---

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

             Monday, March 10, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 49
   
                            Headlines

BANCOLOMBIA S.A.: Superior Court Dismisses Annulment Action
BEZEQ: Tel Aviv Judge Approves $27.8 MM WOW-Related Lawsuit
BIOVAIL CORP: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $85 MM
EBAY INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Suit Over Paypal
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over 'Dex-Cool'

GMAC LLC: Special Master Appointed in Mich. Securities Lawsuit
GMAC LLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Zielezienski" Lawsuit
HANOVER INSURANCE: Dismissal of Ky. Pension Plan Suit on Appeal
HANOVER INSURANCE: Fifth Circuit Ruling in La. Lawsuit Appealed
JAKKS PACIFIC: Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint in N.Y. Lawsuit

LEAP WIRELESS: March 28, 2008 Hearing Slated for Calif. Lawsuit
LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Over Deceptive Billing
LIFECELL CORP: Continues to Face Suits in N.J. Over Transplants
NEVADA: ACLU Sues Over Inadequate Medical Care At State Prison
PIER I IMPORTS: Recalls Tealight Candle Holders for Fire Hazard

PORTLAND GENERAL: April 2008 Hearing Set for Motion in Ore. Suit
QUIZNOS SUB: Colo. Court Gives Green Light to "Bonanno" Lawsuit
QVC INC: Electric Grills Recalled Due to Fire Hazard
STONE ENERGY: Discovery Underway in La. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuit in Louisiana

STUBHUB INC: Still Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in California


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Schiffrin Barroway Files TX Securities Suit



                           *********


BANCOLOMBIA S.A.: Superior Court Dismisses Annulment Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Bogota dismissed a complaint filed on
February 17, 2004, by Bancolombia S.A. (Bancolombia) that sought
the annulment of a January 30, 2004 arbitral award of
compensation to a class of minority shareholders of the former
Banco de Colombia.

The court rejected the grounds for annulment advanced by
Bancolombia.

Under the Arbitral Award, shareholders of the former Banco de
Colombia will be entitled to compensation if they:

     (i) fulfill the requirements established in articles 55 and
         66 of Law 472 of 1998,

    (ii) fulfill the requirements established in the Arbitral
         Award,

   (iii) timely became parties to the class action or have
         timely accepted the outcome of the Arbitral Award, and

    (iv) have not elected to be excluded from the Class Action
         or its outcome.

Bancolombia notes that it has taken a provision in its financial
statements for the full amount of the compensation awarded and
that payment of the Arbitral Award will have no material effect
on its financial statements.

                    Background of the Proceedings

An arbitral tribunal was formed after Luis Alberto Duran
Valencia and other minority shareholders filed a complaint
against Bancolombia and some of its majority shareholders in the
context of the merger between Banco de Colombia and Bancolombia.
The Arbitral Tribunal rendered the Arbitral Award on January 30,
2004, rejected most of the claims of Mr. Duran Valencia and the
other plaintiffs, and released the shareholders of Bancolombia
of all liability.

The Arbitral Tribunal found that Bancolombia's actions in the
acquisition of, and subsequent merger with, Banco de Colombia
were in compliance with the law and with the authorizations
granted by the government authorities.  The Arbitral Tribunal,
however, ordered Bancolombia to compensate shareholders of the
former Banco de Colombia for certain asserted damages.

According to the Arbitral Tribunal, these former shareholders of
Banco de Colombia were damaged by an alleged shortfall in the
capitalization of Bancolombia after the merger in 1998.  The
Arbitral Tribunal estimated the damages to be COP14,646 million,
which, with interest, amounted at the time of the Arbitral Award
to COP22.408 million.  After subtracting certain fees and
expenses awarded to Bancolombia by the Arbitral Tribunal,
Bancolombia was directed to pay COP19,213 million.

Bancolombia notes that one of the arbitrators, Mr. Rafael H.
Gamboa, dissented from the majority decision of the Arbitral
Tribunal.  Mr. Gamboa concluded that the conduct of Bancolombia
during the merger was entirely in accordance with the applicable
laws and the authorizations by governmental authorities and that
Bancolombia owed no compensation to the complaining
shareholders.

Bancolombia filed the complaint seeking annulment of the
Arbitral Award on February 17, 2004.  The Annulment Complaint
sought annulment on the grounds set forth in sections 6 and 7 of
article 163 of Decree 1818 of 1998.

Bancolombia is Colombia's largest full-service financial
institution, formed by a merger of three leading Colombian
financial institutions.  Bancolombia's market capitalization is
over US$5.5 billion, with US$13.8 billion asset base and
US$1.4 billion in shareholders' equity as of Sept. 30, 2006.


BEZEQ: Tel Aviv Judge Approves $27.8 MM WOW-Related Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tel Aviv (Israel) District Court Judge Drora Pilpel approved a
$27.8 million lawsuit against Bezeq The Israeli
Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (TASE: BEZQ), as a class action suit,
Yitzhak Dano of The Globes reports.

The lawsuit claims that the company charged subscribers full
price for its ADSL service "WOW" despite technical problems with
it.  It was filed on behalf of WOW subscribers who joined a
particular high-speed Internet access package in the three years
prior to the filed of the lawsuit in December 2005.

The petitioner claims that there was no technical problem to
provide subscribers with the promised high-speed Internet
access, but in practice the service would break down or provided
at different speeds.

The petitioners claim that Bezeq nevertheless charged full price
for the service as it were functioning properly.

Bezeq The Israeli Telecommunication Co. Ltd. (TASE: BEZQ) is
Israel's #1 broadband ISP and also owns 100% of leading mobile
phone company Pelephone.  Bezeq's fiber-optic network is fully
digitalized and has 3 million access lines.


BIOVAIL CORP: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $85 MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Biovail Corp. and other defendants have entered into an
agreement in principle that will see them pay about $85 million
to settle the class-action shareholder litigation.

The Toronto drug company said the proposed settlement will be
subject to approval by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  It said the settlement class
includes, with certain exceptions, all persons or entities that
purchased Biovail common shares from Feb. 7, 2003, to March 2,
2004.  It said the actual settlement amount payable is
$138 million, but insurance claims will reduce the amount to
$85 million.

Biovail said the proposed settlement contains no admission of
wrongdoing by Biovail or any of the other defendants.  As
reported, the class-action lawsuit alleged that the company and
certain officers and directors "made material
misrrepresentations concerning Biovail's financial results and
business by improperly reporting revenue and earnings
attributable to sales," and that the misrepresentations inflated
the company's share price.

                       Case Background

In late 2003 and early 2004, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York naming Biovail and certain
officers and directors as defendants.

On or about June 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, alleging among other matters, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The company responded to the complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss, which the court denied.  Thereafter, the company filed
its answer denying the allegations in the complaint.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second
amended class action complaint under seal.  The second amended
complaint alleges, among other matters, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

More specifically, the second amended complaint alleges that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements that
inflated the price of the company's stock between Feb. 7, 2003
and March 2, 2004.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all
persons, other than the defendants and their affiliates, who
purchased the company's stock during that period.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The company has opposed that motion.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the company filed its answer denying the
allegations in the second amended complaint (Class Action
Reporter, April 18, 2007).

The suit is "In Re: Biovail Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-8917," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard Owen.

The plaintiff firms named in the case are:

          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY, 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400
          Fax: 212-554-1444
          e-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300
          Fax: 212-868-1229
          e-mail: info@milbergweiss.com


EBAY INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Suit Over Paypal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action lawsuit against eBay Inc.

The class action suit alleges that eBay, through its wholly
owned subsidiary PayPal, used illegal tie-in and steering
practices to improperly "monopolize" the forms of payment that
sellers can use on eBay.

Initially, the lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas in March 2007.  In it, the
plaintiff alleges claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act, as well as related state law claims.  That suit sought
treble damages and an injunction.

In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No.
07-CV-01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action.  In May 2007,
the case was consolidated with other similar lawsuits (No. 07-
CV-01882JF).

In June 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class
action complaint.

eBay reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 28, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
5:07-cv-01882-JF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. (mmcshane@audetlaw.com)
         Audet & Partners LLP
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-568-2555
         Fax: 415-568-2556

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

              - and -

         Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. (jefff@hbsslaw.com)
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Phone: (510) 725-3000
         Fax: (510) 725-3001

Representing the defendants is:

         Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
         Phone: (415) 984-8947


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over 'Dex-Cool'
------------------------------------------------------
General Motors, Corp., is facing a class-action complaint filed
March 3, with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts accusing it of concealing the fact that over a
ten-year period its cars were filled with an organic acid called
"Dex-Cool" resulting in excess wear and sludge buildup in the
intake manifolds, leading to coolant leaks and engine failure,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Peter Leibowitz brings the class action on
behalf of all others similarly situated persons who purchased or
leased in the commonwealth of Massachusetts a 1994 through 2004
General Motors vehicle factory equipped with GM Dex-Cool
coolant.

According to the complaint, GM, through a common and uniform
course of conduct, failed to disclose to the consuming public
that certain GM vehicles utilizing GM factory-filled Organic
Acid Technology (OAT) coolant known as "Dex-Cool" experienced
premature and abnormal upper intake manifold wear/degradation,
sealant component parts failures and sludge buildup in the GM
cooling systems resulting in engine coolant leaks, premature
rust, corrosion and clogging, and engine failure and other
internal engine problems.

Furthermore, through a common and uniform course of conduct, GM
failed to honor its warranties that would have required it to
repair or correct to the consuming public, the defective parts
which wears/degrades prematurely and abnormally on the GM
vehicles.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) the defendant's written representations about the
         performance of Dex-Cool, including its written
         representations about the performance of Dex-Cool in
         the owner's manuals and labels affixed to GM's
         vehicles, constitute a written warranty or warranties;

     (b) the defendant failed to comply with any obligations
         under its written warranty or warranties;

     (c) Dex-Cool, the GM vehicle-cooling system (including the
         radiator cap and intake manifold gaskets), and the
         combination of Dex-Cool and GM cooling systems are
         defective in materials workmanship;

     (d) the defendant failed to comply with its obligations
         under the Dex-Cool Warranty and the Limited  
         Warranty;

     (e) the defendant breached the implied warranty of
         merchantability in connection with the manufacture and
         sale of vehicles equipped with Dex-Cool;

     (f) the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense
         of plaintiff and the class;

     (g) the plaintiff and class members are entitled to legal
         or equitable relief, including but not limited to an
         injunction, a declaration or rights, restitution or
         rescission;

     (h) the defendant concealed from plaintiff and class
         members critical information about the existence,
         nature and affects of Dex-Cool;

     (i) GM's business practices, as alleged, violated the
         Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 USC Section 2301, et
         seq.; and

     (j) GM's conduct alleged constitutes an unfair or deceptive
         act or practice in violation of MGL c. 93A, et seq.

The plaintiff requests judgment and relief of all causes of
action as follows:

     -- an order certifying that this action is properly brought
        and may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of
        the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and MGL
        c.93A Section 9;

     -- an order declaring and confirming that GM's conduct is
        unlawful under the causes of action alleged;

     -- an order requiring GM to cease and desist all unlawful
        practices described;

     -- an order declaring that GM's representations concerning
        Dex-Cool in the owner's manual are written warranties
        and GM must honor said written warranties;

     -- an order declaring that GM must honor its warranty for
        repairs to GM vehicles caused by Dex-Cool and the
        combination of Dex-Cool and the coolant system;

     -- compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
        including all damages provided for by statute and all
        consequential and incidental damages, and costs suffered
        by plaintiff and the other class members due to GM's
        unlawful conduct;

     -- treble damages (if and where appropriate);

     -- an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this
        suit, including fees of experts;

     -- restitution and rescission;

     -- an award of pre- and post-judgment interest; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
        necessary or appropriate.

The suit is "Peter Leibowitz et al. v. General Motors Corp.,
Case No. 08-0894," filed with the Superior Court of the
commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          Daniel D'angelo, Esq.
          Gilman and Pastor, LLP
          225 Franklin St., 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 742-9700


GMAC LLC: Special Master Appointed in Mich. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
appointed a special master for the purpose of facilitating
settlement negotiations in the consolidated case, "In Re General
Motors Corporation Securities and Derivative Litigation, Case
No. 2:06-md-01749-GER," which names GMAC, LLC, as defendant,
according to GMAC's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Sept. 19, 2005, a purported class action complaint, "Folksam
Asset Management v. General Motors, et al.," was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
naming as defendants General Motors Corp.; GMAC; and GM Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; Vice
Chairman John Devine; Treasurer Walter G. Borst; and Chief
Accounting Officer Peter Bible.

The plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of
purchasers of GM debt and equity securities during the period
Feb. 25, 2002, through March 16, 2005.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b)
and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The complaint also alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 12(a) and, with respect to the individual
defendants, Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection with
certain registered debt offerings during the class period.

In particular, the complaint alleges that GM's cash flows during
the class period were overstated based on the "reclassification"
of certain cash items described in GM's 2004 Form 10-K.  The
reclassification involves cash flows relating to the financing
of GMAC wholesale receivables from dealers that resulted in no
net cash receipts and GM's decision to revise Consolidated
Statements of Net Cash for the years ended 2002 and 2003.

The complaint also alleges misrepresentations relating to
forward-looking statements of GM's 2005 earnings forecast that
were later revised significantly downward.

In October 2005, a similar suit, asserting claims under the
Exchange Act based on substantially the same factual
allegations, was filed and subsequently consolidated with the
Folksam case, "Galliani, et al. v. General Motors, et al."

The consolidated suit was re-captioned as "In re General Motors
Securities Litigation."  Under the terms of the Sale
Transactions, GM is indemnifying GMAC in connection with these
cases.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the plaintiffs in the Folksam case filed an
amended complaint, which adds several additional investors as
the plaintiffs, extends the end of the class period to Nov. 9,
2005, and names as additional defendants three current and one
former member of GM's audit committee, as well as independent
accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP.

In addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint,
the amended complaint adds a claim against defendants Wagoner
and Devine for rescission of their bonuses and incentive
compensation during the class period.  It also includes further
allegations regarding GM's accounting for pension obligations,
restatement of income for 2001, and financial results for the
first and second quarters of 2005.

Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint specify
the amount of damages sought, and the defendants have no means
to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the
limited information available in the complaint.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court made provisional designations of
lead plaintiff and lead counsel, which designations were made
final on Feb. 6, 2006.  

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint,
which added various underwriters as defendants.

They filed a third amended securities complaint captioned, "In
re General Motors Securities and Derivative Litigation," on
Aug. 15, 2006 (certain shareholder derivative cases brought
against GM were consolidated with "In re General Motors
Securities Litigation" for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings, and the caption was modified).

The amended complaint did not include claims against the
underwriters previously named as defendants; alleged a proposed
class period of April 13, 2000, through March 20, 2006; did not
include the previously asserted claim for the rescission of
incentive compensation against Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Devine; and
contained additional factual allegations regarding GM's
restatements of financial information filed with its reports to
the SEC.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the shareholder class action litigation,
which remains pending.

On Dec. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a fourth amended complaint in the event the Court grants
the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The defendants have opposed
the motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint.

                  Multidistrict Litigation

On Dec. 13, 2005, the defendants in "In re General Motors
Corporation Securities Litigation," (previously "Folksam Asset
Management v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," and "Galliani
v. General Motors Corporation, et al."); and "Stein v. Bowles,
et al.," filed a Motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer and consolidate these cases for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan.

On Jan. 5, 2006, the defendants submitted to the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation an Amended Motion seeking to add to
their original Motion several other cases for consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring, "In re General Motors
Corporation Securities Litigation," to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with:

       -- "Stein v. Bowles, et al.;"
     
       -- "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;"

       -- "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al.;" and

       -- "Orr v. Wagoner, et al." (while the motion was
          pending, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Rosen).

In October 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan appointed a special master for the purpose
of facilitating settlement negotiations in the consolidated
case, now captioned, "In re General Motors Corporation
Securities and Derivative Litigation."

The suit is "In Re General Motors Corporation Securities and
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:06-md-01749-GER," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marvin L. Frank, Esq. (mfrank@murrayfrank.com)
          Murray & Frank, LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Fax: 212-682-1892

               - and -

          Richard T. Joffe, Esq. (rjoffe@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477

Representing the defendants are:

          Dennis M. Barnes, Esq. (dbarnes@bsdd.com)
          Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, P.L.L.C.
          211 W. Fort Street, Suite 1500
          Detroit, MI 48226-3281
          Phone: 313-965-9725

               - and -

          Timothy A. Duffy, Esq. (tduffy@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          200 E. Randolph Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-861-2000

    
GMAC LLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Zielezienski" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the consolidated litigation, "Zielezienski v.
General Motors Corporation et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-11784-NGE-
VMM," are appealing the dismissal of their case, which names
GMAC, LLC as a defendant.

                     Zielezienski Litigation

On Nov. 29, 2005, Stanley Zielezienski filed the purported class
action lawsuit with the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County,
Florida, against GM; GMAC; GM Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC Chairman Eric A.
Feldstein; and certain GM and GMAC officers, namely, William F.
Muir, Linda K. Zukauckas, Richard J. S. Clout, John E. Gibson,
W. Allen Reed, Walter G. Borst, John M. Devine, and Gary L.
Cowger.  The action also names certain underwriters of GMAC debt
securities as defendants.  

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act and, with respect to all defendants except GM,
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.  The complaint also
alleges that GM violated Section 15 of the Securities Act.

In particular, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations
in certain GMAC financial statements incorporated by reference
with GMAC's 2003 Form S-3 Registration Statement and Prospectus.

More specifically, the complaint alleges material
misrepresentations in connection with the offering for sale of
GMAC SmartNotes in certain GMAC financial statements contained
in GMAC's forms 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended in
March 31, 2004, and June 30, 2004, and the Form 8-K, which
disclosed financial results for the quarterly period ended in
Sept. 30, 2004, were materially false and misleading as
evidenced by GMAC's 2005 restatement of these quarterly results.

In December 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
making substantially the same allegations as were in the
previous filing with respect to additional debt securities
issued by GMAC during the period April 23, 2004 - March 14,
2005, and adding approximately 60 additional underwriters as
defendants.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, and
the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs
will seek based upon the limited information available in the
complaint.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the defendants named in the original complaint
removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, and on April 3, 2006, that court
transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

                    J&R Marketing Litigation

On Dec. 28, 2005, J&R Marketing, SEP, filed a purported class
action, "J&R Marketing, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et
al."

The action was filed with the Circuit Court for Wayne County,
Michigan, against GM; GMAC; GM Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC Chairman Eric A.
Feldstein; William F. Muir; Linda K. Zukauckas; Richard J. S.
Clout; John E. Gibson; W. Allen Reed; Walter G. Borst; John M.
Devine; Gary L. Cowger; and several underwriters of GMAC debt
securities.

Similar to the original complaint filed in the Zielezienski case
described above, the complaint alleges claims under Sections 11,
12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act based on alleged material
misrepresentations or omissions in the Registration Statements
for GMAC SmartNotes purchased between Sept. 30, 2003, and
March 16, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint alleges inadequate disclosure of GM's financial
condition and performance as well as issues arising from GMAC's
2005 restatement of quarterly results for the three quarters
ended Sept. 30, 2005.  

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, and
the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs
will seek based upon the limited information available in the
complaint.

On Jan. 13, 2006, defendants removed this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

                        Mager Litigation

On Feb. 17, 2006, Alex Mager filed a purported class action,
"Mager v. General Motors Corporation, et al."

The action was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan and is substantively identical to
the J&R Marketing case.

On Feb. 24, 2006, J&R Marketing filed a motion to consolidate
the Mager case with its case and for appointment as lead
plaintiff and the appointment of lead counsel.

                         Consolidation

On March 8, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases and subsequently consolidated those cases with the
Zielezienski case described above.

Lead plaintiffs' counsel has been appointed, and on July 28,
2006, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint,
differing mainly from the initial complaints by asserting claims
for GMAC debt securities purchased during a different period, of
July 28, 2003, through Nov. 9, 2005, and added additional
underwriter defendants.  

On Aug. 28, 2006, the underwriter defendants were dismissed
without prejudice.

On Sept. 25, 2006, the GM and GMAC defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint in these cases filed
by "J&R Marketing," "Zielezienski," and "Mager."

On Feb. 27, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan issued an opinion granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint in
these consolidated cases.

The plaintiffs have appealed this order, and oral argument on
the plaintiffs' appeal was held on Feb. 7, 2008.  Under the
terms of the Sale Transactions, GM is indemnifying GMAC in
connection with these cases, according to GMAC's Feb. 27, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Zielezienski v. General Motors Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-11784-NGE-VMM," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Nancy G.
Edmunds.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. (jweiss@weisslurie.com)
          Weiss and Lurie
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York City, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-682-3025


HANOVER INSURANCE: Dismissal of Ky. Pension Plan Suit on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit over a
terminated employee's lump sum distribution filed against The
Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., are appealing the dismissal of
the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
according to Hanover Insurance's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Jennifer A. Durand filed the suit with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky on March 12, 2007, under
the caption, "Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group,
Inc., The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan."

The named plaintiff -- a former employee who received a lump sum
distribution from her Cash Balance Plan at or about the time of
her termination -- claims that she and others similarly situated
did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in
computing the lump sum, the company understated the accrued
benefit in the calculation.

The company filed a dismissal motion on the basis that the
plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies.  The motion
was granted without prejudice in a decision dated Nov. 7, 2007.  

On Dec. 3, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of this
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The suit is "Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group,
Inc., The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, Case
No. 3:07-cv-00130-CRS," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, Judge Charles R. Simpson, III,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eli Gottesdiener, Esq. (eli@gottesdienerlaw.com)
         Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC
         498 Seventh Street
         Brooklyn, NY 11215-3613
         Phone: 718-788-1500
         Fax: 718-788-1650
       
              - and –
   
         Andrew S. Hartley, Esq. (andrew@hartleyerisalaw.com)
         The Law Office of Andrew Hartley, PLLC
         3423 Saybrook Road
         Lexington, KY 40503
         Phone: 859-271-3731
         Fax: 859-523-6112

Representing the defendants is

         Angela Logan Edwards, Esq. (AEdwards@whf-law.com)
         Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, LLP
         101 S. Fifth Street, 2500 National City Tower
         Louisville, KY 40202-3175
         Phone: 502-581-8000
         Fax: 502-581-8111


HANOVER INSURANCE: Fifth Circuit Ruling in La. Lawsuit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re Katrina Canal Breaches
Consolidated Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-4182," which is
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a
writ of certiorari requesting a review of a decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the matter, which
names The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., as one of the
defendants.

      In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in various
litigations, including putative class actions, relating to
disputes arising from damages which occurred as a result of
Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, there were approximately 330 such cases, at
least two of which were styled as class actions.  These cases
have been filed with both Louisiana state courts and federal
district courts.

These cases involve, among other claims, disputes as to the
amount of reimbursable claims in particular cases, as well as
the scope of insurance coverage under homeowners and commercial
property policies due to flooding, civil authority actions, loss
of landscaping, business interruption and other matters.

Certain of these cases claim a breach of duty of good faith or
violations of Louisiana insurance claims handling laws or
regulations and involve claims for punitive or exemplary
damages.

Certain of the cases claim that under Louisiana's so-called
"Valued Policy Law," the insurers must pay the total insured
value of a home which is totally destroyed if any portion of
such damage was caused by a covered peril, even if the principal
cause of the loss was an excluded peril.

Other cases challenge the scope or enforceability of the water
damage exclusion in the policies.

Several of these actions pending against various insurers,
including the company, were consolidated for purposes of
pretrial discovery and motion practice under the caption, "In re
Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation, Civil Action No.
05-4182" in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the Federal District Court issued an Order in
these consolidated cases denying the company's motion to
dismiss.

The Court held that the flood exclusions utilized in the forms
of homeowners and commercial lines policies issued by the
company, and a number of other insurance carriers were ambiguous
because such exclusions did not specify that they applied to
flooding caused by negligent acts or omissions, as well as to
flooding caused by natural incidents such as Acts of God.

The plaintiffs in these cases claim, among other things, that
the efficient proximate cause of their losses was the third-
party negligence of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Orleans
Levee District in the maintenance of the canal walls or in its
failure to warn the plaintiffs and others of the impending water
intrusion.

The Federal District Court ordered that discovery proceed on the
questions of whether there was such negligence and whether such
negligence was in fact the efficient proximate cause of such
losses.

On Aug. 2, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
issued an opinion reversing the District Court's opinion and
holding that flood exclusions, such as those contained in our
policies, are applicable to Hurricane Katrina-related flooding
irrespective of the cause of the flooding.

On Nov. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari requesting a review of
this decision.

                 State of Louisiana Litigation

On Aug. 23, 2007, the State of Louisiana (individually and on
behalf of the State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,
Office of Community Development) filed a putative class action
in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana, entitled, "State of Louisiana, individually and on
behalf of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, Office
of Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C. Foti,
Jr., The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana,
individually and as a class action on behalf of all recipients
of funds as well as all eligible and/or future recipients of
funds through The Road Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al.,
No. 07-8970."

The complaint named as defendants over 200 foreign and domestic
insurance carriers, including the company.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former
Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or will
receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program.

On Aug. 29, 2007, the plaintiff filed an Amended Petition in
this case, asserting myriad claims including claims under
Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, as well as claims for breach of:
contract, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
fiduciary duty and Louisiana's bad faith statutes.

The plaintiff seeks relief in the form of, among other things,
declarations that:

       -- the efficient proximate cause of losses suffered by
          putative class members was windstorm, a covered peril
          under their policies;

       -- the second efficient proximate cause of their losses
          was storm surge, which Plaintiff contends is not
          excluded under class members' policies;

       -- the damage caused by water entering affected parishes
          of Louisiana does not fall within the definition of
          "flood;"

       -- the damages caused by water entering Orleans Parish
          and the surrounding area was a result of man-made
          occurrence and are properly covered under class
          members' policies;

       -- many class members suffered total losses to their
          residences; and

       -- many class members are entitled to recover the full
          value for their residences stated on their policies
          pursuant to the Louisiana Valued Policy Law.

In accordance with these requested declarations, Plaintiff seeks
to recover amounts that it alleges should have been paid to
policyholders under their insurance agreements, as well as
penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The case has been consolidated into the case, "In re Katrina
Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation," according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated
Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-4182," filed with U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Stanwood R.
Duval, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jodi Jacobs Aamodt, Esq. (jmk_jodi@bellsouth.net)
          Jacobs, Manuel & Kain
          500 St. Louis St., Suite 200
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-523-1444
          Fax: 504-524-1655

               - and -

          William David Aaron, Jr., Esq. (waaron@goinsaaron.com)
          Goins Aaron, APLC
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3800
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-569-1800

Representing the defendants are:

          Neil Charles Abramson, Esq. (abramson@phelps.com)
          Phelps Dunbar, LLP
          Canal Place, 365 Canal St., Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70130-6534
          Phone: (504) 566-1311

               - and -

          Andrew R. Greene, Esq. (agreene@sonnenschein.com)
          Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal
          7800 Sears Tower
          233 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-876-8000


JAKKS PACIFIC: Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint in N.Y. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action, "In re JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action Litigation, Civil Action
No. 04-8807," filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended
complaint in the matter, according to JAKKS Pacific's Feb. 29,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

In November 2004, several purported class action lawsuits were
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  

The suits are:

   a. "Garcia v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action           
      No. 04-8807" (filed on Nov. 5, 2004);

   b. "Jonco Investors, LLC v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al.,
      Civil Action No. 04-9021" (filed on Nov. 16, 2004);

   c. "Kahn v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
      04-8910" (filed on Nov. 10, 2004);

   d. "Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et
      al., Civil Action No. 04-8877" (filed on Nov. 9,
      2004); and
    
   e. "Irvine v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action
      No. 04-9078" (filed on Nov. 16, 2004).

The complaints in the class actions alleged that the defendants
issued positive statements concerning increasing sales of the
company's World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. licensed products
which were false and misleading because the WWE licenses had
allegedly been obtained through a pattern of commercial bribery,
its relationship with the WWE was being negatively impacted by
WWE's contentions, and there was an increased risk that the WWE
would either seek modification or nullification of the licensing
agreements with the company.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the company misleadingly failed
to disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained
through an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs in the class actions were described as purchasers
of the company's common stock, who purchased from as early as
Oct. 26, 1999, to as late as Oct. 19, 2004.

The class actions sought compensatory and other damages in an
undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by each of the defendants (namely the Company and
Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett), and violations of Section
20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by Messrs. Friedman, Berman and
Bennett.

On Jan. 25, 2005, the Court consolidated the class actions under
the caption, "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class
Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807."  On May 11, 2005,
the Court appointed co-lead counsels and provided until July 11,
2005 for an amended complaint to be filed.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the case was fully briefed and
argument occurred on Nov. 30, 2006.  The motion was granted in
January 2008 to the extent that the class actions were dismissed
without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to seek leave to file
an amended complaint based on statements that the WWE licenses
were obtained from the WWE as a result of the long-term
relationship with WWE.

A motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint was filed on
Feb. 25, 2008.

The suit is "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action
Litigation, Case No. 04-8807," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 907-0790
         Fax: (212) 883-7579

              - and -

         Ken H. Chang, Esq. (kchang@wolfpopper.com)
         Wolf, Popper, L.L.P.
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 451-9667
         Fax: (212) 486-2093

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael H. Gruenglas, Esq. (mgruengl@skadden.com)
         Skadden, Arps, Slate,Meagher & Flom, LLP
         Four Times Square, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: (212) 735-3567
         Fax: (917)-777-3567

              - and -

         Jonathan Honig, Esq. (jhonig@fkiwsb.com)
         Feder Kaszovitz Isaacson Weber Skala Bass & Rhine, LLP
         750 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 986-1116
         Fax: 212-888-5968


LEAP WIRELESS: March 28, 2008 Hearing Slated for Calif. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 28, 2008 hearing is slated for multiple securities class
actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against Leap Wireless
International, Inc., and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The company's independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these
lawsuits.  

The suits were filed between November 2007 and February 2008
purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased Leap common
stock between May 16, 2004, and Nov. 9, 2007.

The class action allege that all defendants violated Section
10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, by making false and misleading statements about the
company's business and financial results arising from Leap's
Nov. 9, 2007 announcement of its restatement of its financial
statements.

Some of these lawsuits also allege false and misleading
statements revealed by Leap's Aug. 7, 2007 second quarter 2007
earnings release.  

The class actions seek, among other relief, determinations that
the actions are proper class actions, unspecified damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs have filed motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff, lead plaintiffs' counsel and consolidation of all
related cases, and these motions are scheduled to be heard on
March 28, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "HCL Partners Limited
Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc. , et
al., Case No. 07-CV-2245," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Fax: (310) 201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
          Latham and Watkins
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Phone: (619) 236-1234
          Fax: (619) 696-7419


LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Over Deceptive Billing
------------------------------------------------------------
LegalZoom.com Inc., which advertises itself as "the best legal
document service on the web," is facing a class-action complaint
filed on March 4, 2008, with the District Court in Travis
County, Texas, accusing it of overcharging its customers for
money it deceptively describes as "government filing fees,"
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought under Rules 42 of the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure seeking legal and equitable  relief for the
individual plaintiff and the class he represents.

Named plaintiff Simon Solotko accuses LegalZoom of charging
$159, plus $325 for a "U.S. government filing fee" for an
electronically submitted trademark application, though that fee
is only $275.

Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
Mr. Solotko brings the action on behalf of all United States
LegalZoom customers who from July 18, 2005, to the date that the
class action is certified, purchased a U.S. trademark
application from LegalZoom.

Mr. Solotko wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's collection of the $325 "U.S.
         Government Filing Fee" USPTO TEAS Plus trademark
         application filing fee is unlawful or unfair when the
         charge to file for LegalZoom was only $275;

     (b) whether the defendant attempted to conceal the
         collection of the inflated fee;

     (c) whether the defendant knew that its customers were
         unaware of the fee;

     (d) whether the defendant's conduct constitutes common law
         conversion and breach of contract and breach of
         fiduciary duty and fraud;

     (e) whether the defendant acted with a malicious manner and
         callous disregard for the rights of its customers,
         whereby it should be subjected to the assessment of
         punitive damages;

     (f) whether the members of the class have sustained
         damages; and

     (g) whether damages can be established on a class-wide
         basis and, if so, what is the proper measure of
         damages.

The plaintiff requests that judgment be entered, awarding the
following:

     -- that the court certify the class described and
        appropriate subclasses, if any;

     -- that the court appoint Claxton Hill PLLC and Sutton
        Kleinman PLLC class counsel;

     -- that the court award the class money damages;

     -- that the court issue an injunction enjoining the
        defendant from continuing the policies and practices
        complained of;

     -- that the court award the class prejudgment and
        post-judgment interest and costs of suit;

     -- that the court award Mr. Solotko and the class members
        attorneys' fees;

     -- punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and
        make an example of LegalZoom;

     -- costs and attorneys' fees to the extent permitted by
        law; and

     -- pre and post-judgment interest.

The suit is "Simon Solotko et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., Case
No. D-1-GN-08-000766," filed with the District Court in Travis
County, Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert B. Kleinman, Esq.
          Sutton Kleinman PLLC
          710 W. 14th Street, Suite A
          Austin, Texas 78701
          Phone: (512) 276-5040

               - and -

          Robert J. Hill, Esq.
          Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
          Claxton & Hill PLLC
          10000 N. Central Expressway, Suite 725
          Dallas, Texas 7523-4177
          Phone: (214) 969-9029
          Fax: (214) 953-0583


LIFECELL CORP: Continues to Face Suits in N.J. Over Transplants
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeCell Corp. continues to face purported class action lawsuits
filed by people demanding medical monitoring and damages for
emotional distress as a result of having received transplants
that have not been properly and adequately screened for
diseases.

Initially, the company, along with Biomedical Tissue Services,
Ltd., and many other defendants were named in several lawsuits,
which purport to serve as class actions for persons who received
transplants and who are not physically injured but instead seek
medical monitoring and damages for emotional distress.  

All of these cases were sent to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey as part of a Multi-District Litigation.

The company has been successful in obtaining a voluntarily
dismissal of every such class action, with the exception of one
case, "Watling et al. v. Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00116-WJM-RJH," which was filed by Anita Watling on
Jan. 9, 2007, with the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In addition, two other class actions were filed with the Federal
Court in Rochester, New York ("Kennedy-McInnis" and "Graves")
that seek compensatory damages from BTS and all processing
defendants that received and used BTS-originated tissue,
including LifeCell.  The plaintiffs are the next-of-kin of the
donors who did not authorize BTS to remove the tissue at issue.  

Those cases have also been transferred to MDL and are presently
the subject of dismissal motions.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.


NEVADA: ACLU Sues Over Inadequate Medical Care At State Prison
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit  
against the director of Nevada's Department of Corrections and
other top governmental officials in Nevada for failing to
rectify a pervasive pattern of grossly inadequate medical care
at the Ely State Prison that creates a substantial risk of
serious medical harm for each of the prison's 1,000 inmates.

The lawsuit charges that the prison lacks the most basic
elements of an adequate prison health care system and deprives
prisoners of the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities.

"The state just hasn't shown a sense of urgency in addressing
the crisis at Ely," said Amy Fettig, staff counsel with the
ACLU's National Prison Project.  "They assured us that they were
going to carry out far-reaching reforms to address the problems
we brought to their attention, but that was months ago and
they've made only half-hearted gestures to fix their broken
system.  We had hoped to avoid litigation but we can't in good
conscience wait any longer, with the men at Ely still at such
risk."

The filing of the lawsuit comes nearly three months after the
release of a medical report that documented how gravely ill
prisoners at Ely are routinely denied treatment for
excruciatingly painful and potentially fatal medical conditions
and revealed what Dr. William Noel, the medical expert
commissioned by the ACLU to investigate medical conditions
inside Ely and author of the report, called "a pattern of gross
medical abuse."

On the heels of the report's release last December, ACLU
attorneys proposed in a consent decree a series of basic reforms
that would have dramatically improved prison health care at Ely,
including complying with nationally recognized standards for
correctional health care.  The proposed consent decree was
rejected by Nevada's Board of State Prison Commissioners.

The ACLU's National Prison Project retained Noel to review the
medical records of 35 prisoners at Ely because the ACLU of
Nevada had been receiving an extraordinarily large number of
complaints about grossly inadequate medical treatment at the
prison.

"Prisoners at the Ely State Prison have written to us in
desperate need of help, in desperate need of quality medical
treatment," said Lee Rowland, staff attorney with the ACLU of
Nevada.  "It is unfortunate that this action was necessary to
prompt corrections officials to uphold their constitutional
obligation of providing a basic level of medical care to the
inmates in their care, but quality care is an immediate need
that cannot be delayed any longer."

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of all of Ely's prisoners -- more
than 60 of whom are currently sitting on death row -- contains
six named plaintiffs, including 36-year-old David Riker who,
according to the lawsuit, suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and
fibromyalgia that cause debilitating chronic pain.

The lawsuit alleges that Riker has never received prescribed
medications and x-rays ordered by an outside physician and was
told by Ely medical staff that treating chronic pain is against
the policy of the prison.

In his report, Noel calls Riker's untreated protopathic nerve
pain "a living hell" and says he finds it "simply unimaginable"
that a medical professional would refuse to treat such severe,
chronic pain.

The ACLU names as defendants in its lawsuit:

     -- Nevada Governor James Gibbons,

     -- Secretary of State Ross Miller,

     -- Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto,

     -- Howard Skolnik, director of the Nevada Department of
        Corrections (NDOC),

     -- Robert Bannister, NDOC's medical director, and

     -- E.K. McDaniel, the warden of Ely State Prison.

"The level of medical care provided at Ely is as horrific as any
we have ever seen at any of the prison systems that we track
across the country," said Margaret Winter, Associate Director of
the ACLU's National Prison Project.  "We have been stunned at
the amount of human suffering that is allowed to go on there.
And while we had hoped that working collaboratively with the
Department of Corrections and the governor's office would lead
to the resolution of some of the most pressing issues at Ely, it
simply has not."

Other named plaintiffs in the lawsuit include 42-year-old Roger
Libby, whose requests for surgery to repair his softball-sized
hernia have been denied, 46-year-old Rickey Sechrest, whose
chronic intermittent Herpetic Iritis of his right eye has gone
untreated and could cause blindness and who has not received
treatment for his Hepatitis C, 36-year-old Terrence Brothers who
has suffered from untreated open sores on his scalp for more
than 10 years, 36-year-old Jeffrey Hosmer whose chronic severe
back and neck pain and numbness on his left side have gone
untreated despite his living in the prison's infirmary and whose
medication for bi-polar disorder is often interrupted, and 47-
year-old Mark Whittington, who has suffered continual problems
with arbitrarily discontinued medications and dosages of
prescribed medications running out for his serious medical
conditions.

Additional information about the ACLU's efforts to improve
medical conditions at the Ely State Prison, including the ACLU's
lawsuit, the proposed consent decree, Dr. William Noel's medical
report, an ACLU letter to Nevada Gov. James Gibbons and an ACLU
letter to Nevada Department of Corrections Director Howard
Skolnik can be found online at http://www.aclu.org/ely


PIER I IMPORTS: Recalls Tealight Candle Holders for Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, of Fort Worth, Texas, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
18,000 Silver Square Tealight Candle Holder.

The company said the spacing of the holes in a concentrated
pattern allows the holder to heat-up.  This can cause the
tealights to burn unexpectedly fast and with a higher flame
height than normal, posing a fire hazard.

Pier 1 Imports has received seven reports of high flames.  No
injuries have been reported.

The metal Tealight Candle Holder measures 7" x 7" and has a
silver metallic top with a black base.  It has nine square
openings for use with tealight candles.  The product's SKU
number 2174941 can be located on the bottom of the base.

These recalled tealight candle holders were manufactured in the
Philippines and were being sold by Pier 1 Imports stores
nationwide from June 2007 through December 2007 for between $6
and $25.

Picture of the recalled tealight candle holders is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08209.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the tealight holder
immediately and return it to any Pier 1 Imports store for a
refund of the purchase price or a store credit.  Refunds will be
determined based on price paid.

For additional information, contact Pier 1 Imports at (800) 245-
4595 between 8:00 a.m. And 11:00 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday
and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Sunday, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.pier1.com/


PORTLAND GENERAL: April 2008 Hearing Set for Motion in Ore. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2008 hearing is scheduled for a motion to lift the
Order of Abatement that Marion County Circuit Court issued in
two purported class actions filed by electric service customers
against Portland General Electric Co.

On Jan. 17, 2003, two class actions were filed with the Marion
County Circuit Court against Portland General on behalf of two
classes of electric service customers.

The suits are:

      1. "Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland
         General Electric Co., Marion County Circuit Court,
         Case No. 03C 10639;" and

      2. "Morgan v. Portland General Electric Co., Marion
         County Circuit Court, Case No. 03C 10640."

The Dreyer case seeks to represent current Portland General
customers that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995 to Oct. 1, 2001 (Current Class) and the Morgan case seeks
to represent Portland General customers that were customers
during the period from April 1, 1995 to Oct. 1, 2001, but who
are no longer customers of the company (Former Class).  

The suits seek damages of $190 million for the Current Class and
$70 million for the Former Class, from the inclusion of a return
on investment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the rates Portland
General charges its customers.

On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and on July 30, 2004, Portland General also
requested Summary Judgment in its favor on all of the class
action plaintiffs' claims.

On Dec. 14, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and partial summary judgment and denied
Portland General's motion for summary judgment.  Portland
General filed for an interlocutory appeal, which was rejected on
Feb. 1, 2005.

On March 3, 2005, Portland General filed a Petition for a Writ
of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court, asking the Court to
take jurisdiction and command the trial judge to dismiss the
complaints or to show cause why they should not be dismissed.

On March 29, 2005, Portland General filed a second petition for
an Alternative Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court
seeking to overturn the class certification.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling on
Portland General's Petitions for Alternative Writ of Mandamus,
abating the class action proceedings.

On Oct. 5, 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order
of Abatement in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme
Court, abating the class actions for one year.

On Oct. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs in the class actions filed a
motion with the Marion County Circuit Court to lift the
abatement ordered by the Circuit Court in October 2006.  A
hearing on that motion is scheduled for April 2008, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Portland General Electric Co. -- http://www.portlandgeneral.com
-- is a single, integrated electric utility engaged in the
generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail
sale of electricity in the State of Oregon.  PGE also sells
electricity and natural gas in the wholesale market to utilities
and power marketers located throughout the western U.S.


QUIZNOS SUB: Colo. Court Gives Green Light to "Bonanno" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision with nationwide implications, Judge Wiley Y.
Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
refused to dismiss any of the claims alleged in a class action
lawsuit filed by several franchisees of the Quiznos submarine
sandwich chain "Bonanno, et al. v. The Quizno's Franchise
Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 06-CV-02358(WYD)(KLM)."

The decision states that after carefully considering both sides'
legal positions, the franchisees have alleged valid claims for,
among other things, violations of the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act, breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, fraud, as well as a declaratory judgment that the
franchise agreements signed by the franchisees are
"unconscionable."

The class action lawsuit, which seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, alleges that Quiznos unlawfully collected over
$75 million in franchise fees from more than 3,000 franchisees
across the United States that never opened a store.  Refunds of
those fees were not rendered despite Quiznos' failure to provide
contractually-required site selection services to the
franchisees in a timely manner.

The suit, originally filed in a New Jersey state court on
February 16, 2006, is currently pending in the United States
District Court for Colorado.

"This is the correct result.  Quiznos has publicly tried to
discredit the claims alleged by franchisees against the company,
calling them 'meritless' and 'tired.'  This decision shows that
Quiznos is wrong," said Justin M. Klein, of the law firm Marks &
Klein, LLP, who represents the plaintiffs along with Joseph S.
Goode and Mark M. Leitner of the Milwaukee, Wisc. law firm of
Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk S.C. "We will continue to vigorously
represent the franchisees until they are vindicated and the
wrongs of the past are rectified."

Quiznos asked the Court to dismiss all eight claims filed
against the company, but Judge Daniel denied that request on
each claim.  Significantly, the Court also refused to dismiss
any of the claims against Richard E. Schaden and Richard F.
Schaden, the majority owners of the corporation.  The younger
Schaden is directly implicated in the plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint with conduct that the Court has now said, if proven at
a trial, would lead to a finding of liability.

This lawsuit is one of many class action lawsuits pending around
the United States against Quiznos that challenges the company's
business practices as deceptive and unfair.  These actions
include a lawsuit:

     -- with the United States District Court for the Northern
        District of Illinois, "Siemer, et al. v. The Quizno's
        Franchise Company LLC, et al., Case No. 07-C-2170;"

     -- with the United States District Court for the District
        of Colorado, "Brunet, et al. v. The Quizno's Franchise
        Company LLC, et al., Case No. 07-CV-01717," and

     -- in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County (State of
        Wisconsin), "Westerfield, et al. v. The Quizno's
        Franchise Company LLC, et al., Case No. 08-CV-003158."

These related actions focus on the lack of profitability in
operating Quiznos restaurants and the company's misuse of its
Marketing and Advertising Fund established by payments of its
franchisees.

Denver-based Quiznos has more than 4,900 locations in 15
countries and 425 in Canada, where it boasts it is growing
fastest among quick-service restaurant chains.


QVC INC: Electric Grills Recalled Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
QVC Inc., of West Chester, Pa., and Tristar Products Inc., of
Fairfield, N.J., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 13,500 Electric Contact
Grills.

The company said cooking oils or sprays applied to the grill's
cooking plates before preheating can cause the oil to ignite and
flare up.  Cooking sprays can ignite and flare up if used on the
grill at any time.

QVC and Tristar have received five reports of the grill igniting
or flaring up, including two reports of minor burns.

This recall involves a dual surface electric contact grill sold
under the "Hulk Hogan's Ultimate Grill" brand.  The grills are
silver/gray in color, have removable cooking plates, a cassette
to catch drippings, and fold for storage or transport.  Model
number PZ-3012 is printed on a silver label attached to the back
of the grills.

These recalled electric grills were manufactured in China and
were being sold by QVC through its television station, Web page,
toll-free number, and its employee, retail and Studio stores;
and through Tristar's Web site: http://www.hulkhogangrill.com,
and a direct response television commercial from May 2007
through August 2007 for about $100.

Picture of recalled electric grills is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08549.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using cooking oils on
the grill prior to preheating.  Cooking sprays should not be
used on the grill at anytime.  Consumers will receive a revised
instruction manual with a cooking spray/oil use warning.  QVC
has sent warning notices to consumers to whom it sold the
product directly.  Tristar will do the same.

For additional information, contact QVC at (800) 367-9444
between 7:00 a.m. And 1:00 a.m. ET daily, or visit the company's
Web site at http://www.qvc.com.

Consumers who purchased the grill from Tristar can call
(800)718-5135 between 9:00 a.m. And 7:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, 9:00 a.m. To 5:00 p.m. Saturday, or visit the company's
Web site: http://www.tristarproductsinc.com/


STONE ENERGY: Discovery Underway in La. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in the consolidated securities fraud class
action titled "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-cv-02088," which was filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana against Stone Energy
Corp. and several of its officers.

On or around Nov. 30, 2005, George Porch filed a putative class
action against the company, David H. Welch, Kenneth H. Beer, D.
Peter Canty and James H. Prince.  Three similar complaints were
filed thereafter.  All are alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

All complaints asserted a putative class period commencing on
June 17, 2005, and ending on Oct. 6, 2005.  All complaints
contended that, during the putative class period, the
defendants, among other things, misstated or failed to disclose:

      -- that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial
         results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
         improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On March 17, 2006, these purported class actions were
consolidated into "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," with El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund designated as lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint
on June 14, 2006.  The consolidated complaint expands the
putative class period to commence on May 2, 2001, and to end on
March 10, 2006.

On Sept. 13, 2006, Stone Energy and the individual defendants
filed motions seeking dismissal of that action.

On Aug. 17, 2007, a Federal Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation that the Federal Court grant in part and deny in
part the Motions to Dismiss.  

The Report also recommended that:

       -- the claims asserted against defendants Kenneth Beer
          and James Prince pursuant to Section 10(b) of the U.S.
          Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
          thereunder, and

       -- claims asserted on behalf of putative class members
          who sold their Company shares prior to Oct. 6, 2005 be
          dismissed and that the Motions to Dismiss be denied
          with respect to the other claims against Stone and the
          individual defendants.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the Federal Court issued an Order directing
that judgment on the Motions to Dismiss be entered in accordance
with the recommendations of the Report.   

On Oct. 23, 2007, Stone and the individual defendants filed a
motion seeking permission to appeal the denial of the Motions to
Dismiss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
which motion was denied.  

The discovery process is now underway, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-cv-02088," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana, Judge Tucker L. Melancon
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kglg.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Law Group
          650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-648-1850
          Fax: 504-455-1498

               - and -

          Mitchell J. Hoffman, Esq. (mhoffman@lshah.com)
          Lowe Stein, et al.
          701 Poydras St., Ste. 3600
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Phone: 504-581-2450
          Fax: 504-581-2461

Representing the defendants are:

          Walter B. Stuart, IV, Esq. (wstuart@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          666 5th Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10103
          Phone: 212-237-0000
          Fax: 212-237-0100

               - and -

          Amy E. Allums, Esq. (aea@jgmclaw.com)
          Johnson Gray McNamara
          P.O. Box 51165
          Lafayette, LA 70505
          Phone: 337-412-6003
          Fax: 337-412-6037

    
STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuit in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Energy Corp. continues to face a derivative action that
was filed with the 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of
Lafayette, Louisiana by Gregory Sakhno.

The suit named the company as a nominal defendant.  David Welch,
Kenneth Beer, Peter Canty, James Prince, James Stone, John
Laborde, Peter Barker, George Christmas, Richard Pattarozzi,
David Voelker, Raymond Gary, B.J. Duplantis and Robert Bernhard
were named as defendants in the action.  

It alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against all
defendants, and claims of unjust enrichment and insider selling
against certain individual defendants.

On April 22, 2006, the complaint in the action was amended to
also be a class action brought on behalf of shareholders of the
company.

In addition to the above mentioned claims, the amended State
Court derivative action complaint purported to allege breaches
of fiduciary duty by the director defendants in connection with
the then proposed merger transaction with Plains Exploration and
Production Co., and seeks an order enjoining the director
defendants from entering into the then proposed transaction with
Plains.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Stone Energy Corp. -- http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and gas company engaged in the acquisition and
subsequent exploration, development, operation and production of
oil and gas properties located in the conventional shelf of the
Gulf of Mexico, the deep shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, the
deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, Rocky Mountain Basins and the
Williston Basin.


STUBHUB INC: Still Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
StubHub, Inc., a subsidiary of eBay Inc., continues to face a
purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, alleging violations of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

The suit, "Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-01328-PSG-SS," was filed in February 2007.  It is a
purported class action alleging that StubHub violated the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transaction Act by allegedly printing
receipts containing more than the last five digits of a credit
card number or the expiration date.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

eBay reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 28, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-01328-PSG-SS," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:
  
         Robert S. Ackley, Esq. (rackley@hafif.com )
         Herbert Hafif Law Offices
         269 W. Bonita Ave.
         Claremont, CA 91711-4784
         Phone: 909-624-1671

Representing the defendant is:

         Peter M. Adams, Esq. (padams@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward Kronish
         4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121-9109
         Phone: 858-550-6000


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, against Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC  
and certain officers of the company.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company during the period from May 3, 2004,
through January 28, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under.

MuniMae maintains offices in New York City.  The company is a
limited liability company that provides debt and equity
financing to various parties, invests in tax-exempt bonds and
other housing-related debt and equity investments, and is a tax
credit syndicator that acquires and transfers low-income housing
tax credits.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued
numerous false and misleading statements concerning, among other
things, MuniMae's numerous financial interests in certain
entities; the value and performance of its tax-exempt bond
portfolio; and the adequacy of its internal controls.

Specifically, on January 28, 2008, after the market closed, the
Company stated that it was drastically reducing its dividend by
more than a third and would likely restate its financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005, and
that it would file its Form10-K for the year ended December 31,
2006, by May 30, 2008.

On January 29, 2008, MuniMae disclosed that its pending
restatement would reflect changes to its accounting policies,
including, among other things, the consolidation of financial
statements of 200 variable interest entities in which it had
partnership interests under Financial Accounting Standards
Board's Financial Interpretation No. 46, changes to the
recognition of revenue for its low income housing tax credit
business, the way MuniMae accounts for loans, and the method in
how MuniMae accounts for derivatives that affect the timing of
profit and loss recognition. As a result, the market price of
the Company's common stock fell over 46% and closed at $9.19 per
share.

On January 30, 2008, MuniMae further disclosed that effective
February 6, 2008, its common stock would be delisted from the
NYSE and would begin trading over-the-counter on the Pink Sheets
because it would fail to meet "the NYSE's March 3, 2008 deadline
to file audited financial statements for the 2006 fiscal year."
The news caused shares of the Company to drop and additional
22%, to close at $7.31.

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

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529 or (888) 4.POMLAW
          e-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com


SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Schiffrin Barroway Files TX Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP files a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Superior Offshore International, Inc. pursuant or
traceable to the Initial Public Offering.

The Complaint charges Superior Offshore and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

Superior Offshore is a provider of subsea construction and
commercial diving services to the offshore oil and gas industry,
serving operators internationally and domestically in the outer
continental shelf of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

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

     (1) that at the time of the issuance of the Registration
         Statement, the Company knew that its Gulf of Mexico
         operations were not able to meet goals and projections,
         which would adversely affect the Company for the
         foreseeable future;

     (2) that at the time of the Registration Statement that it
         would have to move into untested markets due to the
         decline in its Gulf of Mexico operations;

     (3) that it would have significant liquidity and debt
         issues even after the completion of the IPO;

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

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

Beginning in August 2007, the Company began what would become a
trend of shocking investors with press releases and revelations.
The Company slowly released news indicating that it was not
operating according to plan, was changing its core business to
untested markets (such as deep water and international), and was
having liquidity problems despite the large cash influx from the
IPO.  The Company released the news little by little over the
ensuing months, shocking and angering investors who had relied
upon the Company's statements at the time of the IPO.

In response to these reports, shares of the Company's stock
steadily declined, finally falling to $3.02 on January 22, 2008.
This closing price represented a cumulative loss of $11.98, or
over 79 percent, of the value of the Company's shares at the
time of its IPO just months prior.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 29,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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




                           *********


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  * * *