---

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

            Thursday, March 20, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 57
  
                            Headlines

AB&C GROUP: Might Face Lawsuit by Laid-Off Employees
BJC HEALTHCARE: Settles Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Hurricane Victims Who Feel Betrayed File Suit
CYBERONICS INC: Parties File Appellate Briefs in Tex. Litigation
CYBERONICS INC: Reaches Settlement in Tex. Derivative Lawsuits

FLORIDA: ACLU Sues Over Dismal High School Graduation Rates
LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Sets April 30 Deadline in ERISA Lawsuit
LEAR CORP: Delaware Court Allows Filing of 4th Amended Complaint
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Appeals Arbitrator's Decision in Mass. Suit
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Former Worker Appeals Calif. Suit Dismissal

MULTIPLAN INC: Faces IL Suit Over Alleged Medical Billing Fraud
NAVTEQ CORP: Settles Ill. Suits Over $8.1B Sale to Nokia Corp.
PROVIDENT BANK: Faces Suit Over Home Equity Loan Closing Costs
PUGET ENERGY: Settles Wash. Litigation Over Proposed Acquisition
RECORDING INDUSTRY: Plaintiff Cries Fraud and Illegal Spying

TJX COS: To Hold Sale As Part of Credit Card Suit Settlement
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Shareholder Suit Granted Class Action Status
XL CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of CT Securities Complaint
XL CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Rulings in N.J. Antitrust Lawsuit
XL INSURANCE: Faces Suits in N.Y. Alleging Securities Violations


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
FORCE PROTECTION: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.C. Securities Suit
MF GLOBAL: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
MICHAEL BAKER: Schiffrin Barroway Files PA Securities Fraud Suit
NEUROMETTRIX INC: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing

VERTEX PHARMA: Schatz Nobel Announces MA Securities Suit Filing
WELLPOINT INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in IN
WELLPOINT INC: Schatz Nobel Announces IN Securities Suit Filing



                           *********



AB&C GROUP: Might Face Lawsuit by Laid-Off Employees
----------------------------------------------------
AB&C Group is facing a possible class-action lawsuit by Cheryl
Wilfong, on behalf of about 100 former employees of the company,
The Journal reports.

According to the report, Ms. Wilfong joined her former AB&C co-
workers to sign up for unemployment benefits.  However,
immediately following the orientation, Ms. Wilfong began making
plans to meet with a lawyer to discuss possibly bringing a
lawsuit against the company.

The Journal relates that Ms. Wilfong contacted Martinsburg
attorney Paul Taylor, Esq., who agreed to meet with the laid-off
employees.  Ms. Wilfong is reportedly in the process of
spreading the word about the meeting, which is slated for
March 25, at 6:00 p.m., at the Ranson Lions Club, beside AB&C's
facility.

"All of us still have a lot of unanswered questions.  This will
be a time for us all to get together and talk about things like
what's going on with our 401(k) retirement accounts, health
insurance questions and what can be done to get the pay people
are owed," Ms. Wilfong told The Journal.

"We need to do this because it is just wrong how the company has
treated people, especially to have people working and not get
paid," Ms. Wilfong further told The Journal.

All laid-off employees are welcome, Ms. Wilfong added, whether
they were terminated on March 14 or in the past several weeks.

The Journal explains that about 400 local employees were laid
off last week when AB&C's two area facilities in Martinsburg and
Ranson closed.  Other facilities that also closed at the same
time are Orange in Virginia, and Westerly in Rhode Island.

The Westerly call center and warehouse, which is operated by
parent company Blue Sky Brands, had originally been slated to
remain open until March 31.  However, the doors there closed on
Friday in a move that affected 180 employees, according to the
Westerly Sun newspaper, which also reported that Blue Sky's
corporate office in North Kingstown was also shut down on the
same day.

Companies under this brand have also been affected, with The
Paragon, Bits&Pieces and National Wildlife Catalog either
shutting down their Web sites or phone recordings indicating
they were closed, according to the Westerly Sun.

According to The Journal, company officials have not returned
media calls regarding the closings.


BJC HEALTHCARE: Settles Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
BJC HealthCare and two Missouri law firms said that they have
reached a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf
of uninsured patients at BJC hospitals who said they were
charged several times as much as patients with insurance, the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

According to the report, BJC has instituted expanded charity
care policies since the lawsuit was filed.  Under the
settlement, the area's largest hospital system would continue
these policies -- which provide discounted care to patients with
low to moderate incomes -- as well as institute a "self-pay
discount" policy.  This would provide a discount to all patients
without insurance regardless of their income level.

The Class Action Reporter reported on May 17, 2007, that
a St. Louis City (Mo.) Circuit Court certified the suit as a
class action.  The suit alleged that Barnes-Jewish Hospital,
part of BJC HealthCare, overcharged uninsured patients.

The class certified by the court consists principally of persons
who received medical services and made no payments, payment
arrangements or requests for forgiveness on bills that were sent
to them.  The suit, filed in 2004, also alleged that the
hospital overcharged thousands of uninsured patients as much as
two to three times way back 1999.

Under the settlement, which is still subject to court approval,
the self-pay discount and charity care discount will be applied
retroactively to uninsured patients' bills issued from Jan. 1,
1999, to the present.  The discounts will also be available for
at least four years.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch says that uninsured patients who were
treated at a BJC hospital since Jan. 1, 1999, and paid some or
all of their bill, may be eligible for a partial refund.  They
will be notified of their right to submit a claim for the
refund.

Circuit Judge David Mason presides over the case.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is:

          Don Downing, Esq. (ddowning@grgpc.com)
          Gray, Ritter & Graham P.C.
          Gateway One On The Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1826
          (Independent City)
          Phone: 314-241-5620
          Fax: 314-241-4140
          Web Site: http://www.grayrittergraham.com/  

Representing the hospital is:

          Bryan Cave LLP
          211 N Broadway Ste 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
          Phone: 1 314 259 2000
          Web site: http://www.bryancave.com/


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Hurricane Victims Who Feel Betrayed File Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Countrywide Home Loans refusal to fulfill
promises made to Gulf Coast hurricane victims, the James Hoyer
Law Firm announced the filing of a new class action lawsuit
against the mortgage company with the United States District
Court in the Southern District of Mississippi.

The suit alleges that Countrywide took advantage of these
disaster victims by offering them mortgage deferrals with no
penalties attached and then reneging on that promise. The
company turned its disaster relief assistance into a twisted,
money making venture.  Countrywide subjected these victims to
the threat of foreclosure if they did not agree to harmful
forbearance agreements and loan modifications that end up
costing them more money.  These plans made more profit for
Countrywide on the backs of hurricane victims.

Mississippi Plaintiff Shermanda Brumfield calls Countrywide's
refusal to live up to its promise an outrage.  "It hurts to see
this company turn its back on us, after we've been through so
much.  We've been suffering for more than two years.  It's time
for them to do the right thing and help us out of the hardship
they created," she said.

                          Background

After Hurricanes Rita & Katrina, Countrywide offered 90-day
mortgage payment deferrals to homeowners affected by the
devastation and in many cases 6-month deferrals.  Countrywide
represented this as a good deed to help people in their time of
suffering and even issued a press release to promote its
actions.

Homeowners were told by agents over the phone their deferred
payments could be tacked onto the end of their mortgages.  They
were assured they would not face penalties like late fees,
interest and reports to the credit bureaus.

Countrywide went so far as to tell homeowners who wanted to pay,
not to do it.  In some cases, they even returned checks.
Struggling hurricane victims accepted the offer of help, some
reluctantly, when assured they would not be economically
penalized by late fees, penalties or credit reporting.
When homeowners followed up later to resume payments, they
discovered Countrywide was reneging on its promise.  The company
said it could not add the payments to the end of the loan,
without penalty, after all.  Instead, Countrywide told
homeowners they would either have to pay the lump sum owed
immediately or face a loan restructuring which would cause them
to pay thousands of dollars more over the life of their loan.

The suit, filed on behalf of victims in Mississippi, is in
addition to two suits already pending in Louisiana and Texas.
The James Hoyer Law Firm is seeking reasonable loan terms for
these victims so they can remain in their homes and restitution
for those who have already lost their homes.

For more information, contact: James Hoyer Law Firm --
http://www.jameshoyer.com


CYBERONICS INC: Parties File Appellate Briefs in Tex. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated class action, "In re: Cyberonics,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. H-0502121," have
filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit their
respective appellate briefs in the matter, according to
Cyberonics' Feb. 28, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 25, 2008.

On June 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its officers and Robert P. Cummins, then
chairman and chief executive, with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuit was captioned, "Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-02121."  

A second lawsuit with similar allegations was also filed on
July 12, 2005, captioned, "Stanley Sved v. Cyberonics, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-2414."

On July 28, 2005, the court consolidated the two cases under the
caption, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. H-05-2121," and entered a scheduling order.

           Consolidation, Appointment of Lead Counsel

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court appointed EFCAT, Inc., John E. and
Cecelia Catogas, Blanca Rodriguez, and Mohamed Bakry as lead
plaintiffs and also appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
Nov. 30, 2005.  The complaint generally alleged, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements
regarding the company's VNS Therapy System device as a therapy
for treatment resistant depression.

                  Dismissal Motion, Amendments

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.

On July 20, 2006, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, allowing the
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden
to plead a securities fraud claim with particularity, including
failures to allege with particularity a material misstatement or
omission, to allege facts sufficient to raise a strong inference
of intent or severe recklessness, and to allege sufficiently the
causal connection between the plaintiffs' loss and the
defendants' actions.

The court noted that "the deficiencies in plaintiffs' complaint
might well extend beyond the point of cure," but nonetheless
granted plaintiffs the right to amend their complaint in light
of the strong presumption of law favoring a right to amend.

                    First Amended Complaint

On Aug. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint for violation of the securities laws.  The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by
making false and misleading statements regarding the VNS Device
as a therapy for treatment resistant depression.

The lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
disclose:

     -- that certain individuals associated with the U.S. Food
        and Drug Administration had safety and efficacy concerns
        about the use of the VNS Device for the treatment of
        depression and questioned the adequacy of evidence of
        safety and effectiveness the company presented to the
        FDA;

     -- that the defendants misrepresented the prospect for
        payer reimbursement for the VNS Device;

     -- that the defendants concealed executive compensation and
        governance issues and that the defendants falsely stated
        that an analyst's statements about options granted in
        June 2004 were inaccurate and without merit.

The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and
entities, except those named as defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities during the period
Feb. 5, 2004, through Aug. 1, 2006.  

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
equitable or injunctive relief, if available.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.

   Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assoc. Intervenes

On Oct. 31, 2006, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement
Association filed a motion seeking to intervene and asking the
court to require the lead plaintiffs to republish notice of the
amended class action claims.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order compelling
republication of notice and staying the proceeding  pending
determination of the lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs published notice of the
filing of the first amended complaint, stating that investors
who purchased our securities during the expanded class period
(Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006, inclusive) may move the
court for consideration to be appointed as lead plaintiff within
60 days.

           Supplements to Motions, Dismissal, Appeal

In February 2007, the court lifted the stay, and in March 2007,
the lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file an
amended complaint.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend
without prejudice and stayed the litigation in light of issues
raised in a case that is currently submitted to the U.S.  
Supreme Court.

In June 2007, the court lifted the stay and granted plaintiffs
leave to "supplement —- not amend" their first amended complaint
and granted the company leave to "supplement —- not amend" its
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

In July 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a supplemental amended
complaint, and in August 2007, the company filed a supplement to
its motion to dismiss.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' supplemented first amended complaint with prejudice.  

On Oct. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The plaintiffs filed their Brief of Appellants on Jan. 2, 2008.  
The company filed its Brief of Appellee on Feb. 4, 2008, and the
plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief on Feb. 21, 2008.  

The suit, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. H-05-2121," is originally "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02121," and was filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Sim
Lake presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Elizabeth A. Abbott, Esq.           
         (elizabeth@emersonpoynter.com)
         John G. Emerson Esq. (john@emersonpoynter.com)
         Scott E. Poynter, Eq. (scott@emersonpoynter.com)
         Emerson Poynter LLP
         2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037

         Mark A. Golovach, Esq.
         Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
         Jeffrey R. Krinsk Esq.
         Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
         501 West Broadway, Ste 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425
         e-mail: fk@classactionlaw.com

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants is:

         N. Scott Fletcher, Esq. (sfletcher@velaw.com)
         Vinson & Elkins LLP
         1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
         Houston, TX 77002-6760
         Phone: 713-758-3234
         Fax: 713-615-5168


CYBERONICS INC: Reaches Settlement in Tex. Derivative Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cyberonics, Inc., has reached a tentative settlement for several  
derivative lawsuits that were filed in Texas courts, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 25, 2008.

                       Federal Litigation

The company was named as a nominal defendant in a stockholder
derivative lawsuit brought on behalf of the company styled,
"Rudolph v. Cummins, et al.," which is pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, naming
several of the company's current and former officers and
directors as defendants.

The suit is alleging purported improprieties in the company 's
issuance of stock options and the accounting related to
issuances.

The operative Amended Complaint also purports to state a
putative class action claim against the individual defendants
for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as
claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty, gross mismanagement and corporate waste, against the
officer defendants for unjust enrichment and against certain
individual defendants for insider trading.

                     State Court Litigation

The company are also named as a nominal defendant in five
stockholder derivative lawsuits brought on behalf of the company
in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, alleging
purported improprieties in our issuance of stock options and the
accounting related to such issuances.

These cases were consolidated into a single case, "In re
Cyberonics, Inc. Derivative Litigation," in the 189th Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas in January 2007 (together
with Rudolph v. Cummins, the "Derivative Lawsuits").

On Nov. 18, 2006, the company's Board formed a Special
Litigation Committee to investigate, analyze and evaluate the
claims raised in the Derivative Lawsuits and to determine the
actions, if any, the company should take with respect to the
derivative claims, including whether to pursue, to seek to
dismiss or to attempt to resolve the derivative claims in the
best interests of us and our stockholders.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the company moved to stay all proceedings in
the Derivative Lawsuits pending the completion of the SLC
process.

In April 2007, the federal district court entered an order
staying the Rudolph case for 90 days to permit the SLC to
complete its investigation.  

In August, October and December 2007, the federal district court
extended the stay of the Rudolph case.

On Oct. 16, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
reached an agreement in principle, set forth in a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs, to settle claims alleged in
the Derivative Lawsuits.  

On Dec. 27, 2007, as contemplated in the MOU, the company, along
with the individual defendants, entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with the plaintiffs pursuant to which the parties
agreed, consistent with the terms and conditions in the MOU, to
settle the claims alleged in the Derivative Lawsuits.

On Jan. 2, 2008, the 189th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas entered a Preliminary Approval Order setting a
deadline of Feb. 26, 2008, for the filing of objections to the
settlement and setting a hearing for March 7, 2008, on final
approval of the settlement.  

On Jan. 17, 2008, the company published notices of the
settlement to shareholders.

Cyberonics, Inc. -- http://www.cyberonics.com-- is a  
neuromodulation company engaged in designing, developing and
bringing to market medical devices that provide Vagus Nerve
Stimulation (VNS) Therapy, for the treatment of epilepsy,
treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and other debilitating
neurological or psychiatric diseases, and other disorders.


FLORIDA: ACLU Sues Over Dismal High School Graduation Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charging that shamefully low high school graduation rates
demonstrate a violation of students' constitutional right to a
high quality education, the American Civil Liberties Union filed
a first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit today against the Palm
Beach County School District.

It is estimated that as many as one in three Palm Beach County
students does not graduate on time with a regular diploma, a
figure that is well below both the state and national averages.

This case is the first legal challenge in the country that
focuses on the issue of low graduation rates and that requires a
school district to graduate more of its students.

"If Palm Beach County is not graduating a third or more of its
students, it is by definition providing an inadequate
education," said Chris Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the
ACLU.  "Unfortunately, this is just one example of a larger
disturbing trend of poor graduation rates across the country."

The ACLU's legal challenge, filed on behalf of parents and
students in the district, charges that the Palm Beach County
School District violates the state constitution's declaration of
the "fundamental value" of educating children and the right that
free public education be "uniform, efficient, safe, secure and
high quality."  The ACLU is not seeking additional funding or
any specific remedial measures, only that the school district
improve its graduation rates without pushing students out of the
system.  The lawsuit also seeks to put in place a uniform and
reliable graduation rate calculation that accurately accounts
for every student enrolled in Palm Beach County's high schools.
Currently, there are multiple, inconsistent graduation rate
measures that are inaccurate and inflated.

In addition to low graduation rates among all students in Palm
Beach County, there is a significant disparity between the
graduation rates of African-American and Hispanic students and
those of white students.  For the past five years, the gap
between black and white graduation rates has remained
approximately 30 percent, while the gap between Hispanic and
white graduation rates has been about 20 percent.  According to
the ACLU's legal challenge, the stark difference in graduation
rates along racial lines is evidence enough of the school
district's constitutional violations.  The lawsuit, however,
aims to improve the graduation rates for all students enrolled
in Palm Beach County.

"A high quality education for every child is not a luxury, but a
constitutional requirement," said Muslima Lewis, Director of the
ACLU of Florida's Racial Justice Project.  "The Palm Beach
County School District must be held accountable for upholding
the Florida constitutional mandate to make high quality
education a reality for all students, regardless of age, race,
special needs, ethnicity or gender.  Students and teachers in
Palm Beach County deserve an environment that ensures success,
not failure -- the District owes it to them and to our
community."

Graduation rates are not just a problem in Palm Beach, but
throughout the country.  However, there are school districts
with similar demographics that perform substantially better,
proving that Palm Beach, too, can do better.  For example, in
2004, using a respected methodology developed by the Harvard
Civil Rights Project and the Urban Institute, the schools
systems in Maryland's Baltimore and Montgomery counties and
Virginia's Fairfax County had graduation rates slightly above
80%, compared to only 56.1% in Palm Beach County.  Accordingly,
Palm Beach County's low high school graduation rate and the
disparity between the graduation rate of African-American and
Hispanic students and that of white students cannot be
attributed to socio-economic status, immigrant status or student
transfers to private schools.

High school dropouts are far more likely than graduates to be
unemployed, in prison and living in poverty.  A recent
independent study reported last week in the Washington Post
showed that high school dropouts in the District of Columbia
stand to lose $615 million in lifetime earnings compared to
graduates.  The study also found that the city would save more
than $20 million in health care costs if D.C.'s high school
dropouts graduated.

American Civil Liberties Union on the net: http://www.aclu.org


LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Sets April 30 Deadline in ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
ordered that discovery in the consolidated class action filed
against Lear Corp. be completed by April 30, 2008.

A former Lear employee filed the purported class action in April
2006 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against the company, certain members of its Board of
Directors, members of its Employee Benefits Committee and
certain members of its human resources personnel, alleging
violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act with
respect to the company's retirement savings plans for salaried
and hourly employees.

In the second quarter of 2006, the company was served with three
additional purported class action ERISA lawsuits, each of which
contained similar allegations against it, the members of its
Board, members of its EBC and certain members of its senior
management and its human resources personnel.

The court subsequently consolidated the four lawsuits as "In re:
Lear Corp. ERISA Litigation."  The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint, which alleges breaches of fiduciary
duties substantially similar to those alleged in the four
individually filed lawsuits.  The consolidated complaint
continued to name the same defendants, but added certain other
current and former members of the EBC.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants in
connection with the administration of Lear's retirement savings
plans for salaried and hourly employees.

The fiduciary duty claims are largely based on allegations of
breaches of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and of
over-concentration of plan assets in the company's common stock.

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of the
plans and all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the plans from Oct. 21, 2004, to the present and seek to
recover losses allegedly suffered by the plans.  The complaints
do not specify the amount of damages sought.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, the defendants asked to have
all defendants and all counts in the consolidated complaint
dismissed.  The court denied this dismissal motion during the
second quarter of 2007.

On Aug. 8, 2007, the court ordered that discovery be completed
by April 30, 2008, according to Lear's March 3, 2008 form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Malloy v. Lear Corp., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
11735-JCO-VMM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Judge John Corbett O'Meara
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stephen F. Wasinger, Esq. (sfw@sfwlaw.com)
         Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC,
         32121 Woodward Avenue
         300 Balmoral Centre
         Royal Oak, MI 48073-0999
         Phone: 248-554-6306

Representing the defendant is:

         Thomas G. McNeill, Esq. (TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com)
         Dickinson Wright
         500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
         Detroit, MI 48226-3425
         Phone: (313) 223-3500


LEAR CORP: Delaware Court Allows Filing of 4th Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a fourth amended complaint in a consolidated
class action that sought to block billionaire investor Carl
Icahn acquisition of Lear Corp., according to Lear's March 3,
2008 form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Previously, the company agreed to a $2.31-billion buyout offer
from the Icahn-controlled American Real Estate Partners LP.  The
transaction involves Mr. Icahn paying $36 per share for the Lear
shares he does not already own.

Between Feb. 9 and Feb. 21, 2007, certain stockholders filed
three purported class action lawsuits against the company,
certain members of its Board of Directors, and American Real
Estate Partners and certain of its affiliates with the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

These lawsuits were then consolidated into a single action.  The
amended complaint in the consolidated action generally alleged
that the Agreement and Plan of Merger with AREP Car Holdings
Corp. and AREP Car Acquisition Corp. unfairly limited the
process of selling Lear and that certain members of the
company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger Agreement and acted with conflicts of
interest in approving the Merger Agreement.

The amended complaint in the consolidated action further alleged
that Lear's preliminary and definitive proxy statements for the
Merger Agreement were misleading and incomplete, and that Lear's
payments to AREP as a result of the termination of the Merger
Agreement constituted unjust enrichment and waste.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

On March 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed yet another amended
complaint.  In June 2007, the Delaware court issued an order
entering a limited injunction of Lear's planned shareholder vote
on the Merger Agreement until the company made supplemental
proxy disclosure.  That supplemental proxy disclosure was made
and approved by the Delaware court on June 18, 2007.  

Accordingly, the Delaware court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.

On Sept. 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint.

On January 30, 2008, the Delaware court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, leaving
only derivative claims against the Lear directors and AREP based
on the payment by Lear to AREP of a termination fee pursuant to
the Merger Agreement.

The plaintiffs were also granted leave to file an interim
petition for an award of fees and expenses related to the
supplemental proxy disclosure.

Lear Corp. -- http://www.lear.com-- is a worldwide supplier of   
automotive interior systems based on net sales.  It supplies
automotive manufacturers with complete automotive seat systems,
electrical distribution systems and various electronic products.   
Lear also supplies automotive interior components and systems,
including instrument panels and cockpit systems, headliners and
overhead systems, door panels and flooring and acoustic systems.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Appeals Arbitrator's Decision in Mass. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., is appealing an arbitrator's
decision in a purported class action lawsuit accusing it of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, which remains pending
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In May 2005, a former employee of Morton's steakhouse in Boston,
Massachusetts, filed a nationwide class action complaint with
the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts, alleging
that the sharing of tips with other restaurant employees
violates the FLSA.

The plaintiffs have not stated the estimated amount of damages
they seek and, at this stage of the proceedings, it is not
possible to state the estimated damages sought.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint and compel
arbitration.  While the motion was pending, the plaintiff filed
a nationwide collective action demand for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association.  The demand for arbitration
alleges the same facts as the lawsuit filed in federal court.  

The Company's motion to dismiss was granted and the matter is
moving forward as an arbitration proceeding.  

The arbitrator has ruled that a nationwide class is appropriate,
excluding certain states.  Morton has appealed that decision to
the district court, according to the company's March 3, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Johnson v. Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., Case
No. 1:05-cv-11058-MLW," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Judge Mark L. Wolf presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. (sliss@prle.com)
         Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
         18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-367-7200
         Fax: 617-367-4820

Representing the defendants are:

         David J. Kerman, Esq. (kermand@jacksonlewis.com)
         Heather L. Stepler, Esq. (steplerh@jacksonlewis.com)
         Jackson Lewis, LLP
         75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor
         Boston, MA 02327
         Phone: 617-367-0025
         Fax: 617-367-2155


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Former Worker Appeals Calif. Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action against a steakhouse
of Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., is seeking to appeal the
dismissal of the case.

In March 2006, a former employee of Morton's steakhouse in
Burbank, California, filed a class and collective action lawsuit
with the Superior Court in Los Angeles, California, alleging
that the sharing of tips with other restaurant employees
violates federal and state laws.

The case was brought on behalf of all current and former
California servers for a four-year period.

The plaintiff has not stated the amount of damages sought and,
at this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible to estimate
the damages sought by the plaintiff, or what the ultimate
outcome of the appeal will be.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the action, which motion
was granted by the court.  The plaintiff has appealed the
court's ruling.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 3, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.mortons.com/-- is  
engaged in the business of owning and operating restaurants
under the names Morton's The Steakhouse (Morton's) and
Bertolini's Authentic Trattorias (Bertolini's).


MULTIPLAN INC: Faces IL Suit Over Alleged Medical Billing Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplan Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
alleging it conspired with two insurers:

     -- United Health Care and
     -- Unicare Life and Health  

to defraud patients, doctors and hospitals by billing for out-
of-network services though the medical service providers were in
network, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Multiplan entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and the
classes.  In that agreement, Multiplan guaranteed that it would
market its provider network, which offers financial incentives
such as reduced deductibles and co-insurance to patients who use
"in-network" providers, only to the plaintiff and the physician
and hospital classes.  The purpose of the agreement was to
increase the volume of business that the plaintiff and the
physician and hospital classes would receive. In return, the
plaintiff and the physician and hospital classes agreed to
provide medical services to Multiplan patients at discounted
rates.

In blatant disregard of its promise to market its network
patients only to payors who provided financial incentives,
Multiplan secretly contracted with payors Unicare and United
allowing access to the providers but allowing disincentives to
patients to see providers, yet, the payors, Multiplan, Unicare
and United, retained the contractual discounts as if they had
provided incentives for patients and the patient Class to see in
network physician providers.

Physician providers were not able to correctly bill the patient
Class and as a result the patient Class was billed for out of
network services even though the physician providers were in
network and therefore creating an economic injustice on behalf
of the patient class.

As a result, the plaintiff and the physician and hospital class
received reduced payments for medical services without receiving
the increased volume of patients that was to be the "benefit of
the bargain."  Multiplan and its payor carrier clients thereby
increased their profits at the expense of the plaintiff and the
classes.

Because Multiplan did not disclose its agreements with Unicare
and United to the plaintiff and the classes, Multiplan's
agreement with the plaintiff and the classes is therefore unfair
and deceptive.  Multiplan defrauded the plaintiff and the
classes of the benefits to which they are entitled in violation
of the Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., and similar acts of various states
in which the classes reside.  Moreover, by giving the funds that
are owed to the classes and their members for the treatment
provided, Multiplan, Unicare and United maintain a benefit
belonging to the class members, constituting unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff Christie Clinic, P.C., brings the action pursuant to
Section 801 et seq. of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735
ILCS 5/2-801 et seq and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), (a)(2),
(a)(3), (a)(4) on behalf of all licensed medical providers
(physicians and hospitals) who:

     (a) were parties to a Multiplan Participating Primary PPO
         Provider Agreement,

     (b) unknowingly and without their consent had Multiplan
         preferred provider discounts taken against payments for
         medical services rendered to out-of-network patients
         and

     (c) patients who have been improperly billed as a result of
         the defendants' conduct.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:


     (a) Whether Multiplan, Unicare and United intentionally
         entered into a conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff and
         the classes;

     (b) Whether Multiplan breached its contract with the
         plaintiff and the physician and hospital classes;

     (c) Whether Multiplan intentionally entered into a
         conspiracy with Unicare and United to allow them to use
         Multiplan's agreement with the plaintiff and the
         physician and hospital classes knowing they would not
         provide incentives as required by Illinois law;

     (d) The extent to which Multiplan intentionally defrauded
         the plaintiff and the physician and hospital classes by  
         adding the language to its agreements allowing
         "Complimentary Network Clients" to bill the plaintiff
         and the physician and hospital classes "at an out of
         network level" through Multiplan.

     (e) Whether Multiplan, Unicare and United should account to
         the plaintiff and the physician and hospital classes
         for all discounts taken against the plaintiff and the
         physician and hospital classes pursuant to the
         Participating Primary PPO Provider Agreement;

     (f) Whether Multiplan, Unicare and United should disgorge
         any monies obtained in violation of its contract with
         the plaintiff and the classes;

     (g) Whether the plaintiff and the classes have sustained
         damages and, if so, the proper measure of their
         damages.

     (h) The extent of damages suffered by the plaintiff and
         the classes.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- finding that the action satisfies the prerequisite for
        maintenance as a class action set forth in 735 ILCS 5/2-
        801 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),
        (a)(4), and certifying the classes defined;
   
     -- designating the plaintiff as representative of the
        classes and his counsel as classes' counsel;

     -- containing final judgment in favor of the plaintiff and
        the classes against the defendants;

     -- awarding the plaintiff and the classes compensation and
        damages, both compensatory and punitive, for the harm
        they sustained by the defendants' actions;

     -- imposing permanent injunction against all the defendants
        prohibiting identical or similar deceptive practices;

     -- awarding the plaintiff and the classes reasonable
        attorney's fees, expenses of litigation, including
        experts' fees, pre-judgment interest and costs of suit,
        or in the alternative, allowing classes' counsel's fees
        to be paid from any common fund created as a result of
        this action; and

     -- granting such further relief as the court deems just and
        appropriate.

The plaintiff and the classes demand a trial by jury on the
issues triable by jury.

The suit is "Christie Clinic, P.C. et al. v. Multiplan, Inc.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-02065-MPM-DGB," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq. (RAC@cliffordlaw.com)
          Michael S. Krzak, Esq. (MSK@cliffordlaw.com)
          Colin H. Dunn, Esq. (CHD@cliffordlaw.com)
          Clifford Law Offices, PC
          120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Phone: (312) 899-9090
                 (312) 251-1160


NAVTEQ CORP: Settles Ill. Suits Over $8.1B Sale to Nokia Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NAVTEQ Corp. settled two purported shareholder class actions in
Illinois that seeks to block the digital mapmaker's $8.1-billion
sale to Nokia Corp., according to NAVTEQ's Feb. 29, 2008 form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                       Federal Litigation

On Oct. 4, 2007, a shareholder class action and derivative
complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by Monroe County Employees
Retirement System.

The lawsuit purported to be brought on behalf of all NAVTEQ
stockholders and derivatively on behalf of NAVTEQ and named the
members of the NAVTEQ Board of Directors and NAVTEQ as
defendants.

                     State Court Litigation

On Oct. 9, 2007, a second shareholder class action complaint was
filed by Karen Rosenberg in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

The lawsuit also purported to be brought on behalf of all NAVTEQ
stockholders and named the members of the NAVTEQ Board of
Directors, NAVTEQ, and Nokia as defendants.

Both complaints alleged, among other things that the NAVTEQ
Board of Directors violated its fiduciary duties to NAVTEQ
stockholders by entering into the merger agreement.  

The second complaint also alleged that Nokia aided and abetted
the NAVTEQ Board of Directors in its alleged violation of
fiduciary duties.  

Both complaints sought to enjoin the merger and monetary relief.

Recently, NAVTEQ and the other defendants have agreed to settle
the lawsuits in order to avoid the potential cost and
distraction of continued litigation and to eliminate any risk of
delay to the closing of the merger posed by these lawsuits.  

On Jan. 25, 2008, the parties in both actions entered into a
memorandum of understanding for settlement of the claims under
which NAVTEQ agreed, without any admission of liability or
wrongdoing, to:

       -- modify the appraisal rights of NAVTEQ's shareholders,

       -- make certain additional disclosures regarding the
          merger transaction in a Form DEFA14A,

       -- make certain additional confirmatory discovery
          available to the plaintiffs to confirm the fairness
          and adequacy of the settlement, and

       -- pay the sum of $1,000,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for
          their fees and reimbursement of expenses and costs.

NAVTEQ Corp. -- http://www.navteq.com-- is a provider of  
digital map information and other location-based content,
including real-time traffic information, for automotive
navigation systems, mobile navigation devices and Internet-based
mapping applications.  


PROVIDENT BANK: Faces Suit Over Home Equity Loan Closing Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Provident Bank of Maryland, a unit of Provident Bankshares
Corp., is facing a purported class action in Maryland over the
recapture of home equity loan closing costs, 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.

In 2005, a lawsuit captioned, "Bednar v. Provident Bank of
Maryland," was initiated with the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City (Maryland) by a former Bank customer.  

The suit is asserting that, upon early payoff, the Bank's
recapture of home equity loan closing costs initially paid by
the Bank on the borrower's behalf constituted a prepayment
charge prohibited by state law.

The Baltimore City Circuit Court ruled in the Bank's favor,
finding that the recapture of loan closing costs was not an
unlawful charge, a position consistent with that taken by the
State of Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation.

However, on appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed this
ruling and found in favor of the borrower.  The case was
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.  

The complaint is styled as a class action complaint, however, to
date, no class has been certified.

Provident Bankshares Corp. -- http://web.provbank.com/-- is the  
bank holding company for Provident Bank, which serves
individuals and businesses through a network of banking offices
and automated teller machines in Maryland, Virginia, and
southern York County, Pennsylvania.  Related financial services
are offered through its wholly owned subsidiaries.  Securities
brokerage, investment management and related insurance services
are available through Provident Investment Company and leases
through Court Square Leasing.  


PUGET ENERGY: Settles Wash. Litigation Over Proposed Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Puget Energy, Inc., and its directors settled a consolidated
class action that was filed with the King County Superior Court,
Seattle, Washington in relation to a proposed sale of the
company, 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 Feb. 29, 2008.

On Oct. 26, 2007 and Nov. 2, 2007, two separate lawsuits were
filed with the Superior Court in King County, Washington against
the Company and all of the members of the Company's Board of
Directors.

The lawsuits, respectively, are entitled:

       -- "Tansey v. Puget Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-2-
          34315-6 SEA," and

       -- "Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust v. Puget Energy,
          Inc., et al., Case No. 07-2-35346-1 SEA."

The lawsuits are both denominated as class actions purportedly
on behalf of Puget Energy's shareholders and assert
substantially similar allegations and causes of action relating
to the proposed the proposed acquisition of Puget Energy by a
consortium of long-term infrastructure investors led by
Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board and British Columbia Investment Management
Corp. that was publicly announced on Oct. 26, 2007.  

The complaints allege that Puget Energy's directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger and seek
virtually identical relief, including an order enjoining the
consummation of the merger.  

Pursuant to court order dated Nov. 26, 2007, the two cases were
consolidated for all purposes and entitled, "In re Puget Energy,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 07-2-34315-6 SEA."

On Feb. 6, 2008, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the consolidated
lawsuit, subject to customary conditions including completion of
appropriate settlement documentation, confirmatory discovery and
court approval.  

Puget Energy, Inc. -- http://www.pugetenergy.com-- is an energy    
services holding company.  All of the Company's operations are
conducted through its subsidiary, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a
utility company.  Puget Energy has no significant assets other
than the stock of its PSE.


RECORDING INDUSTRY: Plaintiff Cries Fraud and Illegal Spying
------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 27, 2007,
Tanya Andersen, a disabled single mother, filed a lawsuit
against the Recording Industry Association of America over its
tactics to fight piracy.  Ms. Andersen originally sued the RIAA
after its representatives threatened to interrogate her young
daughter if she did not pay thousands of dollars for music she
downloaded from somebody else.

Ms. Andersen had defended herself against copyright infringement
allegations by the RIAA for almost two years, until the RIAA
finally dropped its case against her "with prejudice," the CAR
stated.

Ms. Andersen's countersuit 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.

According to the CAR on Feb. 28, 2008, Judge Anna J. Brown of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon tossed out
the purported class action against RIAA.

In an update, however, CBS News relates that Ms. Andersen filed
a new complaint accusing record companies of racketeering, fraud
and illegal spying.

According to CBS News, Ms. Andersen's amended complaint filed
last week with the U.S. District Court in Portland seeks
national class-action status for other people allegedly
victimized by the industry's anti-piracy campaign and the
company it hired, MediaSentry.

The new lawsuit accuses the industry and MediaSentry of spying
"by unlicensed, unregistered and uncertified private
investigators" who "have illegally entered the hard drives of
tens of thousands of private American citizens" in violation of
laws "in virtually every state in the country."

The information was used to file "sham" lawsuits intended only
as intimidation to further the anti-piracy campaign, the lawsuit
said.

Lory Lybeck, Esq., Ms. Andersen's attorney said that the lawsuit
is partly aimed at forcing the industry to reveal how extensive
the spying had become.

"We're very pleased that we'll finally be able to force the RIAA
and MediaSentry to give up secret records they have steadfastly
refused to disclose in tens of thousands of cases that they've
filed," Ms. Lybeck said.

Jonathan Lamy, an industry spokesman, said the new complaint
repeats old claims.  "It is unfortunate that this case continues
to drag on after the court previously deemed all of Ms.
Andersen's claims inadequate," Ms. Lamy said.  "We hope to
resolve the case in short order."

The complaint notes the case began when Andersen, a single
mother, was sitting down for dinner with her then 8-year-old
daughter at their home in August 2005 and a legal process server
knocked on her door with notice of an RIAA lawsuit falsely
alleging copyright infringement and demanding penalties.



TJX COS: To Hold Sale As Part of Credit Card Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
As part of class-action settlement for one of the most egregious
breaches of consumer credit cards in U.S. history, T.J. Maxx
plans to hold a special one-day sales event, Information Week
reports.

After failing spectacularly to protect more than 45 million
credit and debit card numbers and other personal data, the TJX
Corporation -- the parent company of T.J. Maxx, Marshall's, and
other chains -- wants customers to plunk down those cards again.
According to a legal notice issued by the corporation, the
company will hold a future one-day sale of 15% off everything in
its stores.

As stated in the Class Action Reporter on March 3, 2008, a
notification program began in the United States, Canada, and
Puerto Rico, as ordered by the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, to alert people who made a
purchase or return to a TJX store about a proposed settlement
reached with The TJX Companies, Inc., and Fifth Third Bancorp in
a class action lawsuit against them about the computer system
intrusions into personal and financial information at TJX retail
stores.

In 2007, putative class actions have been filed against TJX in
state and federal courts in Alabama, California, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Puerto Rico, and in provincial
Canadian courts in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec and Saskatchewan, putatively on behalf of customers,
including all customers in the United States, Puerto Rico and
Canada, whose transaction data were allegedly compromised by
computer intrusions, and putative class actions have also been
filed against TJX in federal court in Massachusetts putatively
on behalf of all financial institutions which issued credit and
debit cards purportedly used at TJX stores during the period of
computer intrusions (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2007).

The actions assert claims, generally, for negligence and related
common-law and statutory causes of action stemming from the
Computer Intrusion, and seek various forms of relief including
damages, related injunctive or equitable remedies, multiple or
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The TJX Companies, Inc. is the leading off-price retailer of
apparel and home fashions in the U.S. and worldwide.  The
Company operates 841 T.J. Maxx, 767 Marshalls, 278 HomeGoods,
and 128 A.J. Wright stores, as well as 34 Bob's Stores, in the
United States.  In Canada, the Company operates 186 Winners and
70 HomeSense stores, and in Europe, 214 T.K. Maxx stores.

The suit is "In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach
Litigation, Civil Action, No. 07-10162, MDL No. 1838," filed
with the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Shareholder Suit Granted Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge James Rosenbaum granted class-action
status to a shareholder lawsuit over stock options backdating at
UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE:UNH), the Associated Press
reports.

Attorneys have been told to be ready for trial on July 1, 2008.

AP recalls that the lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the California
Public Employees Retirement System.  It claimed that investors
were hurt because UnitedHealth and its then-chairman and chief
executive officer, William McGuire, didn't really grant stock
options when they said they did in the late 1990s and early
2000s.  Mr. McGuire stepped down, and UnitedHealth was forced to
restate profits back to 1994 by $1.5 billion before taxes.

CalPERS claimed it lost $22 million.  CalPERS, according to AP,
hasn't put a dollar amount on its claims for all shareholders,
but its attorney Ramzi Abadou, Esq., said it is in the billions.

One key issue in the lawsuit was when shareholders learned of
the options backdating problems.  UnitedHealth argued that its
April 7, 2006 disclosure of an informal inquiry from the
Securities and Exchange Commission should have warned investors
of the problem.

AP relates that backdating involves manipulating the timing of
options grants so they look as though they were made on days
when the stock's value was lower.  Doing that boosts the
recipients' windfall when they sell the stock.  Moreover,
Backdating is not illegal if it is properly disclosed, but
concealing the practice can hide the true costs a company has
incurred, inflating its profits and possibly its stock price.

On March 18, UnitedHealth argued that CalPERS actually made
$23 million on its UnitedHealth trades, depending on things like
which accounting method and share price are used.  Judge James
Rosenbaum said that the issue can be decided later.

Judge Rosenbaum agreed with CalPERS that investors didn't become
fully aware of the problem until May, when UnitedHealth
acknowledged a 'significant deficiency' in its handling of stock
options and said it may have to restate several years of
earnings.

UnitedHealth spokesman Don Nathan said that the ruling is "an
ordinary step in these kinds of cases, and was not unexpected,
since classes are often certified in securities litigation."
The report says that the class will include people who bought
UnitedHealth shares between Jan. 20, 2005, and May 17, 2006,
although those dates could change at later stages of the case.


XL CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of CT Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against XL
Capital Ltd. are appealing the dismissal of their second amended
complaint.

On June 21, 2004, a consolidated and amended class action
complaint was served on the company and certain of its present
and former directors and officers as defendants in a putative
class action, "Malin et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. et al.," filed  
with U.S. District Court for District of Connecticut.

The Malin Action purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Nov. 1, 2001, and Oct. 16, 2003,
and alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

An amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated the
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose in
various public and shareholder and investor reports and other
communications the alleged inadequacy of the company's loss
reserves for its NAC Re subsidiary (now known as XL Reinsurance
America, Inc.), and that, as a consequence, the company's
earnings and assets were materially overstated.

On Aug. 26, 2005, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint
owing to the plaintiffs' failure to adequately support the
alleged "loss causation," but provided leave for the plaintiffs
to file a further amended complaint.

The plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended complaint,
which is similar to the Amended Complaint in its substantive
allegations.

On Dec. 31, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion,
and in addition, asked the court to strike certain documents and
exhibits that the XL defendants had proffered in support of the
dismissal motion.

By Order dated Dec.15, 2006, the court granted in part and
denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike and allowed
limited discovery through March 2, 2007.

The Judge denied the defendants' dismissal motion without
prejudice to its renewal at the conclusion of such discovery.  

On March 22, 2007, the defendants filed their renewed motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  By order dated July 21,
2007, the court granted the defendants' renewed motion and
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal,
according to XL'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 suit is "Malin et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. et al., Case no.
3:03-cv-02001-PCD," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Peter C. Dorsey presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@mwbhl.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

         George Edward Barrett, Esq.
         (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
         Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue
         Nashville, TN 37201
         Phone: 615-244-2202

              - and -

         Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. (pklingman@sfmslaw.com)
         Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah
         65 Main St.
         Chester, CT 06412
         Phone: 860-526-1100
         Fax: 860-526-1120

Representing the defendant is:

         Leonard A. Spivak, Esq. (lspivak@cahill.com)
         Cahill, Gordon & Reindel
         80 Pine St.
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: 212-701-3000
         Fax: 212-269-5420


XL CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Rulings in N.J. Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-5184
(FSH)," are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit several rulings entered by the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey in the case, which names XL Capital,
Ltd. as a defendant, according to XL Capital's Feb. 29, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In August 2005, the plaintiffs in a proposed class action multi-
district lawsuit, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-5184 (FSH)," filed
a consolidated amended complaint, which named as new defendants
in the pending action approximately 30 entities, including:

     -- Greenwich Insurance Co.,
     -- Indian Harbor Insurance Co., and
     -- XL Capital Ltd.

In the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted various claims
purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against
approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers
through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased
insurance.

The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendant insurance
companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding
practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and
failed to disclose certain commission arrangements.

The named plaintiffs asserted statutory claims under the Sherman
Act, various state antitrust laws and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law claims
alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach
of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  

Discovery in the MDL commenced in the latter part of 2005.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint in
late November 2005.  By Opinion and Order dated Oct. 3, 2006,
the Court ruled on the defendants' dismiss motion, holding that
the plaintiffs' RICO and antitrust claims were deficient and
directing plaintiffs to file a supplemental RICO case statement
and a supplemental statement of particularity as to their
Sherman Act claims.

The plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings on Oct. 25,
2006, and on Nov. 30, 2006, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental pleadings.  The Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO claims without
prejudice to their filing final amended pleadings.

Then, by order dated April 11, 2007, the Court stayed all
proceedings in the MDL, including discovery, pending the
disposition of the defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint, which was filed on May 22, 2007, and
contained allegations as to XL that were materially similar to
those set forth in plaintiffs' October 2006 pleadings, but also
purported to add as new defendants three other XL entities.

On June 2007, XL (along with other defendants) filed motions to
dismiss the Sherman Act and RICO claims alleged in the Second
Amended Complaint and to strike the newly-named parties.

By an Opinion and Order dated Aug. 31, 2007, the Court dismissed
the Class Action plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims with prejudice
and, by Opinion and Order dated Sept. 28, 2007, the Court
dismissed the Class Action plaintiffs' RICO claims with
prejudice.

In its Sept. 28, 2007, Opinion and Order, the Court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Class Action
plaintiffs' state law claims.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the Class Action plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal, stating their intention to appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit from the District Court's:

       -- Oct. 3, 2006 Opinion and Order;
       -- April 5, 2007 Opinions and Order;
       -- Aug. 31, 2007 Opinion and Order; and
       -- Sept. 28, 2007 Opinion and Order.

The plaintiffs' opening appellate brief was filed on Feb. 19,
2008, while the defendants' opposition appellate brief is due
March 20, 2008.  The plaintiffs' reply appellate brief is due
April 3, 2008.

The District Court has not yet advised the parties whether it
intends to continue its April 11, 2007 stay of all proceedings
in the MDL pending a ruling on the appeal by the Third Circuit
or set a schedule in connection with the various tag-along
actions that have been consolidated into the MDL.

XL Capital, Ltd. -- http://www.xlcapital.com-- is a provider of  
insurance and reinsurance coverage to industrial, commercial and
professional service firms, insurance companies and other
enterprises on a worldwide basis.  


XL INSURANCE: Faces Suits in N.Y. Alleging Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
XL Insurance Ltd., the global insurance operation of XL Capital
Ltd., faces several purported class actions that were filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of various U.S. securities laws, 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.

Three similar class actions have been filed against XL Insurance
Ltd., and others on behalf of shareholders of Security Capital
Assurance, Inc.

The complaints, filed separately on Dec. 7, 2007, Dec. 18, 2007,
and Jan. 8, 2008, name as defendants SCA, two SCA officers, (and
in two of the cases) Goldman Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.

The suits all allege violations of various U.S. Securities laws
against the defendants arising from purchases of SCA shares in
the June 6, 2007 secondary offering and shortly before.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration
Statement and other public disclosures made by SCA and
individual defendants contained untrue statements of material
facts and omitted other necessary facts to make the statements
not misleading.

The complaints allege that the disclosures failed to disclose
that SCA was materially exposed to extremely risky securities
(RMBS) relating to sub-prime real estate mortgages.

The allegations against XLI claim it is liable as a selling
shareholder and as a party that "controlled" SCA during the
relevant time period.

XL Capital, Ltd. -- http://www.xlcapital.com-- is a provider of  
insurance and reinsurance coverage to industrial, commercial and
professional service firms, insurance companies and other
enterprises on a worldwide basis.  


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., has commenced a class action
lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The
Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., between December 14, 2006, and
March 14, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Bear Stearns and certain of its officers
with violations of the Federal Securities Laws.  The defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts concerning the Company's business and financial
results through out the Class Period.

As a result of the defendants' false and misleading statements,
Bear Stearns stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

After consistent denials that Bear Stearns faced a liquidity
problem, defendants suddenly announced on March 13, 2008, after
the market closed, news that Bear Stearns was forced to seek
emergency financing from the Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan
Chase.  A Federal bailout was disclosed and shortly thereafter,
the defendants announced that Bear Stearns was being bought by
JP Morgan Chase for $2 per share.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased the common stock of Bear Stearns.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 866-561-3600
                 215-561-3600


FORCE PROTECTION: Schiffrin Barroway Files S.C. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a
class action with the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina, Charleston Division, on behalf of all purchasers
of securities of Force Protection, Inc., between August 14,
2006, and February 29, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Force Protection and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Force Protection is a designer, developer
and manufacturer of survivability equipment, predominantly
ballistic- and blast-protected wheeled vehicles currently
deployed by the U.S. military and its allies to support armed
forces and security personnel in conflict zones.

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 having persistent problems meeting
         delivery deadlines, which was impacting the Company's
         ability to compete in the U. S. military's Mine
         Resistant Ambush Protect market;

     (2) that the Company's ability to compete for government
         contracts was impaired, due to the Company's inadequate
         financial system of accounting, as evidenced by a
         critical report from the Defense Contract Audit Agency;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with generally accepted
         accounting principles;

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

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

Beginning in May 2004, the DCAA issued periodic reports that
were critical of the Company's finances and financial accounting
system.  Even after these critical reports, the Company
continued to state that its internal control processes were
effective.

On June 27, 2007, the Company's processes were again questioned
when the Department of Defense's Office of Inspector General
issued a report that was critical of the Company's ability to
perform government contracts; charged that the Company had
continuously missed delivery deadlines; and stated that the
Company did not perform as a responsible contractor.  Moreover,
the report stated that other companies could have competed with
certain Force Protection products in terms of faster delivery
schedules and product capability.

Then, on February 29, 2008 and March 3, 2008, the Company
shocked investors when it announced that it would delay filing
of its 2007 Annual Report and that it would restate its
financial statements for the three and nine month periods ended
September 30, 2007.  Additionally, the Company admitted to a
multitude of internal problems, including:

     (1) ineffective control over the financial statements
         closing process;

     (2) ineffective controls in accounting for inventory and
         the associated accounts payable expenses related to the
         receipt of inventory;

     (3) insufficient complement of personnel with an
         appropriate level of accounting knowledge, experience
         with the Company, and training in the application of
         GAAP in the United States; and

     (4) ineffective controls over the completeness and accuracy
         of deferred tax balances.

Upon the release of the February 29, 2008 and March 3, 2008
news, the Company's shares declined $0.53 per share, or 12.9
percent, to close on March 3, 2008, at $3.58 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.  During the Class Period, shares
of the Company's stock traded as high as $30.27 per share and
had begun a decline since the Company and the press began to
slowly release information about the Company's internal
deficiencies.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

           Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbtklaw.com)
           Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. (ramaniskas@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


MF GLOBAL: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MF
Global, Ltd. common stock in its Initial Public Offering on
July 19, 2007, and on the open market through February 28, 2008.

The complaint asserts claims against defendants MF Global, Man
Group plc, Kevin R. Davis, Amy S. Butte, Alison J. Carnwath,
Christopher J. Smith, Christopher Bates, Henri J. Steenkamp, and
Edward L. Goldberg for violations of Sections 11, 12(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO was materially
false and misleading.  Specifically, the Registration Statement
and Prospectus did not disclose the weaknesses of the Company's
risk management policies, procedures, and systems.

As a result of these weaknesses, MF Global disclosed on Feb. 28,
2008, that the unauthorized trading activity of one of its
employees had caused the company to incur a loss of
$141.5 million.  In response to this news, the price of MF
Global's common stock fell 40%, resulting in a loss to
shareholders of more than $1,142,000,000.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. (dbunch@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775
                 (202) 408-4600


MICHAEL BAKER: Schiffrin Barroway Files PA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a
class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of Michael Baker Corporation between
March 19, 2007, and February 22, 2008, inclusive.

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

MBC provides engineering, operations and maintenance services
with primary business areas in aviation, environmental,
facilities, geospatial information technologies, pipelines and
utilities, transportation, water/wastewater, and oil and gas.

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 had misstated its financial results
         for the first three quarters of 2007;

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

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

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

On February 22, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
revealed that it would be restating its financial statements for
the first, second and third quarters of 2007.  MBC stated that
the accounting errors would reduce the Company's consolidated
earnings for those periods and that the reported results from
those periods should not be relied upon.  Upon the release of
this news, the Company's shares declined $8.53 per share, or
23.63 percent, to close on February 25, 2008 at $27.57 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

           Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbtklaw.com)
           Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.(ramaniskas@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


NEUROMETTRIX INC: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announced that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of NeuroMetrix, Inc. between Oct. 27,
2005, and March 6, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that NeuroMetrix and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, the defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's NC-stat device,
which is a strap-on or hand-held device that allows physicians,
usually general practitioners, to test for problems like carpal
tunnel syndrome and back pain without the need for an exam from
a specialist.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
unbeknownst to shareholders, NeuroMetrix's sales of its NC-stat
device were artificially inflated as:

     (i) the efficacy of the Company's NC-stat device was highly
         questionable and concerns were being raised by
         practitioners;

    (ii) health insurers were increasingly denying reimbursement
         for procedures using the Company's NC-stat device or
         raising significant payment issues;

   (iii) the Company instructed doctors to bill under the same
         insurance billing codes as the competing needle
         procedure rather than applying for its own insurance
         billing code in order to enable practitioners to get
         reimbursement; and

    (iv) the Company was improperly giving doctors kickbacks in
         the form of free sensors for referring other doctors to
         the NC-stat system.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 16,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com


VERTEX PHARMA: Schatz Nobel Announces MA Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announced that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Vertex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., between June 12, 2007, and November 2,
2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Vertex and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically,
defendants' statements regarding the development of Vertex's HCV
protease inhibitor, telaprevir or VX-950, for the treatment of
hepatitis C and the PROVE 2 trial were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose unfavorable data
regarding VX-950 from the PROVE 2 trial compared to PROVE 1.

Specifically, PROVE 1 showed that patients taking VX-950
experienced 16% greater total viral reduction after twelve weeks
compared to the control group.  The results of PROVE 2, which
defendants did not disclose during the Class Period, showed an
advantage over the control group of only six percent.  When the
truth was disclosed on November 2, 2007, Vertex's stock price
dropped from $31.64 to $24.08 in two trading days.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 12,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com


WELLPOINT INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of
purchasers of WellPoint, Inc., common stock during the period
between January 23, 2008, and March 10, 2008.

The complaint charges WellPoint and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  WellPoint describes itself as the largest health benefits
company in terms of commercial membership in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts concerning WellPoint's medical costs and medical
enrollment levels.  In addition, the complaint alleges that
defendants misled the market by issuing false and misleading
earnings guidance.

When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 10,
2008, the price of WellPoint's common stock dropped 28.3% to
close at $47.26 per share, on volume of more than 54 million
shares traded, many times the average daily trading volume for
WellPoint common stock.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Wellpoint common stock during the class period.

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Laura Armstrong, Esq. (larmstrong@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775
                 (202) 408-4600


WELLPOINT INC: Schatz Nobel Announces IN Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announced that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of WellPoint, Inc., between Jan. 23,
2008, and March 10, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that WellPoint, a health benefits company,
and certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws.  Specifically, the defendants misled the market
by issuing false and misleading earnings guidance.  When the
defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 10, 2008,
the price of WellPoint's common stock dropped 28.3% to close at
$47.26 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.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  * * *