---

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

             Monday, April 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 73
  
                            Headlines

3COM CORP: Settles Del. Lawsuit Over $2.2B Bain Capital Buyout
BELL EXPRESSVU: Notices in Administrative Fees Lawsuit Sent Out
BIG 5: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Purchasers' Zip Code
BIG 5: Calif. Court Approves Settlement in Store Managers' Suit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Lawsuit in Texas Alleges Invasion of Privacy

CBCL: Strikes Deal to Halt Great Falls Mill Fire Lawsuit
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Lawyers Awarded $412 Million in Fees
FORCE PROTECTION: Investors Reminded of May 9 Plaintiff Deadline
FORTUNE BRANDS: All Under-Age Drinking Lawsuits Dismissed
GUIDANT CORP: Defibrillator Suit Granted National Certification

JABIL CIRCUIT: Court Nixes Suit Over "Back Dated" Stock Options
LEVI STRAUSS: Parties Reach Settlement in Calif. Securities Suit
LIFE UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Decertify Students' Class-Action Suit
LIFELOCK INC: New Jersey Lawsuit Claims Deceptive Advertising
MOSAIC CO: Fla. Court Considers Appeal in Pollution Litigation

PINKBERRY: Frozen Dessert Chain Settles Yogurt Suit for $750,000
PYRAMID BREWERIES: Settles Employee Suit for $1.3 Million
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Zetia & Vytorin Drugs
SENDTEC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of SAC in Fla. Lawsuit
SENDTEC INC: Fla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation

SOLVAY CHEM: Judge Allows Suit Over Cut Pension to Proceed
WALGREEN CO: Court Gives Final OK to $24MM Bias Suit Settlement
WASTE INDUSTRIES: Judge Dismisses Shareholders Lawsuit
WD-40 CO: Plaintiff in Calif. Suit Appeals Certification Ruling
XEROX CORP: $12Mln. Deal in NY Civil Rights Suit Gets Approval


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit
FORCE PROTECTION: Chitwood Harley Files SC Securities Fraud Suit
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Coughlin Stoia Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
MICHAEL BAKER: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA
MONEYGRAM INTL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********



3COM CORP: Settles Del. Lawsuit Over $2.2B Bain Capital Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
3Com Corp. reached a settlement for the purported class action
in Delaware that seeks to prevent a $2.2-billion buyout of the
company by private equity firm Bain Capital Partners, and
China's Huawei Technologies, according to 3Com's April 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.

Between Sept. 28, 2007, and Oct. 10, 2007, five putative class
action complaints were filed with the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in connection with the announcement of the
proposed acquisition of the Company by affiliates of Bain
Capital Partners.

The suits are:

       1. "Fisk v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3256-VCL;"

       2. "Bendit v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3258-VCL;"

       3. "Litvintchouk v. Robert Y.L. Mao, et al., Civil Action
          No. 3264-VCL;"

       4. "Kadlec v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3268-VCL;" and

       5. "Kahn v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3286-VCL."

On Oct. 12, 2007, the five actions were consolidated for all
purposes and captioned, "IN RE: 3COM SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 3256-VCL."

Subsequently, two additional putative class action complaints
were filed with the Superior Court of Middlesex County,
Massachusetts:

       1. "Tansey v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          07-3768," and

       2. "Davenport v. Benhamou, et al., Civil Action No. 07-
          3973F."

On Nov. 2 and 13, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
or, in the alternative, stay the two Massachusetts proceedings.

On Dec. 20, 2007, the Davenport case was stayed pending the
resolution of class certification in the consolidated Delaware
action captioned, "IN RE: 3COM SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION."

The motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay filed in the
Tansey case is still pending.

All of the complaints name 3Com and the current members of its
board of directors as defendants.

All of the complaints except the "Tansey' and "Kahn" petitions
also name Paul G. Yovovich, a former member of the company's
board of directors, as a defendant.  

The consolidated complaint also names Bain Capital Partners as a
defendant, while the Tansey complaint names Bain Capital, LLC
and the Davenport complaint names Diamond II Acquisition Corp.
and Diamond II Holdings, Inc. as defendants.  

Diamond II Acquisition Corp. was also named as a defendant in
the Kahn complaint.

The Bendit complaint also names Huawei Technologies Company as a
defendant, and the Tansey complaint also names Huawei Technology
Co. Ltd. as a defendant.

The plaintiffs purport to represent stockholders of 3Com who are
similarly situated to them.

Among other things, all complaints allege that the proposed
purchase price of $5.30 per share is inadequate and that our
directors, in approving the proposed Merger, breached fiduciary
duties owed to 3Com's shareholders because they allegedly failed
to take steps to maximize the value to the company's public
stockholders.

The complaints further allege that Bain Capital Partners and, in
some cases, 3Com, and Huawei, aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaints seek class certification, damages and certain
forms of equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation
of the Merger and a direction to our board of directors to
obtain a transaction in the best interests of 3Com's
shareholders.

On Nov. 2 and 13, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
or, in the alternative, stay the two Massachusetts proceedings.

On Dec. 20, 2007, and Jan. 23, 2008, the Massachusetts
proceedings were stayed pending the resolution of class
certification in the consolidated Delaware action captioned, "IN
RE: 3COM SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION."

In the consolidated Delaware action the parties have reached an
agreement in principle to settle, which has been embodied in a
Memorandum of Understanding filed with the court for its
consideration.

3Com Corp. -- http://www.3com.com/-- provides secure, converged    
networking solutions on a global scale to businesses of all
sizes.  Its products and solutions enable customers to manage
business-critical voice and data in a secure and efficient
network environment.


BELL EXPRESSVU: Notices in Administrative Fees Lawsuit Sent Out
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a notice to class
members in a lawsuit against Bell ExpressVu to make Class
members aware that their rights may be affected by the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed by Ontario resident Peter De Wolf on
behalf of Bell ExpressVu's 1.7 million customers nationwide.

According to court filings, about 33,000 ExpressVu customers are
charged the administrative fee, which has since been raised to
$25, each month.

Bell ExpressVu had argued that the fee was not an interest
charge but was based on the cost the company incurred collecting
overdue bills.  The company also argued the class action should
not proceed because each customer has a different account and
incurs different fees.  In general, allegations in class actions
must apply to all potential defendants in order to proceed to
trial.

On February 11, 2008, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified "De Wolf v. Bell ExpressVu Inc. et al. Court File No.
05-CV-297727CP," as a Class Action (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
18, 2008).

Mr. De Wolf had been appointed by the court as representative
plaintiff for the Class, defined as all former and current
customers of the Defendants who have been charged one or more
administration fees (the fees of $19 and $25 charged by the
Defendants beginning January 1, 2003, for the payment of an
account after the due date) and have paid those fees up to the
date of certification of this proceeding.

On April 2, 2008, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
published a notice to make Class members aware that their rights
may be affected by the lawsuit.

Deadline to opt out of the Class Action is on June 30, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Bell Phillips Gill Young LLP
          53 Jarvis Street, Suite 300
          Toronto, ON M5C 2H2
          Phone: (416) 366-3777


BIG 5: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Purchasers' Zip Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. is facing a purported class action
suit in California, alleging violations of the California Civil
Code, according to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 30, 2007.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the Company was served with a complaint filed
with the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles,
entitled, "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
al., Case No. BC383834."

This complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf
of persons who made purchases at the Company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested or required to
provide their zip codes.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making
purchases with credit cards at the Company's stores in
California were improperly requested to provide their zip code
at the time of such purchases.  

The suit seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief to require the Company to
discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/  
-- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 343
stores in 10 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec.
31, 2006.  


BIG 5: Calif. Court Approves Settlement in Store Managers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in the County of Orange approved
the proposed settlement in a purported class action suit against
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. over alleged violations of California
Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint, "Jack Lima v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06CC00243," was served on the company on Dec. 1, 2006.

It was brought as a purported class action on behalf of the
company's California store managers.  The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that the company improperly classified store
managers as exempt employees not entitled to overtime pay for
work in excess of forty hours per week and failed to provide
store managers with paid meal and rest periods.

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, back pay
for overtime allegedly not paid, pre-judgment interest,
statutory penalties including an additional thirty days' wages
for each employee whose employment terminated in the four years
preceding the filing of the complaint, an award of attorneys'
fees and costs and injunctive relief to require the company to
treat store managers as non-exempt.

In the fourth quarter ended Dec. 30, 2007, the Company and the
plaintiff reached a confidential agreement providing for the
full and complete settlement and release of all of the
plaintiff's individual claims and a dismissal of all claims
purportedly brought on behalf of the class members in exchange
for the Company's payment of non-material amounts to the
plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel.

Subsequent to the end of the fourth quarter ended Dec. 30, 2007,
the court approved the parties' settlement agreement and all
claims were dismissed, according to the company's March 10, 2008
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2007.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/  
-- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 343
stores in 10 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at
Dec. 31, 2006.  


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Lawsuit in Texas Alleges Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
alleging it invaded customers' privacy by sending information
about their movie rentals to the Facebook Web site.

This is a class action pursuant to the Video Privacy Protection
Act, 18 USC Section 2710.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
(b)(3) and 23(b)(2) on behalf of each and every individual in
the United States of America who has ever been a member of
Facebook and Blockbuster on-line during the same period
beginning from Nov. 6, 2007, through the date of judgment herein
whose name, and address, or a title, description, or subject
matter of any video tapes or other audio visual materials that
were rented, sold or delivered to each individual were
distributed to third parties by defendant without the informed
written consent of such individuals or a clear and conspicuous
manner to prohibit the disclosure of such individuals name and
address.

CourtHouse News Service reports that the plaintiffs claim
Blockbuster's cooperation with Facebook's "Beacon" system
violates the Videotape Privacy Protection Act, which Congress
passed after a newspaper obtained a list of 146 movies Robert
Bork or his family had rented, and publicized it during Bork's
failed nomination to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs say that Facebook launched Beacon in November
2007, in cooperation with 44 other Web sites, that automatically
fed information to Facebook.  This was not just for social
purposes, but was "a core element in the Facebook Ads system for
connecting businesses with users," the plaintiffs say.

According to the complaint, Blockbuster sent information about
movie rentals to Facebook, which added it to members' Facebook
profile, something like this: "Preston added Lord of the Rings
to his queue on Blockbuster.com," the complaint states.

This was an opt-out system, in which users had to check a box to
prevent the information from being distributed, the plaintiffs
say.

According to CourtHouse, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, faced
with furious criticism about privacy invasion, was forced to
issue an apology, in December, which is quoted, apparently in
full, in this filing.  "To this day, however, Facebook still
receives personal identifiable information from participating
Web site with the Beacon javascript, whether the Facebook member
has chosen to distribute their information or not," it claims.

The plaintiffs say that if users did not check the opt-out box
quickly enough, their information would be sent to Facebook, and
that along with "a picture of the individual who purchased the
movie and a Blockbuster ad."

They say that Blockbuster did not notify online customers that
this information was being sent to Facebook until "sometime in
December 2007.  However, the summary is immediately sent to a
user's Facebook profile even before the user has a chance to
decline the distribution of he/her personal identifiable
information -- as long as you have not marked the privacy
feature telling Blockbuster never to send summaries.  To this
day, Blockbuster online victims remain unsuspecting victims,"
the complaint states.

Blockbuster, which has 64 million "active users," is the 7th
most popular site on the Web, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants improperly distributed and used
         "personal identifiable information" obtained from their
         websites of members of the class, within the meaning of
         the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710;

     (b) whether defendants' obtaining and distributing
         "personal identifiable information" from the
         defendants' Web sites of members of the class was done
         knowingly, within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC
         Section 2710;

     (c) whether defendants' when disclosing the names and
         addresses of members of the class provided members of
         the class "a clear and conspicuous manner, to prohibit
         such disclosure," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18
         USC Section 2710;

     (d) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and
         addresses of members of the class disclosed the "title,
         description, or subject matter of any video tapes or        
         other audio visual materials," within the meaning of
         the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710;

     (e) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and
         addresses of members of the class was for the
         "exclusive use of marketing goods and services directly
         to the consumer," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18
         USC Section 2710; and

     (f) whether defendants' obtaining and distribution of
         "personal identifiable information" from the
         defendants' Web sites of members of the class was
         destroyed "as soon as practicable, but not later that
         one year from the date the information is no longer
         necessary for the purpose for which it was collected,"
         within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

     -- declaring that this action may be maintained as a class
        action;

     -- granting judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the other
        members of the class against the defendant in the amount
        of $2,500 for each instance in which the defendant
        disclosed, or used persona identifiable information
        concerning the plaintiff and members of the class;

     -- awarding punitive damages should the court find that the
        defendants acted in willful or reckless disregard of the
        VPPA;

     -- awarding attorney's fees and other litigation costs
        reasonably incurred; and

     -- requiring the defendants to destroy any personal
        information illegally distributed.

The suit is "Cathryn Elaine Harris et al v. Blockbuster, Inc.,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, T. John Ward, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas M. Corea, Esq.
          Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq.
          Preston J. Dugas, Esq.
          The Corea Firm PLLC
          The Republic Center
          325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 4150
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          Phone: (214) 953-3900
          Fax: (214) 953-3901


CBCL: Strikes Deal to Halt Great Falls Mill Fire Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
One of the two remaining lawsuits filed in connection with a
massive Great Falls mill fire in 2006 has been dismissed, The
Herald Online reports.

The report says that the class action lawsuit against CBCL, a
plastics business destroyed in the fire, ended after an
agreement between CBCL and those suing the company, according to
a letter received by the Chester County clerk of court's office
this week.

The letter was signed by Robert Dodson, the Columbia attorney
who told The Herald in 2006 that his clients were pursuing the
case against CBCL because "our primary effort is going to be
directed at somebody that does have some insurance and means
available to hopefully reimburse these families."

Mr. Dodson declined to discuss the case Wednesday.

Mr. Dodson's clients originally sued the owners of the former
J.P. Stevens Mill No. 3 and the owner of the plastic recycling
operation in the plant, claiming smoke from a nearly week-long
fire there in June 2006 led to various health problems.

A judge dismissed the suit against the mill's owners in November
2006, saying lawyers failed to show how or why the couple was
responsible for the fire.  But Mr. Dodson said then that his
clients were moving forward with the case against CBCL.

During the fire, mandatory evacuations were ordered for about
1,300 of the town's 2,200 residents because of dangerous smoke,
officials said.

State investigators were unable to determine a cause for the
fire.

Another group of residents made claims similar to those in Mr.
Dodson's case in a class action suit filed against both CBCL and
Chester County.

In the suit against the county, residents claimed Chester County
officials were negligent to allow the plastics grinding and
recycling business to reopen after it was shut down for alleged
safety code violations in 2004.

The lawsuit targeting the county and the company is the only one
pending.

Ping Lee, CBCL's owner, has been unfairly blamed for the fire,
said Mr. Lee's attorney, Hemphill Pride, Esq., of Columbia.  Mr.
Lee now wants "to get the other one (lawsuit) out of the way so
he can go on with his business," Mr. Pride said.


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Lawyers Awarded $412 Million in Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Attorney fees of more than $412 million were awarded to
plaintiffs' lawyers from more than 70 firms for their work on
the massive fen-phen diet-drug litigation, marking the beginning
of the end of the "super-mega-fund" class action.

In a 125-page opinion in In re Diet Drugs, Chief U.S. District
Judge Harvey Bartle III said the case was "nothing short of a
herculean effort spanning almost a decade."

Bartle found that the plaintiffs lawyers had logged more than
578,000 hours and said "just to put this time into perspective,
it is the equivalent of approximately 24,000 days, or almost 66
years, of around-the-clock work on this litigation."

In 2002 Judge Bartle had awarded "interim fees" of more than
$156 million, and this week's award compensates the plaintiffs
lawyers for work up to the end of March 2007, bringing the total
fee award to $568 million.

About $20 million of the latest fee award was set aside to
provide a fund for future fee petitions, but Judge Bartle said
that while the case is sure to continue for years, his ruling
was "for all intents and purposes a final award of costs and
fees."

The original settlement, struck in November 1999, was valued at
$3.75 billion, but that sum proved to be only a rough estimate
of the ultimate cost to Wyeth.  The plaintiffs' lawyers now
estimate that the ultimate value of the settlement is
$7.5 billion.

Wyeth was the maker of both Pondimin (fenfluramine) and Redux
(dexfenfluramine) -- two drugs that became wildly popular
weight-loss remedies in the early and mid-1990s.  Both drugs
were pulled from the shelves in September 1997 when it was
discovered they could cause heart valve disease.

The term "fen-phen" was used to describe a popular combination
of Pondimin with Phentermine, another prescription drug that is
still distributed and sold under several different brand names.

The original settlement included liberal opt-out provisions that
allowed class members to bring individual lawsuits even after
they had participated in the settlement if their medical
conditions worsened.


FORCE PROTECTION: Investors Reminded of May 9 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds shareholders of Force
Protection, Inc. that they have until May 9, 2008 to ask the
Court to appoint them as lead plaintiff for the class.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company during the period from August 14, 2006
- February 29, 2008, inclusive.

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

The complaint further alleges the following facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the class period:

     (1) as a result of the Company's ongoing problems in
         meeting contractual delivery deadlines, the Company
         would have trouble competing in the MRAP market;

     (2) in audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had
         been critical of the Company's finances and financial
         accounting system, which threatened the Company's
         eligibility to compete for government contracts;

     (3) the Company's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

     (4) contrary to the representations contained in the
         Company's SEC filings, the Company's internal controls
         were inadequate and easily manipulated, and, as a
         result, multiple areas of the Company's internal
         controls suffered serious deficiencies, including:

           (i) the financial closing process;
           
          (ii) accounting for inventory and the associated
               accounts payable expenses;

         (iii) stock-based compensation; and

          (iv) deferred tax balances;

     (5) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its
         financial reporting process, required to enable it to
         properly analyze and estimate Force Protection's
         future financial and operational performance;

     (6) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report at
         least its third quarter 2007 financial results.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Force
Protection's stock price traded at inflated levels during the
Class Period and defendants were able to sell $87.4 million in
Force Protection Stock.  However, when the truth about the
Company's operations and financial statements were revealed, the
Company's shares were hammered by massive sales, sending them
down 88% from their Class Period high.

For more information, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          60 East 42nd St., Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165-0006
          Phone: 212-697-6484


FORTUNE BRANDS: All Under-Age Drinking Lawsuits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Majority of the class action suits filed against Fortune Brands,
Inc., its Spirits and Wine business, and numerous other
manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine over the
alleged marketing of alcoholic beverage to people under the
legal purchase age for alcohol have been dismissed, according to
the company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company, its Spirits business and numerous other
manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine were named
as defendants in purported class action lawsuits in Michigan,
Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia, seeking damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief regarding alleged marketing of
beverage alcohol to people under the legal purchase age for
alcohol.

The Michigan and Ohio cases were remanded to the trial court to
be dismissed and vacated for lack of standing, and each of these
were subsequently dismissed by their respective trial courts.
The dismissal of the Wisconsin case was affirmed by the
Wisconsin appellate court.  The West Virginia case was
voluntarily dismissed.  

The plaintiffs in the Ohio and Michigan cases filed a motion
seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court, but they later filed a
stipulation dismissing the cases with prejudice.

Fortune Brands, Inc. -- http://www.fortunebrands.com-- is a  
holding company with subsidiaries engaged in the manufacture,
production and sale of home and hardware products, spirits and
wine, and golf products.  The Company operates through three
segments: Home and Hardware, Spirits and Wine, and Golf.  


GUIDANT CORP: Defibrillator Suit Granted National Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity certified a
national class action against Guidant (subsequently purchased by
Boston Scientific), which concerns the company's pacemakers and
defibrillators.

In August 2005, a class of plaintiffs launched three actions
against the manufacturer of pacemakers and defibrillators,
claiming damages resulting from both products.  

The suits allege that Guidant was aware that a line of
defibrillators had defects that increased the risk that the
device could fail to deliver therapy.  The company implemented
changes to certain ICDs to correct the problems, but continued
to sell uncorrected devices still in inventory.  Guidant did not
warn patients and doctors about the defects in their most
popular ICD until 3 years after the defects were first
discovered.

This case highlights public safety issues and the erosion of
public confidence about the safety of drugs and devices due to a
series of recent high profile recalls.

Ontario Court Justice Maurice Cullity consolidated two
defibrillator actions into one so-called 'Defibrillator Action,'
and a third action sued for alleged damages related to both
defibrillators and pacemakers.

In June 2007, Justice Cullity allowed the plaintiffs' lawyers to
amend their initial statement of claim -- removing
representative plaintiff in the Pacemaker Action, Herbert Bruce
Heron -- from the Pacemaker Action and substituting instead
Gerald Lambert (who had a pacemaker installed) and Elsa Ibbitson
(asserting a derivative family law claim).

The defense appealed the ruling saying the substitution of the
plaintiffs in the middle of the proceedings deprived them of
mounting a defense based on the limitation period.  But the
Ontario's Superior Court disagreed saying the actions were
substantially similar so as not to deprive the defendant's
"substantive right" to mount a limitations defense.

Early this year, the Ontario Superior Court denied the appeal
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 18, 2008).

In Canada, the class action involves 1,992 class members who
received defective ICDs.  Around 530 of these class members have
already undergone surgery to replace their ICDs.

"The trial of this action will focus on the nature and extent of
the duty of a manufacturer of a high risk medical device when it
becomes aware that a product is defective and may fail to
deliver life-saving therapy.  The class is also seeking an award
of punitive damages."

The suit (05-cv-295 630 cp) was filed against Guidant Corp.,
Guidant Sales Corp., Guidant Canada Corp., and Cardiac
Pacemarkers Inc.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Court Nixes Suit Over "Back Dated" Stock Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge Steven Merryday dismissed a class-action
lawsuit against Jabil Circuit Inc. over claims that the company
was among many companies that "back dated" stock options given
to top executives, artificially inflating their value, according
to The Tampa Tribune.

The report says that Judge Merryday dismissed the case in a
detailed, 45-page ruling, saying the plaintiff's case failed on
a number of fronts, while also saying that the plaintiffs could
refile new claims by May 12.  The suit's claims were first made
in March 2006.

Tampa Tribune recounts that Jabil executives have repeatedly,
and strenuously denied the claims asserted in the lawsuit, and
say that a probe by its outside accountants cleared the company.

Nevertheless, the report says, the Securities and Exchange
Commission opened an inquiry into Jabil's practices with
options, and the U.S. attorney's office subpoenaed Jabil
records.  Those government probes remain active, Jabil said.

"The judge's decision [Wednesday] was lengthy and well-
reasoned," said Jabil spokeswoman Beth Walters.  "And he
accepted almost all of Jabil's arguments in a manner that will
make it very difficult, but not impossible, for the plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint that passes muster.  We view it as
a very positive event."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not be reached by Tampa
Tribune.


LEVI STRAUSS: Parties Reach Settlement in Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action against
Levi Strauss & Co. have reached a tentative settlement of the
matter, which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to Levi's April 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 24, 2008.

The suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-03-05605 RMW," is in connection with the company's
April 6, 2001 and June 16, 2003 registered bond offerings.  It
also names as defendants:

      -- the company's chief executive officer,

      -- its former chief financial officer,

      -- its corporate controller,

      -- its directors, and

      -- its underwriters.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection
of lead counsel.  The action purports to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of the company's bonds who made purchases pursuant or
traceable to the company's s prospectuses dated March 8, 2001,
or April 28, 2003, or who purchased the company's bonds in the
open market from Jan. 10, 2001, to Oct. 9, 2003.

The action makes claims under the federal securities laws,
including Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, relating to the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and other public statements.  

Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the company's
financial statements and other public statements during this
period materially overstated its net income and other financial
results and were otherwise false and misleading, and that the
company's public disclosures omitted to state that it made
reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were improper.  

The plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions
caused the trading price of the company's bonds to be
artificially inflated.  They seek compensatory damages as well
as other relief.

On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
action.  The matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and,
after oral arguments had concluded, the court took the matter
under submission.

On Sept. 11, 2007, in the matter, "In re Levi Strauss & Co.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-05605 RMW," pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims and
dismissed the tax fraud aspects of the Section 11 and 15 claims.

The Court also limited the plaintiff class on the Section 11 and
15 claims by eliminating from the class those bondholders who
purchased the bonds in private offerings and then exchanged them
for registered bonds in the subsequent exchange offer.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to the
tax-fraud claims Jan. 14, 2008, and the company stipulated with
the plaintiffs that its response will be due on or before
March 21, 2008, subject to court approval.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the parties agreed to settle the matter, and
are in the process of documenting that settlement.

The suit is "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:03-cv-05605-RMW," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq.
         Green Welling, LLP
         235 Pine Street, 15th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710
         e-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com

         Robert Gans, Esq. (robert@blbglaw.com)
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP
         12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Phone: 858-793-0070

              - and -

         Jill Manning, Esq. (jmanning@kmslaw.com)
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         7665 Redwood Blvd., Suite 200
         Novato, CA 94945
         Phone: (415) 898-8160

Representing the defendants are:

         Erin E. Schneider, Esq. (eschneider@gibsondunn.com)
         Austin Van, Esq. (aschwing@gibsondunn.com)
         Schwing of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         One Montgomery St., 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-393-8276 and 415-393-8210
         Fax: 415-374-8458


LIFE UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Decertify Students' Class-Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Life University is seeking to decertify a class-action lawsuit
filed by students who were affected by the school's loss of
accreditation in 2002, according to CBS46 News.

CBS46 News cites the Associated Press as saying that this is the
third class-action lawsuit to be filed against the school.  The
previous two were dismissed.

Individuals involved in the lawsuit claim they were harmed when
the school lost its accreditation.  They said they had to finish
their education, they had to transfer to other chiropractic
colleges and lost money in travel and moving expenses.

The report points out that Life University lost its
accreditation in 2002 from the Council on Chiropractic
Education.  A settlement was reached in 2003.


LIFELOCK INC: New Jersey Lawsuit Claims Deceptive Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lifelock, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County claiming that
Lifelock misrepresents and deceptively advertises its "identity
theft protection" service, for which it charges $110 a year,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought on behalf of New Jersey
subscribers of Lifelock, a company which holds itself out as
"the industry leader in the rapidly growing field of Identity
Theft Protection."

The plaintiffs claim Lifelong does not actually provide the
services it offers, that its president Richard Davis dreamed up
the idea "while sitting in a jail cell after having been
arrested for failing to repay a $16,000 casino marker," and that
Lifelock's Chief Marketing Officer and co-founder Robert Maynard
is under a lifelong FTC injunction because of misleading
infomercials he ran for his own "credit improvement company."

The complaint adds, "Finally, and perhaps most disturbing . . .
Maynard himself had engaged in the very type of identity theft
his company had set out to eliminate, but stealing his own
father's identity."

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to New Jersey Court
Rule 4:32 on behalf of all persons in the State of New Jersey
who subscribed to Lifelock, between 2005 and the present,
including former residents who resided in New Jersey at the tiem
they subscribed to Lifelock's services.

The plaintiffs ask the court to rule on:

     (a) whether and to what extent defendants' practices,
         conduct, and misrepresentations violate federal or
         state law;

     (b) whether defendants employed any deception, deceptive
         acts or practices, fraud, false pretense, false
         promises, or misrepresentations in connection with the
         sale or advertising of the subject Lifelock services
         within the meaning of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
         NJ Stat. Ann. Sections 56:8-1, et seq.

     (c) whether defendants' affirmative statements and material
         omissions constitute intentional fraud;

     (d) whether Lifelock's radio, television, internet and
         print advertisements contained fraudulent
         representations and omissions;

     (e) whether the class-action prohibition in the Lifelock
         "Terms & Conditions" is unconscionable and
         unenforceable; and

     (f) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         recover compensatory, exemplary, treble statutory or
         punitive damages based on defendants' fraudulent and
         illegal conduct or practices.

The plaintiffs seek the following relief:

     (a) an order certifying the proposed class and appointing
         plaintiffs and the undersigned counsel of record to
         represent the class;

     (b) an order rescinding the Lifelock subscription of each
         and every plaintiff and member of the class based on
         defendants' fraudulent inducement thereof or,
         alternatively, damages for said fraud;

     (c) an order issuing a preliminary injunction enjoining
         defendants and all others, unknown and unknown, from
         continuing to take illegal action as set forth in the
         complaint;

     (d) an order issuing a permanent injunction enjoining
         defendants and all others, known and unknown, from
         continuing to take illegal action as set forth in the
         complaint;

     (e) an order declaring the "Terms and Conditions" entered
         into by each and every plaintiff and member of the
         class unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable; or
         in the alternative;

      (f) an order severing the portions of the "Terms and
          Conditions" which the court deems unconscionable and
          unenforceable, and enforcing the remaining valid
          portions of the "Terms and Conditions;"

      (g) a judgment awarding plaintiffs and the class
          compensatory, consequential, and statutory damages,
          including, without limitation, the loss of monies paid
          to LifeLock for its services, pre-judgment interest
          and post-judgment interest;

      (h) a judgment awarding plaintiffs and the class
          exemplary, punitive and treble damages;

      (i) a judgment awarding plaintiffs and the class attorneys
          fees and costs; and

      (j) such other relief as the court finds just and proper.

The suit is "Warren Pasternack et al v. LifeLock, Inc., Case No.
L-2398-08," filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Middlesex County.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David S. Paris, Esq.
          Justin M. Klein, Esq.
          Marks & Klein, LLP
          63 Riverside Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: (732) 747-7100


MOSAIC CO: Fla. Court Considers Appeal in Pollution Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal has yet to rule on
the plaintiffs' appeal regarding a dismissal of a class action
against The Mosaic Co. over the release of phosphoric acid
process water from the Riverview, Florida phosphogypsum
management system.

In September 2004, prior to the completion of the combination of
IMC Global Inc. and the fertilizer businesses of Cargill, Inc.,
a class action complaint and demand for jury trial was filed
against Cargill, Inc. in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.

The complaint, which arises out of the sudden release of
phosphoric acid process water from the company's Riverview
facility, contains four counts, including statutory strict
liability, common law strict liability, common law public
nuisance and negligence.  The strict liability counts relate to
the discharge of pollutants or hazardous substances.

The plaintiffs seek class certification and an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of a class of unknown size
comprising "all fishermen and those persons engaged in the
commercial catch and sale of fish, bait, and related products in
the Tampa Bay area who lost income and suffered damages because
of the pollution, contamination and discharge of hazardous
substances by the defendant."  

The motion to dismiss the statutory strict liability counts was
granted in November 2005; the company's other motions to dismiss
the action were denied.

The plaintiffs have amended their complaint and the company has
filed an additional motion to dismiss which was heard by the
Circuit Court in August 2006.

The court granted the company's second motion to dismiss the
case with prejudice on Jan. 9, 2007.  The plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal to the Florida Second District Court of
Appeal.

The Court has heard oral arguments and a decision is pending,
according to the company's April 9, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 29, 2008.

The Mosaic Co. -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer of   
phosphate and potash combined, as well as nitrogen and animal
feed ingredients.  The Company operates its business through
four business segments: phosphates, potash, offshore and
nitrogen.


PINKBERRY: Frozen Dessert Chain Settles Yogurt Suit for $750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinkberry has settled a class action which alleged that the  
popular frozen treat might not be yogurt, Kimi Yoshino of the
Los Angeles Times reports.

Filed last year, the plaintiff claimed Pinkberry is not frozen
yogurt, healthy, all-natural, non-fat, nor did they disclose to
the public exactly what's in the stuff.

Pinkberry denies any wrongdoing, that they were already working
with the California Department of Food & Agriculture to
"reformulate" before the lawsuit.

Ron Graves, chief executive of the Los Angeles-based company,
told the LA Times that Pinkberry had settled the suit filed by
disgruntled customers contending that the popular frozen treat
might not be yogurt.

As part of the settlement, Pinkberry will give a total of
$750,000 to two Southern California charities, the Los Angeles
Regional Food Bank and Para los Niños, a child-care group.  The
company will also have to pay attorney's fees of $250,000, and a
$5,000 award to the woman who initiated the suit.

Attorney Michael Amir, Esq., who filed the suit, said, "We made
the point we needed to make . . . and we're very happy."

Pinkberry -- http://www.pinkberry.com-- is a chain of frozen   
yogurt stores primarily located in Los Angeles, California.
There are currently 36 stores, mostly located in Southern
California with seven in New York City.

To contact Mr. Amir:

          Michael M. Amir
          Doll Amir & Eley LLP
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 1106
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: 310-557-9100
          Fax: 310-557-9101
          Web site: http://www.dollamir.com


PYRAMID BREWERIES: Settles Employee Suit for $1.3 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Pyramid Breweries reached a $1.3 million settlement on April 8
with employees who claimed that the company did not allow them
adequate rest and meal breaks, Daily Californian reports.

According to the report, the settlement money will be shared by
1,200 former and current California employees of the Seattle-
based Pyramid Breweries who worked between April 30, 2003, and
Sept. 30, 2007.

The lawsuit, brought in 2007 by Sacramento bartender Austin
Taylor, was filed as a potential class-action suit, said Matthew
Kaufman, Esq., who represents Mr. Taylor.

In the lawsuit, Pyramid employees alleged that prior to filing
their complaint, there was no meal or rest break policy at any
of the three California pubs.

"California law requires meal and rest breaks, so this is a
violation of the law," Mr. Kaufman said.

Conditions at the establishments were determined through surveys
sent to all California Pyramid workers, 100 of which were
returned.

"We deposed a number of different members of all class
positions, so there was a lot of input in this case," Mr.
Kaufman added.

Between the time that workers filed their lawsuit and mediation
began, Pyramid changed its meal and rest break policies, said
Michael O'Brien, Pyramid Breweries' chief financial officer.

However, Mr. Kaufman said even though new policies were made,
they were not being consistently practiced.  "After the
complaint was filed, there was some testimony that there was a
systematic change.  There was also evidence that contradicted
this though," he said.

Daily Californian notes that Each worker's portion of the
settlement will be dependent on the hours they worked during the
settlement period.  In the coming weeks eligible employees will
be notified of the settlement and asked if they wish to take
part.

Both sides said they are satisfied with the settlement, the
report says.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Zetia & Vytorin Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey over
its sales of its cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System brings this
class action for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of itself and all other
persons or entities, other than the defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or acquired securities of Schering
Plough Corporation through the Company's common and preferred
stock Offering conducted in August 2007, and were damaged
thereby.

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System claims, "Sixteen months
after completion of a study showing that its two most profitable
drugs had no greater health benefit than far cheaper generic
competitors -- and may even be harmful -- Schering sold over $4
billion of its own securities to the investing without
disclosing the results of the study.  This lack of disclosure
violated the securities laws."

"It took the Company another five months to disclose some of the
study results and when it did, Schering's stock dropped
precipitously and investors were harmed.  Ten weeks after that
initial disclosure, Schering disclosed the study results in
their entirety, which caused the stock to drop even further,"
the complaint continues.

"Defendant Schering manufactures and markets two anti-
cholesterol drugs called Zetia and Vytorin.  Vytorin is a
combination of Zetia and Zocor -- in generic form, simvastatin
-- and is jointly manufactured and marketed with Merck & Co.,
Inc.  Total sales of Zetia and Vytorin were $3.9 billion in 2006
and $5.2 billion in 2007.  These drugs are Schering's most
profitable, accounting for 70 percent of its profits, by one
estimate."

According to CourtHouse News, this is not the first such class
action against Schering-Plough.  It reports it because its first
six pages contain a clear and concise summary of the
allegations, and the history of the medical trials that Schering
allegedly failed to disclose.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the Securities Act was violated by defendants'
         acts, as alleged;

     (b) whether the Registration Statement contained material
         misstatements or omitted to state material information;

     (c) whether the Schering financial statements that were
         incorporated by reference into the Registration
         Statement were materially misstated; and

     (d) whether the members of the Class have sustained damages
         and, if so, the appropriate measure thereof.

The plaintiff Arkansas Teacher, on behalf of itself and the
other members of the Class, request for judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        maintainable pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure and declaring Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher
        to be a proper Class representative;

     -- awarding Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher and the other
        members of the Class compensatory damages and
        rescissionary damages;

     -- awarding Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher and the other
        members of the Class pre-judgment and post-judgment
        interest, their costs and expenses in this litigation,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees
        and other costs and disbursements; and

     -- awarding Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher and the other
        members of the Class such other and further relief as
        the Court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Arkansas Teacher Retirement System et al v.
Schering-Plough Corp. et al., Case No: 2:08-cv-01720-DMC-MF,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
          Olstein
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, New Jersey 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
          Mark Lebovitch
          David H. Webber
          Berstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, New York 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1400


SENDTEC INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of SAC in Fla. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in putative class action filed against SendTec,
Inc. (formerly known as RelationServe Media, Inc.), and its
officers and directors and certain former officers and
directors of the company are appealing the dismissal of the
Second Amended Complaint in the matter, according to the
company's April 8, 2008 Form 10KSB filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2007.

On July 27, 2006, RelationServe Media announced that it had
completed the change of its name and symbol to SendTec, Inc.

On or about Aug. 31, 2006, an action was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case
No. 06-61327) by Richard F. Thompson, as the putative class
representative, against the company and certain of its former
officers and directors alleging securities laws violations in
connection with the purchase of its stock during the period from
May 24, 2005, to August 2006.

The named plaintiff in the case previously filed suit against
the company, as an individual, in State Court in Indiana, which
action was dismissed in July 2006.  

The Florida District Court permitted the plaintiff to file an
amended complaint and on Nov. 13, 2006, the plaintiff filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint adding an additional
plaintiff, L. Alan Jacoby, who purportedly purchased 10,000
shares of the company's Common Stock in the open market, and
naming additional former and present officers and directors of
SendTec and others as defendants.

The First Amended Complaint, styled as a class action, alleges
violations of Section 11 and Section 12(2) of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs claim, among other things, violations of the
various acts:

       -- by selling securities through persons who were not
          registered as agents and broker dealers with the
          Securities Exchange Commission or the States of
          Florida or Indiana and were not affiliated as an agent
          or representative of any broker/dealer;

       -- by failing to disclose to purchasers of RelationServe
          Media, Inc. stock that they were selling securities of
          RelationServe stock through unregistered agents and
          broker/dealers was in violation of state and federal
          securities laws which caused a substantial contingent
          liability for claims of rescission by investors and
          exposing RelationServe to substantial legal fees,
          criminal and civil liability which would have a
          material adverse impact to the RelationServe's
          financial condition;

       -- by failing to disclose that in July 2005
          RelationServe's Chief Executive Officer and Chief
          Operating Officer received evidence of accusations of
          employee theft of data and employee kickbacks had been
          made and the matter was so material that CEO hired an
          outside attorney to investigate the matter;

       -- failing to disclose that a former director has
          previously been sued by stockholders of two other
          corporations; and

       -- by failing to disclose that financial statements
          beginning the third quarter of 2005 were false and
          misleading as a senior officer Richard Hill, had
          directed that finance recognize income in the third
          quarter in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
          2002.  

The invoices directed to be recorded either did not exist or
were otherwise untraceable, cancelled, or were never shipped,
with the exception of just a few (adjustments to income that
would be required as a result of the allegations, if any, relate
to certain discontinued operations).

In addition to the claims of securities law violations,
plaintiffs claim violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
as to controlling persons of SendTec, violations of the Florida
Securities Act, violations of the Indiana Securities Act, sales
of unregistered, non-exempt securities, violation of anti-fraud
provisions under Indiana law, deception under Indiana law, and
fraud.  The plaintiffs seek rescission, damages, treble damages,
punitive damages, compensatory damages, interest, costs, and
attorney's fees.

The First Amended Complaint repeats and re-alleges various
claims made by Ohad Jehassi, the company's former Chief
Operating Officer in a matter pending before the Circuit Court
of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida.

That case was captioned, "Ohad Jehassi v. RelationServe Media,
Inc., a Florida corporation, and Relationserve Media, Inc.,
d/b/a Sendtec Acquisition Corp., a Florida corporation, Case No.
06-004597."

The initial complaint filed by Mr. Jehassi on or about April 5,
2006, alleged, among other things, that the company breached its
employment agreement with Mr. Jehassi and owe him salary and
other benefits in connection with such alleged breach.

On June 21, 2006, Mr. Jehassi filed an amended complaint adding
a claim for an alleged violation of Florida's "Whistleblower's
Act," and on Aug. 14, 2006, filed a third amended complaint
adding a claim for unpaid wages under Florida statutes.

Mr. Jehassi seeks damages of approximately $500,000 plus
attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses and shares of our stock he
alleges he is entitled to.

The company has asserted that Mr. Jehassi was removed from his
position with the company for cause and is therefore not
entitled to any of the relief he seeks and has asserted a
counterclaim against Mr. Jehassi related to the shares of the
company's common stock Mr. Jehassi claims he is entitled to.

The substance of Mr. Jehassi's whistleblower claims have been
adapted in the First Amended Complaint filed by Mr. Thompson as
the basis for asserting that the company filed false and
misleading financial statements and that the company violated
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  

The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint on March 6,
2007.  By the terms of the court's order, the plaintiffs were
given leave to refile a new complaint on or before March 19,
2007, and on March 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint.

By decision dated June 12, 2007, the District Court dismissed
the Second Amended Complaint, with prejudice, and state law
claims without prejudice.  

The Plaintiffs have noted their appeal of the June 12, 2007
dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint.

On Sept. 19, 2007, the parties attended court ordered mediation
but were unable to reach a compromise.  

Briefing on the appeal has been completed and the parties are
awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals.  

The suit is "Thompson v. Relationserve Media, et al., Case No.
0:06-cv-61327-PCH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Paul C. Huck presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Keith Andrew Goldbaum, Esq. (kgoldbaum@frglaw.com)
          Friedman Rosenwasser & Goldbaum
          5355 Town Center Road
          Suite 801
          Boca Raton, FL 33486-1092
          Phone: 561-395-5511
          fax: 561-368-9274

               - and -  

          Vess A. Miller, Esq. (vmiller@cohenandmalad.com)
          Cohen & Malad LLP
          1 Indiana Square
          Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-636-6481

Representing the defendants are:

          Charles Christian Kline, Esq. (ckline@whitecase.com)
          White & Case
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131-2352
          Phone: 305-371-2700
          Fax: 305-358-5744

               - and -

          Gregg William McClosky, Esq. (GWM@MDD-LAW.COM)
          McClosky D'Anna & Dieterle LLP
          2300 Glades Road
          Suite 400 East Tower
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-368-9200
          Fax: 561-395-7050


SENDTEC INC: Fla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Broward County, Florida, granted a motion by SendTec, Inc.
(formerly known as RelationServe Media, Inc.) that dismissed a
purported class action filed against the company, and its
officers and directors.

On July 25, 2007, Richard F. Thompson, along with plaintiffs,
Parabolic Investment Fund, Ltd. and Gregory Thompson, filed a
Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, on behalf
of themselves, and others similarly situated naming the company,
and certain of its former officers and directors, as defendants.

The plaintiffs claim violations of certain state laws regarding
the sale of securities by unregistered broker/dealers and
failure to report such violations.

The Court dismissed the class action complaint, and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint
raising the same allegations.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint and a hearing on the motion was heard on Jan. 16,
2008.  

On March 27, 2008, the company's motion to dismiss was granted
and the plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed, according
to the company's April 8, 2008 Form 10KSB Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2007.

SendTec, Inc. -- http://www.sendtec.com-- formerly known as  
RelationServe Media, Inc., is a holding company established for
the purpose of acquiring, owning, and managing various marketing
and advertising businesses, primarily involving the Internet.
The Company is a direct response marketing service and
technology company that provides customers a range of direct
marketing products and services to help market their products
and services on the Internet and through traditional media
channels, such as television, radio and print advertising.  The
Company's online and offline direct marketing products and
services include campaign development, development, production
and post-production, media buying and tracking, campaign
management, campaign analysis and optimization, technology
systems implementation and integration for campaign tracking,
and other agency type services.


SOLVAY CHEM: Judge Allows Suit Over Cut Pension to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Judge Alan Johnson of Cheyenne has authorized a class-
action lawsuit against Wyoming soda ash company Solvay
Chemicals, Inc., over alleged cuts in workers' pension benefits,
The Casper Star Tribune reports.

According to Casper Star, Judge Johnson ruled in February that
the lawsuit can move forward under federal age discrimination
laws.

Richard Honaker, Esq., who represented the class members, told
Casper Star that he hopes all Solvay Chem's employees in Wyoming
and elsewhere who were affected by changes in the company's
pension plan will join the lawsuit.

"We now move on to the next challenge, which is to be sure that
all the employees harmed by Solvay's pension policies are
included in the class-action suit and receive increased
retirement benefits," Mr. Honaker said.  

The class-action lawsuit seeks to recover what the plaintiffs
claim are lost pension benefits and to obtain damages for what
it calls Solvay's "willful violation" of age discrimination
laws.

The lawsuit's lead plaintiffs are Wade Jensen and Donald Goff.
According to Casper Star, Mr. Jensen is a 15-year surface plant
operator while Mr. Goff worked at the Solvay plant for 23 years
before being discharged in 2005.  The two say that their
retirement benefits were cut because of their age.  They assert
that the company's actions violated the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

The lawsuit alleges that the company's pension plan had offered
benefits for years calculated on a formula based on an
employee's pay and years of service.  The complaint says that
when the company changed to "cash balance" pension plan, the
initial balances did not reflect the value of the plan under the
previous system.

Richard Hammett, Esq., who represents Solvay, said in a
telephone phone interview with Casper Star that the company
"understands that the pension plan change remains an important
issue" for a number of employees.  "They very much respect the
legal process and the right of employees to invoke the legal
process, and that's what's going on here," he said.

Mr. Honaker said that Solvay employees at the Green River mine
and plant are among the Solvay Group employees most affected by
the pension changes.

Casper Star says that Solvay's trona mine and soda ash plant is
the fifth largest employer in Sweetwater County.  The company
employs 415 workers at its soda ash facility, located about 20
miles west of Green River.  The company recently expanded its
production capacity to about 1.8 million tons of soda ash per
year.

Solvay Chemicals is a member of the Solvay Group, a group of
chemical companies headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.  The
group employs more than 30,000 people in 50 countries.


WALGREEN CO: Court Gives Final OK to $24MM Bias Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Illinois has given final approval of Walgreen
Co.'s plan to pay $24 million to settle a lawsuit claiming that
the company discriminated against African American employees
nationwide, Ann Brown writes for Black Enterprise.

According to the report, the lawsuit, which was filed by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is one of the
largest monetary settlements in a race-related case by the EEOC.
A comprehensive injunctive relief designed to improve the
company's promotion and store assignment practices was also
ordered by the court.

According to the EEOC, Walgreen discriminated against African
American retail management and pharmacy employees in promotion,
compensation, and assignment.  The suit alleged that African
American applicants for management trainee positions were
rejected because of their race and that the company steered
African American managers to low-performing stores.

Black Enterprise points out that the recently approved
settlement also resolves a private class-action suit filed in
June 2005 on behalf of 14 current and former African American
Walgreens employees.  The two cases were consolidated in April
2007.

Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreen was ordered to pay
$20 million to about 10,000 past and present workers, the report
relates.  The remainder of the settlement is set to go to fees
associated with the case.

While the drugstore chain agreed to the settlement, it continues
to deny any wrongdoing.  According to a released statement,
Walgreen does not "tolerate discrimination in any aspect of
employment."  Walgreen also maintains that it is a "drugstore
industry leader in the employment and promotion of African
American managers and pharmacists."

The company reports that its African American store and district
managers represent more than 17% of total employees in those
positions, compared with the industry average of 9%.  African
American staff pharmacists at Walgreen account for 15% of those
positions, compared with the industry average of 10%.  The
statement went on to say, "We are the nation's best-represented
retailer in urban areas, and managers of all backgrounds are
promoted to senior levels from those locations."

However, according to one of the attorneys involved in the case,
Teresa Demchak, Esq., of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &
Dardarian, the EEOC pursued the lawsuit only after finding
evidence of discrimination by Walgreen.  "When the original
plaintiffs filed the (private) lawsuit, the EEOC was continuing
its investigation of the plaintiffs' EEOC charges," she says.
"Later, the EEOC determined that there was cause to support the
allegations in the charges.  The EEOC's attempt to reach
conciliation with Walgreens failed, and the EEOC filed its own
lawsuit against Walgreens, which was then consolidated with the
private plaintiffs’ lawsuit."

Ms. Demchak told Black Enterprise that there have already been
notable changes at Walgreen since the suit was filed.  "Changes
to Walgreens' employment practices that it has agreed to
undertake are laudable and will benefit all current and former
Walgreens retail store and pharmacy management employees,
regardless of race," she says.

The plaintiffs themselves have also reported that Walgreen has
demonstrated its commitment to implementing the terms of the
settlement.  "I am hopeful that cases such as this are a strong
wake-up call to those companies in this country who do not take
the fair employment laws seriously or believe that they apply to
them," Mr. Demchak adds.


WASTE INDUSTRIES: Judge Dismisses Shareholders Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
A shareholders lawsuit against Waste Industries has been
formally dismissed, Triangle Business Journal notes.

According to the report, the dismissal of the suit is another
step forward for Waste Industries (Nasdaq: WWIN) as it moves
toward a management-led buyout.

Triangle Business recounts that the shareholders had filed a
class-action suit against the company in late 2007, claiming
that the proposed buyout undervalued the company.  However, the
plaintiffs backed out on April 5, 2008, asking a judge to
dismiss the case.

A group including CEO Jim Perry, founder and chairman Lonnie
Poole, other Poole family members and private equity groups has
agreed to take Waste Industries private for $38 per share.  The
shareholders' meeting on the buyout is scheduled for May 8,
2008.


WD-40 CO: Plaintiff in Calif. Suit Appeals Certification Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a lawsuit against WD-40 Co. are appealing  an
order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denying class-action status for their
case.

James Drimmer filed the suit on April 19, 2006, alleging fraud
in the company's marketing of automatic toilet bowl cleaners.  
After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed
by way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
Sept. 20, 2006.

The amended complaint is seeking class-action status.  It
alleges that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes
Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl
cleaners are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to
advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use
of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the Company successfully defeated the
plaintiff's attempt to have the case certified as a class
action.  

The plaintiff has petitioned for permission to appeal the  
District Court's decision and the Company has opposed the
petition.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
April 9, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.

The suit is "Drimmer v. WD-40 Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00900-W-
AJB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Judge Thomas J. Whelan presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert L. Kenny, Esq. (rkenny@kennylaw.net)
         The Law Offices of Robert L. Kenny
         401 West A Street, Suite 2300
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 234-1616
         Fax: (619) 234-1650

Representing the company is:

         Shannon Sweeney, Esq.
         Baker and McKenzie
         101 West Broadway, Suite 1200
         San Diego, CA 92101-8213
         Phone: (619) 236-1441
         Fax: (619) 236-0429


XEROX CORP: $12Mln. Deal in NY Civil Rights Suit Gets Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement in the class action, "Warren, et al. v.
Xerox Corp."

The suit, filed in May 2001, alleged race discrimination with
respect to sales territory assignments, quotas and compensation.

On March 11, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York entered an order certifying a nationwide
class of all black salespersons employed by Xerox from Feb. 1,
1997 to the present under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871.  Six black
sales representatives commenced the suit on May 9, 2001.

The plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in a pattern or
practice of race discrimination against them and other black
sales representatives by assigning them to less desirable sales
territories, denying them promotional opportunities, and paying
them less than their white counterparts.

Although the complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought, plaintiffs do seek, on behalf of themselves and the
classes they seek to represent, front and back pay, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  

Fact discovery recently concluded and expert reports were
exchanged.  The parties participated in private mediation in
mid-May 2006.  Fact discovery was concluded and expert reports
have been exchanged.  

Following three days of mediation with a private mediator, a
tentative agreement was reached.  The company said terms of the
agreement were not material to it.

On March 16, 2007, the parties submitted the settlement
agreement to the Court for preliminary approval (Class Action
Reporter, May 16, 2007).

Recently, Judge Gleeson gave preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement.

As a result of the settlement, Xerox will pay $12 million, which
the company accrued for in the second quarter of 2006.  The
company has also agreed to establish a task force comprised of a
diverse group of Xerox employees to ensure that African-American
sales representatives are compensated in a non-discriminatory
manner by, among other things, assessing the territory
assignment process.

Xerox adamantly denies that it engaged in any policy or practice
of unlawful discrimination or retaliation, or any other unlawful
conduct.  However, Xerox believes it is in the best interest of
its shareholders and employees to settle the lawsuit, bringing
to an end the protracted and costly litigation.

The suit is "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp., Case No. 1:01-cv-
02909-JG-KAM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with
referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:
       
         Barry Alan Weprin, Esq. (bweprin@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 946-9312
         Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the defendant are:

         Eugene D. Ulterino, Esq. (eulterino@nixonpeabody.com)
         Amy Laura Ventry, Esq. (aventry@nixonpeabody.com)
         Nixon Peabody, LLP
         Phone: 585-263-1580 and (516) 832-7500
         Fax: 585-263-1600 and (516) 832-7555


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An investor sued The First Marblehead Corporation in the U.S.
District of Massachusetts, accusing the student loan company of
securities law violations, Berman DeValerio disclosed.

Berman DeValerio filed the class action complaint on April 10,
2008, seeking damages for violations of federal securities laws
and remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The class action was filed on behalf of all investors who
acquired First Marblehead securities from August 10, 2006,
through and including April 7, 2008.

Headquartered in Boston, First Marblehead provides financial
services relating to the underwriting, packaging and
securitization of student loans.   

The lawsuit claims that First Marblehead and a number of
individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j (b) and 78t(a) and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about the performance and quality of
First Marblehead's securitizations in SEC filings and other
statements to the investing public.  Among other things, First
Marblehead misrepresented the level of default rates in its
portfolio and the default rates' effect on the Company's ability
to securitize additional student loan underwritings. The
complaint also states that First Marblehead recklessly
disregarded that its student loan guarantor, The Education
Resources Institute, was under-reserved and unable to adequately
insure student loans underwritten by the Company.  The guarantor
filed for bankruptcy protection on April 7, 2008.

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

For more information, contact:

          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Berman DeValerio
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (800) 516-9926
          e-mail: law@bermanesq.com
          Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com


FORCE PROTECTION: Chitwood Harley Files SC Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, against Force
Protection, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of Force Protection
common stock between August 14, 2006, and March 17, 2008.

The complaint alleges that Force Protection, and certain of its
officers and directors, violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Company and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacture of
ballistic and blast protected vehicles.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made false
and misleading statements about the company's business,
financial results and prospects.  Defendants continually boasted
Force Protection's dominance in the Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected market due to its superior product design and rapid
delivery rates.  However, in a report dated June 27, 2007, the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense question both of
these claims and criticized the awarding of contracts to Force
Protection on a sole source basis and without competitive
bidding.

Then, on February 29, 2008, after the market closed, Force
Protection announced it would have to delay the release of its
2007 Form 10-K and restate its Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2007.  On this news, Force Protection's stock
collapsed to close at $3.58 per share on March 3, 2008, a one-
day decline of 13% on volume of 3.5 million shares, two times
the average three month volume.  Finally, on March 17, 2008, the
Company delayed filing its 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K a
second time because of the "scope of work" necessary to identify
accounting errors.  Upon release of the March 17, 2008 news, the
Company's shares declined an additional $0.42 per share, or
23.5%, to close on March 17, 2008, at $1.37 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.  This represented an 96% decline
from the Class Period high of $30.27 per share, prior to when
Force Protection slowly began to reveal information about the
Company's internal deficiencies.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) as a result of the Company's ongoing problems in
         meeting contractual delivery deadlines, Force
         Protection would have trouble competing in the MRAP
         market;

     (b) in audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had
         been critical of the Company's finances and financial
         accounting system, which threatened the Company's
         eligibility to compete for government contracts;

     (c) Force Protection's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

     (d) contrary to the representations contained in the
         Company's SEC filings, Force Protection's internal
         controls were inadequate and easily manipulated;

     (e) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its
         financial reporting process required to enable it to
         properly analyze and estimate Force Protection's
         future financial and operational performance; and

     (f) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report at
         least its third quarter 2007 financial results.

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

For more information, contact:

          Michael R. Peacock, Esq. (mpeacock@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          1230 Peachtree St NE
          2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, Georgia  30309
          Phone: 1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900
          Web site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Coughlin Stoia Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of Inverness Medical Innovations Inc. common stock in the
Company's secondary public offering on or about November 14,
2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933.

The complaint charges Inverness Medical and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act.

Inverness Medical engages in the development, manufacture, and
marketing of consumer and professional medical diagnostic
products, as well as a range of vitamins and nutritional
supplements worldwide.

According to the complaint, on or about November 14, 2007, the
Prospectus supplement to the Registration Statement with respect
to the Secondary Offering, which forms part of the Registration
Statement, became effective and more than 12 million shares of
Inverness Medical common stock were sold to the public at $61.49
per share, thereby raising more than $737 million.  The
complaint alleges that the Registration Statement negligently
failed to disclose the significant and severe integration issues
that Inverness Medical was then experiencing and which were then
impacting the Company's continuing operations.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Inverness Medical common stock during the Class
Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 9210
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


MICHAEL BAKER: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of its client and a
proposed class of all persons who purchased the securities of
Michael Baker Corporation  from March 19, 2007, through Feb. 22,
2008, inclusive.

Michael Baker provides engineering and operations and
maintenance services for its clients.

The Complaint filed in the lawsuit charges that Michael Baker
and certain of its officers and directors violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  According to the Complaint,
during the period from March 19, 2007, through February 22,
2008, the defendants made false and misleading statements about
the company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants' false statements concealed from investors the fact
that the company's reported financial results for the first
three quarters of 2007 were materially inaccurate and the fact
that the company's financial statements were not presented in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


MONEYGRAM INTL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action suit with the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of MoneyGram International, Inc., between January 24, 2007, and
January 14, 2008, inclusive.

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

MoneyGram is a global payment services company.  The Company's
major products and services include global money transfers,
money orders and payment processing solutions for financial
institutions and retail customers.

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

     (1) that the Company had inadequate reserves for its
         investments in asset-backed securities;

     (2) that the Company had understated its potential loses
         from its exposure to asset-backed securities;

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

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

On January 14, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it was realigning its portfolio due to heavy
investment in asset-backed securities, and that in January 2008
it sold $1.3 billion of securities for a realized loss of
$200 million.  The Company also announced that it was involved
in negotiations concerning recapitalization of the Company,
which would "provide sufficient capital to support realignment
of the Company's portfolio away from the risk associated" with
asset-backed securities. This process would involve the
liquidation of a significant portion of the Company's investment
portfolio, and would cause the Company to experience losses that
were substantially higher than those reflected in the Nov. 30,
2007 valuation.

The Company announced that as of November 30, 2007, it had
experienced total net unrealized losses of $860 million.
Finally, the Company announced that investors should not rely on
the previously given guidance for 2007 results.  Upon the
release of this news, the Company's shares declined $6.02 per
share, or 49.47 percent, to close on January 15, 2008, at $6.15
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On February 12, 2008, the Company announced that it gave final
approval to a bailout of cash and debt from the investors, and
that through February 11, 2008, the Company sold approximately
$1.8 billion of investment portfolio securities for a net
realized loss of approximately $380 million.  Then, on Feb. 29,
2008, the Company announced that it was delaying filing of its
2007 Annual Report, and that it expected $1.2 billion in
impairments in the fourth quarter.  On this news, shares of the
Company's shares declined further, closing on March 3, 2008, at
$3.26 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 27,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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





                            *********

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  * * *