr. Reed notes.  He
attested that the amount repaid was under $1 million, which was
a significant boost to the local economy.  "The only criteria of
this repayment, which had been communicated to the employees at
the time of the reductions, was that employees who voluntarily
left the company or were discharged for cause would forfeit the
option to receive this money," Mr. Reagan explained.

The report says that, according to Mr. Reagan, most ECS
employees chose to stay with the company during "a difficult
time."  He added that these employees "should be proud. . .that
they stayed with and supported ECS and were able to receive the
repayment of the wages which they had to give up."

Mr. Reagan, the Daily Record relates, said that the company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and it will defend itself.
He added that he believes that once the facts are presented, the
lawsuit will be dismissed as groundless.

Moreover, according to Mr. Reed, Mr. Reagan contended that Mr.
Adams' actions in providing an advance copy of the lawsuit to
the Daily Record newspaper was "an example of grandstanding with
the purpose of getting media coverage."

Mr. Adams is out of the country and was unavailable for comment,  
the Daily Record relates.

For more information, contact:

         Brent Adams, Esq.
         Brent Adams & Associates
         119 Lucknow Square
         Dunn, N.C. 28334
         Phone: 1-800-849-5931
                (910) 892-8177
         Fax: (910) 892-0652
         Web site: http://www.brentadams.com/


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court Upholds Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Disctrict Court for the Northern District of California
upheld a complaint by 50,000 plaintiffs against German chip
manufacturer Infineon Technologies and the company's chief
financial officer, Peter Fischl, and former management board
head Ulrich Schumacher, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
reports.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung recalls that between September
and November 2004, seven securities class action complaints were
filed against the company and current or former officers with
various U.S. federal district courts, on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of their publicly traded securities who
purchased them during the period from March 2000 to July 2004.  
These actions were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The report points out that the consolidated amended complaint
alleges violations of the U.S. securities laws and asserts that
the defendants made materially false and misleading public
statements about the company's historical and projected
financial results and competitive position because they did not
disclose its alleged participation in DRAM price-fixing
activities and that, by fixing the price of DRAM, defendants
manipulated the price of their securities, thereby injuring its
shareholders.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.  

In September 2006, the court dismissed the complaint with leave
to amend, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung further recounts.  In
October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

In March 2007, pursuant to a stipulation agreed with the
defendants, the plaintiffs withdrew the second amended complaint
and were granted a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint.  

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in July 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14, 2008).

Recently, the court finally upheld the complaint filed by about
50,000 plaintiffs against the German chip manufacturer.

The plaintiffs anticipate that the company would have to pay
damages of more than $500 million, the report says.

The suit is "In Re:Infineon Technologies AG Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04156-JW," filed with the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of California under  
Judge James Ware, with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 619.231.1058
          Fax: 619.231.7423

               - and -

          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212.682.1818
          Fax: 212.682.1892
          e-mail: email@murrayfrank.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark R.S. Foster, Esq.
          Mia A. Mazza, Esq.
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-268-6335 or 415-268-7000
          Fax: 415-268-7522
          e-mail: mfoster@mofo.com
                  mmazza@mofo.com


LIBERTY NATIONAL: Sued by Haitians for Discriminatory Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty National Life Insurance Co. is facing a class-action
filed with the Miami federal court by three Haitian-Americans
who accuse the company of discriminatory policies, the South
Florida Times reports.

According to the SF Times, the class-action lawsuit, filed on
Jan. 14, alleges that since 2004, Liberty National has denied
policies "based solely on the applicant's race and Haitian
ancestry, ethnicity and national origin," or replaced them with
policies normally only sold to the terminally ill.

Two of the policyholders, who are based in Palm Beach County,
qualified for standard life insurance policies, but claim they
were later issued different policies that had higher premiums
and lower benefits, SF Times relates.  The other one, a St.
Lucie County policyholder, was issued a 10-year, $100,000 life
insurance policy that he said was canceled two years later after
an underwriter called to ask him if he planned to ever visit
Haiti, to which he answered yes.

The report says that the lawsuit also claims that many Haitian
applicants were also asked to provide immigration papers, a
Social Security card or a driver's license -– documentation not
requested of other customers.  Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts
that the company failed to pay death benefits due on policies
sold to Haitians.

SF Times further says that, according to the lawsuit, Liberty
National trained Haitian-American sales agents to sell life
insurance policies door-to-door in Haitian communities.  
However, starting in 2004, the company began denying or
rejecting standard life insurance policy applications filed by
those sales agents, even though the applicants met the company's
requirements, the lawsuit alleges.

The report cites Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation as
providing that insurance companies are allowed to ask about an
applicant's race, nationality or ethnicity, but cannot use the
information as criteria to write policies or determine who gets
a policy.  Companies can only cancel a policy in cases of fraud.

Life insurance companies routinely ask potential policyholders
about their foreign travel, along with questions about smoking
or risky hobbies, James Hunt, a life insurance actuary with the
Consumer Federation of America, explained to SF Times.  However,
these companies cannot terminate a policy because of foreign
travel, but can refuse to issue one in the first place, Hunt
said.  Companies also have a limited amount of time to contest a
policy and rescind it if information on the application was
misrepresented, he further told SF Times.

SF Times notes that U.S State Department has issued a travel
warning for Haiti.

Travel.state.gov wrote in its Web site that travel in Haiti can
be dangerous.  It said that there are no safe areas in the
country.  Crime, a chronic problem over the years, has increased
in recent years and is subject to periodic surges sometimes not
obviously explained by other events or conditions.

The SF Times report recounts that the allegations by the Haiti
policyholders are similar to the one Liberty National faced
several years ago, wherein the company was accused of selling
policies to blacks for higher premiums and lower benefits than
to other customers.  Liberty National settled the nationwide
class-action lawsuit for $6 million in 2006.

The Florida lawsuit seeks at least $75,000 in damages, SF Times
writes.


MINNEAPOLIS: Judge Denies Motion to Strike Allegations in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 10, 2007, the
Black Police Officers Association had filed a racial
discrimination class action against the City of Minneapolis
following the demotion of a number of black police officers on
the Minneapolis Police force.

The CAR reported named the class action plaintiffs as:

      1. Lieutenant Lee Edwards,
      2. Lieutenant Donald Harris,
      3. Lieutenant Medaria Arradondo,
      4. Sergeant Charles Adams, and
      5. Sergeant Dennis Hamilton.

The action includes an individual lawsuit against Minneapolis
Police Chief Tim Dolan.

CAR wrote that the lawsuit alleges obstructive actions of the
Minneapolis Civil Rights Department and detail a consistent
pattern of discrimination against African American officers and
other officers of color that dates back more than 20 years of
service of the most senior officer named in report.  
Specifically, the suit alleges longstanding departmental racism,
magnified by the demotions of three key black cops within a
year.  The suit also alleges discrimination against three black
lieutenants and two black sergeants.

In an update, Star Tribune relates that U.S. District Court
Judge Michael Davis denied the city's motion to strike several
allegations in the suit that it believes are redundant,
immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.

Star Tribune recalls that the city's motion to strike portions
of the suit asserted that the complaint was "ripe with
allegations that can't possibly be put into evidence."

To this, Judge Davis asked assistant city attorney James Moore
why he was wasting the court's time on a motion that he called
difficult to prove, the report notes.

Judge Davis, according to Star Tribune, ended the case's first
hearing on Jan. 31, 2008, with a stern warning that attorneys
will face sanctions if the case became too litigious because of
repeated appeals of his rulings.

Star Tribune cites John Klassen, Esq., who represents the
plaintiff-officers, as saying that Judge Davis made the right
decision on the city's motion and that "now the suit can move
forward without further delay."

The report adds that besides the claim of discrimination pattern
against Chief Dolan, the suit also mentioned a threatening and
racist letter sent to a black officer in 1992 and inappropriate
remarks allegedly made by a white lieutenant.  Mr. Klassen
argued that the allegations might make the defendants
uncomfortable, but they are not improper.

Chief Dolan said that there is no factual basis for the letter
allegation, Star Tribune relates.

While Mr. Moore refused to discuss the Jan. 31 hearing, he told
Judge Davis that he is having trouble determining "what the
officers' case is all about."  According to Star Tribune, Mr.
Moore questioned whether it was a class-action suit or a suit
with specific allegations of a hostile work environment
involving the five officers.

The case is captioned "Arradondo et al v. City of Minneapolis et
al, Case No. 0:2007cv04736," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, Judge Michael J. Davis,
presiding.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Klassen, Esq.
          John A. Klassen, PA
          10 South Fifth Street
          700 Lumber Exchange
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 204-4533
          Facsimile: (612) 204-4534
          Web site: http://www.jaklaw.com/

The defendants are represented by:

          James A. Moore, Esq.
          Minneapolis City Attorney's Office
          333 South 7th Street, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402


NATIONWIDE PAYDAY: S.C. Judge Certifies Payday Loan Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
A British Columbia Supreme Court judge certified class-action
lawsuits against three payday lenders accused of charging fees
that amount to illegal interest, Derrick Penner writes for The
Vancouver Sun.

The three defendant-firms are:

     1. Nationwide Payday Advance Inc.;

     2. Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.; and

     3. Cashnow Solutions Inc., conducting business as Cash
        Converters, Guildford.

According to the report, Judge Brenda Brown agreed that the
suits' plaintiff, Jose Bartolome, had shown that there was
sufficient cause for each legal action, and that each case
applied to an identifiable class.  The class is composed of any
B.C. resident who has taken a short-term loan from the firms
during specified periods.

Vancouver Sun cites Paul Bennett, of Hordo & Bennett, the lawyer
representing Mr. Bartolome, as saying that the essence of the
suits is that the fees that the companies are charging are
contrary to the Criminal Code.  The Criminal Code, the report
explains, restricts lenders from charging interest rates that
exceed 60% a year.

Mr. Bartolome asserts that he was charged fees and interest that
amounted to annual interest rates ranging from 8,375% to 28,697%
on loans ranging from CDN$200 to CDN$760, the report relates.

Vancouver Sun notes that Mr. Bartolome's suits indicate that
there is a total of 4,689 potential class members among the
three defendant companies, with Nationwide Payday having the
largest -- 3,047 clients.

Judge Brown gave clients of the payday-loan firms 60 days to opt
out of their respective classes, the report says.


OHIO: Supreme Court Says Traffic Cameras are Legal
--------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that traffic cameras are legal,
Jennifer Kovacs writes for Tribune Chronicle.

Specifically, Tribune Chronicle reports, the high court's 7-0
opinion released on Jan. 31, stated that as long as automated
traffic systems don't overstep statewide traffic laws, home rule
is within limits by issuing civil penalties for criminal
offenses.

According to the report, this means that Girard City will get to
keep the fines that individuals who were caught in the act by
the city's speed camera thought they could recover.  In
addition, cameras could be back up and running in the city or
anywhere else in the state, Tribune Chronicle adds.

The report explains that the Supreme Court's decision was issued
in resolution of a case submitted by U.S. District Court Judge
David D. Dowd, who asked the court to consider whether a
municipality had power under home rule.

"It's a blatant travesty of justice," Tribune Chronicle quotes
former Girard Councilman Daniel Moadus Jr. as saying.  He adds
that the Supreme Court's decision is political and that the
interpretation of the law was stretched to the breaking point to
arrive at the decision.

The report recalls that Mr. Moadus filed a taxpayer's lawsuit in
2005 against the use of speed camera in Girard, contending that
the city had no right to file civil charges in criminal
violations.  The lawsuit, Tribune Chronicle points out,
eventually became a class action against the city and its camera
provider, Traffipax Inc., on behalf of about 1,500 car owners
who paid the $85 fines.

Tribune Chronicle says that while James Denney, Esq., who
represents the plaintiffs, said that he was not entirely
surprised by the decision knowing that the Supreme Court's
current justices come from heavy home rule backgrounds, Girard
Mayor James J. Melfi said that he continues to believe the
camera was a common-sense approach to increasing safety on the
streets and reducing costs in the Police Department.

Whether the cameras will be put back on the streets will be up
to City Council, the report notes.  Mr. Melfi said he would not
object as long as Girard maintained its previous speed tolerance
of at least 15 mph above the posted limit before a car would be
caught on camera.

The device has been shelved since July 2006, when Trumbull
County Common Pleas Judge John M. Stuard ruled that use of the
speed camera violated Ohio law and ordered the city to cease
collecting fines, the report recalls.  Judge Stuard's
contradicting opinion is what led Judge Dowd, who previously
ruled in two cases that traffic cameras set up in Akron were
legal, submit the question to the Supreme Court.

While it's been argued that the cameras are inherently schemes
to bring more cash into the coffers of municipalities, the
Supreme Court only to addressed the issue by stating that
"motivation does not play a role" in their analysis of home
rule, Tribune Chronicle notes.

According to the report, Mr. Melfi said that if the aggregate
$185,000 in fines is eventually certified to belong to Girard,
minus the $45,000 portion owed to Traffipax, the amount will be
put back into safety services.

If Judge Stuard vacates his original decision, Mr. Denney said
the legal battle may come to an end, the report relarts.  
However, that doesn't mean that municipalities who opt to use
the systems will be left to do so peacefully.


The plaintiffs' are represented by:

          James A. Denney, Esq.
          1631 S State St.
          Girard, OH 44420-3370
          Phone: (330) 545-4250
          Fax: (330) 545-4255


OPTION ONE: Faces IL Suit Over "1-4 Family Rider" on Home Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Option One Mortgage Corp. is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois accusing it of failing to inform customers its "1-4
Family Rider" on home loans that gives Option One a security
interest in their personal property, in violation of lending
laws, the CourtHouse News reports.

CourtHouse relates that the plaintiffs bring the action against
the mortgage lender for violating the Truth in Lending
Disclosure Act by failing to properly disclose its security
interest in personal property in connection with a federally
related real estate mortgage transaction.

According to the report, the plaintiffs bring the action on
behalf of all natural persons residing in the United States who
signed a mortgage with Option One, that takes a security
interest in personal property by means of a one-to-four family
rider not limited to fixtures, on or after a date one year prior
to the filing of this action.

The plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment for:

     -- statutory damages,

     -- an award of reasonable attorney's fees and litigation
        costs, and

     -- other relief the court deems reasonable and just.

The suit is "Patrice Warr et al. v. Option One Mortgage, Corp.,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lloyd J. Brooks, Esq.
          The Brooks Law Firm
          15008 Woodlawn Avenue
          Dolton, Illinois 60419
          Phone: (708) 841-8000
          Fax: (708) 841-8080
          e-mail: lloyd.brooks@thebrooksfirm.com


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Del. Suit Challenges Truck Stop Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fiduciary class-action complaint filed on Feb. 1, 2008, with
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware accuses
Hospitality Properties Trust of spinning off truck-stop operator
TravelCenters of America and then forcing TravelCenters to
acquire Petro Stopping Centers and forcing it to pay above-
market rent to Hospitality Properties, the CourtHouse News
reports.

According to the report, the plaintiffs bring the action
derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant, TravelCenters, and
alleges that after the individual defendants continued to favor
the interests of HPT and Reit Management & Research LLC over the
interests of TravelCenters far beyond the contractual rights of
HPT and RMR under the pre-spin-off agreements.  Essentially, the
individual defendants, HPT and RMR, have continued to operate
TravelCenters as a captive subsidiary of HPT without regard to
the fact that, post-spin-off, these defendants owe duties of
loyalty, god faith and care to TravelCenters without regard to
the interests of HPT and RMR.

On May 30, 2007, CourtHouse News recounts, individual
defendants, in violation of their fiduciary duties to
TravelCenters, caused TravelCenters to enter into an agreement
to acquire Petro Stopping Center, LP, as part of HPT's larger
acquisition of Petro Stopping Centers Holdings, LP.

The report explains that Petro operates 69 truck stops in 33
states in the United States.  Through the Petro Acquisition, HPT
acquired the real estate of 40 Petro truck stops and leased
those facilities to TravelCenters through a May 30, 2007 Lease
Agreement.

The plaintiffs claim that the terms of the Petro Lease Agreement
are:

   * not fair and reasonable to TravelCenters,

   * are far less favorable to the company than would otherwise
     have been available from an unrelated third party, and

   * represents HPT and RMR's use of TA to extract valuable
     assets (cash) out of TravelCenters and into their own
     hands.

The plaintiffs, therefore, ask the court to enter judgment:

     -- directing defendants to account to the company for all
        damages sustained by the company by reason of the wrongs
        alleged;

     -- directing defendants to reform the terms of the Petro
        agreements to avert further injury to TravelCenters;

     -- requiring the individual defendants to return to the
        company all salaries and the value of other
        remunerations of whatever kind paid to them by the
        company during the time they were in breach of the
        fiduciary duties they owed to TravelCenters;

     -- directing defendants to pay interest at the highest rate
        allowable by law on the amount of damages sustained by
        the company as a result of defendants' culpable conduct;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs of this action, together
        with reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses; and

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

The suit is "Alan R. Kahn et al. v. Barry M. Portnoy et al.,
Transaction ID. 18396551," filed with the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, PA
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O.Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: (302) 656-4433


TYSON FOODS: Sept. 16 Trial Slated for FLSA Litigation in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 16, 2008 trial is scheduled for the class action
captioned "Emily D. Jordan, et al. v. IBP, Inc. and Tyson Foods,
Inc.," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee.

On Nov. 21, 2002, 10 current and former hourly employees of
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.'s (formerly IBP, Inc.) case-ready
facility in Goodlettsville, Tennessee, on behalf of themselves,
and other unspecified, allegedly "similarly situated" employees,
claim that the defendants have violated the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit alleges that defendants failed to pay employees for all
hours worked from the plant's commencement of operations in
April 2001.  

In particular, the suit alleges that employees should be paid
for the time it takes to collect, assemble and put on, take off
and wash their health, safety and production gear at the
beginning and end of their shifts and during their meal period.

The suit also alleges that the Company deducts 30 minutes per
day from employees' paychecks regardless of whether employees
obtain a full 30-minute period for their meal.   

Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the defendants did not
comply with the FLSA, and an award for an unspecified amount of
back pay compensation and benefits, unpaid entitlements,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorney fees and costs.   

On Jan. 15, 2003, the Company filed an answer to the complaint
denying any liability.  

On Jan. 14, 2003, the named plaintiffs filed a motion for
expedited court-supervised notice to prospective class members.  

The motion sought to conditionally certify a class of similarly
situated employees at all of TFM's non-union facilities that
have not been the subject of FLSA litigation.

Plaintiffs then withdrew a request for conditional certification  
of similarly situated employees at all of TFM's non-union
facilities and rather sought to include all non-exempt employees
that have worked at the Goodlettsville facility since its
opening.  

On June 9, 2003, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
seeking the applicability of the injunction entered by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas and affirmed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit "(Metzler v. IBP,
inc. 127 F. 3rd 959, 10th Cir. 1997)," which the Company
contends has a preclusive effect as to plaintiffs' claims based
on pre- and post-shift activities.  

The plaintiffs conducted discovery limited to that issue and
responded to said Motion on June 18, 2004.  The Company filed
its reply on July 2, 2004.  On Oct. 12, 2004, the District Court
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment.

On Nov. 17, 2003, the District Court conditionally certified a
collective action based on clothes changing and washing
activities and unpaid production work during meal periods, since
the plant operations began in April 2001.

Approximately 573 current and former employees have opted into
the class.

On Aug. 20, 2007, both parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  

Trial was again rescheduled and is now set to begin on Sept. 16,
2008, according to the company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 29, 2007.

The suit is "Jordan, et al v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CV-
1132," filed with the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, Judge Aleta A.
Trauger presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
         144 Second Avenue North, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN 37201
         Phone: (615) 250-2000

              - and -

         Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
         Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
         Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq.
         Woodley & McGillivary
         1125 15th Street, NW Suite 400
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 833-8855

Representing the defendants are:

         John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq.
         Jonathan Jacob Cole, Esq.
         Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
         Commerce Center, 211 Commerce Street, Suite 1000          
         Nashville, TN 37201
         Phone: (615) 726-5600

         Michael John Mueller, Esq.
         Joel Mark Cohn, Esq.
         Evangeline G. Paschal, Esq.
         Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
         1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 400
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: (202) 887-4000


TYSON FOODS: To File Writ of Certiorari in "De Asencio" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc., is set to file a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection to a ruling
issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the
matter, "De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc."

The suit was filed on Aug. 22, 2000 with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the
defendants failed to compensate poultry plant employees for all
hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

It contends that employees should be paid for the time it takes
to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing
into and out of protective and sanitary clothing, obtaining
clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work areas
and break areas.

The plaintiff seeks or has sought to act as class
representatives on behalf of all current and former employees
who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys’ fees.

On June 22, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict and
final judgment entered in the company's favor.  

On Sept. 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings.  

The company sought rehearing en banc, which was denied by the
Court of Appeals on Oct. 5, 2007.  

The company's petition for writ of certiorari is due to be filed
in the U.S. Supreme Court by Feb. 4, 2008, according to the
company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.

The suit is "De Asencio et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 00-
cv-04294-RK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Robert F. Kelly presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas J. Elliott, Esq.
          Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, P.C.
          925 Harvest Drive, Suite 300
          P.O. Box 3010
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Phone: 215-977-1000
          Fax: 215-977-1099
          e-mail: tje@elliottgreenleaf.com

          Brian P. Kenney, Esq.
          Kenney Lennon & Egan
          3031C Walton Rd., Suite 202
          Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
          Phone: 610-940-9099
          e-mail: briankenney@kle-law.com

               - and -

          Robert J. O'Shea, Jr., Esq.
          1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-636-0990
          e-mail: robertosheajr@aol.com

Representing the defendants are:

          James Lewis Griffith, Jr., Esq.
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
          One Commerce Square
          2005 Market Street, Suite 2200
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-965-1200
          e-mail: jgriffith@akingump.com


TYSON FOODS: Ala. Court Denies Motion in "M.H. Fox" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
denied a motion that sought class-action status for the case,
"M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.," according to the
company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.

The suit, which was filed by current and former employees,
alleges the Company violated requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.   It also alleges the Company failed to pay
employees for all hours worked and/or improperly paid them for
overtime hours.  

In particular, the suit contends that:

      -- employees should be paid for time taken to put on and  
         take off certain working supplies at the beginning and  
         end of their shifts and breaks, and  

      -- the use of "mastercard" or "line" time fails to pay  
         employees for all time actually worked.  

The plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees of the Company, and
plaintiffs seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.

The District Court denied class certification on Nov. 16, 2006,
and ordered the cases of the 10 named plaintiffs in the matter
to proceed individually in the home jurisdictions of the named
plaintiffs.

Two of these cases were tried in November 2007 in Alabama with
jury verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs.  These cases are being
appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Arkansas-based Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com--  
produces, distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared
foods and related allied products.  The Company operates a
totally integrated poultry production process.  


TYSON FOODS: Georgia Court Certifies Class in FLSA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,
certified a class in the litigation, "In re: Tyson Foods, Inc.,
Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation, Case No. 4:07-md-01854-
CDL," according to the company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Lawsuits were filed against the company since the beginning of
fiscal 2007, which allege that the company failed to compensate
poultry plant employees for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

These lawsuits are:

       -- "Sheila Ackles, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (N. Dist.
          Alabama, Oct. 23, 2006);

       -- "McCluster, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (M. Dist.
          Georgia, Dec. 11, 2006);

       -- "Dobbins, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al." (N.
          Dist. Alabama, Dec. 21, 2006);

       -- "Buchanan, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al." (N.
          Dist. Alabama, Dec. 22, 2006);

       -- "Potter, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al." (N.
          Dist. Alabama, Dec. 22, 2006);

       -- "Jones, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al.," (S.
          Dist. Mississippi, Feb. 9, 2007)

       -- "Walton, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al." (S.
          Dist. Mississippi, Feb. 9, 2007)

       -- "Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al." (S.
          Dist. Mississippi, Feb. 9, 2007);

       -- "Balch, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (E. Dist.
          Oklahoma, March 1, 2007);

       -- "Adams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (W. Dist.
          Arkansas, March 2, 2007);

       -- "Atkins, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (M. Dist.
          Georgia, March 5, 2007);

       -- "Laney, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (M. Dist.
          Georgia, May 23, 2007);

       -- "Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (M. Dist.
          Georgia, May 23, 2007).

Each of these matters involves allegations employees should be
paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift
activities such as changing into and out of protective and
sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking to and from
the changing area, work areas and break areas.

The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek or have sought to
act as class representatives on behalf of all current and former
employees who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek
back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys’ fees.

On April 6, 2007, the company filed a motion for transfer of the
above named actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings before
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The motion for transfer was granted on Aug. 17, 2007, and the
cases listed above were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia, "In re: Tyson Foods, Inc.,
Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation."

On Jan. 2, 2008, the Judge in the MDL Proceedings issued a Joint
Scheduling and Case Management Order.  The Order grants
Conditional Class Certification and calls for notice to be given
to potential putative class members via a third party
administrator no later than 90 days from the date of the Court’s
Order.

The potential class members will have 60 days to "opt–in" to the
class.  The parties will then conduct discovery for a period of
240 days at no more than eight of our facilities.  

The suit is "In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act
Litigation, Case No. 4:07-md-01854-CDL," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Judge Clay D.
Land presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq.
         Lee & Braziel LLLP
         1801 N. Lamar St., Ste. 325
         Dallas, TX 75202
         Phone: 214-749-1400
         Fax: 214-749-1010

         Brandon J. Burton, Esq.
         Burton & Associates
         308 NW 13th Street Ste 100
         Oklahoma City, OK 73103
         Phone: 405-232-0555
         Fax: 405-232-1849

         Robert J. Camp, Esq.
         The Cochran Firm
         505 North 20th St Ste 825
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-244-1115
         Fax: 205-244-1171
         e-mail: rcamp@cochranfirm.com

              - and -

         Richard Celler, Esq.
         Morgan & Morgan
         7450 Griffin Rd., Ste. 230
         Davie, FL 33314
         Phone: 954-318-0268
         Fax: 954-333-3515
         e-mail: richard@cellerlegal.com


TYSON FRESH: Eight Circuit Reverses Ruling in "Schumacher" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a
plaintiff-favoring judgment in the purported class action titled
"Herman Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv- 01027-CBK," which named Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., a
subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., as a defendant, according to
the company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 29, 2007.

In July 2002, certain cattle producers filed the suit with the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, seeking
certification of a class of cattle producers.

The plaintiffs claimed that in 2001, during the first six weeks
the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture began its mandatory price
reporting program, defendants knowingly used the inaccurate
boxed beef cutout prices (cutout prices are determined by the
USDA through a formula that averages the prices of the various
box beef cuts reported by all packers) calculated and published
by the USDA to negotiate the purchase of fed cattle from
plaintiffs at prices substantially lower than would have been
economically justified had plaintiffs known the accurate higher
cutout prices.

The plaintiffs contend defendants' conduct constituted an unfair
or deceptive practice or was engaged in for the purpose or with
the effect of manipulating or controlling prices in violation of
the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. Section 192.

The Tyson Fresh stated that during the period in question the
beef packers correctly reported beef sales information to the
USDA and Tyson Fresh believes it acted appropriately in its
dealings with cattle producers.

Trial in this matter commenced on March 31, 2006, and a jury
verdict was returned against TFM and two of the other three
defendants.

The jury verdict against Tyson Fresh was for $4,000,000, but
this amount was based on all sales and not just those of the
class.  Tyson Fresh, together with the other defendants, filed a
motion in the District Court seeking judgment as a matter of
law.  That motion was denied.  

On Feb. 15, 2007, the District Court entered judgment against
Tyson Fresh and the other defendants.  On March 12, 2007, TFM
filed its Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the Eight Circuit ruled that that plaintiffs
had failed to prove the defendants intended to manipulate or
control the prices for live cattle.  

The Eight Circuit also noted that the plaintiffs failed to show
the defendants knew or should have known of the USDA error, or
that the defendants had any duty to inform the plaintiffs of the
error.

Thus, the Eight Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment
and directed the District Court to enter judgment in favor of
TFM and the other defendants.

The suit is "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al. (1:02-cv-
01027-CBK)," filed with the U.S. District Court of South Dakota,  
Judge Charles B. Kornmann presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq.
          David F. Herr, Esq.
          Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand
          3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
          Phone: (612)672-8200
          Fax: (612) 672-8397

Representing the defendants are:

          William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312)853-7000
          Fax: (312)853-7036
          e-mail: wbaumgartner@sidley.com
               
               - and -

          Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
          McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO
          1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700 First Natl. Tower
          Omaha, NE 68102-1627
          Phone: (402)341-3070
          Fax: (402)341-0216
          e-mail: pbrookhouser@mnmk.com


TYSON FOODS: April 8 Hearing Set for Del. Shareholder Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 8, 2008 hearing is set for the tentative settlement in
the consolidated shareholders' complaint filed with the Delaware
Chancery Court against Tyson Foods, Inc.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated two
previously filed lawsuits, "Amalgamated Bank v. Tyson" and
"Meyer v. Tyson," and captioned the consolidated action "In re
Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder's Litigation."

The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Tyson Limited
Partnership and certain present and former directors of the
company.  The company is also named as a nominal defendant, with
no relief sought against it.

The lawsuit contains five derivative claims alleging the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by:

     -- approving consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert
        Peterson in 2001 and for Don Tyson in 2004 (Count I);

     -- approving and inadequately disclosing certain "other
        compensation" paid to Tyson executives from 2001 to
        2003 (Count II);

     -- approving certain option grants to certain officers and
        directors with alleged knowledge the company was about
        to make announcements that would cause the stock price
        to increase (Count III);

     -- approving and not adequately disclosing various related-
        party transactions from 2001 to 2004 that plaintiffs
        allege were unfair to the company (Count IV); and

     -- making inadequate disclosures that resulted in a U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree
        (Count V).

The consolidated complaint asserts three additional derivative
claims for:

     -- breach of the 1997 settlement agreement in "Herbets v.
        Tyson, et al., No. 14231 (Del. Ch.)" (Count VI);

     -- civil contempt of the court's order and final judgment
        in "Herbets v. Tyson" (Count VII); and

     -- unjust enrichment regarding the benefits obtained by the
        defendants through the various transactions challenged
        in the consolidated complaint (Count IX).

The consolidated complaint also makes a putative class action
claim that the company's 2004 proxy statement contained
misrepresentations regarding certain executive compensation
(Count VIII).

On March 2, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  Plaintiffs' filed a response on May 8,
2006, and defendants filed a reply brief on June 9, 2006.  

On Feb. 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion, including dismissing in
whole the claims pertaining to the consulting contracts,
contempt of the court's final order in "Herbets v. Tyson, et
al.," and the putative class action claim, and dismissing in
part certain of plaintiffs' claims regarding the approval and
disclosure of executive compensation and the related-party
transactions, but declining to dismiss the remaining claims.

On May 16, 2007 the outside director defendants filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings regarding the count dealing with
option grants.  The court denied the outside directors motion on
Aug. 15, 2007.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the parties entered into a settlement of the
matter which provided for, among other things, a payment to the
company by Don Tyson and the Tyson Limited Partnership of
$4.5 million and the implementation by the company of certain
governance measures.

The plaintiffs are also seeking $3 million from the company to
cover their attorneys' fees and expenses related to this case.
The company presently intends to contest this requested fee
award.

The settlement was filed with the court, which is expected to
issue a scheduling order after which time the company's
shareholders will be formally notified and given the opportunity
to submit any objections.  

This will be followed by a settlement hearing which is scheduled
to be held April 8, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 1,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.

Arkansas-based Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com--  
produces, distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared
foods and related allied products.  The Company operates a
totally integrated poultry production process.  


WSB FINANCIAL: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WSB Financial Group, Inc., faces several purported securities
fraud class actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, according to the
company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

In October 2007, a purported securities fraud class action
lawsuit was commenced with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and certain
of its directors and current and former officers.

The suit is alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeking an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and other relief in connection with the
Company’s initial public offering.

Since then four additional, similar actions have been filed with
the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington.

The first identified complaint is "Robert McLain, et al. v. WSB
Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-01747," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Judge James L. Robart, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          e-mail: info@hbsslaw.com

          Smith & Lowney, PLLC
          2317 East John St.
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Phone: 206.860.2883
          Fax: 206.860.4187
          e-mail: info@smithandlowney.com

               - and -

          Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969,
          e-mail: inquiry@zsz.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN DENTAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of American Dental Partners, Inc., between Aug. 10
2005, through Dec. 13, 2007, inclusive.

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

ADPI is a business partner and provider of services to dental
group practices.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company engaged in tortious and unlawful
         conduct towards Park Dental Group;

     (2) that as a result of this conduct, the Company booked a
         large portion of earnings and revenue which materially
         inflated financial figures;

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

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

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

Beginning on January 1, 1999, ADPI subsidiary PDHC, Ltd. entered
into a Service Agreement with PDG. The Service Agreement was
amended Jan. 1, 2001, and again on Aug. 10, 2005.  According to
the Company's financial statements, the relationship with PDG
accounted for approximately 30% of the Company's consolidated
net revenue between 2004 and 2006.  No other customer of ADPI
accounted for more than 10% of the Company's consolidated net
revenue.

On Dec. 12, 2007, investors were shocked to learn that a
judgment had been awarded in favor of PDG, against PDHC and
ADPI.  The jury in the case awarded PDG $88,290,647 in damages,
broken down as follows:

   -- $9,413,397 in compensatory damages for breach of the
      Service Agreement;

   -- $11,500,000 for breach of implied covenants of good faith
      and fair dealing;

   -- $200,000 for breach of fiduciary duty;

   -- $67,000,000 for tortious interference with contract or
      prospective advantage; and

   -- $177,250 for defamation.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined
$5.36 per share, or 27.21%, to close on Dec. 12, 2007, at $14.34
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The following day, as the public continued to learn of the
Dec. 12, 2007 judgment against ADPI, investors were further
shocked and appalled to learn that due to ADPI's egregious
conduct and actions, the jury had awarded PDG $42,250,000 in
punitive damages.  Upon the release of this news, the Company's
shares declined $9.72 per share, or 67.78%, to close on Dec. 13,
2007 at $4.62 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Centerline Holding Company common stock during the
period between March 12, 2007, and Dec. 28, 2007.

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

Centerline is an investment holding firm.  Through its
subsidiaries, it operates as a real estate finance and investing
company.

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

     (i) the Company was in the process of disposing of its tax-
         exempt revenue bond portfolio, which had provided the
         Company with substantial revenues and enabled it to pay
         a sizable dividend;

    (ii) the Company was contemplating a large, related-party
         transaction that would require the Company to pay 11%
         interest per year to insiders; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive
         statements about the Company’s performance and
         prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis at all
         relevant times.

On Dec. 28, 2007, the Company issued a press release announcing
that:

      (i) it had completed a securitization of its $2.8 billion
          tax-exempt affordable housing bond portfolio with
          Freddie Mac, which will result in one-time charges of
          $45 million to $55 million in the fourth quarter of
          2007;

     (ii) it had received a $131 million investment from an
          affiliate of The Related Companies L.P., that provides
          the Related Companies -- which is owned and controlled
          by Stephen M. Ross, Chairman of the Board of
          Centerline and the founder and Chairman of the Related
          Companies, and Jeff T. Blau, a managing trustee of
          both Centerline and the Related Companies -- with a
          dividend at an 11% annual distribution rate;

    (iii) the Company was repositioning itself as an alternative
          asset manager;

     (iv) the Company would be reducing its dividend to $0.60
          per share; and

      (v) the Company would be reducing its 2008 earnings
          guidance to between $1.00 per share and $1.10 per
          share.

Following this announcement, shares of CenterlineÂ’ s stock fell
$2.57 per share, or more than 25%, to close at $7.70 per share,
on very heavy trading volume.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 18,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow filed a class action lawsuit on Jan. 18, 2008,
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Centerline Holding
Company common stock between March 12, 2007, and Dec. 28, 2007,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Centerline
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing various
materially false and misleading statements about its business
model that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of its common stock.

The complaint alleges that Centerline failed to disclose that
was in the process of restructuring a sale of its mortgage
revenue bond portfolio to a third party.  On Dec. 28, 2007, the
Company stunned the investment public by announcing that it had
sold its "$2.8 billion tax-exempt affordable housing bond
portfolio" to a third party, and in the process, altered its
business model to a sole asset management company.

In addition, Centerline also revealed that it had agreed to deal
with The Related Companies, L.P., a company owned and controlled
by certain of the defendants.  According to the deal terms,
TRCLP promised to invest $131 million in Centerline in exchange
for newly-issued convertible preferred stock that will pay
company insiders an 11% dividend.  Lastly, Centerline said that
it would be cutting its annual dividend from $1.68 per share to
only $0.60 per share.  As a result of the news, Centerline stock
fell from $10.27 per share on Dec. 27, 2007, to $7.70 per share
on Dec. 28, 2007, representing a 25% one-day decline, on
unusually high trading volume of more than 4 million shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 18,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          email: info@labaton.com


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Municipal Mortgage & Equity L.L.C. common stock
during the period between May 3, 2004 and Jan. 28, 2008.

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

MuniMae and its subsidiaries arrange debt and equity financing
for developers and owners of real estate and clean energy
projects.  The Company also provides investment management and
advisory services for institutional investors.

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

     (i) that MuniMae was materially overstating its financial
         performance by failing to properly account for its
         interests in certain entities;

    (ii) that MuniMae was:

         (a) failing to timely write down the fair value of its
             "held-for-sale" loans, bonds, derivatives, mortgage
             servicing rights and guarantee obligations; and

         (b) materially overstating the fair value of these
             assets;

   (iii) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition;

    (iv) that MuniMae's Class Period financial statements were
         materially false and misleading when issued and not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles; and

     (v) that the Company was performing poorly and would soon
         be forced to cut its dividend.

On Jan. 28, 2008, the Company announced that it was reducing its
dividend distribution from $0.5250 to $0.33 per share.  The
Company also admitted that its previously issued financial
results and financial statements materially overstated the
Company's financial performance and that the Company's financial
statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Specifically, the Company stated that it would likely be
restating its financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31,
2006, 2005 and 2004.  Moreover, the Company would likely lose
its eligibility of trading on the New York Stock Exchange due to
the fact that it would not be filing its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, by the deadline imposed
by the NYSE.  In response to these announcements, the price of
MuniMae stock dropped from $17.20 per share to $9.19 per share
on extremely heavy trading volume.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the Company filed its Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Form 8-K provided more
information on the Company's announcement regarding the
restatement of its financial results. Upon this news, the price
of MuniMae's stock fell to $7.13 per share.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com


SLM CORP: Alfred Yates Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, commenced a class
action with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of SLM Corporation
(Sallie Mae) common stock during the period between Jan. 18,
2007, and Jan. 3, 2008.

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

Sallie Mae, through its subsidiaries, provides education finance
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 and, despite evidence
that Sallie Mae's loan loss provisions for its subprime
borrowers attending non-traditional schools were inadequate both
prior to and at the start of the Class Period, defendants failed
to adequately reserve for losses in Sallie Mae's non-traditional
portfolio.  As a result of defendants' false statements, Sallie
Mae's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a Class Period high of $57.98 per share
in July 2007.

On Jan. 3, 2008, the Company disclosed in an SEC filing that it
would be cutting back on its core business of lending to
students by being "more selective" in making students loans due
to turmoil in the credit markets and a new federal law that
slashed subsidies to the private companies that make government-
backed student loans.  On this news, Sallie Mae's stock dropped
$2.49 per share to close at $16.67 per share, a one-day decline
of 15%.

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 failed to engage in proper due diligence in
         originating student loans to subprime borrowers,
         particularly those attending non-traditional
         institutions;

     (b) the Company was not adequately reserving for
         uncollectible loans in its non-traditional portfolio in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles,
         causing its financial results to be materially
         misstated;

     (c) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
         losses and defaults related to its non-traditional loan
         portfolio than it had previously disclosed; and

     (d) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in
         the subprime market and reductions in federal
         subsidies, the Company would be forced to tighten its
         lending standards on both its federal loans and private
         education loans which would have a direct material
         negative impact on its loan originations going forward.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC
          Pittsburgh
          Toll Free: 800-391-5164
          Phone: 412-391-5164
          Fax: 412-471-1033
          e-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
February 7-8, 2008
DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT CASES
ALI-ABA
Washington, DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 11-12, 2008
MEALEY'S REINSURANCE LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin, Washington, D.C.
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 13, 2008
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WEATHERING MASS TORT
AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS &

NEGOTIATIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 14, 2008
LEXISNEXIS LAW PRACTICE MANAGEMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WHEN
TO MERGE FIRMS AND HOW TO SURVIVE IT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 14-16, 2008
ERISA LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 14-15, 2008
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Coronado
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 21-22, 2008
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 26, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: MAXIMIZING COVERAGE - ANTICIPATING YOUR
CLIENT'S INSURANCE NEEDS BEFORE

THE CLAIM HAPPENS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 27, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CLIMATE CHANGE AND INSURANCE EXPOSURES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 27-28, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 28, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION WEBINAR: THE KEYS TO
SUCCESSFUL RAINMAKING
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 28-29, 2008
FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Scottsdale
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 28-29, 2008
LITIGATING TRADEMARK, INTERNET, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CASES
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 28-29, 2008
TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
ALI-ABA
Newport Beach
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 28-29, 2008
TRIAL OF A PATENT CASE
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 3-5, 2008
MEALEY'S EMERGING TRENDS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
A PLAINTIFF/DEFENSE FORUM & DEBATE
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Los Angeles at Beverly Hills
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 4-5, 2008
SUBPRIME LITIGATION AND REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
American Conference Institute
Dallas
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 5, 2008
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ATTORNEY CLIENT
PRIVILEGE IN CLASS ACTIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 6, 2008
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME-BACKED SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 11, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CHALLENGES OF THE MANAGING GENERAL
AGENT MODEL
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 11, 2008
MEALEY'S PRODUCT LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: DIACETYL LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 12, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: ASBESTOS RISK TRANSFER
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 12, 2008
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE TELECONFERENCE: COVERAGE ISSUES
ARISING FROM SUBPRIME LENDING
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: REINSURANCE/ARBITRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13, 2008
MEALEY'S NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES CONFERENCE
WHO''S SUING, WHO''S RESTORING AND CAN THEY DO BOTH?
Mealeys Seminars
Loews Philadelphia Hotel
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13-14, 2008
PRIVACY LAW: DEVELOPMENTS, PLANNING, AND LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 26, 2008
MEALEY'S PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE: PREEMPTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 27-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 31 - April 1, 2008
FDA BOOT CAMP
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 2, 2008
LEXISNEXIS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FOR ATTORNEYS -

HAVING THE HARD CONVERSATIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 3-4, 2008
MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort, Orlando
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 9-12, 2008
MEALEY'S 15th Annual Insurance Insolvency & Reinsurance
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

April 14-15, 2008
MEALEY'S CONFERENCE: FOOD & PRODUCT RECALL BUSINESS STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
The MGM Grand, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 15, 2008
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL COSTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION
UPDATE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
LEXISNEXIS® WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT : RAINMAKING,
NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE

DEVELOPMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Gleacher Center, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 30 - May 1, 2008
ACI LAW FIRM GENERAL COUNSEL SUMMIT
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

April 30 - May 1, 2008
WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

May 1-2, 2008
SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
ALI-ABA
Boston, MA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 5-6, 2008
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS TRIAL STRATEGIES CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 7, 2008
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

May 8, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE

DEVELOPMENT (ATLANTA)
Mealeys Seminars
The Atlantic Station Building, Atlanta, GA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

May 19-20, 2008
MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUMMIT: CAPITAL MARKETS CONVERGENCE AND
STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FACING THE

INSURANCE INDUSTRY
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

June 25, 2008
LEXISNEXIS® WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE

DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK)
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

July 30, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, &

STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

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


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
February 1-28, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 1-28, 2008
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 13, 2007
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

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

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

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

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


  






                           *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *