---

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

          Thursday, February 28, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 42
  
                            Headlines

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Movie Rentals Charges
CHEVY CHASE: Appeals Court Ruling on TIL Act Case Worries Banks
COMAIR HOLDINGS: Faces Breach of Duty Lawsuit in Kentucky
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Lawsuit in Delaware Alleges Overcharged Fees
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Lawsuits

E.I. DUPONT: Appeals to State SC Rulings in Spelter, W.Va. Suit
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Tenn. Court Dismisses ADA Violations Suit
MASCO CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Insulation Installation
MESIROW FINANCIAL: Ill. Court Revives Insurance Brokerage Suit

MILGARD MFG: Calif. Court Mulls Appeal in Faulty Windows Lawsuit
MOBILE WORKFORCE: Faces Lawsuit Over Unpaid Two Weeks' Wages
NETWORK SOLUTIONS: "Domain Names" Registry System, Challenged
NEW YORK: City Agrees to Settle Bias Case for Over $20 Million
NVR INC: Faces Multiple Overtime Wage Suits in Various States

NVR INC: Reaches Settlement in Pa. RESPA Violations Lawsuit
RECORDING INDUSTRY: Lawsuit Over Anti-Piracy Tactics Junked
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Kansas
TEXAS: Suit Challenges Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Act
TIME WARNER: Second Circuit Orders Remand of ERISA Suit to N.Y.

TIME WARNER: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Staro Asset" Securities Suit
TIME WARNER: Administration of Homestore.com Settlement Ongoing
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Faces N.J. Suit After Losing to Sony's Blu-Ray
WHIRLPOOL: Court Allows Defective Refrigerators Suit to Continue


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
PANERA BREAD: Schiffrin Barroway Files MO Securities Fraud Suit
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA



                           *********


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Movie Rentals Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed with
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens
alleging that its video stores charge customers for movie
rentals after they upgraded to an unlimited rental plan,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Alvin Warshaviak is bringing the class action
for breach of contract, fraud and violation of the Consumer
Protection Act on behalf of all customers who updated their
movie rental plan and paid an additional movie fee in order to
purportedly receive unlimited in-store free movie exchanges.

Mr. Warshaviak wants the court to determine:

     (a) whether the defendant breached its agreement with its
         customers by failing to allow the customer to get
         unlimited in-store free movie exchanges;

     (b) whether the defendant breached its duty of good faith
         and fair dealing by failing to allow the customer to
         get unlimited in-store free movie exchanges despite the
         customer's paying for the updated plan, and thus made
         the offer unlimited free movie exchange illusory;

     (c) whether the defendant engaged in fraudulent or unfair
         and deceitful practices by making misleading statement
         regarding the purported unlimited free movie exchange;

     (d) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         as a result of the defendant's wrongful conduct;

     (e) the appropriate measure of damages and other relief;

     (f) whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched by its  
         scheme of failing to provide clients with unlimited  
         free movie exchange despite their paying for the
         upgrade in plan; and

     (g) whether the defendant should be enjoined from
         continuing its unlawful practices.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- certifying the lawsuit as a class action pursuant to the
        provisions of Article 9 of the CPLR, with the plaintiff
        certified as representative of the class;

     -- directing payment of compensatory damages in favor of
        the plaintiff and the class;

     -- directing payment of punitive damages on the plaintiff's
        fraud claim, in an amount not less than three times the
        total damages as determined at trial;

     -- directing payment of other damages, as prescribed by
        law, including treble damages in excess of the statutory
        minimum under General Business Law Section 349; and

     -- directing payment of costs and disbursements incurred in
        connection with the action, including reasonable
        attorney's fees and expenses.

The suit is "Alvin Warshaviak et al v. Blockbuster, Inc., Index
No. 2159-08," filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Queens.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Harry I. Katz, P.C.
          61-25 Utopia Parkway
          Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
          Phone: 718-463-3700


CHEVY CHASE: Appeals Court Ruling on TIL Act Case Worries Banks
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court is nearing a decision on a battle
between Chevy Chase Bank and a Wisconsin couple -- Bryan and
Susan Andrews -- that could for the first time enable homeowners
across the country to band together in class-action lawsuits
against mortgage firms and get their loans canceled, The
Washington Post reports.

The Post relates that the case is alarming Wall Street's biggest
banks, which could bear the hefty cost of reimbursing all
mortgage interest, closing costs and broker fees to groups of
homeowners who uncover even minor mistakes in their loan
documents.

The report recalls that a federal judge in Milwaukee ruled in
2007 that the Wisconsin couple had been deceived and other
borrowers could join their suit.  Chevy Chase Bank then appealed
to the circuit court in Chicago.

The Post points out that home lending has boomed in recent
years, but standards loosened at many mortgage firms and led to
a rise of abuses, in particular predatory practices.  Now, many
people are finding themselves with loans that are more than they
can afford and many want a way out.

Estimates vary widely on the number of homeowners who could
benefit from the case, according to The Post.  Those who have
refinanced or hold a home equity loan are already eligible for a
refund, while others can get monetary damages.  The court's
ruling won't change this, but by allowing plaintiffs to file
class-action suits, it would be much easier and more affordable
for groups of homeowners to get that relief, several lawyers and
mortgage analysts told The Post.

In its court filings, Chevy Chase said that it would be
"irreparably harmed" if the class-action lawsuits are allowed.
About 7,000 borrowers have received loans from the bank similar
to that of the Wisconsin plaintiffs.

The law states that even a minuscule violation by a lender can
lead to a mortgage cancellation, or rescission, The Post notes.
For example, if the annual percentage rate calculation is off by
one-eighth of a percent between preliminary and final loan
documents or if a monthly payment schedule does not conform
precisely to federal guidelines, some borrowers could get a
refund for all they have paid to live in their homes for years.
They would have to pay back the entire amount of the loan, but
they could then seek a new mortgage on better terms.

According to the inspector general for the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp., 83% of federally supervised banks that issued
loans at the height of the housing boom in 2005 have been cited
for "significant compliance violations."  Lending abuses were
more frequent among the tens of thousands of state-regulated
banks and thrifts, such as the now-bankrupt New Century
Financial, industry analysts said.

However, few homeowners have been successful in getting their
loans canceled.  Most people are unaware they have this right,
consumer advocates said.  Others have found the process too
arduous and expensive, often requiring long legal battles.  
Chevy Chase said it negotiated two mortgage cancellations all of
last year.

That could change if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit rules in favor of allowing homeowners to join class-
action suits.  Plaintiff attorneys also would have far greater
financial incentive to take up such cases.

In previous cases, The Post observes, courts have been divided
over whether plaintiffs can file class-action suits to have
their mortgages rescinded.  In general, lower courts have sided
with homeowners, while federal courts have favored the banks.
Attorneys on both sides of the Chevy Chase case think the U.S.
Supreme Court will have to settle the matter.

                  Chevy Chase Suit Background

The case began when the Andrews got a loan ad in the mail in
2004.  The loan appeared far better than the fixed-rate mortgage
they had at the time, which was charging 5.75% interest.  With
college costs rising for his four children, Mr. Andrews said he
thought the mailer was a godsend.

However, the loan was actually an unorthodox mortgage that
allowed the interest rate to rise.  The advertised 1.95% rate
lasted only one month and quickly soared to above 8%.

"The bank kind of trapped us into it," Bryan Andrews said.  "We
were thinking we were set at 1.95, that it was black and white,
but it was not to be. It was pretty stressful the first few
months."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 18, 2007, the
mortgage loans in question have a feature, which permits a
borrower to elect monthly, for up to five years, to make either:

      -- a minimum payment based on a payment rate less than the
         variable interest rate;

      -- a payment equal to all accrued interest;

      -- a fully amortizing payment based on a 15-year term; or

      -- a fully amortizing payment based on the original term
         of the loan.

The Andrews case was brought as a class action on behalf of
borrowers of the five-year option ARMs for the period April 20,
2004, to the date of class certification, who had received the
same disclosure documents as the plaintiffs.  The court granted
class status to the Andrews.

Chevy Chase had argued that it had disclosed the actual rate and
definition of the loan in closing documents, but the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin found those
forms confusing.

Furthermore, the CAR reported that on Jan. 16, 2007, the court
ruled that the bank's disclosures relating to certain
residential mortgage loans violated the federal Truth-in-Lending  
Act.  The court said that the affected borrowers were entitled
to be given the option under the TIL Act to rescind their loans.

With respect to a remedy, no actual damages were alleged and the
court concluded that the violations did not give rise to
statutory damages.

The CAR noted that he rescission remedy is available only for
certain loans that are secured by a principal residence but were
not used to purchase the residence, principally refinancings.
The court further excluded borrowers who had received a
different version of the TIL disclosure document than had been
received by the Andrews.  The precise parameters and members of
the class will depend upon further court proceedings.

Chevy Chase has appealed the availability of a class-wide
rescission remedy and filed its brief in the court of appeals on
March 26, 2007.  Several major bank trade associations have
filed a brief supporting the bank's position.

The district court has suspended further proceedings in the case
pending a ruling on Chevy Chase's appeal.

The suit is "Andrews et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank FSB, Case No.
2:05-cv-00454-LA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Lynn Adelman.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael J. Aprahamian, Esq. (maprahamian@foley.com)
          Foley & Lardner LLP
          777 E. Wisconsin Ave.
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300
          Phone: 414-297-5516
          Fax: 414-297-4900

Representing the defendant is:

          Kevin J. Demet, Esq. (KDemet@Sprintmail.com)
          Demet & Demet SC
          815 N. Cass St.,
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Phone: 414-291-0800
          Fax: 414-291-9560


COMAIR HOLDINGS: Faces Breach of Duty Lawsuit in Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky claiming that Comair
Holdings, LLC, breached its duty by inducing Delta Air Lines
employees to put their 401(k) money into Delta stock before the
airline filed for bankruptcy, costing them millions of dollars,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The class action is the result of breaches of fiduciary duty to
the Comair Savings and Investment Plan and to the approximate
6,700 participants and beneficiaries of the plan.

Named plaintiff Wilmer C. Massey alleges that the retention of
Delta Air Lines common stock in the plan was imprudent and
violated ERISA's fiduciary duties.  Comair created the plan for
the benefit of its past, present and future employees.  The plan
is a defined contribution plan also knows as a 401(k) plan.
Comair intended the plan to help employees "build the financial
resources they need for a comfortable retirement."

Mr. Massey brings the action pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(1),
(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the Plan at any time between Dec. 31, 2004, and March 21,
2006, and whose accounts included investments in Delta common
stock.

The plaintiff wants the court to determine:

     (a) whether the defendants each owed a fiduciary duty to
         plaintiffs and members of the class;

     (b) whether the defendants breached fiduciary duties to
         the members of the class by failing to act
         prudently and solely in the interests of the plan's
         participants and beneficiaries;

     (c) whether the Delta Stock Fund was a prudent investment
         option for a defined contribution plan;

     (d) whether the defendants violated ERISA; and

     (e) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         and, if so, what is the proper measure of damages.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter:

      -- a declaration that the defendants, and each of them,
         have breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the
         participants;

      -- an order compelling the defendants to make good to the
         plan all losses to the plan resulting from defendants'
         breached of their fiduciary duties, including losses to
         the plan resulting from imprudent investment of the
         plan's assets, and to restore to the plan all profits
         the defendants made through use of the plan's assets,
         and to restore to the plan all profits which the
         participants would have made if the defendants had
         fulfilled their fiduciary obligations;

      -- imposition of a constructive trust on any amounts by
         which any defendant was unjustly enriched at the
         expense of the plan as the result of breaches of
         fiduciary duty;

      -- an order enjoining defendants, and each of them, from
         any further violations of their ERISA fiduciary
         obligations;

      -- a determination of actual damages in the amount of any
         losses the plan suffered, to be allocated among the
         participants' individual accounts in proportion to the
         account' losses;

      -- an order awarding costs pursuant to 29 USC Section
         1132(g);

      -- an order awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 USC
         Section 1132(g) and the common fund doctrine; and

      -- an order for equitable restitution and other
         appropriate equitable monetary relief against the
         defendants.

The suit is "Wilmer C. Massey et al. v. Comair Holdings, LLC,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Robert Sparks, Esq. (rsparks@pdfslaw.com)
          Parry Deeringfutscher & Sparks, PSC
          411 Garrar Street
          P.O. Box 2618
          Covington, KY 41012-2618
          Phone: (859) 392-8663


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Lawsuit in Delaware Alleges Overcharged Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
alleging that the Company overcharged for fees and expenses,
including attorneys' fees since 2002, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The suit is a class action for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing.

The suit, which is based on Countrywide's conduct in
overcharging the plaintiff and a class of similarly situated
individuals, seeks costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, through and including the present.

Named plaintiff Gregory O'Gara brings the action on behalf of
all individuals who:

     (i) executed a Mortgage Note providing the note holder is
         entitled to be "paid back . . . for all its costs and
         expenses in enforcing the note . . . including . . .
         reasonable attorneys' fess;"

    (ii) have been subject to an enforcement action concerning
         the Mortgage Note by Countrywide;

   (iii) received a demand from Countrywide to pay costs, fees
         and expenses in excess of those Countrywide and/or its
         agents actually incurred or were obligated to pay; and

    (iv) suffered damages as a result.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Countrywide imposed on class members inflated,
         unverifiable or false costs, fees and expenses
         associated with enforcement proceedings;

     (b) whether imposition of those costs, fees and expenses
         violated the clear and unambiguous terms of the
         Mortgage Notes executed by class members; and

     (c) whether, and to what extent, plaintiff and the members
         of the class have been damaged by Countrywide's breach
         of the Mortgage Note, and the proper measure of
         damages.

The plaintiff requests for judgment and relief as follows:

     -- declaring that this lawsuit is properly maintainable as
        a class action and certifying plaintiff as a
        representative of the class;

     -- declaring that Countrywide breached its contract with
        plaintiff and the members of the class;

     -- declaring that Countrywide was unjustly enriched as a
        result of its breach of contract with plaintiff and the
        members of the class, and that Countrywide violated its
        duty of good faith and fair dealing towards plaintiff
        and the class;

     -- awarding damages against Countrywide, in an amount to be
        determined at trial, together with prejudgment interest
        at the maximum rate allowable by law;

     -- permanently enjoining and restraining Countrywide
        directly or indirectly, through its sub-servicers,
        warehouse lenders, retail lenders, document custodians,
        settlement agents, title companies, insurers and
        investors and others, from overcharging costs and
        expenses, including any attorneys' fees, in excess of
        the amounts actually incurred or that were obligated to
        be paid in connection with enforcement and foreclosure
        proceedings;

     -- to the extent the court finds any ambiguity in the form
        Mortgage Note used by Countrywide in provisions
        pertaining to a borrower's obligation to reimburse
        Countrywide, directly or indirectly, for its costs, fees
        and expenses, directing Countrywide to redraft the same
        in a manner that fully and fairly describes the
        obligations of the borrower;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their costs and
        disbursements and and reasonable allowances for
        plaintiff's counsel and experts' fees and expenses; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as may be just
        and proper.

The suit is "Gregory O'Gara et al v. Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Carmella P. Keener (ckeener@rmgglaw.com)
          Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.
          Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Phone: (302) 656-4433
          Fax: (302) 658-7567


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Transportation, Inc., a Class I railroad in the U.S., owned
by the CSX Corp., faces several federal purported antitrust
class actions over its fuel surcharge practices, according to
the company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 28, 2007.

Since May 2007, at least 28 putative class action suits were
filed in various federal district courts against CSXT and the
four other U.S.-based Class I railroads.  

The lawsuits contain substantially similar allegations to the
effect that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to
contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal
conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws.  The suits seek
unquantified treble damages (three times the amount of actual
damages) allegedly sustained by purported class members,
attorneys' fees and other relief.  

All but three of the lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a
class of shippers that allegedly purchased rail freight
transportation services from the defendants through the use of
contracts or through other means exempt from rate regulation
during defined periods commencing as early as June 2003 and that
were assessed fuel surcharges.  

Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of indirect
purchasers of rail services.

CSX Corp. -- http://www.csx.com-- is a transportation company,  
which provides rail-based transportation services, including
traditional rail service, and the transport of intermodal
containers and trailers.  It operates in two business segments:
rail and intermodal.  The rail segment provides rail freight
transportation over a network of approximately 21,000 route
miles in 23 states, the District of Columbia, and the Canadian
provinces of Ontario and Quebec.  The intermodal segment
provides integrated rail and truck transportation services and
operates a network of dedicated intermodal facilities across
North America.  


E.I. DUPONT: Appeals to State SC Rulings in Spelter, W.Va. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is in response to the rulings in the
Spelter, W.Va., zinc smelter class action lawsuit late Monday.
The statement is to be attributed to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co. General Counsel Stacey J. Mobley.

"We are extremely disappointed by the rulings in the Spelter
case.  DuPont will appeal this case, including the recent
rulings and the earlier jury verdicts.  We believe there were
numerous errors, both during and after trial, that deprived the
company of a fair outcome in this case.  We are hopeful that the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia will grant review.

"The scientific evidence simply does not warrant medical
monitoring.  We believe the evidence presented both at trial and
in the post-trial proceedings shows that there is no increased
risk of disease to the class members as a result of the smelter.

"The court's decision to include biennial chest CT scans in the
medical monitoring program is particularly troubling.  CT scans
are not recommended for such medical monitoring because the
risks of harm, including risks of cancer due to radiation
exposure, outweigh any benefits.  This determination is
supported by a recent study published in the New England Journal
of Medicine.  The trial evidence showed that neither the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force, nor any other authoritative
medical screening authority, recommends CT scans for screening
asymptomatic patients.  The court's rulings, which adopt a plan
that includes regular CT scans, ignore the consensus of the
medical community.

"The court also erred in estimating the cost of the medical
monitoring program at $130 million.  Plaintiffs' counsel
presented a grossly inflated cost projection as justification
for a larger award of attorneys' fees.  This estimate is based
on implausible and inflated assumptions and forecasts about
medical costs and participation rates for the class members.
This projection overestimates the reasonable expected cost of
the program by many tens of millions of dollars.  DuPont's
funding obligations will be based on the actual cost of the
program, not plaintiffs' unrealistic estimate."

                       Case Background

In 2004, 10 property owners from the town of Spelter filed a
negligence suit against the companies for dumping arsenic,
cadmium and lead on a 112-acre site of a former zinc-smelting
plant.  Dupont bought the property in 1899.  It re-assumed
ownership of the zinc smelting plant when it was shut down by
authorities in 2001 due to health concerns.

The lawsuit demands long-term medical monitoring, property
damages and punitive damages.

The defendants are:

     -- Dupont;

     -- T.L. Diamond & Co. in New York and plant manager Joe
        Puashel;

     -- Nuzum Trucking Co. of Shinnston; and
        two defunct companies:
     
        * Matthiesen & Hegeler Zinc Co. Inc. of Illinois, and
        * Meadowbrook Corp. of West Virginia.

In Oct. 2007, an 11-member jury heard closing arguments in the
class action filed against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., and
New York-based T.L. Diamond and Co., among others, over
pollution at Harrison County (class Action Reporter, Oct. 2,
2007).

During opening arguments, DuPont lawyers portrayed the company
as a good corporate neighbor, according to Associated Press.  
DuPont and Diamond deny wrongdoing.  During closing arguments,
an attorney for the plaintiffs argued that DuPont should be
required not only to clean up the mess but also to monitor the
health of the people living around it.

Dupont's attorneys denied the company deliberately created the
waste site saying there is no evidence to support that claim.  
They also said Dupont capped the site so it might someday be
redeveloped.  They also insisted that Dupont kept up its
responsibility of cleaning up the site.  DuPont lawyer Dave
Thomas said even now DuPont does quarterly testing of the West
Fork River, where runoff from the waste piles once went.  
Defense attorney Jeffrey A. Hall also argued for the company.

The jury is to decide whether the companies have committed
wrongdoing.  If it found out that they did, it will next
determine whether the plaintiffs deserve medical screenings.  A
third phase would address property damages.  Finally,
the jury would address whether punitive damages should be
awarded.

DuPont has set aside $15 million to deal with the lawsuit,
according to an Aug. 1 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.  
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com/-- operates globally,    
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to  
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and  
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home  
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective  
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FARO Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: FARO), the world market leader
in portable computer-aided measurement arms and laser tracker
sales, has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle
the consolidated class action securities fraud lawsuit pending
against FARO and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, which is subject to
certain conditions, the issuer of the Company's directors and
officers insurance policy will pay $6.875 million into a
settlement fund that will be distributed to members of a class
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
April 15, 2004, through March 15, 2006, and to the lead
plaintiff's counsel and also will be used to pay various costs.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides that the parties to the
Securities Litigation will file with the court a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement seeking the court's preliminary and
final approval of the terms of the proposed settlement.

If the Court approves the settlement, a judgment will be entered
dismissing the Securities Litigation, with prejudice, as against
each defendant.

Announcing the settlement, Jay Freeland, FARO's President and
CEO, stated, "We have always believed that the case was without
merit and had planned to continue defending the litigation
vigorously.  However, given that we were able to reach an
accommodation that will be fully covered by our directors and
officers insurance and was acceptable to our insurance carrier,
we are pleased to be able to avoid the distraction that further
litigation could cause.  As the settlement does not require any
payment by either FARO or any of the individual defendants, our
shareholders are best served with this matter behind us and our
attention focused on our business."

FARO also announced that a Verified Shareholder Derivative
Complaint (the Derivative Complaint) has been filed by an
alleged shareholder of the Company in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida against five current
and one former director of the Company, as defendants, and
against the Company, as a nominal defendant.

The Derivative Complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and
other claims against the individual defendants principally in
connection with the alleged acts and omissions asserted in the
Securities Litigation.  The plaintiff alleges that the
individual defendants caused the Company's stock price to be
falsely inflated, and subjected the Company to costs, fines and
other damages, as well as a loss of good will.  The plaintiff
purports to seek an unspecified amount of damages, together with
other relief, on behalf of the Company and against the
individual defendants.  Prior to filing the Derivative
Complaint, the plaintiff had requested that the Company assert
certain of such claims against some of the individual
defendants.  The Company has formed a committee of independent
directors to review and investigate the shareholder's demand,
and the allegations made in the Derivative Complaint.  The
committee has not yet made a recommendation with respect to
those matters.  To the Company's knowledge, no defendant has
been served with the Derivative Complaint.

                      Case Background

On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical class
action securities fraud lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain officers of the Company.

On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and
Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc., was appointed as the lead
plaintiff.

On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Company and the individual
defendants.

The Amended Complaint also named Grant Thornton LLP, the
Company's independent registered public accounting firm, as an
additional defendant.

On July 31, 2006, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  On Feb. 3, 2007, the Court dismissed the
Amended Complaint, without prejudice.

As to the Company and the individual defendants, the Court's
decision primarily was based on its findings that the Amended
Complaint failed to adequately allege:

      -- scienter (i.e., intentionally fraudulent or severely
         reckless conduct) with respect to certain claims; and

      -- that certain supposed misrepresentations or omissions
         actually caused economic loss.

The Court granted Kornitzer leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint by Feb. 22, 2007.

On Feb. 22, 2007, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company, the
individual defendants and Grant Thornton LLP.

In the Second Amended Complaint, as in the Amended Complaint,
Kornitzer seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly
traded securities between April 15, 2004, and March 15, 2006.

On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, premised on allegations that each defendant
made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact during
the class period in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Among other things, Kornitzer alleges:

      -- that the Company's reported inventory, gross margins
         and profits were false and misleading during a portion
         of the class period because the Company consciously
         overstated the value of its inventory;

      -- that the Company misstated during 2005 certain of the
         selling expenses it had accrued and had expected to
         incur;

      -- that certain Asian sales that the Company had reported
         during the class period had been the product of
         unlawful payments made in violation of the Foreign
         Corrupt Practices Act, and that the Company failed to
         disclose that it was utilizing unlawful means to
         achieve such sales; and

      -- that certain of the Company's statements regarding the
         Company's systems of internal controls had been false
         and misleading, in light of the above and other
         circumstances.

In May, the company, sought for the dismissal of the Second
Amended Complaint in the securities fraud class action pending
against it (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2007).

The court has issued a Report and Recommendation to enter an
order denying FARO Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the
second amended consolidated securities class action (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007).


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Tenn. Court Dismisses ADA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
entered an order dismissing the class action "Access Now, Inc.
v. Lifepoint Hospitals, et al., Case No. 4:01-cv-00002," due to
the lack of individual plaintiffs, according to the company's
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The class action was filed on Jan. 12, 2001, with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against
each of the company's existing hospitals alleging non-compliance
with the accessibility guidelines of Americans with Disabilities
Act.

On April 20, 2007, the plaintiff amended the lawsuit to add
hospitals that the company subsequently acquired, including the
former Province Facilities, Wythe County Community Hospital and
Danville Regional Medical Center and dismiss divested
facilities.

The lawsuit did not seek any monetary damages, but seeks
injunctive relief requiring facility modification, where
necessary, to meet ADA guidelines, in addition to attorneys'
fees and costs.

The company is currently unable to estimate the costs that could
be associated with modifying these facilities because the costs
are negotiated and determined on a facility-by-facility basis
and, therefore, have varied and will continue to vary
significantly among facilities.

In January 2002, the District Court certified the class action
and issued a scheduling order that requires the parties to
complete discovery and inspection for approximately six
facilities per year.

Through Jan. 31, 2008, the plaintiffs had conducted inspections
at 32 of the company's hospitals (including two subsequently
divested hospitals).  

As of Jan. 31, 2008, the District Court approved settlement
agreements between the company, and the plaintiff relating to 13
of these facilities.  

The company has completed corrective work on three facilities
for a cost of $1.0 million.  It currently anticipates that the
costs associated with the ten other facilities which have court-
approved settlement agreements will range from $5.1 million to
$7.0 million.

On Feb. 12, 2008, the District Court entered an order dismissing
the case due to the lack of individual plaintiffs.  The
plaintiffs reserve the right to re-file the case during an
appeal period that has not yet expired.

The suit is "Access Now, Inc. v. Lifepoint Hospitals, et al.,
Case No. 4:01-cv-00002," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee, Judge James H. Jarvis
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Linda F. Burnsed, Esq.(lburnsed@ccblaw.net)
        Stanley M. Chernau, Esq. (schernau@ccblaw.net)
        Chernau, Chaffin & Burnsed, PLLC
        One American Center, 3100 West End Avenue, Suite 550
        Nashville, TN 37203
        Phone: 615-460-7478
        Fax: 615-460-7484

             - and -

        Charles D. Ferguson, Esq. (ferguson@delao-marko.com)
        3001 S.W. 3rd Avenue
        Miami, FL 33129
        Phone: 305-285-2000
        Fax: 305-285-5555

Representing the defendants are:

        Andrew S. Naylor, Esq. (andy.naylor@wallerlaw.com)
        Paula D. Walker, Esq. (paula.walker@wallerlaw.com)
        Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis
        P.O. Box 198966
        511 Union Street, Suite 2700
        Nashville, TN 37219-8966
        Phone: 615-850-8578
        Fax: 615-244-6804
        Web site: http://www.wallerlaw.com


MASCO CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Insulation Installation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corp. continues to face several purported class actions in
various courts in connection with insulation installation,
according to the company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                       Atlanta Litigation

Early in 2003, a suit was brought against the Company and a
number of its insulation installation companies with the federal
court in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that certain practices
violate provisions of federal and state antitrust laws.

The plaintiff publicized the lawsuit with a press release where
it stated that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating
the business practices of the Company's insulation installation
companies.

Although it was unaware of any investigation at that time, the
Company was later advised that an investigation had been
commenced, but was subsequently closed without any enforcement
action recommended.

                       Virginia Litigation

Two additional lawsuits against the Company were later brought
in Virginia making similar claims under the antitrust laws.  
Both of these lawsuits have since been dismissed without any
payment or requirement for any change in business practices.

During the second half of 2004, the same counsel who commenced
the initial action in Atlanta filed six additional lawsuits on
behalf of several of Masco's competitors in the insulation
installation business.

The plaintiffs then dismissed all of these lawsuits and,
represented by the same counsel, filed another action with the
same federal court as a putative class action against the
Company, a number of its insulation installation companies, and
certain of their suppliers.

All of the Company's suppliers, who are co-defendants in the
lawsuit, have settled this case.  

The suit currently seeks class representation for residential
insulation contractors (other than the defendants and their
affiliates) that have directly purchased fiberglass insulation
suitable for residential installation from certain insulation
manufacturers.

                 Florida & California Litigation

Two lawsuits seeking class action status and alleging
anticompetitive conduct were also filed against the Company and
a number of its insulation suppliers.

One of these lawsuits was filed in a Florida state court and has
been dismissed by the court with prejudice.  The other lawsuit
was filed with the federal court in northern California and was
recently transferred to a federal court in Atlanta, Georgia.

                       Company on Defense

The Company is vigorously defending all remaining cases,
including opposing class certification of the direct purchasers
of insulation who are competitors of the Company and who
constitute the purported class in one such case, and California
indirect purchasers of insulation who are either consumers or
builders and who constitute the purported class in the other
such case.

Taylor, Michigan-based Masco Corp. -- http://www.masco.com/--  
manufactures, distributes and installs home improvement and
building products.  Masco operates in five segments: Cabinets
and Related Products, which includes assembled and ready-to-
assemble kitchen and bath cabinets, home office workstations,
entertainment centers, storage products, bookcases, and kitchen
utility products; Plumbing Products, which includes faucets
plumbing fittings and valves, showerheads and hand showers,
bathtubs and shower enclosures, and spas; Installation and Other
Services, which includes the sale, installation and distribution
of insulation and other building products; Decorative
Architectural Products, which includes paints and stains, and
door, window and other hardware, and Other Specialty Products,
which includes windows, window frame components and patio doors,
staple gun tackers, staples and other fastening tools, and
hydronic radiators and heat convectors.


MESIROW FINANCIAL: Ill. Court Revives Insurance Brokerage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court has revived a class-action lawsuit
against Mesirow Financial alleging that its commercial insurance
brokerage hurts clients by accepting back-end commissions from
insurers, Chicago Business reports.

According to Chicago Business, a three-judge panel entered a
ruling on Feb. 14, 2008, that overturned the dismissal of the
2005 suit filed by Crystal Lake manufacturer DOD Technologies.

The report writes that the recent ruling could open the door to
more litigation over the issue of so-called "contingent
commissions," which many insurers pay brokers annually based on
how much business they generate and how profitable it is.

Critics have depicted the payments as akin to kickbacks, putting
the brokers potentially at odds with the interests of their
clients, Chicago Business points out.  Brokers that accept the
commissions say they are an ordinary part of their compensation
and pose no threat to clients because they are disclosed
upfront.

The Appellate Court ruled that a 1996 state law that shields
brokers in many instances from after-the-fact client complaints
does not automatically protect them in contingent-commission
disputes.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of all Mesirow clients in the same
situation, requests that Mesirow pay damages based on the amount
it received over about a decade in contingent commissions.  The
attorney for DOD Technologies estimates the total at about
$70 million.

The case now goes back to the Cook County Circuit Court for more
proceedings.


MILGARD MFG: Calif. Court Mulls Appeal in Faulty Windows Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal in
a class action against Milgard Manufacturing, Inc., a subsidiary
of Masco Corp., over allegedly defective aluminum windows.

The suit was served in February 2003 on Milgard Manufacturing,
in the Solano County, California Superior Court, alleging design
defects in certain of Milgard's aluminum windows.  The complaint
requests class action status for all owners of homes in
California in which the windows are installed, and seeks
replacement costs and other damages.  

Milgard denies that the windows are defective and is vigorously
defending the case.

In August 2006 the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The plaintiffs immediately filed a notice
of appeal to the California Court of Appeals.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Taylor, Michigan-based Masco Corp. -- http://www.masco.com/--  
manufactures, distributes and installs home improvement and
building products.  Masco operates in five segments: Cabinets
and Related Products, which includes assembled and ready-to-
assemble kitchen and bath cabinets, home office workstations,
entertainment centers, storage products, bookcases, and kitchen
utility products; Plumbing Products, which includes faucets
plumbing fittings and valves, showerheads and hand showers,
bathtubs and shower enclosures, and spas; Installation and Other
Services, which includes the sale, installation and distribution
of insulation and other building products; Decorative
Architectural Products, which includes paints and stains, and
door, window and other hardware, and Other Specialty Products,
which includes windows, window frame components and patio doors,
staple gun tackers, staples and other fastening tools, and
hydronic radiators and heat convectors.


MOBILE WORKFORCE: Faces Lawsuit Over Unpaid Two Weeks' Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Some workers hired by Mobile Workforce Inc. have filed a class
action with the Superior Court for two weeks' wages they say
they were never paid last year, plus triple damages for fraud
and punitive damages "in the amount appropriate to punish and
make an example" of the employer, projo.com reports.

Gregory Pehrson, of Fuerza Laboral ("Power of Workers") -- a
Central Falls advocacy agency that announced the lawsuit --
decided to sue after a fruitless seven-month wait, during which
they have held protests and filed unpaid wage complaints with
the state Department of Labor.

According to some 130 workers, the Pawtucket temporary
employment agency failed to pay them, which resulted to being
forced out of their homes and a few being jailed for non-payment
of child-support.

Lee Carpenter, Esq., the North Scituate lawyer who represents
the workers, said "some of these workers were not paid for two
to four weeks; checks bounced, and some were never written."

Many of the workers live paycheck to paycheck, he said, "so
there are people who gave up their apartments or were thrown in
jail when they couldn't pay their child support . . . When
you're paid minimum wage and you're paying rent weekly, it's a
big deal when you lose even a thousand dollars in wages.

"So that's why we're asking for wages, and damages for either
negligence or fraud, depending on what the facts turn out to be.
My belief is that if [Bessette and Underwood] knew they didn't
have money in their account and sent people to work anyway;
that's fraud."

Mr. Carpenter said, the non-payment damaged credit ratings and
disrupted what for many are fragile minimum-wage finances.

The suit also alleges that Carol Ann Bessette and Nicole
Underwood -- whom workers said are mother and daughter --
operated the agency as "a sham," and conducted "a scheme" to
defraud workers, knowing that they did not have the money to pay
them.

According to the lawsuit, the IRS had placed tax liens on Ms.
Bessette and Ms. Underwood "during 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
and 2007," in amounts greater than $120,000, and, "upon
information and belief," the IRS seized, attached or levied the
funds in their bank accounts.

The lawsuit seeks to bar Madames Bessette and Underwood,
identified as principals and owners of Mobile Workforce Inc.,
from ever owning or operating "any employment agency, temporary
employment agency, or otherwise employing workers in the state
of Rhode Island."


NETWORK SOLUTIONS: "Domain Names" Registry System, Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
Network Solutions, LLC, is facing a class-action complaint filed
on Feb. 25, with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California challenging its system of registering
"Net Domain Names," CourtHouse News Service reports.

The action arises from the fraudulent and deceptive business
practices that Network Solutions employs to effectively trap
consumers into paying its grossly inflated domain name
registration fees.

Named plaintiff Chris McElroy accuses Net Solutions of of
fraudulently "trap(ping) consumers into paying its grossly
inflated domain name registration fees" through its Web site on
which customers can search the availability of domain names.

The suit states "Unbeknownst to consumers, Network Solutions
immediately registers for itself any domain name that consumers
provide to Network Solutions in order to determine whether the
name is available."

The complaint continues, "Network Solutions never informs
consumers that it has registered the domain name for itself;
instead, Network Solutions tells consumers that their domain
name is 'available' and offers to register the domain.  It is
only at this point -- after it has secretly registered the
domain for itself -- that Network Solutions finally reveals what
it will charge."

"{Consumers cannot register their domain name through any of
Network Solutions' less expensive competitors because their
chosen domain is unavailable through any other service -- which
(unbeknownst to the consumer) is now held exclusively by Network
Solutions -- who is now offering to sell the domain name to
anyone will to pay its grossly inflated registration fee.
Consumers, therefore, are held hostage: they can either pay what
Network Solutions demands or risk that someone else will and
steal their domain name," the suit states.

According to the report, Mr. McElroy also sued the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.  He claims, "A
consumer cannot directly register and manage their domain name
information with ICANN.  Instead, consumers must utilize a
domain name registrar to have his or her domain name registered
and managed with the appropriate domain name registry.  A domain
name registrar is a company accredited by ICANN to register
domain names in the domain name registry.

"The Shared Registration System (SRS) is a central system that
allows all accredited domain name registrars to equally access,
register and control domain names.  Before the creation of the
SRS in 1999, Network Solutions had a monopoly in the operation
of the most important domain name registries (including .com,
.net and .org) and was therefore the only domain name registrar.
With the creation of the STS, Network Solutions' monopoly ended,
so it allegedly employed this sneaky way to do its business, as
domain names are assigned on a 'first-come-first-served' basis,"
the suit states.

Mr. McElroy says he discovered the alleged fraud by trying to
register kidsearchnetwork.com with Network Solutions, which told
him the name was "available" and would charge him $34.99 a year
for it.  He then went to another registrar, GoDaddy, to look for
a better deal, but "GoDaddy, however, informed Plaintiff that
the domain name that he was attempting to register -- and which
Network Solutions informed was available just minutes earlier --
was unavailable," because Network Solutions had just registered
it.

Mr. McElroy says he was forced to register through Network
Solutions, and that "GoDaddy would have charged only $9.99 to
register the same domain name."

Mr. McElroy brings the class action on behalf of all persons or
entities in the United States who searched for the availability
of a domain name through Network Solutions and subsequently
registered that domain name through Network Solutions.

Mr. McElroy wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Network Solutions failed to disclose to
         consumers the material fact that when a consumer
         searches for the availability of a domain name on
         Network Solutions' website, they will be prevented from
         registering the domain name with any other domain name
         registrar;

     (b) whether Network Solutions was unjustly enriched by the
         wrongs complained of; and

     (c) whether or not plaintiff and the members of the class
         have been damaged by the wrongs complained of, and if
         so, the measure of those damages and the nature and
         extent of other relief that should be afforded.

Mr. McElroy requests that the court enter the following
judgment:

     -- certification of the proposed class and notice thereto
        to be paid by defendant;

     -- adjudge and decree that defendants have engaged in the
        conduct alleged;

     -- for restitution and disgorgement on certain causes of
        action;

     -- for an injunction ordering defendants to cease and
        desist from engaging in the unfair, unlawful, and/or
        fraudulent practices alleged in the complaint;

     -- for compensatory and general damages according to proof
        on certain causes of action;

     -- for special damages according to proof on certain causes
        of action;

     -- for both pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum
        allowable rate on any amounts awarded;

     -- costs of the proceedings;

     -- reasonable attorneys fees as allowed by statute; and

     -- any and all such other and further relief that the court
        may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Chris McElroy et al. v. Network Solutions, LLC,
Case No. CV08-01247 PSG VBK," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
          Richard L. Kellner, Esq. (rlk@kbklawyers.com)
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. (at@kbklawyers.com)
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 217-5000
          Fax: (213) 217-5010


NEW YORK: City Agrees to Settle Bias Case for Over $20 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York City has agreed to pay more than $20 million as
settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit alleging that the
Department of Parks and Recreation systematically discriminated
against black and Hispanic employees in awarding jobs and
setting salaries, Diane Cardwell writes for the New York Times.

Newsday.com relates that black and Hispanic parks employees said
they received less pay and fewer promotions than white co-
workers and claimed that the city retaliated against them when
they complained.  Those who complained, NY Times says, faced
punishments like being reassigned to dusty basement desks or to
an office far from home.

The settlement, according to Newsday, could end the plantiffs'
nine-year battle with the city if the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan approves it.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Web site says
that the Court is expected to schedule a fairness hearing for
May 12, 2008, and class members will receive individual notice
about the settlement in the next 30-45 days.

In reaching the settlement, the city agreed to award back pay
and compensatory damages for the class, NY Times notes.  The
city also agreed to new pay scales, promotion practices and
oversight procedures.

The New York Sun specifies that the city will dole out
$11.89 million in back pay to a group of about 3,500 current and
former employees of the department.  The city will also pay
about $9 million in fees and costs to five law firms
representing the plaintiffs.

NY Times says that parts of the settlement would remain in
effect for three years, pursuant to which the city agreed to a
system allowing employees to challenge what they see as unfair
pay disparities and to a training program for interviewers.  In
addition, the city agreed to study the managerial selection
process and the treatment of those who file discrimination
charges against the agency.

According to the NY Times, the city did not admit wrongdoing,
and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was eager to move beyond
the accusations of discrimination that have dogged the parks
department since the original filing of the lawsuit in 2001.

Lewis M. Steel, Esq., who represents the plaintiffs, said that
the city needed to work harder to enforce its own anti-
discrimination laws and cited a pending Justice Department suit
over alleged racial bias in the entrance exam for the Fire
Department.

NY Times recounts that the parks department case grew out of an
original set of complaints filed in 1999 with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, which found in 2001 that
there was "reasonable cause" to believe that the agency was
discriminating against its black and Hispanic employees.  Soon
after, lawyers brought the class-action suit on behalf of 11
employees, which gained considerable heft after the Justice
Department filed its own civil rights lawsuit in 2002.

The city settled that suit in 2005, agreeing to broad changes in
promotion practices at the parks department, but did not begin
negotiating an agreement in the class-action suit until 2006,
after the federal judge, Denny Chin of United States District
Court in Manhattan, found that there was sufficient evidence to
merit a trial, NY Times further relates.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cynthia Rollings, Esq. (crollings@blhny.com)
          Beldock Levine & Hoffman, LLP
          99 Park Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 490-0400
                 (212) 277-5813
          Fax: (212) 557-0565

               - and -

          Lewis M. Steel, Esq. (ls@outtengolden.com)
          Outten & Golden LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 245-1000
          Fax: (212) 977-4005

The City of New York is represented by:

          Georgia Pestana, Esq.
          New York City Law department
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 788-0303
          Fax: (212) 788-0367


NVR INC: Faces Multiple Overtime Wage Suits in Various States
-------------------------------------------------------------
NVR, Inc., is facing several purported class actions in Ohio,
Maryland, and New York in connection with unpaid overtime wages,
according to the company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In July 2007, former employees filed the lawsuits against the
company with the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania; the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County,
Ohio;  the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina; and
the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland; and the
Superior Court in New Jersey.

The suits allege that the company incorrectly classified its
sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from
overtime wages.  

These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on
Oct. 29, 2004, by another former employee with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other
fees and interest.  

The suits were filed as a purported class action.  The class of
individuals that any of the lawsuits purport to represent has
not been certified.

NVR, Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- is engaged in the  
construction and sale of single-family detached homes, town
homes and condominium buildings.  NVR also operates a mortgage
banking business.


NVR INC: Reaches Settlement in Pa. RESPA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
NVR, Inc., settled a purported class action filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
alleging violations of Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement
and Protection Act.

The lawsuit, "Laughlin et al v. NVR, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-
00494," was filed by one of the company's customers on April 16,
2007, as a purported class action.  The complaint seeks treble
damages, interest, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney
fees and other expenses.

In January 2008, the suit was settled for a nominal amount and
dismissed in its entirety, according to the company's Feb. 22,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Laughlin et al v. NVR, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-
00494," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Gary L. Lancaster presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. (bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com)
          Carlson Lynch
          P.O. Box 367
          231 Melville Lane
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Phone: (412) 749-1677

Representing the defendants are:

          Brent R. Lindahl, Esq. (blindahl@briggs.com)
          Briggs & Morgan
          2200 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 977-8454

          Robert J. Pratte, Esq. (robert.pratte@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP
          90 South Seventh Street
          Suite 5100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 524-3030
          Fax: (612) 524-3070

               - and -

          Thomas E. Birsic, Esq. (klgateseservice@klgates.com)
          Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP
          535 Smithfield Street
          Henry W. Oliver Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2312
          Phone: (412) 355-6538


RECORDING INDUSTRY: Lawsuit Over Anti-Piracy Tactics Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna J. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon tossed out a purported class action filed against the
Recording Industry Association of America over its
tactics to fight piracy, Wired Blog Network reports.

The case was filed by Tanya Andersen, a disabled single mother,
who had been defending herself against copyright infringement
allegations by RIAA for almost two years, until RIAA finally
dropped its case against her "with prejudice," (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 27, 2007).

The suit is for malicious prosecution.  In it, Ms. Andersen
alleges that RIAA used illegal and flawed methods when
investigating people for downloading or swapping copyrighted
songs without paying.  Furthermore, Ms. Andersen claims that
RIAA knew of the faulty methods but continued to pursue its
lawsuits, even against innocent people such as herself.

Aside from RIAA, other defendants in the suit include:

       -- MediaSentry and its owner, SafeNet;

       -- Settlement Support Center LLC, a Washington company
          operating as the debt collection arm for the
          defendants' "coordinated enterprise to pursue a scheme
          of threatening and intimidating litigation;"

       -- Atlantic Recording Corp;

       -- Priority Records;
       
       -- Capitol Records;
      
       -- UMG Recordings; and

       -- BMG Music.

In a brief order, Judge Brown ruled that lawyers for
Ms. Andersen could re-file an amended version of the lawsuit,
which seeks to represent what they enumerated as "many thousands
of individuals" who have been falsely targeted by the RIAA.

Among other things, the judge ruled that the 42-year-old
Andersen, who was sued by the RIAA and beat the case, "has not
adequately stated claims for relief" in her countersuit.

But the judge's order did not bode well for a new, amended suit,
the report said.  There remains huge legal hurdles for the main
allegations to survive, according to the judge.

The allegations at issue include fraud and violations of the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The judge advises that RICO allegations would likely survive if
they portray the RIAA litigation as a "sham" unsupported by any
evidence.

The RIAA sues those whose IP addresses were detected sharing
copyrighted music, meaning its cases are rooted with enough
support that they would likely pass the "sham" smell test.

The suit is "Tanya Andersen v. Atlantic Recording, Case No. 07-
934BVR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Lory R. Lybeck, P.S.
          Lybeck Murphy, LLP
          500 Island Corporate Ctr., 7525 Southeast 24th St.
          Mercer Island, Washington 98040
          Phone: 206-230-4255
          Fax: 206-230-7791
          Web site: http://www.lybeckmurphy.com  


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., continues to face a purported
class action captioned, "Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company
et al.," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas on Feb. 16, 2007.

The defendants were served with the suit in early April 2007.  
Spirit AeroSystems, The Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for
IBEW, WEU and WTPU Employees and The Spirit AeroSystems
Retirement Plan for IAM Employees, along with The Boeing Co.,
and Boeing retirement and health plan entities, were sued by 12
former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of
Spirit.

The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and general contract law
and purport to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly-situated individuals.

The putative sub-class members who have asserted claims against
the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005,
were employed by Boeing Aircraft Company in Wichita, Kansas and
who were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least
10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in a job
represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55 and
who went to work for Spirit on June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities are that the Spirit plans
wrongfully have failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are
entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" allegedly
triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and that
the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully transferred
from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement
"bridging rights" are not being afforded these individuals as a
result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their
benefits.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class, declaration that
they are entitled to the early retirement benefits, an
injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits,
payment of damages pursuant to breach of contract claims, and
payment of attorneys' fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Harkness et al. v. Boeing et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-
01043-WEB-KMH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge Wesley E. Brown with referral to
Judge Karen M. Humphreys.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Hammond, Esq. (tehammond1@yahoo.com)
         Hammond, Zongker & Farris, L.L.C.
         727 North Waco, Ste. 200, P. O. Box 47370
         Wichita, KS 67201
         Phone: 316-262-6800
         Fax: 316-262-3770

              - and -

         Keira M. McNett, Esq. (kmcnett@dcbwash.com)
         Davis, Cowell & Bowe LLP
         1701 K. Street NW, Ste. 210
         Washington, DC 20006
         Phone: 202-223-2620
         Fax: 202-223-8651

Representing the defendants are:

         Gregory L. Ash, Esq. (gash@spencerfane.com)
         Spencer Fane Britt & Browne
         40 Corporate Woods, Ste. 700, 9401 Indian Creek Parkway
         Overland Park, KS 66210
         Phone: 913-345-8100
         Fax: 913-345-0736

              - and -

         James M. Armstrong, Esq. (jarmstrong@foulston.com)
         Foulston Siefkin LLP
         1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
         Wichita, KS 67206-4466
         Phone: 316-291-9576
         Fax: 316-267-6345


TEXAS: Suit Challenges Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas in Marshall challenges the 2003 Medical
Malpractice and Tort Reform Act that limits awards in Texas, The
Associated Press reports.

In January, the wife of former Dallas Cowboy and Lafayette High
football standout Ron Springs -- who has been in a coma since
fall following surgery to remove a cyst -- filed a medical
malpractice lawsuit against two doctors she says caused brain
damage to her husband during a routine surgery to remove a cyst.

According to the report, the law limits awards for pain and
suffering at $250,000 for doctors, $250,000 for hospitals, and
$250,000 for nursing homes and other institutions for a maximum
of $750,000 per claimant.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the cap unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs are asking for class action status.


TIME WARNER: Second Circuit Orders Remand of ERISA Suit to N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the
remand of several soon-to-be-settled lawsuit against Time
Warner, Inc., alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

During the Fall of 2002 and Winter of 2003, several putative
class action lawsuits were filed alleging violations of ERISA in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of current and former participants in the Time Warner
Savings Plan, the Time Warner Thrift Plan and the TWC Savings
Plan.  Collectively, these lawsuits named as defendants the
Company, certain of its current and former directors and
officers, and members of the Administrative Committees of the
Plans.

The lawsuits alleged that the Company and the other defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties to plan participants by, inter
alia, continuing to offer Time Warner stock as an investment
under the Plans, and by failing to disclose, among other things,
that the Company was experiencing declining advertising revenues
and that the Company was inappropriately inflating advertising
revenues through various transactions.

In 2006, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the ERISA matters, and the court granted final approval
of the settlement on Sept. 27, 2006.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the court issued an order approving certain
attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as approving certain
incentive awards to the lead plaintiffs.  However, in November
2007, two of the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's decision.  

In a stipulation dated Jan. 25, 2008, the parties agreed that
the case be remanded to the district court for the limited
purpose of considering the request by the co-lead counsel to
resolve the amounts at issue on appeal, and the appellate court
ordered the remand on Jan. 29, 2008.

Time Warner, Inc. -- http://www.timewarner.com-- is a media and  
entertainment company that operates in five business segments:
AOL LLC (AOL), consisting principally of interactive consumer
and advertising services; Cable, consisting principally of cable
systems that provide video, high-speed data and voice services;
Filmed Entertainment, consisting principally of feature film,
television and home video production and distribution; Networks,
consisting principally of cable television networks that provide
programming, and Publishing, consisting principally of magazine
publishing.


TIME WARNER: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Staro Asset" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed with prejudice the purported securities fraud class
action "Staro Asset Mgmt. v. AOL Time Warner, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-09345-SWK," which names Time Warner, Inc., as a
defendant, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Nov. 11, 2002, Staro Asset Management, LLC, filed a putative
class action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of certain purchasers of
Reliant 2.0% Zero-Premium Exchangeable Subordinated Notes for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The plaintiff is a purchaser of subordinated notes, the price of
which was purportedly tied to the market value of Time Warner
stock.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company made
misstatements and omissions of material fact that artificially
inflated the value of Time Warner stock and directly affected
the price of the notes.  

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and rescission.  

The lawsuit has been consolidated for coordinated pretrial
proceedings under the caption, "In Re: AOL Time Warner, Inc.
Securities and ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-05575-SWK."

On Sept. 27, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
action based on the plaintiff's failure to take any action to
prosecute the case for nearly four years.  In December 2007, the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint, and on Dec. 12,
2007, the court dismissed the matter with prejudice.

The suit is "Staro Asset Mgmt. v. AOL Time Warner, et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-09345-SWK," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James Stuart Notis, Esq. (jnotis@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: (201) 567-7377
          Fax: (201) 567-7337

Representing the defendants are:

          Peter T. Barbur, Esq. (pbarbur@cravath.com)
          Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 474-1000
          Fax: (212) 474-3700

               - and -

          Carl Spencer Kravitz, Esq. (ckravitz@zuckerman.com)
          Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP
          1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036-5802
          Phone: (202) 778-1873
          Fax: (202) 822-8106


TIME WARNER: Administration of Homestore.com Settlement Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The administration of a settlement deal in a consolidated
securities fraud class action against Homestore.Com, Inc., Time
Warner, Inc., and two former employees of Time Warner's America
Online division, is ongoing.

On Nov. 15, 2002, the California State Teachers' Retirement
System filed an amended consolidated complaint with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of stock in Homestore.com,
Inc.  The plaintiff alleges that Homestore engaged in a scheme
to defraud its shareholders in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act.  

Time Warner and two former employees of its America Online
division were named as defendants in the amended consolidated
complaint because of their alleged participation in the scheme
through certain advertising transactions entered into with
Homestore.  

Motions to dismiss filed by the Company and the two former
employees were granted on March 7, 2003, and a final judgment of
dismissal was entered on March 8, 2004.  

On April 7, 2004, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth
Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on Feb. 6, 2006, and
issued an opinion on June 30, 2006, affirming the lower court's
decision and remanding the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

On Oct. 20, 2006, the Company joined its co-defendants in filing
a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking
reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Yet, in December 2006, the Company reached an agreement with  
the plaintiff settling the claims against the Company and its
former employees.  The court issued preliminary approval of this
settlement on Aug. 6, 2007.  

Administration of the settlement is ongoing, according to the
company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "T. Jeffrey Simpson, et al v. Homestore.Com, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-11115-RSWL-CW," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Ronald S.W. Lew, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter E. Borkon, Esq. (pborkon@cpsmlaw.com)
          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. (jcotchett@cpsmlaw.com)
          Robert B. Hutchinson, Esq. (rhutchinson@cpsmlaw.com)
          Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq. (mmolumphy@cpsmlaw.com)
          Bruce L. Simon, Esq. (bsimon@cpsmlaw.com)
          Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy
          SF Airport Office Ctr., 840 Malcolm Rd., Ste 200        
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Phone: 650-697-6000

Representing the defendants are:

          George Borden, Esq. (gborden@wc.com)
          Ana C. Reyes, Esq. (areyes@wc.com)
          Williams & Connolly, 725 12th St. NW  
          Washington, DC 20005-5901
          Phone: 202-434-5000

               - and -

          Thad Alan Davis, Esq. (thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com)
          John B. Quinn, Esq. (johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com)
          Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges
          865 S Figueroa St., 10th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Phone: 213-624-7707


TOSHIBA AMERICA: Faces N.J. Suit After Losing to Sony's Blu-Ray
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC, is facing a class-action
complaint filed on Feb. 20 with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging it misrepresented its support
for the high-definition DVD players it stopped making after 21
months, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, Toshiba recently acknowledged that
Sony's competing product, Blu-Ray, would probably win the war
for the "next-generation format for the encoding and playback of
audio visual entertainment."

Named plaintiff Mark Risi brings the action pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
all persons in the United States who purchased Toshiba DVD
players.  He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants' representations, omissions and
         conduct regarding the Toshiba HD DVD players were
         misleading, materially incomplete or false;

     (b) whether the defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of
         express and implied warranties;

     (c) whether the defendants violated the New jersey Consumer
         Fraud Act or analogous consumer fraud statutes if
         applicable;

     (d) whether class members have been injured by the
         defendants' conduct;

     (e) whether class members have sustained direct or indirect
         losses or damages; and

     (f) whether class members are entitled to restitution and
         disgorgement.

The plaintiff requests for the following relief:

     -- an order certifying the class;

     -- an award of actual and consequential damages;

     -- reimbursement, restitution, and disgorgement for
        defendants of the benefits conferred by plaintiff and
        the class;

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest to the class; and

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is "Mark Risi et al. v. Toshiba America Consumer
Products, LLC et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq. (sdumain@milbergweiss.com)
          Peter Safirstein, Esq. (psafirstein@milbergweiss.com)
          Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
          (jczeisler@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 594-5300

          Robert I. Lax, Esq.
          Robert I. Lax & Associates
          380 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor
          New York, New York 10168
          Phone: (212) 818-9150

               - and -

          Jon M. Herskowitz (jon@bhfloridalaw.com)
          Baron & Herskowitz
          9100 South Dadeland Blvd.
          One Datran Center
          Penthouse One, Suite 1704
          Miami, Florida 33156
          Phone: (305) 670-0101


WHIRLPOOL: Court Allows Defective Refrigerators Suit to Continue
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren, on Feb. 22, 2008,
allowed a class action lawsuit filed against Whirlpool Corp. to
continue, Springdale Morning News reports, citing filings in the
Western District of Arkansas in Fort Smith.

The class action lawsuit was filed in March 2007 by Paula Rush
of Maryland, Diane Perry of California, and Brian Todd of
Arkansas, claiming that they purchased defectively designed and
manufactured refrigerators from Whirlpool.  The plaintiffs said
that the icemakers in the refrigerators did not work and that
the temperature controls fluctuated, causing the refrigerator to
leak and foods to spoil.

The plaintiffs' assert that Whirlpool did in fact know about the
defects in the refrigerators but never notified other customers
of complaints or issue a recall.

According to Morning News, Judge Hendren dismissed only one of
seven counts filed against Whirlpool.  The first count -- Breach
of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under Arkansas Law -- was
dismissed by Judge Hendren because Mr. Todd conceded that he
failed to notify Whirlpool about the breach of implied warranty,
as required by Arkansas law.  Mr. Todd said he only notified the
retailer, and therefore did not contest Whirlpool's request to
dismiss that claim.

Judge Hendren, however, denied Whirlpool's request to dismiss
the other claims:

   * Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under
     Maryland Law;

   * Negligence Claims under Arkansas, California and Maryland
     Laws;

   * Claims for Violation of Arkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices
     Act;

   * Claims for Violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection
     Act;

   * Claim for Violation of California's Consumers Legal
     Remedies Act; and

   * Claim for Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Judge Hendren also denied Whirlpool's request that the
plaintiffs be required to provide a more definite statement of
their claims, stating that the court found that the plaintiffs
have sufficiently presented their claims.

A March 8, 2007 story in the Times Record stated that the
plaintiffs are asking for more than $5 million in the lawsuit,
sought on the behalf of themselves and everyone in the United
States who purchased a side-by-side refrigerator manufactured by
Whirlpool since 2000 and sold under brand names Whirlpool,
KitchenAid and Roper.

Rogers attorney Bruce L. Mulkey, Esq., of The Mulkey Attorneys
Group, told the Times Record that the refrigerators in question
were manufactured by Whirlpool's Fort Smith plant.

Whirlpool will have until March 7 to file an answer to the
complaint and the plaintiffs will have until March 21 to file a
motion for class certification.

Benton Harbor, Mich.-based Whirlpool Corp. --
http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a global manufacturer   
and marketer of home appliances.  It manufactures and markets a
line of appliances and related products, primarily for home use.  
The Company's principal products are laundry appliances,
refrigerators and freezers, cooking appliances, dishwashers,
room air-conditioning equipment, and mixers and other small
household appliances.  Whirlpool also produces hermetic
compressors for refrigeration systems.  The company manufactures
in 12 countries under 14 brand names and markets products to
distributors and retailers around the world.

For more information, contact:

          Bruce L. Mulkey, Esq. (bruce@mulkeylaw.com)
          The Mulkey Attorneys
          1039 W. Walnut
          Suite 3
          Rogers, AR 72756-3526
          Phone: (479) 631-0481
          Fax: (479) 631-5994


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. has filed a
class action suit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Ambac Financial Group, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants misrepresented the Company's business and
financial results related to its insurance coverage on
collateralized debt obligations contracts.  According to the
complaint, the defendants concealed from the investing public:

     (i) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly account for
         its mark-to-market losses;

    (ii) that, as a result of the deterioration and the
         increased volatility in the mortgage market, the
         Company would be forced to tighten its underwriting
         standards related to its asset-backed securities, which
         would have a direct material negative impact on its
         premium production going forward;

   (iii) that the Company had far greater exposure to
         anticipated losses and defaults related to its CDO
         contracts containing subprime loans, including even
         highly rated CDOs, than it had previously disclosed;
         and

    (iv) that the Company lacked requisite internal controls to
         ensure that the Company's underwriting standards and
         its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were
         adequate and, as a result, the Company's projections
         and reported results issued during the Class Period
         were based upon defective assumptions and
         manipulated facts.

As the truth began to be disclosed, shares of Ambac common stock
plummeted, causing substantial losses to investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 17,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


PANERA BREAD: Schiffrin Barroway Files MO Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis Division, on behalf of
all purchasers of securities of Panera Bread Co. between
November 1, 2005, and July 26, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Panera and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Panera owns and franchises bakery-cafes under the Panera
Bread and Saint Louis Bread Co. names.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects.  Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing fierce competition
         from similar dining establishments, such that the
         Company would not be able to maintain growth and
         earnings trends and projections;

     (2) that the Company's strategy of rapidly expanding
         locations was causing a decline in sales per restaurant
         and a lower return on capital because business was
         being drawn away from existing stores;

     (3) that the Company's business was trending negatively
         because of both slow growth and rising expenses; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On July 17, 2006, Barron's published an article which detailed
some of the financial difficulties Panera was facing.
Specifically, the article discussed increased competition, as
well as existing Panera stores losing customers to new Panera
locations that were being opened at a rapid pace.  Panera's
same- store sales gains had declined in recent months, bottoming
out in the low single digits from a high of 10.2%.  The
Company's revenue and earnings per share were rising, but the
return on capital was declining, resulting in a decline in
shareholder value.  In response to this news, the Company's
shares declined over the next two days.  The shares declined
$1.39 per share, or 2.24 percent, to close on July 17, 2006 at
$60.71 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  The
following day the Company's shares declined an additional $1.30,
or 2.14 percent, to close on July 18, 2006, at $59.41, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on July 26, 2006, the Company shocked investors when it
announced its second quarter financial results, and stated that
its projected results for the period were below trend
(approximately three percentage points below second quarter two-
year comps).  The Company further indicated that sales for the
second half of the year were uncertain and would be influenced
by a new pizza product the Company recently introduced.

Moreover, the Company indicated that it had incurred higher
startup expenses than in previous quarters, partly due to the
introduction of the new product.  Upon the release of this news,
the Company's shares declined an additional $7.34 per share, or
12.38 percent, to close on July 26, 2006 at $51.93 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 25,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
February 25, 2008, with the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of SiRF Technology
Holdings, Inc., between October 30, 2007, and February 4, 2008,
inclusive.

The class action alleges that SiRF and certain of its present
and former officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations in its filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and press releases.  According to the
complaint, defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communication was
         having an adverse impact on SiRF's results because of
         similar products being sold by Centrality, which
         cannibalized SiRF's sales and resulted in lower gross
         margins;

     (2) SiRF's major customers were not placing orders at
         sufficient quantities for SiRF to meet the aggressive
         sales targets set by and for the company; and

     (3) competitive pressures were having a larger adverse
         impact on SiRF than acknowledged as its customers were
         moving to cellular-enabled products which SiFR could
         not compete in.

On February 4, 2008 SiRF reported an 89%.decrease in fourth
quarter profits. Upon this news, the price of SiRF's stock
collapsed $8.91 per share, a one day decline of 54%.

For more information, contact:

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone number: (866) 981-4800



                           *********


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  * * *