CAR_Public/080326.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, March 26, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 60
  
                            Headlines

ADVANTAGE FINANCIAL: Faces IL Suit Over Alleged "Rescue" Fraud
AQUILA INC: Mo. Court Approves $10M Settlement for ERISA Lawsuit
BANK OF MONTREAL: Faces Suit Over Role in Damji Investment Scam
BEAR STEARNS: Hagens Berman Files Suit Citing ERISA Violations
BURNET REALTY: Faces Minn. Suit Over Unlicensed Sales Associates

COLORADO SPRINGS: Settles Police Overtime Lawsuit for $5.25 Mln
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Due Process Argument Prevails in "Colossus"
DORCHESTER MINERALS: Okla. Court Nixes Appeal in Royalties Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Overcharge Lawsuit
FEDEX GROUND: Faces LA Lawsuit Over Mistreated De Facto Workers

FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Illegal Charge Taxes
GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Pa. Court Concludes Hearing for Settlement
H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Lawsuit v. RSM Subsidiary
HERTZ CORP: Discovery to Commence in Nev. Concession Fee Lawsuit
HERTZ CORP: Appeals Court Order in Tex. Suit Over Service Charge

HERTZ CORP: Okla. Court Dismisses Consumer Litigation Over FSC
HERTZ CORP: Nev. Court Dismisses Litigation Over Service Charge
HERTZ CORP: Seeks Dismissal of CA Price-Fixing Antitrust Lawsuit
HERTZ CORP: Faces Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Antitrust Suit
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Violations Suit Remanded to Kansas Court

HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over LDW Charges
ILLINOIS: Lawsuit vs. Silence Law Expanded to Class Action
IMERGENT INC: UT Court Grants Final Approval to $2.8M Settlement
MCKESSON CORP: Mass. Court Grants Certification to RICO Lawsuit
MICROSOFT CORP: Windows Vista Users Want Suit to Move Forward

NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over $2.2BB Buyout by Parent  
NEUROMETRIX INC: Says Securities Suit is Without Merit
PAYPAL: Canadian Naturists to File Suit Over Canceled Service
POSSIS MEDICAL: Minn. Shareholders' LAwsuit Dismissed on Appeal
POZEN INC: N.C. Court Appoints Co-Lead Plaintiffs in "Johnson"

POZEN INC: N.C. Court Approves $11M Securities Suit Settlement
SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Sets March 31 Hearing for $40M Deal
STERLING TRUST: Arbitration for Several Tex. Suits Still Abated
TRIPACK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Violations of the Labor Code
UNITED NATURAL: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations

UNITED WESTERN: No Hearing Set on Appeal in "Munoz" Litigation
WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CHARLES SCHWAB: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
MF GLOBAL: Stull, Stull & Brody Announces Securities Suit Filing
ORION ENERGY: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Hagens Berman Files CA Securities Fraud Suit


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                           *********


ADVANTAGE FINANCIAL: Faces IL Suit Over Alleged "Rescue" Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois accuses Advantage Financial
Group aka Essence Financial of running a foreclosure "rescue"
fraud, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Hermila Gonzalez brings the action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of
all persons who reside in the State of Illinois:

     (1) who entered into a loan transaction with the defendant
         utilizing loan papers substantially similar or
         identical in substance to the papers used in the
         plaintiff's transaction; and

     (2) where the defendant did not provide the consumer with a
         notice of the three-day right of rescission.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- awarding actual and punitive damages pursuant to the
        Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices  
        Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a;

     -- awarding injunctive and declaratory relief under the
        Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
        Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a, declaring that the
        transaction at issue was an equitable mortgage and was
        void or voidable;

     -- awarding attorneys' fees and costs as provided for by
        the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
        Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a; and

     -- enjoining the defendant, during the pendency of the
        action and permanently thereafter, from instituting,
        prosecuting or maintaining foreclosure or forcible entry
        and detainer proceedings against the plaintiff.

The suit is "Hermila Gonzalez et al. v. Advantage Financial
Partners, LLC et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          Allison Krumhorn
          The Consumer Advocacy Center, P.C.
          180 W. Washington St., suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 782-5808


AQUILA INC: Mo. Court Approves $10M Settlement for ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
approved a proposed $10.5-million settlement of the consolidated
class action, "In re Aquila ERISA Litigation."

A lawsuit was filed on Sept. 24, 2004, with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain members of the company's board of directors and
management.

The suit alleged that the defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and were responsible for losses
that participants in the company's 401(k) plan experienced as a
result of the decline in the value of their Aquila common stock
held in the 401(k) plan.

A number of similar lawsuits alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants in
violation of ERISA by concealing information and misleading
employees who held the company's common stock through the
company's 401(k) plan were subsequently filed against the
company.  The suits also seek damages for the plan's losses
resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  

On Jan. 26, 2005, the court ordered that all of these lawsuits
be consolidated into a single case captioned, "In re Aquila
ERISA Litigation."

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in March
2005, largely repeating each of the allegations in the first
complaint.

The case has been certified as a class action.

In April 2007, the company settled the case for $10.5 million,
which will be paid by its insurance carrier.

The settlement agreement was approved by the court in November
2007, 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 suit is "Itteilag v. Aquila, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-
00865-DW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Judge Dean Whipple presiding`.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael Jaffe, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 545-4600

              - and -

         Bruce Keplinger, Esq. (bkeplinger@k-c-lawyers.com)
         Norris & Keplinger, LLC
         6800 College Blvd., Suite 630
         Overland Park, KS 66211
         Phone: (913) 323-3185
         Fax: (913) 663-2006

Representing the company is:

         Stanley Daryl Davis, Esq. (sddavis@shb.com)
         Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
         2555 Grand Boulevard
         Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
         Phone: (816) 474-6550
         Fax: (816) 421-4066


BANK OF MONTREAL: Faces Suit Over Role in Damji Investment Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investors who were duped by Salim Damji, who went to jail six
years ago for a CDN$100-million fraud, are suing Bank of
Montreal, alleging that it made mistakes that allowed one of
Canada's largest investment scams to happen, Financial Post
reports.

According to FP, the lawsuit was filed with the Ontario Superior
Court on March 13, 2008, by members of Toronto's Ismaili
community.  

The suit, which is seeking class action status, asks for at
least $55 million in damages, FP notes.

                      Damji's Fake Company

The FP report points out that Mr. Damji fleeced thousands of
people in the tight-knit Muslim community by selling phony
shares in a non-existent company with a "revolutionary" tooth-
whitening product.  

Moreover, Mr. Damji also claimed that Colgate-Palmolive was
ready to buy the rights to the whitening product for
CDN$400 million, which would mean a huge payoff for investors.

While Colgate quickly denied any investment plan, investor
complaints had sparked a probe by police and the Ontario
Securities Commission, FP recounts.

Mr. Damji subsequently pleaded guilty to fraud in 2002 and
received a seven-year prison sentence.

                     BMO Turns a Blind Eye

The complaint against BMO accuses the bank of "closing its eyes"
to Mr. Damji's eye-popping account deposits.

FP relates that the 33-page statement of claim said that "BMO
willfully shut its eyes to, abetted and even actively enabled
Damji's illegal and/or wrongful conduct."  Moreover, BMO  
"willingly and recklessly failed to make such inquiries as an
honest and reasonable person would make."

In their claim, the investors allege that the bank should have
raised its eyebrows when Mr. Damji, who was unemployed at the
time, made multi-million-dollar deposits that were inconsistent
with his earlier banking activity.

At least CDN$46 million was deposited into Mr. Damji's accounts
between September 2000 and January 2002, the claim alleges.

Some of the cheques made out to Mr. Damji also went into an
account for a cheque-cashing and payday loans business, which
helped him launder investor money, the claim adds.

"As early as, if not earlier than, Oct. 25, 2000, BMO had reason
to be concerned about and suspicious of Damji's deposits of the
cheques from his fraud victims," the claim reads.  "A few hours
of investigation would have uncovered Damji's fraud or at the
very least prevented the [investors] from suffering the
$46-million or so of damages and losses."

The claim further alleges that when branch-level employees told
BMO senior executives about the vast sums of money flowing in
and out of Mr. Damji's accounts, the executives were slow to
react.

In addition, the claim asserts that Mr. Damji instructed the
bank to wire about CDN$26 million worth of investors' money to
gambling organizations in Jamaica and Costa Rica.

The claim also contends that the bank "refused or failed to
conduct itself in accordance with common sense, accepted banking
industry procedures and its own policies."

At first, Mr. Damji said he didn't solicit investors out of
greed, but from worries about threats from organized crime
figures who "forced" him to buy luxury homes and vehicles  while
funneling them millions of dollars.  Yet, he later admitted that
the money fueled a gambling addiction.

Mr. Damji, who was released on parole in 2006, was arrested
again in 2007 on fraud and conspiracy charges stemming from the
deposit of a stolen cheque, police said.


BEAR STEARNS: Hagens Berman Files Suit Citing ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of The Bear Stearns Companies  
current and former employees, claiming the company violated
ERISA laws concerning the management of the Employee Stock
Ownership Plan from December 14, 2006, through the present.

The complaint claims that Bear Stearns, headquartered in New
York, failed to provide due diligence in the management of the
employee stock ownership plan and violated sections of ERISA
law.  Specifically, the complaint claims the Company failed to
prudently manage the Plan's investments in Bear Stearns stock
and continued to maintain Bear Stearns stock as the Plan's sole
investment when it was no longer prudent for participants'
retirement savings.

The lawsuit also claims the Plan's fiduciaries failed to provide
participants with complete and accurate information, and failed
to properly monitor participants on the fiduciary board.

The lawsuit claims as a result of these actions, Plan
participants suffered substantial losses, resulting in the
depletion of hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement
savings and anticipated retirement income.  The complaint states
that Bear Stearns heavily invested in the sub-prime mortgage
market, including CDOs and other mortgage-backed securities and
by some accounts was the biggest packager of residential U.S.
mortgage-backed securities from 2004 until 2007.  Eventually
Bear Stearns had tens of billions of dollars invested in sub-
prime loans and hedge funds heavily invested in bonds backed by
sub-prime mortgages.  This combination created not only an
unacceptable and imprudent risk for anyone invested in Company
stock, but also an incredibly unstable amount of debt, which
couldn't be sold.

Throughout 2007, the cards began to fall and the Company's
profits fell 90 percent, including a loss of $859 million in the
fourth quarter alone.  In early 2008, reports of inquiries into
the Company's hedge funds collapse and dropping stock prices
didn't deter Bear Stearns and it continued to make inaccurate
statements that the company remained strong.  In mid-March 2008,
the Company approached JPMorgan and the Federal Reserve to bail
the company out and on March 15, 2008 the Company was sold to
JPMorgan for $2 per share -- a total of $236 million.  The
reported rise in JPMorgan's offering price to $10 a share does
little to recoup the massive losses suffered by Plan
participants.

During the class period the Company stock experienced a
tremendous decline -- starting at $157.89 per share on Dec. 14,
2006, and closing with a 98 percent drop on March 17, 2008, at
only $3.17 before moving up to the $10 range today on news of
JPMorgan's increased offering price.  During the time of
negotiations and the sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan, employees
watched helplessly as stock prices continued to drop.

For more information, contact:

          Reed R. Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Ste 202  
          Berkeley, CA, 94710  
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          e-mail: info@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com


BURNET REALTY: Faces Minn. Suit Over Unlicensed Sales Associates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burnet Realty dba Coldwell Banker Burnet is facing a class-
action complaint filed on March 13, 2008, with the Fourth
Judicial District in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin
alleging it sold insurance without a license to its more than
3,000 sales associates, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Timothy B. Allen brings this action pursuant to
Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.01 and 23.02 on behalf of all persons who,
at any time within six years of the service of this action, were
sales associates with CB Burnet in Minnesota and paid money to
CB Burnet for participation in the E&O Program and the LA
Program.

The E&O Program is a program sponsored by CB Burnet that
provided defense and indemnification for claims made against Mr.
Allen by third parties arising out of his activities as a CB
Burnet sales associate.  Under the Legal Administration Program,
CB Burnet agreed to provide Mr. Allen with defense and
indemnification for certain "Covered Disputes" involving claims
made against him by third parties arising out of his activities
as a CB Burnet sales associate.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the E&O Program and the LA Program are policies
         of insurance;

     (b) whether the semi-annual payments made by sales
         associates for participation in the E&O Program and the
         LA Program are insurance premiums;

     (c) whether CB Burnet, by soliciting participation in the
         E&O Program and the LA Program, and by billing and
         collecting semi-annual payments for participation in
         the E&O Program and the LA Program, is an insurance
         producer;

     (d) whether CB Burnet, by agreeing to provide defense and
         indemnificaton under the E&O Program and the LA
         Program, is an insurance company;

     (e) whether CB Burnet made a uniform misrepresentation or
         misleading statement or engaged in a deceptive
         practice, with the intent that others rely thereon, in
         connection with the solicitation and sale of the LA
         Program, by affirmatively stating to Mr. Allen and the
         other class members that the LA Programs "is not an
         Errors and Omissions policy;" and

     (f) whether Mr. Allen and the other class members are
         entitled to restitution of all semi-annual payments
         made to CB Burnet in connection with the E&O Program
         and the LA Program.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

     -- certify the class pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- approve Mr. Allen as the class representative and his
        attorneys as lead counsel for the class;

     -- award to Mr. Allen and other class members damages
        and restitution to the extent allowed by law;

     -- award to Mr. Allen and other class members their
        reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses;

     -- award to Mr. Allen and other class members pre-judgment
        and post-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law;
        and

     -- award to Mr. Allen and the other class members such
        other relief as may be appropriate under the
        circumstances.

The suit is "Timothy B. Allen et al. v. Burnet Realty, LLC,"
filed with the Fourth Judicial District in the State of
Minnesota, county of Hennepin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark J. Briol, Esq.
          Morgan R. Smock, Esq.
          Briol & Associates, PLLC
          3700 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 337-8410
          Fax: (512) 317-5151


COLORADO SPRINGS: Settles Police Overtime Lawsuit for $5.25 Mln
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Colorado Springs will pay police officers
$5.25 million to settle a federal class-action lawsuit over
claims that the city failed to pay officers who worked extra
hours, the Associated Press reports.

Colorado Wire recounts that the police officers had sought
$35 million in compensation when they filed the lawsuit in April
2007.  The group's attorney had said, however, that they were
mostly concerned with policy changes.

According to AP, the settlement outlines 12 policy changes for
the department, including paying officers for time needed to don
police uniforms or gear, clean their leather boots and gear and
allowing them to return to the station 20 minutes before their
shift ends to "complete work tasks."


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Due Process Argument Prevails in "Colossus"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 24, 2008, that
Computer Sciences Corp. continues to face a class action lawsuit
with the Miller County Circuit Court (Arkansas) claiming that
the company as well as other defendants conspired to wrongfully
use the Colossus software products licensed by the company and
the other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the
licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims.

The suit, entitled, "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp.,
et al.," was filed as a putative nationwide class action on
Feb. 7, 2005.  The suit was originally filed by plaintiff
Georgia Hensley, individually and as a class representative,
against Computer Science Corporation's software Colossus,
Insurance Services Office's software COA, Claim IQ Inc.'s
software Injury IQ and those insurance companies which use that
software.

The software companies and insurance companies describe the
program as a way to provide consistent estimates of bodily-
injury claims through the data inputs of insurance adjusters.  
Using the data input, Colossus, COA and Injury IQ calculate a
suggested value range for the claim settlement.  Insurance
adjusters state these calculations are only one of many factors
an adjuster can use and do not replace the adjusters' education,
training and experience.

                    Court Postpones Hearing

In an update, the Southeast Texas Record relates that during the
March 17 hearing of the Arkansas Colossus class action suit, the
plaintiffs' attorneys were expected to argue that the crime-
fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege would require
public disclosure of an inadvertently disclosed document written
between defendant United Services Automobile Association's
attorneys and employees.

The crime-fraud exception can render the attorney-client
privilege moot when communications between an attorney and
client are used to further a crime or fraud, the report points
out.

However, ST Record recounts, the defendants had argued that
continuing with the hearing would violate their constitutional
due process.  This argument, according to the report, appeared
to prevail over the plaintiffs' arguments as Circuit Court Judge
Kirk Johnson postponed the hearing until April 1.

                   Attorney-Client Privilege

ST Record recounts that the plaintiffs' attorneys had requested
the hearing for a ruling on whether the accidentally produced
USAA document should fall under the crime-fraud exception to the
attorney-client privilege.  USAA argues that the privileged
document was inadvertently disclosed and is not discoverable as
it is protected communication.

In October, the court privately reviewed the document and held
that the document was protected and had scheduled a final
hearing on the issue for March 17.

The defendants contend that days before the recent hearing, the
plaintiffs changed their argument with an amended brief that
included an additional 272 exhibits.  Other defendants claimed
they did not receive a copy of the plaintiffs' amended brief and
protested the timing of the hearing.

The plaintiffs stated that it did not provide the briefs because
a court ruling on the crime-fraud exception would affect only
USAA.

While maintaining that the contested document is protected
communication, USAA also argued that holding this type of
hearing before a ruling on the issue of class certification and
other pending motions would be a violation of their
constitutional due process.

According to ST Record, various defendants have filed numerous
motions, such as motions to dismiss, motions to sever and
motions on the issue of class certification that have lain
dormant for more than two years, as Judge Johnson has refused to
provide a ruling.

Although an Arkansas rule on class action states, "at an early
practicable time after the commencement of an action brought as
a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is
to be so maintained," both parties believe Judge Johnson
justifies the lack of ruling with an Arkansas law that states,
"the court may not inquire into the merits at the certification
stage."

USAA argued that deciding on a crime-fraud exception to the
attorney-client privilege is inquiring into the merits of the
case -- fraud.

Other defendants joined USAA arguing the urgent need for a
ruling on class certification and the lack of plaintiffs'
responses to discovery.

The Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure allow for limited
discovery and state that it may be a good reason for delaying
the class certification decision.  Judge Johnson has allowed
both parties to request significant amounts of information from
each other.

ST Record says that the defendants believe the extensive amount
of discovery requests are efforts to force settlement and as
evidence of their argument, many defendants have settled instead
of facing the rising costs of producing information in an
uncertified class action.  However, pursuant to the judge's
orders, the remaining defendants have produced millions of
documents but according to the defendants, the plaintiffs'
attorneys have not turned over one.

After arguing for more than an hour at the hearing, the judge
held a brief recess and upon return announced April 1 as the
next hearing date.

Judge Johnson told the plaintiffs to give the amended brief to
the other defendants to allow for their response.  The
defendants maintain that the plaintiffs will continue attempts
to publicly release this document with thousands of other
"privileged" documents to force the remaining defendants into
settlement.

The suit faults the defendants for civil conspiracy, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and the
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Seeking less than $75,000 per person, the plaintiffs are asking
for a declaratory relief for defendants to cease the use of the
named software, an injunctive relief for defendants to "disgorge
ill gotten profits realized from their undervaluation of
claims," and seek "restitution from defendants in an amount
equal to the amount that should have been paid."

The suit is "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al.,
Case No.: CV-2005-0059-3," filed in Miller County Circuit Court
(Arkansas), under Judge Kirk Johnson.

Representing the plaintiff are:

         John Goodson, Esq.
         Matt Keil, Esq.
         Keil & Goodson, P.A.
         611 Pecan Street
         Texarkana, AR  
         71854
         Phone: (870)772-4113

Representing certain defendants are:

         Mark Burgess, Esq.
         2301 Moores Lane
         P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297 (Bowie Co.)
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com  

         Jason Horton, Esq.
         Crisp, Boyd, Poff & Burgess, L.L.P.
         Moores Lane, P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297
         Phone: 903-838-6123
         Fax: 903-832-8489 2301
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com  

              - and -

         Lynn Pruit, Esq.
         Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard P.L.L.C.
         425 West Capitol Avenue
         Suite 1800
         Little Rock, AR 72201-3525
         Phone: (501) 688-8800
         Fax: (501) 688-8807


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Okla. Court Nixes Appeal in Royalties Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in connection to
a purported class action filed against Dorchester Minerals, L.P.
(operating partnership) that was recently dismissed by the Texas
County District Court, according to the company's March 6, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 27, 2006, the operating partnership was sued for
underpayment of royalty.  The suit is seeking class action
certification.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the Texas County District Court granted the
operating partnership's motion for summary judgment finding no
royalty underpayments.

Subsequently, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration and, on Jan. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed an
appeal.

On March 3, 2008, the appeal was dismissed by the Oklahoma
Supreme Court pending resolution by the District Court of the
operating partnership's counterclaim.

Dorchester Minerals, L.P. -- http://www.dmlp.net/-- is the  
owner of producing and non-producing natural gas and crude oil
royalty, net profits, and leasehold interests in 573 counties
and 25 states.  


DUKE ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Overcharge Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE:DUK) has asked the court to dismiss a
class-action lawsuit that contends the company has overcharged
tens of thousands of residential and business customers in the
Midwest, Charlotte Business Journal reports.

According to BizJournal, the lawsuit was filed by Randy Freking
and Stan Chesley in federal court early this year.  It accuses
Duke Energy and its predecessor companies, Cinergy Corp. and
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., of funneling kickbacks to
corporate customers in exchange for their withdrawal of
opposition to rate increases that the companies sought from Ohio
regulators.

In its dismissal motion, Duke Energy asserts that "[t]here is no
basis for any claim under federal or state law" for the suit.  

"This matter has already been reviewed by regulators and the
Ohio Supreme Court, and our rates have been upheld," Mark Manly,
group executive and chief legal officer for Duke Energy, told
BizJournal.


FEDEX GROUND: Faces LA Lawsuit Over Mistreated De Facto Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground package Systems, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed on March 13, 2008, with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana accusing it of mistreating
de facto employees as independent contractors, to duck taxes and
expenses, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Ryan Boudreaux and Timothy Bellow claim that
FedEx used false promised to induce them to buy and maintain
delivery trucks.

The class plaintiffs are Louisiana truck and van drivers engaged
in package delivery for the defendant.  They claim FXG
"fraudulently induced the named Plaintiffs and Class members . .
. to purchase a delivery truck, to insure and maintain that
truck, to purchase a 'business support package'" and other items
required by FXG, and to deliver packages for FXG, all the while
representing to them that they are or would be "independent
business owners" and "business partners" with FXG, and that they
had or would have proprietary interests in the delivery routes
for which they contracted.

These representations were false.  In reality, FXG micro-
manages, and retains the right to micro-manager Plaintiffs'
activities in such a manner that the plaintiffs are de facto
employees of FXG and the routes that Class members purchased
thus have no value.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons who worked for
defendant at its Ground Division and Home Delivery Division
terminals in Louisiana, from Feb. 8, 2002, to the time of trial
as package delivery drivers and package pick-up drivers, and who
were signatory to an operators agreement with defendant.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether FXG's drivers are improperly classified as
         independent contractors instead of employees;

     (b) whether FXG misled class members into believing they
         were acquiring an independent business and were
         independent contractors;

     (c) whether the contractor drivers are actually employees
         based upon FXG's level of control of their work;

     (d) whether FXG unlawfully forced plaintiffs to pay for
         business expenses that rightfully should have been paid
         for by FXG;

     (e) whether FXG was unjustly enriched by failing to
         compensate the class as employees, to provide
         employment benefits and emoluments of employees, by
         evading employment taxes, and by wrongfully benefiting
         from its requirement that the class pay for FXG's
         business expenses;

     (f) whether FXG unlawfully failed to provide workers'
         compensation insurance benefits to the class members;

     (h) whether FXG unlawfully failed to pay the employment
         portion of all employment taxes that would have been
         due if it accurately classified plaintiffs as employees
         instead of independent contractors;

     (i) whether injunctive and declaratory relief are proper;

     (j) whether the agreement permitting FXG to shift the
         burden of employment expenses, taxes and insurances is
         illegal and therefore void; and

     (k) whether the defendants' actions violate the implied
         covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The plaintiffs request for compensatory damages, punitive
damages, an accounting, consequential damages, declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief, plus costs, counsel fees, pre-
and post judgment interest and further relief as may be just and
proper.

The suit is "Ryan Boudreaux et al v. FedEx Ground Package
Systems, Inc., Case No. 08-1264," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marc L. Frischhertz, Esq.
          Lloyd N. Frischhertz, Esq.
          Frischhertz & Associates
          1130 St. Charles Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-523-1500
          Fax: 504-581-1670


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Illegal Charge Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fry's Electronics, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
on March 14, 2008, with the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Diego, alleging that it illegally
charges sales tax on its service contracts, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Fry's is one of the largest dealers of electronics and
appliances in the State of California.

Named plaintiffs Melanie and Cark Luckner brings this class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased, in California,
Performance Service Contracts from Fry's, and paid a Sales Tax
Reimbursement to Fry's.

The California law imposes a Sales Tax on the sale of tangible
personal property sold to California residents and domiciles and
allows a retailer to recoup this sales tax by collective Sales
Tax Reimbursement from its customers.  Performance Service
Contracts, however, are not tangible personal property and are
therefore not subject to Sales Tax.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action under:

     -- the unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code Section
        17200, et seq.;

     -- Negligent Misrepresentation - Deceit Civ. Code Sections
        1709, 1710 and 1711;

     -- Actual Fraud, Civ. Code Section 1572;

     -- Constructive Fraud, Civ. Code Section 1573;

     -- Common Count of Money Paid; and

     -- the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code Section
        1750, et seq.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Fry's represents to PSC purchasers that it is
         collecting from the purchaser Sales Tax Reimbursement
         calculated on the basis of items for which it is
         legally required to remit Sales Tax to the SBE;

     (b) whether such representations by defendant were false,
         deceptive or misleading under the circumstances;

     (c) whether defendant collected from class members monies
         denominated as a "tax" on the purchase of Performance
         Service Contracts;

     (d) whether defendant violated California's Unfair
         Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section
         17200 et seq.;

     (e) whether defendant is liable to the plaintiff class for
         negligent misrepresentation;

     (f) whether defendant is liable to the plaintiff class for
         actual or constructive fraud;

     (g) whether defendant is liable to the plaintiff class
         under the common count of money paid;

     (h) whether defendant is liable to the consumer members of
         the plaintiff class under the California Consumer Legal
         Remedies Act, California Civil Code section 1750 et
         seq.;

     (i) the existence, duration, and illegality of course of
         conduct alleged;

     (j) the effect upon and the extent of injuries sustained by
         plaintiffs and each member of the plaintiff class and
         the appropriate type and/or measure of damages;

     (k) whether the members of the plaintiff class are entitled
         to restitution as a result of defendant's wrongdoing
         and, if so, what is the proper measure and appropriate
         formula to be applied in determining such restitution;
         and

     (l) the appropriate nature of class wide equitable relief.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- to enter an order certifying the classes as defined and
        designating plaintiffs and their counsel as         
        representatives of these classes;

     -- to decree as unlawful the defendant's actions,
        including without limitation, their collection of
        amounts as a purported "Sales Tax" on the purchase of
        Performance Service Contracts;

     -- to direct the defendant to make restitution to each
        plaintiff and each member plaintiff class due the
        unlawful conduct;

     -- to award damages suffered by plaintiffs under their
        causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, actual
        fraud, and constructive fraud and the common law count
        of money paid, in an amount according to proof at trial;

     -- to award exemplary punitive damages;

     -- for injunctive and equitable relief;

     -- for attorney's fees as provided by law; and

     -- for costs of suit.

The suit is "Melanie Luckner et al v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et
al., Case No. 37-2008-00079984-CU-AT-CTL," filed with the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Chad M. McManamy, Esq.
          Noah D. Sacks, Esq.
          The Mogin Law Firm, PC
          110 Juniper Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 687-6611
          Fax: (619) 687-6610


GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Pa. Court Concludes Hearing for Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,
concluded a fairness hearing regarding the settlement of a
purported class action suit filed against GTC Biotherapeutics,
Inc., according to GTC's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2007.

On Nov. 13, 2001, two employees of one of the company's former
subsidiaries filed the action seeking damages, declaratory
relief and certification of a class action relating primarily to
their GTC stock options.

The claims arose as a result of the company's sale of Primedica
Corp. to Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. in
February 2001, which plaintiffs believe resulted in the
termination of Primedica employees' status as employees of GTC
or its affiliates and the termination of their stock options.

The plaintiffs contended that the sale of Primedica to Charles
River did not constitute a termination of their employment with
GTC or its affiliates for purposes of the company's equity
incentive plan and, therefore, that the company breached the
company's contractual obligations to them and other Primedica
employees who had not exercised their stock options.

The complaint demands damages in excess of $5 million, plus
interest.  

The court certified the case as a class action, with the class
including employees of Primedica who, at the time GTC sold it,
had GTC options that had not been exercised.

On Feb. 15, 2007, the parties agreed to settle these claims
under terms, which provide that the company's insurer will pay
$175,000 in cash, and the company will deliver $225,000 of its
common stock.  

On Feb. 15, 2007, the parties agreed to settle these claims
under terms which provide that the company's insurer will pay
$175,000 in cash and the company will deliver $225,000 of its
Common Stock.  The company accrued this settlement as of
Dec. 31, 2006.

The company issued 225,000 shares of Common Stock in the
settlement at $1.00 per share in 2007.  

The number of shares of Common Stock which were issued was
determined based on the per share market value of the Common
Stock on the date of issue after the Court concluded a fairness
hearing regarding the settlement.

GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.gtc-bio.com-- is  
engaged in the development and production of human therapeutic
proteins through transgenic technology that enables animals to
produce a recombinant form of a specified human protein in their
milk.  Using this technology, the Company is developing a
portfolio of recombinant blood proteins to treat a range of
genetic and acquired blood deficiencies, including hemophilia
and other blood coagulation disorders.  It has also initiated
the development of a portfolio of monoclonal antibodies (MAb’s),
for use as potential follow-on biologics targeted at several
market products.  Its first product ATryn, its recombinant form
of human antithrombin, validated its transgenic production
technology’s capability.  In February 2008, it announced that
ATryn had met the statistical requirements for the primary
endpoint in its trial to support its filing of a Biologics
License Application, for the use of ATryn in U.S.


H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Lawsuit v. RSM Subsidiary
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed with the
California Superior Court, Orange County regarding business
valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc.

The suit is "Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM
McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 06 CC00137," filed on July 11, 2006.

The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation
services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified
damages, restitution and equitable relief (Class Action
Reporter, July 9, 2007).

The company is in the early stages of discovery in this case,
according to its March 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 31, 2008.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial    
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


HERTZ CORP: Discovery to Commence in Nev. Concession Fee Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is set to commence in a suit against The Hertz Corp.
that was brought on behalf of all persons who rented cars from
the company or Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. at airports in Nevada
and who were charged airport concession recovery fees.   

On Oct. 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan Ph.D., and Lydia
Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a suit against Hertz and Enterprise Rent-A-Car
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Ms. Sobel purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all persons who rented cars from Hertz or Enterprise at airports
in Nevada and whom Hertz or Enterprise charged airport
concession recovery fees.  The complaint alleged that the
airport concession recovery fees violate certain provisions of
Nevada law, including Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an
injunction prohibiting Hertz and Enterprise from quoting or
charging any of the fees prohibited by Nevada law.

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.  

In November 2006, the plaintiffs and Enterprise stipulated and
agreed that claims against Enterprise would be dismissed without
prejudice.  

In January 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
motion was denied by the court.

The company thereafter filed a motion for certification seeking
to have the interpretation of Nevada Revised Statutes Section
482.31575 certified to the Nevada Supreme Court or, in the
alternative, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied the company's motion for certification.  

Discovery will commence in 2008, according to The Hertz Corp.'s
March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD., and Lydia Lee, et
al. v. The Hertz Corp. and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Case No.
3:06-cv-00545-LRH-VPC," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada under Judge Larry R. Hicks with referral
to Judge Valerie P. Cooke.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          G. David Robertson, Esq. (gdavid@nvlawyers.com)
          Robertson & Benevento
          50 W. Liberty St., Suite 600
          Reno, NV 89501  
          Phone: 775-329-5600
          Fax: 775-348-8300

Representing the defendants are:

          Dan C. Bowen of Lionel, Esq. (dbowen@lionelsawyer.com)
          Sawyer & Collins
          50 W. Liberty St., Suite 1100
          Reno, NV 89501
          Phone: 775-788-8666

               - and -

          Matthew K. Narensky, Esq.
          (matthew.narensky@hellerehrman.com)
          Heller Ehrman, LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415 772-6000

    
HERTZ CORP: Appeals Court Order in Tex. Suit Over Service Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corp. is appealing the class certification order
issued by the 214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County,
Texas, in the case, "Jose M. Gomez, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz
Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action filed alternatively on
behalf of all persons who were charged a Fuel and Service Charge
by the company or all Texas residents who were charged an FSC by
the company.  The complaint alleges that the FSC is an unlawful
penalty and that, therefore, it is void and unenforceable.  

In response to various motions by the company, the plaintiff has
filed two amended complaints, which scaled back the putative
class from a nationwide class to a class of all Texas residents
who were charged a FSC by the company or by its Corpus Christi
Licensee.

A new cause of action was also added for conversion.  After some
limited discovery, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment in December 2004.  That motion was denied in January
2005.  The parties are engaged in more extensive discovery.

On Aug. 3, 2006, a hearing was held on the plaintiff's amended
motion for class certification with no decision rendered to
date.  After the hearing, the plaintiff filed a fifth amended
petition seeking to further refine the putative class as
including all Texas residents who were charges an FSC in Texas
after Feb. 6, 2000.

In October 2006, the judge entered a class certification order,
which certified a class of all Texas residents who were charged
an FSC in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000.  The company is appealing
this order.

The Hertz Corp. reported no further development in the matter in
its March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other.  In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries.  The Company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.

    
HERTZ CORP: Okla. Court Dismisses Consumer Litigation Over FSC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in and for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma,
granted a motion that sought for the dismissal of the purported
class action styled, "Keith Kochner, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action, this time on behalf of
Oklahoma residents who rented from the company and incurred the
company's Fuel and Service Charge.  

The petition alleges that the imposition of the FSC is a breach
of contract and amounts to an unconscionable penalty or
liquidated damages in violation of Article 2A of the Oklahoma
Uniform Commercial Code.

In March 2005, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the action but also granted the plaintiff the right to
re-plead.

In April 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
petition, alleging that the company's FSC violates the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act and that the company have been unjustly
enriched, and again alleging that the company's FSC is
unconscionable under Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform
Commercial Code.

In May 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
class action petition.  In October 2005, the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint by the end of October, which the
plaintiff did.  

After the parties engaged in some limited discovery, the company
filed a motion for summary judgment in August 2007.  

In February 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and entered judgment in the company's favor on all of
the remaining claims, according to The Hertz Corp.'s March 6,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other.  In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries.  The Company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.


HERTZ CORP: Nev. Court Dismisses Litigation Over Service Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismisses a
purported Fuel and Service Charge class action against The Hertz
Corp., according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 10, 2007, Marlena Guerra, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons, filed the suit against .
The Hertz Corp. with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada.  The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of all
individuals and business entities who rented vehicles at the Las
Vegas McCarran International Airport and were charged a FSC.

The complaint alleged that those customers who paid the FSC were
fraudulently charged a surcharge required for fuel in  violation
of Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The plaintiff also
alleged the FSC violates the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code
since it is unconscionable and operates as an unlawful
liquidated damages provision.

Finally, the plaintiff claimed that the company breached its own
rental agreement-which the plaintiff claims to have been
modified so as not to violate Nevada law-by charging the FSC,
since such charges violate the UCC and the prohibition against
fuel surcharges.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including the return
of all FSC paid or the difference between the FSC and its actual
costs, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  

In March 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  In July
2007, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss and
ordered the plaintiff's complaint dismissed with prejudice.

The suit is "Guerra v. Hertz Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00023-PMP-
GWF," filed with the U.S. District Court of Nevada, Judge Philip
M. Pro presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard L. Kellner, Esq. (RLK@KBKLAWYERS.COM)
         Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: (213) 217-5000
         Fax: (213) 217-5010

              - and -

         Austin Tighe, Esq. (austin@feazell-tighe.com)
         Feazell & Tighe LLP
         6300 Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220
         Austin, TX 78730, U.S.
         Phone: (512) 372-8100
         Fax: (512) 372-8140

Representing the defendants are:

         Denise Barton, Esq. (dab@morrislawgroup.com)
         Morris Pickering & Peterson
         900 Bank Of America Plaza
         300 S. Fourth Street
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         Phone: (702) 474-9400
         Fax: (702) 474-9422


HERTZ CORP: Seeks Dismissal of CA Price-Fixing Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported
class action suit over alleged fixing of prices on rental cars
at California airports.

On Nov. 14, 2007, a purported class action was commenced with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
captioned "Michael Shames, Gary Gramkow, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. The Hertz
Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Avis Budget
Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-
Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing Corp., The
California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Caroline Beteta."

The suit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all
individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from
a defendant at a California situs airport after Jan. 1, 2007.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants agreed to charge
consumers a 2.5% assessment and not to compete with respect to
this assessment, while misrepresenting that this assessment is
owed by consumers -- rather than the rental car defendants -- to
the California Travel and Tourism Commission.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants agreed to pass
through to consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee,
which fee had previously been required to be included in the
rental car defendants' individual base rates, without reducing
their base rates.

Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts violations of
15 U.S.C. Section 1, California's Unfair Competition Law and
California's False Advertising Law, and seeks treble damages,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

The complaint also asserts separately against the California
Travel and Tourism Commission and Caroline Beteta, the
Commission's Executive Director, alleged violations of The
California Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

In January 2008, Hertz filed a motion to dismiss, according to
the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No.
07CV 2174 H BLM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq.
          Ed Howard, Esq.
          Center for Public Interest Law
          University of San Diego School of Law
          5998 Alcala Park
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 260-4806
          Fax: (619) 260-4753
          e-mail: cpil@sandiego.edu

          Donald G. Rez, Esq. (rez@shlaw.com)
          Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel
          550 West "C" Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, California 62101
          Phone: (619) 233-4100
          Fax: (619) 231-4372

               - and -

          Dennis Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com)
          Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
          550 West "C" Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 338-1133
          Fax: (619) 338-1139


HERTZ CORP: Faces Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit,
captioned "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No.
2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW," over California's Passenger Car Rental
Industry Tourism Assessment Program, according to the company's
March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                       Comiskey Litigation

On Dec. 13, 2007, a purported class action was commenced with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
titled "Thomas J. Comiskey, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car
Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.,
Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group, Hertz
Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc.,
Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car
Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Dale E.
Bonner."

The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
all persons and entities that have paid an assessment since the
inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism
Assessment Program in California on Jan. 1, 2007.

The complaint alleges that California's Passenger Car Rental
Industry Tourism Assessment Program, as included in the
California Tourism Marketing Act, violates the U.S.
Constitution's Commerce Clause and First Amendment, both
directly and in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Article I,
Sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution, and Article
XIX, Section 2 of the California Constitution.  

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, that all
unspent assessments collected and to be collected be held in
trust, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.  

                        Cohen Litigation

On Dec. 14, 2007, Isabel S. Cohen filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California a complaint
virtually identical to that filed in "Comiskey."

                          Consolidation

In February 2008, the court consolidated "Comiskey" and "Cohen,"
and captioned the consolidated action "In re Tourism Assessment
Fee Litigation," and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a single
consolidated class action complaint.

The plaintiffs have not yet filed the consolidated complaint.

The suit is "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No.
2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW,"  filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael F. Tubach, Esq. (mtubach@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers
          275 Battery St, Ste 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
          Phone: 415-984-8700

               - and -

          Douglas B. Adler, Esq. (dadler@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
          300 S. Grand Ave Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
          Phone: 213-687-5000


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Violations Suit Remanded to Kansas Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action against Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. --  
the heavy equipment rental division of Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc. -- which was originally pending with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, was remanded to the District
Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.

On May 3, 2007, "Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation," was commenced with the
District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  The suit alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Fun Services purports to be a class action on behalf of all
persons in Kansas and throughout the U.S. who on or after four
years prior to the filing of the action were sent facsimile
messages of material advertising the availability of property,
goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express
permission for sending the faxes.

The plaintiff asserts violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and common law
conversion.  The plaintiff is seeking damages and costs of suit.

In June 2007, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

In February 2008, the case was remanded to the District Court of
Wyandotte County, Kansas.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other.  In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries.  The Company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over LDW Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action that was filed
over the Loss Damage Waiver charge of Hertz Equipment Rental
Corp. -- the heavy equipment rental division of Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc.

On Aug. 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., filed the suit
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against HERC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The suit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC
and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver charge.  

The complaint alleges that the LDW is deceptive and
unconscionable as a matter of law under pertinent sections of
New Jersey law, including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of statutory damages
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW charges paid,
declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting HERC from
engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.

In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, Texas-resident Miguel V. Pro, as
well as new claims relating to HERC's charging of an
"Environmental Recovery Fee."

Causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing were also added.  

In January 2007, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  Discovery subsequently commenced among the parties.

The Hertz Corp. reported no development in the matter in its
March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental
Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-MF," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M.
Cavanaugh presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Scott A. George, Esq. (sgeorge@sheller.com)
         Sheller, Ludwig & Sheller, P.C.
         One Greentree Ctr., Rte. 73 & Greentree Rd., Suite 201
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: (856) 988-5590

Representing the defendant is:

         Alan E. Kraus, Esq. (alan.kraus@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins, LLP
         One Newark Center, 16th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07101-3174
         Phone: (973) 639-7293


ILLINOIS: Lawsuit vs. Silence Law Expanded to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Gettleman said he would broaden the challenge
against the Illinois law requiring a moment of silence at the
start of the school day into a class-action suit that could
include students and school districts across the state, Chicago
Tribune reports.

The report relates that currently, the lawsuit is limited to
Township High School District 214 in the northwest suburbs.  
However, with Judge Gettleman granting the motion to expand the
suit, students and districts across Illinois will be able to
join the legal battle.

Chicago Tribune says, however, that the move stopped short of
expanding an injunction to prevent districts from enforcing the
law pending further discussions on how the decision would affect
districts across the state.  Another hearing is set for March
28.

The report recalls that Judge Gettleman previously barred
Arlington Heights-based District 214 from enforcing the silence
law after Rob Sherman, a longtime atheist activist, sued the
district and the state superintendent on behalf of his daughter,
a freshman at Buffalo Grove High School.  Mr. Sherman's attorney
had argued that the statute, called the Silent Reflection and
Student Prayer Act, is unconstitutional because it amounts to a
government endorsement of religion.

According to Chicago Tribune, lawmakers in Springfield have
moved to reverse the moment-of-silence requirement, and Judge
Gettleman said he hoped for a legislative resolution before a
judicial one.


IMERGENT INC: UT Court Grants Final Approval to $2.8M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah approved the
settlement of all claims related to a consolidated class action
litigation against iMergent, Inc., a leading provider of
eCommerce software for small businesses and entrepreneurs.

                       Case Background

On March 8, 2005, an action was filed by Elliott Firestone, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the
Company, certain current and former officers, and certain
current and former directors, with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah, Case No. 2:05cv00204 DB.  

Additional complaints were then filed against the Company
alleging similar claims.  The court ordered that the cases be
consolidated and on Nov. 23, 2005, allowed a "consolidated
amended complaint for violation of federal securities laws"
against the Company, certain current and former officers, and
certain current and former directors, together with the former
independent auditors for the Company, Grant Thornton LLP, as
defendants.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws claiming that the defendants either made or were
responsible for making material misleading statements and
omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and
failing to make proper disclosures which required the Company to
restate its financial results.  

The suit seeks unspecified damages, including attorneys' fees
and costs.

Although the action was determined by the court to be the
"consolidated action," a separate complaint was filed in October
2005 by Hillel Hyman, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, against the Company, certain current and
former officers, certain current and former directors, and Grant
Thornton LLP.  This group in subsequent filings refers to itself
as the "accounting restatement group" and alleges that it should
be determined by the court to be the consolidated plaintiff as
it properly alleges a class period consistent with timing
necessary to raise a claim based upon the restatement of
financial results announced by the Company.  The second
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by the
Company and Grant Thornton LLP.

The Company disputes the allegations raised in both actions, but
has not filed substantive responsive pleadings.

On February 28, 2006, at a "Status Conference," the court
determined that the complaint filed by the accounting
restatement group should be substituted as the new consolidated
amended complaint.

On April 3, 2006, the court entered a consent order substituting
Mr. Hyman as the lead plaintiff.

                           Settlement

On Sept. 19, 2007, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding settlement of all
claims in the litigation.  

The Company and the plaintiffs have filed a stipulation of
settlement seeking court approval of the terms.  

The MOU provides, in part, that:

       -- within 15 business days following the court's
          preliminary approval of the settlement, defendants
          and their insurers shall pay $2,800,000 to the
          plaintiffs (the settlement payment is within policy
          limits of the directors and officers insurance policy
          maintained by the Company);

       -- the court order will include a provision dismissing
          the Company and individual defendants from the
          litigation with prejudice;
  
       -- the court order will include a provision that bars and
          enjoins Grant Thornton LLP from prosecuting any claims
          against the Company and individual defendants arising
          out of, or based upon, or related to the facts alleged
          in the complaint or that could have been alleged in
          the litigation;

       -- the Company and individual defendants shall assign to
          the  plaintiffs any and all claims or causes of action
          that they now have against Grant Thornton LLP,
          including, but not limited to, any claims or causes of
          action for accounting malpractice or breach of
          contract;

       -- the Company and individual defendants shall cooperate
          with the plaintiffs in the continuing prosecution of
          the litigation against Grant Thornton LLP; and

       -- the Company is required to provide documentary
          evidence supporting the claims against Grant Thornton
          LLP to the plaintiffs.

The failure of the court to approve the terms, or the parties
not abiding by the terms of the MOU, will render the settlement
without any effect.  

The court has preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed
settlement and claims forms have been mailed to all affected
members of the class.  

At the March 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah approved the settlement of all claims related to a
consolidated class action litigation against the company filed
on March 8, 2005 and subsequently certified a class action by
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.  The Court
approved the terms of a memorandum of understanding entered on
September 19, 2007.

The Order of Approval of Plans of Allocation of Settlement
Proceeds and Final Approval Order and Judgment settlement
provide for the following:

     (i) iMergent, through its directors and officers  
         insurance policy, will pay $2.8 million to the class
         plaintiffs;

    (ii) A provision dismissing the company and individual
         defendants from the litigation with prejudice;

   (iii) A provision that bars and enjoins Grant Thornton from
         prosecuting any claims against the company and
         individual defendants arising out of, based upon or
         related to the facts alleged in the complaint or that
         could have been alleged in the litigation;

    (iv) The company and individual defendants assign to the
         plaintiffs any and all claims or causes of action that
         they now have against Grant Thornton, including, but
         not limited to, any claims or causes of action for
         accounting malpractice or breach of contract;

     (v) The company and individual defendants shall cooperate
         with the plaintiffs in the continuing prosecution of
         the litigation against Grant Thornton; and

    (vi) The company is required to provide documentary evidence
         supporting the claims against Grant Thornton to the
         plaintiffs.

The suit is "Hyman v. Imergent, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00861-
DAK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah under Judge Dale A. Kimball.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         C. Richard Henriksen, Jr., Esq.
         Henriksen & Henriksen
         320 S. 500 E.
         Salt Lake City, UT 84102
         Phone: (801) 521-4145
         e-mail: hhlaw@sisna.com

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq. (ipress@kmslaw.com)
         Kirby Mcinerney & Squire
         830 Third Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 317-6600

Representing the defendants is:

         Jacqueline Benson, Esq. (bensonj@howrey.com)
         Gary F. Bendinger, Esq. (bendingerg@howrey.com)
         Howrey, LLP
         Phone: (713) 654-7693
                (801) 533-8383


MCKESSON CORP: Mass. Court Grants Certification to RICO Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Last week, Judge Patti B. Saris of the District of Massachusetts
certified a nationwide class-action lawsuit against McKesson
Corporation that could become the largest class action in the
United States, potentially totaling $7 billion in damages for
consumers and third-party payers.

                        Case Background

The suit was originally filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on October 2006 by Seattle-based
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13,
2007).

It was brought on behalf of consumers and third-party payers
alleges that McKesson entered into a secret agreement to
artificially inflate the reported average wholesale price of
thousands of drugs, a benchmark used by Medicaid and insurance
plans to determine payment to pharmacies.

                   Class Certification Issues

On Aug. 27, 2007, the court issued its ruling on the plaintiffs'
petition for class certification.

The court certified a class of third party payors for purposes
of liability and equitable relief, but declined to certify such
a class for purposes of a damages award.

The court did certify a class of percentage co-pay consumers on
issues of both liability and damages.

Subsequently, at a Nov. 13, 2007 hearing, the court requested
supplemental briefing on class certification issues.  
Supplemental briefing has been completed, but the court has not
yet issued any order modifying its Aug. 27, 2007 class
certification order.

                        New Class Sought

On Oct. 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
complaint to add a new class made up of uninsured purchasers of
branded drugs who paid what is known as the Usual and Customary
price, and plaintiffs also sought to add federal and state
antitrust claims on behalf of the existing classes and the
proposed new U&C class.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to add
antitrust claims, allowed the amendment to add a class of U&C
consumers and indicated that the U&C class claims would be put
on a different schedule from that of the two classes addressed
in the August 2007 class certification order.

On the same day, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint
which included the U&C class, and the court has subsequently set
a trial date of Jan. 26, 2009, for claims by that class.  No
other trial date has been set in these matters.

                Dismissal of RICO Claims Sought

On Dec. 13, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claims on which
the U&C class claims were based, and the company also moved for
judgment on the pleadings with respect to the RICO claims
supporting the two original classes.  No hearing date has been
set for argument of those motions.

                   Certification Ruling

In her ruling, Judge Saris cited internal documents where
McKesson boasted that by the end of 2004 nearly "99%" of all
brand-name drugs were set at a higher price as a result of the
scheme.  The order also noted that pharmacy benefit managers
benefited from the scheme and cited a top secret Express Scripts
document where an executive cautioned to "put a lid on" the
financial benefit ESI was receiving from the price increase.
Attorneys estimate that damages on behalf of consumers could
total from $200 to $800 million and damages on behalf of third-
party payers will exceed $5 billion.

The judge's ruling allows the case to move forward on behalf of
two classes: consumer purchasers, which includes anyone who made
a co-payment for prescription medication from August 1, 2001
through May 15, 2005, and all third-party payers that made a
payment or reimbursement based on the inflated average wholesale
price during the class period.

"We have been fighting this battle on behalf of smaller groups
for years," said Hagens Berman managing partner and lead
attorney Steve Berman.  "With this ruling we now have the
opportunity to represent millions of Americans nationwide who
have been affected by McKesson's unlawful practices."

The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.
v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         George E. Barrett, Esq. (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
         Barret Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue N.
         Nashville, TN 37201-1601
         Phone: 615-244-2202

         Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq. (jfc@wtwlaw.us)
         The Wexler Firm, LLC,
         2000 One LaSalle Street
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-346-2222
         Fax: 312-346-0022

         Barbara Mahoney, Esq. (barbaram@hbsslaw.com)
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-7292
         Fax: 206-623-0594

              - and -

         Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300
         Fax: 215-496-6611
         e-mail: classaction@srk-law.com
         Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Windows Vista Users Want Suit to Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Windows Vista users are asking Judge Marsha Pechman
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington to let a lawsuit over a related marketing program
advance toward trial even as Microsoft Corp. appeals a pivotal
ruling in the case, seattlepi.com reports, citing court papers
filed on March 17, 2008.

The report relates that the filing follows Microsoft's request
for Judge Pechman to freeze the case while the company asks the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review her ruling
certifying it as a class action.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit against
Microsoft which alleges that the company unjustly enriched
itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even when
they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating
system, called "Vista Home Basic."

According to a separate CAR report on March 13, 2008, Microsoft
challenged the court's decision affording class action status to
the Vista lawsuit, stating that the court had made "errors" in
allowing the case to be opened up as a class action as it
exposed the company to potentially huge numbers of complaints
that had little relevance.

The CAR report also said that Microsoft separately asked for the
case's trial to be temporarily halted to prevent the further
disclosure of the e-mails that have proved "highly embarrassing"
for the company.

Seattlepi.com recalls that earlier e-mails revealed Microsoft
officials' personal complaints about Windows Vista.  They also
showed internal wrangling over the company's decision to lower
the standards for the "Windows Vista Capable" designation in an
apparent attempt to appease chip maker Intel Corp.

Microsoft's request for a stay "is driven by the realization
that continued discovery and trial preparation will require it
to produce even more documents that reveal the truth behind its
Vista Capable program to a now astonished, disappointed and
concerned public," lawyers for the plaintiffs argued in the
filing.

AP says that the filing noted that the plaintiffs have expanded
their quest for documents, in part by issuing subpoenas to
computer makers and retailers.  They've also made another series
of requests for internal documents and e-mails from Microsoft.

Microsoft did not immediately comment on the plaintiffs' latest
assertions.  AP relates that its March 6 request for a stay in
the case cited factors including the high cost of finding and
turning over related documents, a process that could be
unnecessary if the appeals court rules in its favor.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          e-mail: office@gmtlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com/   


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over $2.2BB Buyout by Parent  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services Inc. was sued by investors who
contend that a planned $2.2-billion buyout by its parent
company, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., undervalues the
company's shares, Bloomberg News reports.

According to Delaware Online, the Columbus, Ohio-based
Nationwide Mutual, which is the sixth-largest U.S. home and auto
insurer, offered on March 10, 2008, to pay $47.20 in cash for
each Class A share of Nationwide Financial, a 24% premium at the
time.

"The offer is grossly inadequate in light of the company's
recent trading history," as high as $65.52 a share on Aug. 1,
stockholder Robert Friedman said in one of two similar
complaints filed on March 13, 2008, with the Delaware Chancery
Court in Wilmington.

Nationwide Mutual owns all the unit's Class B shares, with 95.2%
of the voting rights, the complaint noted.

Bloomberg relates that Mr. Friedman is asking a judge to:

   -- give the suit class-action status on behalf of all outside
      shareholders,

   -- stop the buyout,

   -- award damages, and

   -- force Nationwide Financial's board "to structure the offer
      in a procedurally fair manner."

Nationwide Financial said that it appointed a special committee
of independent directors to evaluate the offer, according to
Delaware Online.

The case is "Friedman v. Shisler and Nationwide Financial
Services Inc., CA3613," filed with the Delaware Chancery Court
in Wilmington.


NEUROMETRIX INC: Says Securities Suit is Without Merit
------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 25, 2008,
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
NeuroMetrix Inc. between October 27, 2005, and March 6, 2007.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the company
and certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the company's securities and
causing class members to overpay for the securities.

RTT News, however, relates in an update that NeuroMetrix
contends the claims in the class action suit are without merit.
The company says it plans to defend the case vigorously.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-003 or 410-986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


PAYPAL: Canadian Naturists to File Suit Over Canceled Service
-------------------------------------------------------------
After four years of processing subscription payments for Going
Natural magazine, PayPal has abruptly canceled service to its
publisher, the Federation of Canadian Naturists.

Attempts to get an explanation as to how the magazine violates
PayPal's "acceptable use" policy have been met with generic e-
mails from faceless and implacable customer-service personnel.

Those e-mails falsely claim the magazine is pornographic, and
sells "sexually oriented goods or services involving minors" or
"services for which the purpose is to facilitate meetings for
sexually oriented activities."

Going Natural magazine is devoted to naturism (or nudism), a
social movement over a hundred years old and unrelated to sexual
activity.  The practices the magazine has portrayed for over 20
years have been shown to benefit people of all ages, especially
naturist children.  In several scientific polls, millions of
people in Canada and the USA report engaging in naturist
activities such as skinny-dipping.

The FCN is not the first naturist organization to be rejected by
PayPal, which arbitrarily denies service to persons or
organizations it alone deems socially unacceptable.

"PayPal's decision about Going Natural and its claims about the
FCN are unfounded embellishments born of ignorance," notes Judy
Williams, Government Affairs Director for the FCN.

PayPal has become synonymous, world-wide, with the convenience
of online payments.  As stated on its website, "PayPal has
quickly become a global leader in online payment solutions with
more than 153 million accounts worldwide."

"Organizations such as PayPal with near monopolies in their
industries are duty-bound to be objective and fair," says Ms.
Williams.  "PayPal also has a responsibility to avoid making
arbitrary and narrow judgements, as well as issuing wildly
untrue and offensive statements about clients."

The FCN Board of Directors is considering a class action
lawsuit.  It wouldn't be the first against PayPal, which paid
out over $9 million in 2004 to settle such a suit.  Any
organization which believes it has been refused service by
PayPal because of political, social, or religious views should
contact the FCN.

Finally, Ms. Williams points to PayPal's hypocrisy for accusing
the FCN of sexually immoral and even illegal activities, when
PayPal itself supports transactions for "certain sexually
oriented physical goods," as detailed on its Web site.

For further information, contact:

          Judy Williams (judyw@fcn.ca)
          Government Affairs Director
          Federation of Canadian Naturists
          Phone: (604) 856-9598
          Cellular phone: (604) 308-6336


POSSIS MEDICAL: Minn. Shareholders' LAwsuit Dismissed on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has
affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota's
dismissal of a shareholder against Possis Medical, Inc.,
and two of its executive officers.

The company was served with a shareholder lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 5,
2005, alleging that Possis Medical, Inc. and named individual
officers violated federal securities laws.  

The suit had alleged that Possis Medical violated federal
securities laws by misrepresenting material information about
the Company's AngioJet(R) Rheolytic(TM) Thrombectomy System
prior to the August 2004 public disclosure of the results of the
Company's AiMI clinical trial.

The suit seeks class-action status and unspecified damages.  It
was dismissed with prejudice by order of the Court on Feb. 1,
2007.  Subsequently, plaintiffs have filed an appeal from the
Court's order (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19, 2007).

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit has affirmed the Federal District Court's dismissal of
the shareholder lawsuit.

"We are very pleased that the appellate court has dismissed this
case.  Although we have always been firm in our conviction that
this suit was without merit, it confirms our confidence in the
judicial process to have the court take this action," commented
Robert G. Dutcher, chairman, president and chief executive
officer of Possis Medical Inc.

The suit is "In re Possis Medical, Inc., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 0:05-cv-01084-JMR-FLN," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M.
Rosenbaum, with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.     
         (g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com)
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100

         Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nkulesa@snlaw.net)
         Schatz & Nobel, PC
         20 Church St., Ste. 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-241-6116

              - and -

         Andrei V. Rado, Esq. (arado@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 212-946-4474

Representing the defendants are:

         Michelle S. Grant, Esq. (grant.michelle@dorsey.com)
         Bryan C. Keane, Esq. (keane.bryan@dorsey.com)
         James K. Langdon, Esq. (langdon.jim@dorsey.com)
         Roger J. Magnuson, Esq. (magnuson.roger@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-5671 and 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2807 and 612-340-8800


POZEN INC: N.C. Court Appoints Co-Lead Plaintiffs in "Johnson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has appointed co-lead plaintiffs in a purported
securities fraud class action titled, "Brian Johnson, et al. v.
POZEN Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00559," which was filed
against POZEN, Inc., in relation to statements it made regarding
its migraine drug candidate, Trexima.

The suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2007, by a holder of the
company's securities against POZEN, its chairman and chief
executive officer and one of its directors.  

The complaint alleges, among other claims, violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising
out of allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
Company concerning its migraine drug candidate, Trexima, during
the purported class period, July 31, 2006 through Aug. 1, 2007.

By order dated Feb. 15, 2008, the Court appointed joint co-lead
plaintiffs, according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Brian Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-00559," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James Davidson, Esq. (jdavidson@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

               - and -

          Marcus Angelo Manos, Esq. (mmanos@nexsenpruet.com)
          Nexsen Pruet, LLC
          POD 2426
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Phone: 803-253-8275
          Fax: 803-253-8277

Representing the defendants are:

          Pressly Mcauley Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com)
          Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
          POB 831
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: 919-755-2135
          Fax: 919-755-6067

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. (nporritt@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          1700 K St., N.W., Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Phone: 202-973-8807
          Fax: 202-973-8899


POZEN INC: N.C. Court Approves $11M Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina gave final approval to the proposed $11,205,000
settlement of the matter "In Re: POZEN, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-505," according to POZEN, Inc.'s
March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                        Case Background

Holders of the company's securities filed five purported class
actions in 2004 against POZEN Inc. and Dr. John R. Plachetka,
chairman, president and chief executive officer, alleging
violations of securities laws.  These actions were filed as a
single consolidated class action complaint on Dec. 20, 2004
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007).

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other claims,
violations of federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule
10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company
and a current officer, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the company concerning its product
candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period.

By order dated Nov. 4, 2004, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on
Dec. 20, 2004.  The defendants named in the amended complaint
are Pozen and its chairman and chief executive officer, John R.
Plachetka.

The amended complaint requests certification of a plaintiff
class consisting of purchasers of stock between Oct. 4, 2002,
and May 28, 2004.

On Jan. 27, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which request was denied.

On March 27, 2006, a motion for class certification was filed.
The court granted the motion and certified the case as a class
action on Feb. 28, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007).

                           Settlement

On July 10, 2007, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement to amicably settle the consolidated class action, and
on Dec. 10, 2007, the Court entered an order giving its final
approval to the settlement agreement

Under the settlement, defendants agreed to create a $11,205,000
cash Settlement Fund.  The balance of this fund, after payment
of court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses and the costs of
claims administration, including the costs of printing and
mailing the settlement notice and the cost of publishing notice,
will be divided among all Class Members who submit valid claim
forms.

The suit is "In Re: Pozen, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-505," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr.
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James E. McGovern, Esq. (jmcgovern@cmht.com)
         Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
         Matthew K. Handley, Esq. (mhandley@cmht.com)
         Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. (dsommers@cmht.com)
         Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Ave., N.W., West Tower, Ste. 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600
         Fax: 202-408-4699

         Harry H. Albritton, Jr. Esq.
         (harry@theblountlawfirm.com)
         Marvin Key Blount, Jr., Esq.
         (marvin@theblountlawfirm.com)
         The Blount Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
         POD 58,
         Greenville, NC 27835-0058
         Phone: 252-752-6000
         Fax: 252-752-2174

              - and -

         Richard A. Maniskas Esq.
         Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King Of Prussia Rd.,
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-822-0247

Representing the defendants is:

         Pressly McAuley Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com)
         Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
         P.O. Box 831
         Raleigh, NC 27601
         Phone: 919-755-2100
                919-755-2135
         Fax: 919-755-6067


SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Sets March 31 Hearing for $40M Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts set a
March 31, 2008 final approval hearing for the proposed
$40-million settlement in the purported class action, "In Re:
Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-
10294."

Beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholder
class action complaints were filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts against the company and
certain of its current officers and directors.

On June 28, 2004, the court consolidated the claims.  On Dec. 1,
2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated complaint asserted claims under the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, relating to the company's
restatement of its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the
first three quarters of 2003.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market
concerning the company's revenues, earnings and financial
condition.  The plaintiffs contended that such statements caused
the company's stock price to be artificially inflated.

The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period from March 28, 2002, through March 26, 2004.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants.  On
June 1, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and allowed
the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

On Sept. 12, 2005, the defendants again filed motions to dismiss
this amended complaint.  On Dec. 10, 2005, the court held a
hearing on the motions and took the matter under advisement.  

On May 10, 2006, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions in part and denying the motions in part.  
The court dismissed the Section 12 (a)(2) claims against all the
defendants and the Section 10(b) and Section 11 claims against
the individual defendants.

The court denied the motions as to the Section 10(b) and Section
11 claims against the company, and Section 15 claims against the
individual defendants.  The plaintiff has filed a motion for
class certification, which the defendants have opposed.

The court held a hearing on Feb. 28, 2007, on the plaintiff's
motion for class certification and took the matter under
advisement.

On Nov. 7, 2007, the company, and the plaintiff agreed to settle
the litigation for $40.0 million.

By order dated Jan. 18, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved
the settlement subject to class notice and other conditions.  
The settlement is subject to final approval by the Court.  

The Court has scheduled a hearing for final approval on
March 31, 2008, according to the company's March 6, 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: Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-10294," filed with the U.S. District for the
District of Massachusetts, Judge Douglas P. Woodlock presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2300
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
         Phone: 800-778-1822
         Fax: 415-777-5189
         e-mail: info@gbcsf.com

              - and -

         Norman Berman, Esq. (NBerman@Bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-542-8300

Representing the defendants are:

         Mary P. Cormier, Esq. (mcormier@edwardsangell.com)
         Edwards & Angell, LLP
         101 Federal Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-2225
         Fax: 617-439-4170

              - and -

         Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq. (dougherty@skadden.com)
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
         One Beacon Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-573-4800
         Fax: 617-573-4822


STERLING TRUST: Arbitration for Several Tex. Suits Still Abated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitration for several class actions against Sterling Trust
Co., a unit of United Western Bancorp, Inc., which are pending
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
continue to be abated.

The company was named as a defendant in several putative class  
actions instituted in November 2000 by one law firm in  
Pennsylvania.  These suits are styled:

      -- "Douglas Wheeler, et al. v. Pacific Air Transport, et  
         al.;"

      -- "Paul C. Jared, et al. v. South Mountain Resort and
         Spa, Inc., et al.;"  

      -- "Lawrence Rehrig, et al. v. Caffe Diva, et al.;"  

      -- "Merrill B. Christman, et al. v. Millennium 2100, Inc.,  
         et al.;"   

      -- "David M. Veneziale, et al. v. Sun Broadcasting  
         Systems, Inc., et al.;" and  

      -- "Don Glazer, et al. v. Technical Support Servs., Inc.,  
         et al."  

All of the lawsuits were originally filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  On April 26,
2001, the District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania ordered that all of such cases be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas so
that Sterling Trust could properly present its motion to compel
arbitration.  

Sterling Trust filed separate motions to compel arbitration in
these actions, all of which were granted.  Each of the six
plaintiffs timely filed arbitration demands with the American
Arbitration Association.  

The demands seek damages and allege Sterling Trust breached
fiduciary duties and was negligent in administrating each
claimant's self-directed individual retirement account holding a
nine-month promissory note.  

The arbitration actions were abated pending the outcome of the
class action, captioned "Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v. Sterling
Trust Company, et al."  

United Western Bancorp, Inc., reported no development in the
matter in its March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

United Western Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.uwbancorp.com/-- is  
a unitary thrift holding company that, through its subsidiaries,
provides diversified financial services.  The Company's core
business operations are conducted through operating
subsidiaries, including United Western Bank, Sterling Trust
Company, Matrix Financial Services Corporation, First Matrix
Investment Services Corp. and UWBK Fund Management, Inc. United
Western Bank’s lending activities principally comprises
originated community bank loans and purchased wholesale loans.
Community bank loans consist of commercial real estate,
residential and commercial construction and development,
commercial and industrial (C&I), and consumer.  United Western
Bank offers a variety of deposit accounts with a range of
interest rates and terms. United Western Bank’s core deposits
consist of retail and institutional checking accounts,
negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts, money market
accounts, retail savings accounts and certificates of deposit.


TRIPACK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Violations of the Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
California-based Tripack is facing a class-action complaint
filed on March 18, 2008, with the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Solano alleging it works
employees at its Benicia plant 12 hours a day without overtime,
without legally required breaks, and without itemizing their pay
rate or deductions, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action against defendants pursuant to
California Labor Code Section 201-202 (timely payment of final
wages), 203 (waiting time penalties), 226 (meal and rest
periods), ll74 (employer recordkeeping duties), I194 (right of
action for unpaid wages and attorneys' fees and costs), 1198
{manimum hours of work Industrial Welfare Commission.  Wage
Order 4-2001, California Business Professions Code Sections
17200e t seq., and CCP Sections J95 and 395.5 in that the
defendants' residence and principal place of business is in the
County of Solano, and that the contracts, real or implied,
giving rise to this Complaint were made and performed in the
County Solano, and the defendants' liability arises pursuant to
their employment of the plaintiffs in the County of Solano.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedures 382, the
plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons who worked
as packing workers not exempt from minimum wage and overtime
laws and covered by Wage Order 8 Cal. Code of Regulations
Section 1140 at any of the defendants' facilities located in
Solano County, or elsewhere in California, at any time during
the period beginning the year prior to the filing of the
original complaint in this action to the present.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants' pay practices conform to the
         requirements of the Cali. Labor Code;

     (b) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Section l198
         and the applicable Wage by miscalculating and failing
         to pay the overtime premiums owed to non-exempt who
         worked in excess of eight hours in one work day or six
         days in one work week;

     (c) whether the defendants failed to pay members of the
         the Plaintiff Class their full wages when due in
         violation of Labor Code Sections 201 and 202;

     (d) whether the defendants failed to pay minimum the Class
         for all hours worked, as required by Labor Code minimum
         wage provisions of Wage Order 4-2001;

     (e) whether the defendants failed to pay waiting time
         penalties for class members who have quit or been
         discharged during the relevant statutory period as
         required by Labor Code Section 203;

     (f) whether the defendants violated Labor Code Section
         9226.7 and the provisions of Wage Order 4001 by failing
         to provide adequate off-duty meal periods by failing to
         authorize and permit members of the Plaintiff Class to
         take all rest periods which they were entitled;

     (g) whether the defendants violated Labor Code $226.7(b) by
         failing to pay members of the Plaintiff Class the
         premium compensation mandated by that statute for
         missed meal rest periods;

     (h) whether the defendants failed to provide accurate
         itemized wage statements members of the Plaintiff
         Class, as required by Labor Code Section 226;

     (i) whether the defendants violated Labor Code gll74 and
         the provisions of the applicable Wage Order by failing
         to keep accurate records of employees' hours of work
         and other required documentation;

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have routinely
violated state labor laws by failing to pay them and other
similarly situated current and former employees regular overtime
wages when due; failing to provide, authorize and permit
required rest and periods; and failing to maintain accurate time
and payroll records on a workforce-wide basis.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' employment practices
are unlawful, unfair, contrary to the public policies of the
State of California.

The plaintiffs allege that by violating state labor laws
enumerated below, the defendants have engaged in and continue to
engage in unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of
California's Unfair Competition (Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq.), causing injury to Plaintiffs and other
current and former employees of Defendants.

The plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

     -- Certification of the action as a class action on behalf
        of the proposed Plaintiff Class;

     -- An injunction requiring Defendants to immediately cease
        and desist from engaging the unlawful and unfair
        business practices complained of;

     -- Attorneys' fees, statutory costs and litigation expenses
        in an amount determined to be reasonable; and

     -- For such other and further relief as the court deems
        just, equitable, and proper.

The suit is "Sergio Galloso-Rendon et al v. Tripack., Case No.
FCS 031124," filed with the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Solano.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Peter F. Samtel, Esq. (pfsamuel@samuellaw.com)
          Samuel & Samuel             
          5050 Sunrise Blvd., Suite C-l
          Fair Oaks, Ca 95628
          Phone: (916) 966-4722
          Fax: (916) 962-2219


UNITED NATURAL: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc., and its subsidiary, Natural Retail
Group, are defendants in a purported class action filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act,
according to the company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 3, 2008.

Filed on January 2008, the lawsuit alleges that the Company and
Natural Retail Group violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by printing certain information on customer
sales receipts for the Company's retail stores.  

The court has not set a discovery schedule in this early stage
case.  The parties will file class certification briefs in the
spring and summer of 2008.

The suit is "Yetter v. Natural Retail Group, Inc. et al., Case
No. 8:08-cv-00038-JDW-MSS," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Judge James D. Whittemore
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen Richard Astley, Esq. (sastley@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          Suite 500
          120 E Palmetto Pk Rd
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561/750-3000
          Fax: 561/750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

          David Christopher Banker, Esq. (dbanker@bushross.com)
          Bush Ross, PA
          1801 N. Highland Ave.
          PO Box 3913
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813/224-9255
          Fax: 813/223-9620


UNITED WESTERN: No Hearing Set on Appeal in "Munoz" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on oral arguments in an appeal regarding a ruling in
the purported class action, "Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v.
Sterling Trust Co., et al.," has yet to be set, according to the
company's March 6, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

In its appeal, the plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of
United Western Bancorp, Inc., and certain other defendants in  
case, which was originally filed with the Superior Court of the
State of California.

The suit was filed in December 2001, and names Sterling Trust
Co., United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank, The Vintage
Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc., as defendants.

The complaint sought class-action status, requested unspecified
damages and alleged negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of written contract on the part of
Sterling Trust.  

In the fourth quarter of 2005, Sterling Trust was granted
summary judgment as to all claims against it.  In April 2006,
the court granted a motion for summary judgment, dismissing
Sterling Trust, United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank, The
Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. from the
action.

On Sept. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the California Superior Court.  The plaintiffs filed their
appellate brief with the California Court of Appeals on
March 19, 2007, Sterling and the other defendants responsive
brief is to be filed with the appeals court May 26, 2007.  

The pending appeal has been briefed, but oral arguments have not
yet been scheduled.

United Western Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.uwbancorp.com/-- is  
a unitary thrift holding company that, through its subsidiaries,
provides diversified financial services.  The Company's core
business operations are conducted through operating
subsidiaries, including United Western Bank, Sterling Trust
Company, Matrix Financial Services Corporation, First Matrix
Investment Services Corp. and UWBK Fund Management, Inc. United
Western Bank’s lending activities principally comprises
originated community bank loans and purchased wholesale loans.
Community bank loans consist of commercial real estate,
residential and commercial construction and development,
commercial and industrial, and consumer.  United Western Bank
offers a variety of deposit accounts with a range of interest
rates and terms. United Western Bank’s core deposits consist of
retail and institutional checking accounts, negotiable order of
withdrawal accounts, money market accounts, retail savings
accounts and certificates of deposit.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
certified a class in a securities fraud litigation against
Warner Chilcott, Ltd.

In November 2006, the company and certain of its officers, were
named as defendants in the purported class action, "Albano v.
Warner Chilcott Limited et al."  Similar purported class actions
have been filed subsequently.  

The complaints asserted claims under the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 on behalf of a class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the Company's common
stock in connection with its IPO between Sept. 20, 2006, and
Sept. 26, 2006.  

A consolidated amended complaint, which adds as defendants the
lead underwriters for the IPO, was filed on May 4, 2007.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company omitted and misstated certain facts concerning
its planned transition from the sale of OVCON 35 to the sale of
its new patented product, OVCON 35 FE (now FEMCON FE).

The Company and the individual defendants answered the complaint
on June 18, 2007.  The District Court certified the plaintiff
class on Feb. 4, 2008, according to the company's 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 "Angelo Albano, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Limited,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11515-WHP" filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge William H.
Pauley III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs)
          58 South Service Road
          Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          Lawrence Donald Levit, Esq. (llevit@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza
          Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: (212)-279-5050
          Fax: (212)-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel Shay Kirschbaum, Esq.
          (dkirschbaum@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 373-3000 x3072
          Fax: (212) 492-0072

               - and -

          Mary Jane Eaton, Esq.
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 728-8000
          Fax: (212) 728-8111
          e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CHARLES SCHWAB: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Charles Schwab Corporation and various individuals on
behalf of purchasers of Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares
and Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select Shares who purchased the Funds
between March 17, 2005, and March 18, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges the Company issued false and misleading
statements to the public which overstated the level of
diversification in the Funds and understated the actual risk
relating to sub-prime mortgage backed and related securities.

The lawsuit also alleges the Company misrepresented and omitted
material information from its registration statements and
prospectuses filed with the Securities Exchange Commission as to
the Funds' levels of diversity and risk.

For more information, contact:

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com)
          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, Georgia 30338
          Telephone: (888) 508-6832

                       
MF GLOBAL: Stull, Stull & Brody Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced with the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of MF Global, Ltd. common stock between July 19,
2007, through February 28, 2008.

The Complaint asserts claims against defendants MF, 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 Company's IPO were
materially false and misleading.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired MF Global common stock
during the Class Period, which is between July 19, 2007, through
February 28, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 1-212-490-2022
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.ssbny.com


ORION ENERGY: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP announced that it has filed a securities
class action complaint against Orion Energy Systems, Inc., and
other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased the
common stock of Orion between December 18, 2007, through
February 6, 2008.

The complaint contains additional allegations -- not found in
complaints filed by other law firms -- further supporting the
claims made by plaintiffs.  As described below, if you purchased
Orion's common stock during the Class Period, you have until
April 11, 2008, to move to be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by publicly disseminating materially
false and misleading information in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the Orion's initial
public offering.

Orion realized over $78 million in proceeds from the IPO, while
Chief Executive Officer Neal R. Verfuerth and family sold
600,000 shares for proceeds of approximately $7 million.  Orion
and certain of its officers and directors are alleged to have
made materially false and misleading statements and omitted the
following material information in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus:

     (i) that Orion was having to rapidly shift its focus from
         its core product of HIF lighting systems to its new
         Phase 2 and Phase 3 products which were untested in the
         marketplace;

    (ii) that as a result of this shift in focus, Orion's
         revenues would be negatively impacted by, among other
         things, having to retrain its sales force to market
         these new products; and

   (iii) that well before the IPO, the Company had commenced a
         major factory upgrade which would materially and
         adversely impact revenues, at a minimum, in Orion's
         fourth quarter.

In a conference call with analysts held after the close of
trading on February 6, 2008, during which, according to
analysts, defendant Verfuerth gave "evasive" and "confusing"
answers, Orion revealed that its revenues for the quarter ending
March 31, 2008, would decline sequentially as the Company took
aggressive measures to promote new technologies and a new
business model.  Shares of Orion fell from a close of $14.90 per
share on February 6, 2008, to close at $8.51 the next day on
extraordinary volume.  After the conference call, the Company
also revealed to an analyst that, before the IPO, Orion had
begun major factory upgrade and that this retooling negatively
impacted revenues in the fourth quarter.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 11,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

Klafter & Olsen LLP on the net: http://www.klafterolsen.com


SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Hagens Berman Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased Schwab
YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares or Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select
Shares from Charles Schwab Corporation from March 17, 2005, to
March 18, 2008.

The complaint claims Charles Schwab Corporation headquartered in
San Francisco, CA, the funds' underwriter, investment advisers
and officers and directors issued untrue statements regarding
the lack of diversification of these funds and the extent of
investments assigned to sub-prime mortgage backed and related
securities.

The complaint alleges the funds registration statements and
prospectuses contained untrue statements of material facts, and
omitted important information regarding the funds' investments,
ultimately misleading investors.

On Nov. 15, 2004, the Company began offering the Schwab
YieldPlus investment funds through a registration statement and
prospectus.  The YieldPlus funds are advertised by the
defendants as 'a safe alternative to money market funds that
preserve principal while being designed with your income needs
in mind.'

Throughout the Class Period the Company claimed the funds were
investments in a large, well-diversified portfolio, a seasoned
team of taxable bond portfolio managers actively managed the
funds, and that investment in Schwab YieldPlus would return
higher yields on cash with only marginally higher risk, a smart
alternative.  Since July of 2007, the share price for the funds
began lowering, for a total loss of 18 percent.  Today the funds
stand at an all-time low of $7.96, down more than 11 percent
from Jan. 1, 2008.

The lawsuit claims the funds are not well diversified, instead
concentrated in a single risky industry with more than 50
percent of the funds assets invested in the mortgage industry.

The lawsuit seeks remedies under the 1933 Act on behalf of all
fund purchasers during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Reed R. Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Ste 202  
          Berkeley, CA, 94710  
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          e-mail: info@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
March 26, 2008
  MEALEY'S PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE: PREEMPTION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

April 2, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
    EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FOR ATTORNEYS - HAVING THE
      HARD CONVERSATIONS
        Mealeys Seminars
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 16, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Gleacher Center, Chicago
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 8, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (ATLANTA)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Atlantic Station Building, Atlanta, GA
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

May 19-20, 2008
  MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUMMIT: CAPITAL MARKETS CONVERGENCE AND
    STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FACING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

June 25, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Harvard Club, New York
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

July 30, 2008
  MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
    DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        Chicago
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

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

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
  LawCommerce.Com
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

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




                           *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                         

                           *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel 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  * * *