CAR_Public/090106.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 6, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 3

                           Headlines

APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Lines on iMac Displays
AUDIT & ADJUSTMENT: Faces Wash. Charity Care Law Violations Suit
AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Mass., Del. Lawsuits
CMS ENERGY: Certification Motion in Gas Purchasers' Suit Pending
CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Arandell" Still Pending

CMS ENERGY: Continues to Face "Learjet" Litigation in Kansas
CMS ENERGY: Reconsideration Bid in "Breckenridge" Still Pending
CMS ENERGY: Remanded "Leggett" Complaint Proceeds in Tennessee
CMS ENERGY: Texas-Ohio Energy's Remanded Suit Pending in Calif.
DENDREON CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint in "McGuire"

GT SOLAR: Amended Complaint Filed in N.H. Securities Fraud Suit
MOLSON COORS: April 2, 2009 Hearing Set for $6M Suit Settlement
MOLSON COORS: May 18, 2009 Hearing Set for $6M Suit Settlement
MRT Holdings: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged $50M Ponzi Scheme
OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Litigation

ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Faces Wahe, Hour Litigation in California
PERDUE FARMS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Extra Giblets in Chickens
SK FOODS: Faces Calif. Price-Fixing Suit Over Processed-Tomatoes
SPRINT NEXTEL: March 5 Hearing Set for $14M "Larson" Settlement
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Hip and Knee Replacements

ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Indiana


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EMCORE CORP: Brualdi Law Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing


                           *********

APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Lines on iMac Displays
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over
unwanted vertical lines on iMac screens, Jacqui Cheng of Ars
Technica reports.

The litigation was filed on Dec. 31, 2008 under the caption,
"Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:2008-cv-05788."  It was
brought by Florida resident Aram Hovsepian after his iMac,
purchased in October of 2006, began showing vertical lines on
the display in March of 2008.

In his complaint, Mr. Hovsepian alleges that Apple failed to
disclose material facts about the displays in its iMac line, and
that there were "common manufacturing defects" that would cause
the vertical line phenomenon to happen, reports Ars Technica.

"Instead," reads the complaint, "Apple remained silent knowing
its iMac display screens would malfunction while consumers
purchased iMacs, made warranty claims arising from the vertical
lines on display screens, and made out of warranty repairs
related to the vertical line problem."

Because of this, the lawsuit says Apple is in violation of the
California Unfair Business Practices Act, as well as the
California Consumers Legal Remedy Act.  The company has also
supposedly breached its implied warranty by not disclosing these
flaws, and has received unjust enrichment as a result, Ars
Technica reported.

Mr. Hovsepian hopes that the judge will award all members of the
class individual damages, force the company to implement a
formal program to repair and replace defective iMac screens, and
reimburse out-of-warranty repairs that iMac owners have already
made, according to Ars Technica.

The suit is "Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:2008-cv-
05788," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District, Judge Patricia V. Trumbull, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Boni & Zack LLC
          16 St. Asaphs Roa
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          610-822-2000

          David R. Buchanan, Esq. (DBuchanan@SeegerWeiss.com)
          Seeger Weiss LLP
          One Williams Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-584-0700

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Richard J. Burke LLC
          1010 Market Street
          Suite 650
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314 621-8647

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq. (mdonovan@donovansearles.com)
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street
          Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-732-6067
          Fax: 215-732-8060

          Eric David Freed, Esq.
          Freed Weiss & Flaum
          111 W Washington Street
          Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60657
          Phone: 312-220-0000

          George K. Lang, Esq.
          Freed and Weiss LLC
          111 W. Washington Street
          Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-220-0000


AUDIT & ADJUSTMENT: Faces Wash. Charity Care Law Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Audit & Adjustment Co., Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in King County Superior Court in Washington for
allegedly violating the state's charity care law, Cynthia Wilson
of insideARM reports.

The suit was filed on Dec. 8, 2008 by Seattle-based Phillips Law
Group.  It claims that the healthcare collection agency, has
systematically engaged in "the unfair, deceptive and misleading
practice of telling patients that they owe the full charges
shown on hospital billing statements, without informing them
that they may be entitled to charity care that reduces the
hospital debt or eliminates it entirely depending on a patient's
income level."

insideARM reported that lead attorneys John Phillips, Esq., and
Matthew Geyman, Esq. are seeking class-action status for the
lawsuit.  In addition to statutory damages on behalf of the
plaintiffs for allegedly violating the state's charity care law,
Consumer Protection Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), the attorneys want the agency to stop pursuing
collections from charity care-eligible patients.

The attorneys are also asking the court to make the agency
establish procedures to allow patients to qualify for charity
care that it collects on behalf of Washington hospitals, and
notify current and former patients the agency has collected from
in the past four years that they may be eligible for charity
care that may reduce their obligation.

Under Washington statute RCW 70.170.060, individuals and
families with annual incomes below 100 percent of the federal
poverty level -- $10,400 for a single person and $42,400 for a
family of four living in Washington -- are deemed charity care
patients for the full amount of hospital charges, provided that
they are not eligible for other public or private health
coverage sponsorship, insideARM reported.

The law also requires various levels of discounts for patients
whose annual incomes range from 100 percent to 300 percent of
the federal poverty level.

According to the lawsuit, the law entitles charity care-eligible
patients who have paid all or portions of their hospital bills
to a refund.

The lawsuit alleges that Audit & Adjustment's profits depend on
how much money it gets from each hospital patient and that the
agency has a built-in incentive not to allow patients to apply
for and obtain charity care once the debt is in collection.  It
claims that the agency systematically told patients they were
not charity care-eligible once their account was in collection,
reported insideARM.


AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Mass., Del. Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in two purported class-action lawsuits against
Axcelis Technologies, Inc. that were filed in Massachusetts and
Delaware in connection with proposals made by Sumitomo Heavy
Industries, Ltd., in 2008 to acquire the outstanding common
stock of the company have voluntarily dismissed their cases.

                       Meltzer Litigation

On or about Feb. 11, 2008, Martin Meltzer filed a purported
shareholder class-action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior
Court (Civil Action No. 08-0692-E), naming as defendants the
company, its current directors and a former director.

The complaint alleges that Axcelis and its board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by
failing to properly consider the Feb. 11, 2008 unsolicited offer
by Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. to purchase all of the
outstanding stock of the company for $5.20 per share.

The suit asks the Court to direct the company and its board to
"give due consideration to any proposed business combination" to
maximize shareholder value, while ensuring that no conflicts of
interest exist.

                        Simon Litigation

In or about Feb. 28, 2008, Shirley Simon filed a purported
shareholder class-action complaint in the Delaware Chancery
Court (Case No. 3582), naming as defendants the company and its
current directors.

The complaint alleges that Axcelis and its board breached their
fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by failing to
properly consider the Feb. 11, 2008 unsolicited offer by
Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. to purchase all of the
outstanding stock of the company for $5.20 per share, and
subsequently rejecting that offer.

The suit wants the Court to direct the company and its board to
cooperate with any person or entity, including Sumitomo that
proposes a merger, acquisition or other transaction that would
maximize shareholder value, while ensuring that no conflicts of
interest exist.

The complaint also seeks to have the defendants, other than the
company, pay damages suffered to the class as a result of their
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

A motion to dismiss the suit and an accompanying brief were
filed by Axcelis on March 26, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
cover the proposal made by Sumitomo on March 10, 2008, and other
matters relating to the annual meeting of stockholders held on
May 1, 2008.

                       Recent Developments

The purported class-action suit filed by Martin Meltzer in
February 2008 in Massachusetts Superior Court (Civil Action No.
08-0692-E) has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

The purported class-action suit filed by Shirley Simon in
February 2008 in Delaware Chancery Court (Case No. 3582) has
been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

Axcelis Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.axcelis.com/--
designs, manufactures and services ion implantation, dry strip
and other processing equipment used in the fabrication of
semiconductor chips.  In addition to equipment, Axcelis provides
aftermarket service and support, including spare parts,
equipment upgrades, maintenance services and customer training.
The Company also owns 50% of the equity of SEN Corp., a producer
of ion implantation equipment in Japan.  SEN licenses technology
from the Company for certain ion implantation products and has
exclusive rights to market the licensed products in Japan.


CMS ENERGY: Certification Motion in Gas Purchasers' Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification in a purported class-action
suit alleging that CMS Energy Corp. falsely reported natural gas
trades in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices is
pending, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit, entitled "Heartland Regional Medical Center v. eprime,
Xcel Energy et al.," was filed in March 2007, before the Circuit
Court of Buchanan County, Missouri.

The suit was brought on behalf of a purported class of natural
gas purchasers alleging that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy and falsely reported natural gas trades in order to
artificially raise natural gas prices.  It alleges restraint of
trade, price manipulation, and violation of Missouri's antitrust
laws.

The defendants removed this case to Missouri federal court, and
it has been conditionally transferred to as a Multidistrict
Litigation proceeding in Nevada, captioned, "In Re: Western
States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566."

The plaintiffs also filed a motion to remand this case back to
state court, but the court has yet to decide on this request
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008).

The plaintiffs withdrew that motion to remand and filed an
amended complaint.  CMS Energy filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  CMS MST and CMS Field Services
filed answers to the amended complaint.

On Sept. 26, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on the ground that the claims are barred by implied
antitrust immunity arising from the Commodity Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
Oct. 17, 2008.

CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy
holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S.,
primarily in Michigan.  Its two principal subsidiaries are
Consumers and Enterprises.  Consumers is a public utility that
provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of
Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68
counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.  Enterprises, through
various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged
primarily in domestic independent power production.  CMS Energy
manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides
and operates principally in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Arandell" Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for seeking vlass certification for the matter
"Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL Energy Inc., et al.," which
names CMS Energy Corp. as a defendant remains pending, according
to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The class-action complaint was filed on or about Dec. 15, 2006,
in Wisconsin state court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial
entities that purchased natural gas between Jan. 1, 2000 and
Oct. 31, 2002.

Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Energy Resource Management
Company and Cantera Gas Company, LLC, are alleged to have
violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute by conspiring to
manipulate natural gas prices.

The plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus
exemplary damages in an amount equal to three times the actual
damages, and attorneys' fees.

The action was removed to Wisconsin federal district court and
later transferred to the MDL proceeding.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, which has been fully briefed.  The court has not
yet ruled on the motion.

On Sept. 26, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on the ground that the claims are barred by implied
antitrust immunity arising from the Commodity Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
Oct. 17, 2008.

CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy
holding company  operating through subsidiaries in the U.S.,
primarily in Michigan.  Its two principal subsidiaries are
Consumers and Enterprises.  Consumers is a public utility that
provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of
Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68
counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.  Enterprises, through
various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged
primarily in domestic independent power production.  CMS Energy
manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides
and operates principally in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CMS ENERGY: Continues to Face "Learjet" Litigation in Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp., CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company,
and CMS Field Services, Inc.are still facing a a putative class-
action suit entitled, "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et
al.," according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Nov. 20, 2005, CMS MST was served with a summons and
complaint which named CMS Energy, CMS MST and CMS Field Services
as defendants in a putative class-action suit filed in Kansas
state court, "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al."

Similar to the other actions that have been filed, the complaint
alleges that during the putative class period, Jan. 1, 2000
through Oct. 31, 2002, defendants engaged in a scheme to violate
the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by knowingly reporting false
or inaccurate information to the publications, thereby affecting
the market price of natural gas.

The plaintiffs, who allege they purchased natural gas from
defendants and others for their facilities, are seeking
statutory full consideration damages consisting of the full
consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas.

On Dec. 7, 2005, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas and later transferred to the
multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the CMS MST and CMS Field Services filed an
answer to the complaint.  CMS Energy has a pending motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and is awaiting the
court's decision.

On Sept. 26, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on the ground that the claims are barred by implied
antitrust immunity arising from the Commodity Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
Oct. 17, 2008.

On Oct. 27, 2008, Defendants filed a second motion for judgment
on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds.

CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy
holding company  operating through subsidiaries in the U.S.,
primarily in Michigan.  Its two principal subsidiaries are
Consumers and Enterprises.  Consumers is a public utility that
provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of
Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68
counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.  Enterprises, through
various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged
primarily in domestic independent power production.  CMS Energy
manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides
and operates principally in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CMS ENERGY: Reconsideration Bid in "Breckenridge" Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. is awaiting the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado's decision on reconsideration of a
purported class-action suit, entitled "Breckenridge Brewery of
Colorado, LLC, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit was brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of
natural gas in Colorado, and was filed in Colorado state court
in May 2006.

The defendants, including CMS Energy Corp., CMS Field Services,
Inc., and CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. are alleged to
have violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection
with their natural gas price reporting activities.  The
plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado on June 12, 2006.  An order transferring the case
and similar others as a multidistrict litigation proceeding,
captioned "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566," was
entered on Oct. 17, 2006.

The court issued an order dated Dec. 4, 2006, denying the motion
to remand the case back to Colorado state court.  The defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

On Aug. 21, 2007, the court granted the dismissal motion by CMS
Energy on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction.  However, the
court granted the plaintiff's request for reconsideration and
allowed jurisdictional discovery to proceed.  CMS then re-filed
its dismissal motion and is awaiting the court's decision.

The remaining CMS Energy defendants filed a summary judgment
motion, which the court granted in March 2008 on the basis that
the named plaintiffs made no natural gas purchases from any
named defendant.

The plaintiffs requested reconsideration of the summary judgment
order and the court ordered further briefing. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008).

On Sept. 26, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on the ground that the claims are barred by implied
antitrust immunity arising from the Commodity Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
Oct. 17, 2008.

The suit is "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, et al. v.
Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Preston Baker, Esq. (jbaker@stklaw.com)
          Philip Wayne Bledsoe, Esq. (pbledsoe@stklaw.com)
          Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.
          1050 17th Street #2300
          Denver, CO 80265
          Phone: 303-572-9300
          Fax: 303-572-7883

Representing the defendants are:

          Michelle B. Goodman, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          555 West 5th Street, #4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Phone: 213-896-6014
          Fax: 213-896-6600

               - and -

          Mark H. Hamer, Esq. (mark.hamer@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, LLP
          401 B Street, #1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-699-4758
          Fax: 619-699-2701


CMS ENERGY: Remanded "Leggett" Complaint Proceeds in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded class-action complaint, "Samuel D. Leggett, et al.
v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al.," proceeds in the Chancery
Court of Fayette County, Tennessee, according to CMS Energy
Corp.'s Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The class-action complaint brought on behalf of retail and
business purchasers of natural gas in Tennessee, was filed in
the Chancery Court of Fayette County, Tennessee in January 2005.

The complaint contains claims for violations of the Tennessee
Trade Practices Act based upon allegations of false reporting of
price information by defendants to publications that compile and
publish indices of natural gas prices for various natural gas
hubs.

The complaint seeks statutory full consideration damages and
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief regulating defendants'
future conduct.

The defendants include CMS Energy, CMS Marketing, Services and
Trading Company, and CMS Field Services, Inc.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the state court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2007.  Oral
arguments were heard on Nov. 8, 2007.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the appellate court reversed the trial court
and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the
trial court had mis-applied the filed rate doctrine.

CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy
holding company  operating through subsidiaries in the U.S.,
primarily in Michigan.  Its two principal subsidiaries are
Consumers and Enterprises.  Consumers is a public utility that
provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of
Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68
counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.  Enterprises, through
various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged
primarily in domestic independent power production.  CMS Energy
manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides
and operates principally in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CMS ENERGY: Texas-Ohio Energy's Remanded Suit Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc.'s remanded putative class-action lawsuit
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, according to CMS Energy Corp.'s Nov. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Texas-Ohio Energy filed the putative class-action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in
November 2003, against a number of energy companies engaged in
the sale of natural gas in the United States, including CMS
Energy.

The complaint alleged defendants entered into a price-fixing
scheme by engaging in activities to manipulate the price of
natural gas in California.

It alleged violations of the federal Sherman Act, the California
Cartwright Act, and the California Business and Professions Code
relating to unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices.

The complaint sought both actual and exemplary damages for
alleged overcharges, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief
regulating defendants' future conduct relating to pricing and
price reporting.

In April 2004, a Nevada multi-district litigation (MDL) panel
ordered the transfer of the Texas-Ohio case to a pending MDL
matter in the Nevada federal district court that at the time
involved seven complaints originally filed in various state
courts in California that made similar allegations.

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis
of the "filed rate doctrine" and entered a judgment in favor of
the defendants on April 11, 2005.

Texas-Ohio appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

While that appeal was pending, CMS Energy agreed to settle the
Texas-Ohio case and three other cases originally filed in
California federal courts (Fairhaven, Abelman Art Glass and
Utility savings), for a total payment of $700,000.

On Sept. 10, 2007, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing the CMS Energy
defendants from these cases.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded the case to the federal district court.

While CMS Energy is no longer a party to the Texas-Ohio case,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling may affect the
positions of CMS Energy entities in other pending cases,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing dated Nov. 5, 2008.

CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy
holding company  operating through subsidiaries in the U.S.,
primarily in Michigan.  Its two principal subsidiaries are
Consumers and Enterprises.  Consumers is a public utility that
provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of
Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68
counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.  Enterprises, through
various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged
primarily in domestic independent power production.  CMS Energy
manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides
and operates principally in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


DENDREON CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint in "McGuire"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of an amended
complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
filed against the company before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Initially, four proposed securities class-action suits have been
filed before the same court.  Three of these suits name Dendreon
and its chief executive officer as defendants and allege a
proposed class period of March 30, 2007, through May 8, 2007.

One suit names Dendreon, four of its executive officers, and two
members of its board of directors as defendants, and indicated a
class period of March 1, 2007, through May 8, 2007.

All four proposed class action suits purport to state claims for
securities law violations stemming from the company's
disclosures related to Provenge and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's actions regarding the company's pending
Biologics License Application for Provenge.

The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
expenses.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the
caption "McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al.," and
designated a lead plaintiff.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs
opposed this dismissal request.

The Court held a hearing on the dismissal motion on March 27,
2008.  By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court favored the
defendants and dismissed the complaint, holding that the
plaintiffs failed to plead a claim against the company or the
individual defendants, and allowing them 30 days to file an
amended complaint.

The  lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008,
adding the company's senior vice president as defendant.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 2, 2008, and lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the
motion to dismiss on July 31, 2008.

The defendants' reply brief was filed Aug. 20, 2008.  Oral
argument is scheduled for Nov. 25, 2008, according to the
company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The suit is "McGuire et al. v. Dendreon Corporation et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00869-MJP," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Drew Derrick Hansen, Esq. (dhansen@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey
          1201 Third Ave.
          Ste. 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-516-3880

Representing the defendants is:

          Douglas W. Greene (dgreene@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          701 Fifth Ave.
          Ste. 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-883-2500
          Fax: 206-883-2699


GT SOLAR: Amended Complaint Filed in N.H. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed in a consolidated securities
fraud class-action suit pending against GT Solar International,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire, Bob Sanders of the New Hampshire Business Review
reports.

According to the filing, a copy of which was obtained by the New
Hampshire Business Review, GT Solar knew for months that it was
selling defective equipment that could explode and that it was
in danger of losing its biggest customer, but covered up the
information from investors in launching a half-billion dollar
initial public offering on July 24, 2008.

The day after the IPO was launched, LDK Solar Co., whose
business accounted for 63 percent of GT Solar's sales in the
previous fiscal year announced that it was entering into a
three-year contract with GT Solar's competitor, JYT Corp.  GT
Solar's stock took a nosedive following the news, losing 24
percent of its value.

The new 40-page amended complaint, quoting from six unnamed
former and current employees, said that management was warned
that GT Solar used old and shoddy parts, including "crap
equipment from India, that resulted in cracks in furnaces used
to make solar turning them into "ticking time bombs," reports
the New Hampshire Business Review.

Several employees (including one of the witnesses) who raised
such issues were fired, and a letter from a company attorney was
allegedly put on the company bulletin board above the phrase,
"loose lips sink ships." warning employees not to discuss
problems with the furnace.

The company also knew that these problems could cause it to
loose customers, including LDK, the amended complaint charges.

The news of an explosion in Taiwan involving GT equipment spread
like "fire in the wind" to GT Solar's customers according to one
unnamed witness, the amended complaint states.

According to another anonymous source a Power Point presentation
on the threat of JYT was circulated within GT Solar marketing
department prior to the IPO, the complaint alleges.

However, according the suit, the company prospectus touted its
relationship with LDK, and did not disclose production problems
or that it was in danger of losing LDK as a customer, the New
Hampshire Business Review reported.

                         Case Background

Andrew Wolfe of the Nashua Telegraph reported in December that
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has
consolidated into one class-action case several suits charging
GT Solar International, Inc. with securities fraud (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 18, 2008).

According to court records, a total of 12 plaintiffs, including
several individual investors and the Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement Fund, had sued GT Solar, claiming that company
officials failed to disclose the company was about to lose its
largest customer before the company went public earlier this
year.

The customer, a Chinese firm, has since resumed buying from GT
Solar, which makes parts and furnaces for solar panels, reports
the Nashua Telegraph.

In a hearing last week, Judge Joseph LaPlante of U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire ruled that the eight
different cases should be heard as one.  The court lumped them
all into a single case, entitled, "Braun et al v. GT Solar
International, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-312," and closed the rest.

That single case now has 12 different plaintiffs, represented by
16 lawyers from 12 different firms and remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, according
to the Nashua Telegraph.

The suit is "Braun et al v. GT Solar International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00312-JL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, Judge Joseph N.
Laplante, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Cole, Esq. (ccole@sheehan.com)
          Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
          1000 Elm St.
          P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03105-3701
          Phone: 603-668-0300

               - and -

          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq. (mblauner@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St, 13th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-439-3939

Representing the defendants are:

          W. Daniel Deane, Esq. (ddeane@nixonpeabody.com)
          Nixon Peabody LLP
          900 Elm St, 14th Flr
          Manchester, NH 03101-2031
          Phone: 603-628-4047

               - and -

          William H. Paine, Esq. (william.paine@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-526-6000


MOLSON COORS: April 2, 2009 Hearing Set for $6M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court of Justice will hold a fairness
hearing on April 2, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed
$6,000,000 settlement of purported class-action suits in both
the U.S. and Canada in relation Molson Coors Brewing Co.'s --
formerly Adolph Coors Co. -- 2005 merger with Molson, Inc.

The hearing will be held in the Quebec Superior Court of
Justice, 1, rue Notre-Dame Est, Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 1B6.

Beginning in May 2005, several purported shareholder class-
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and Canada, including
federal courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial courts in
Ontario and Quebec.  The suits allege, among other things, that
the company and its affiliated entities, including Molson Inc.,
and certain officers and directors misled stockholders in
connection with the merger (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28,
2008).

The Colorado case was transferred to Delaware and consolidated
with other cases.  The Quebec Superior Court heard arguments in
October 2007 regarding the plaintiffs' motion to authorize a
class in that consolidated case.  The company opposed the
motion.

During the first quarter of 2008, the company agreed in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel in all pending securities
cases in Delaware, Quebec, and Ontario to settle all such claims
on a worldwide basis.

Pursuant to the settlement, the company would pay, except one
case, a total of $6 million, which amount would be paid by the
company's insurance carrier.  The settlement agreement is
awaiting approval in the various courts in which the cases are
pending.

The suits to be settled are:

       -- "Boys and Girls Club of London Foundation, et al. v.
          Molson Coors Brewing Company, et al., Case No. 500-06-
          000314-050," which is pending with the Province of
          Quebec District of Montreal Superior Court.

       -- "In Re Molson Coors Brewing Company Securities
          Litigation Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-00294-GMS," filed
          in the U.S. District Court for the District of
          Delaware.

For more details, contact:

          The Claims Administrator
          In re Molson Coors Brewing Company Securities
               Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          600 North Jackson Street
          Suite 3, Media, PA, 19063
          Phone: 1 866-802-7949
          Web site: http://www.molsoncoorssettlement.com

          Monique L. Radlein
          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          London, ON N6A 3V8
          Phone: (800) 461-6166 x 2380
          Web site: http://www.classaction.ca

               - and -

          Nicole M. Zeiss, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (800) 321-0476
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com


MOLSON COORS: May 18, 2009 Hearing Set for $6M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will hold a
fairness hearing on May 18, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed
$6,000,000 settlement of purported class-action lawsuits in both
the U.S. and Canada in relation Molson Coors Brewing Co.'s --
formerly Adolph Coors Co. -- 2005 merger with Molson, Inc.

The hearing will be held in the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building,
844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, before the
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet.

Beginning in May 2005, several purported shareholder class-
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and Canada, including
federal courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial courts in
Ontario and Quebec.  The suits allege, among other things, that
the company and its affiliated entities, including Molson Inc.,
and certain officers and directors misled stockholders in
connection with the merger (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28,
2008).

The Colorado case was transferred to Delaware and consolidated
with other cases.  The Quebec Superior Court heard arguments in
October 2007 regarding the plaintiffs' motion to authorize a
class in that consolidated case.  The company opposed the
motion.

During the first quarter of 2008, the company agreed in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel in all pending securities
cases in Delaware, Quebec, and Ontario to settle all such claims
on a worldwide basis.

Pursuant to the settlement, the company would pay, except one
case, a total of $6 million, which amount would be paid by the
company's insurance carrier.  The settlement agreement is
awaiting approval in the various courts in which the cases are
pending.

The suits to be settled are:

       -- "Boys and Girls Club of London Foundation, et al. v.
          Molson Coors Brewing Company, et al., Case No. 500-06-
          000314-050," which is pending with the Province of
          Quebec District of Montreal Superior Court.

       -- "In Re Molson Coors Brewing Company Securities
          Litigation Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-00294-GMS," filed
          in the U.S. District Court for the District of
          Delaware.

For more details, contact:

          The Claims Administrator
          In re Molson Coors Brewing Company Securities
               Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          600 North Jackson Street
          Suite 3, Media, PA, 19063
          Phone: 1 866-802-7949
          Web site: http://www.molsoncoorssettlement.com

          Monique L. Radlein
          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          London, ON N6A 3V8
          Phone: (800) 461-6166 x 2380
          Web site: http://www.classaction.ca

               - and -

          Nicole M. Zeiss, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (800) 321-0476
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com


MRT Holdings: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged $50M Ponzi Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
MRT Holdings, LLC, continues to face a federal class-action suit
in Florida that accuses it of being a Ponzi scheme in which
investors were paid off with new investors' money, Jon Burstein
of The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

The suit was filed on Oct. 9, 2007 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida under the caption, "Katz et
al. v. MRT Holdings, LLC, MRT LLC, James Clements, Zeina Smidi
and Ann B. Bradshaw, Case No. 0:2007-cv-61438."

According to the federal class-action suit, more than 500 people
who lost as much as $50 million in MRT Holdings, a company that
billed itself as a foreign-currency trading firm.

Inger Garcia, Esq., the attorney representing MRT Holdings and
its manager, James Clements, denies the allegations.  In a brief
interview, She told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel that people
didn't invest in the company but loaned it money.  Ms. Garcia
added, "Mr. Clements is doing everything in his power to make
sure everyone who has loaned any money is made whole."

State records show MRT LLC was formed in August 2005 with
Clements listed as a manager.  The company's address is a
private mailbox at a packing and shipping store in a Plantation
strip mall at Peters Road and South University Drive, reports
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The suit alleges that around March 2006 the company started
advertising on the Internet and holding sales meetings.  Mr.
Clements told potential investors that MRT traded in foreign
currencies abroad, working through Swiss banks, the lawsuit
states.

"In fact, MRT's trading activities, if any occurred at all,
caused MRT to incur huge losses," wrote the plaintiffs'
attorney, Jeffrey Sonn, Esq.  "MRT was not profitable.  It was,
in fact, a classic Ponzi scheme that offered and sold
unregistered investment contracts."

The suit is "Katz et al. v. MRT Holdings, LLC, MRT LLC, James
Clements, Zeina Smidi and Ann B. Bradshaw, Case No. 0:2007-cv-
61438," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq. (jsonn@sonnerez.com)
          Sonn & Erez
          500 E. Broward Boulevard
          Suite 1600
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Phone: 954-763-4700
          Fax: 954-763-1866

Representing the defendants is:

          Inger Michelle Garcia, Esq. (inger13@aol.com)
          Inger M. Garcia-Armstrong Esq
          533 NE 3rd Avenue
          Ground Floor
          Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-894-9962
          Fax: 954-446-1635


OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed in the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Occam Networks,
Inc. which remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, according to the company's Nov.
10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class-action
complaints were filed before the district court against the
company and certain of its officers.  The complaints allege that
the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect revenue recognition.

The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf
of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the
period from May 2, 2006, and April 17, 2007.

On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated the
actions into a single case, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund --
The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  This consolidated complaint adds as defendants
certain of the company's current and former directors and
officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead
underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006,
and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the
company.

The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated
sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that
required restatement.

The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during the period from
April 29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified
amount.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On July 1, 2008, Judge Christina A.
Snyder issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motions.  This order dismissed all claims against
certain of the company's current and former directors, the 20A
claim in its entirety, the section 10(b) claim against the
auditors and venture capital firms, and the section 11 claims
against the venture capital firms.

On July 16, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
to conform to the court's July 1 order.  Defendants answered
this amended complaint on Aug. 29, 2008.  A scheduling
conference has been set by the Court for Nov. 17, 2008.

The suit is "Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-02750," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-785-0800

               - and -

          Matthew Isaac Alpert, Esq. (malpert@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants are:

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300

               - and -

          Philip T. Besirof, Esq. (pbesirof@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-6091


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Faces Wahe, Hour Litigation in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit
filed on Nov. 6, 2008 in Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County by Charlia Cornish, alleging class-wide wage and
hour issues at its California hospice programs, according to the
company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The suit alleges failure to provide overtime compensation, meal
and break periods, accurate itemized wage statements, and timely
payment of wages earned upon leaving employment.

The purported class includes all persons employed by the Company
in California as an admission nurse, a case manager registered
nurse, a licensed vocational nurse, a registered nurse, a home
health aide, a medical social worker, a triage coordinator, an
office manager, a patient care secretary or a spiritual
counselor at anytime on or after Nov. 6, 2004.

The lawsuit seeks payment of unpaid wages, damages, interest,
penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- is a
provider of hospice care in the U.S. in terms of both patient
census and number of Medicare-certified hospice programs.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, it provided care from
72 Medicare-certified hospice programs in 29 states.  On March
6, 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of VistaCare,
Inc.  After the completion of the VistaCare acquisition, it
serves approximately 12,000 patients and their families each day
through approximately 110 Medicare-certified hospice locations
in 30 states.


PERDUE FARMS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Extra Giblets in Chickens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perdue Farms, which is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
in New Jersey over allegations it hid extra giblets in whole
chickens, Gwenn Garland of Delmarva Now reports.

According to Perdue Farms spokeswoman Julie DeYoung, "The
majority of our complaints are about missing giblets."

However, the lawsuit, filed on Dec. 17, complains about too many
giblets, claiming the company disposes of its extra giblets from
chicken products by putting them into whole chickens.

The complaint alleges, "By improperly inserting these giblet
parts into Perdue chicken, Perdue disposes of its extra giblets
by essentially having Plaintiff and Class 'pay' the disposal
costs Perdue itself would incur if it wanted to properly dispose
of them. Further, by this improper method, Perdue incorporates
the additional giblet parts in the price per-pound of Perdue
whole chickens sold to retail customers," reports Delmarva Now.

Delmarva Now reported that crab-catching Marylanders and gravy
makers may value the hearts, livers, gizzards and necks included
with the chicken, but the lawsuit frames it otherwise: "Perdue
is able to sell a small portion of its extra giblets at retail.
Beyond that, there is a limited wholesale market for this
product.  When there is a purchaser, the extra giblets are sold
at pennies per pound.  However that market is not consistent,
and, on information and belief, Perdue often has to pay a fee to
dispose of the extra giblets.  Perdue's extra giblets therefore
often have negative value to Perdue."

The law firm Kalikman and Masnik estimates the amount at stake
in its class action complaint at more than $5 million, according
to Delmarva Now.


SK FOODS: Faces Calif. Price-Fixing Suit Over Processed-Tomatoes
----------------------------------------------------------------
SK Foods and its former broker are facing a two purported class-
action lawsuits in California after the broker pleaded guilty in
December to federal charges of racketeering, money laundering
and antitrust violations, Larry Parsons of the Monterey County
Herald reports.

The broker, Randall Lee Rahal, and his New Jersey firm,
Intramark USA, are the named as defendants in one of the suits.

Immediately after Mr. Rahal was charged, a Mountain View food
maker, Four in One Co., filed the first class-action lawsuit
against SK Foods and two other San Joaquin Valley produce
companies, reports the Monterey County Herald.

A second food company, Diversified Food and Seasonings Inc., of
Metairie, La., later filed a federal class-action suit against
SK Foods and Mr. Rahal in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, the Monterey County Herald
reported.

Federal authorities have alleged that Mr. Rahal and two or more
people employed or associated with SK Foods engaged in "a
pattern of racketeering activity" to ensure their sales of
tomato paste, chili peppers and other processed vegetables to
major U.S. food companies.

Documents filed in court earlier this year contained excerpts of
wiretapped conversations between Mr. Rahal, SK Foods chief
executive Scott Salyer and others in which they apparently
discussed efforts to bribe purchasing agents at major food
companies, according to the Monterey County Herald.

The Monterey County Herald reported that California grows 95
percent of the processing tomatoes sold in the U.S.

The new class-action lawsuit contends the tight nature of the
California industry makes its easier for "anticompetitive
collusion among tomato processors."

According to the suit, seven companies effectively control the
processed tomato market, with SK Foods having a 16 percent
share.

Processed tomatoes are turned into tomato paste, sauces, diced
tomatoes, crushed tomatoes, puree, stewed tomatoes and other
widely used products, the Monterey County Herald reported.

The suit contends that purchasers have little option but to buy
the products from the close-knit California industry.  It
alleges that beginning in 2006, the cost of tomato paste began
to rise far more sharply than the cost of raw processing
tomatoes.

According to the suit, "SK Foods and it co-conspirators are
members of several processing tomato industry groups that
sponsor conferences and other gatherings where tomato processors
had the opportunity to implement and manage the conspiracy."

The suit says one group, the California Tomato Export Group,
which was formed by SK Foods and two other tomato companies,
disbanded in May 2008 after FBI agents raided several tomato
processors.

The suit contends that price-fixing activity went on from
February 2006 to the spring of 2008.

Thus, it seeks triple damages for food companies affected by the
alleged price-fixing, reports the Monterey County Herald.


SPRINT NEXTEL: March 5 Hearing Set for $14M "Larson" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on March 5, 2009 for the proposed $14,000,000
settlement in the matter "Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corporation,
Civ. Action No. 2:07-cv-05325."

The hearing will be held in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101

In general, the class-action lawsuit is alleging that Sprint
Nextel's flat-rate early termination fee (ETF) violates state
and federal law.

Under the settlement, Sprint Nextel has agreed to pay $14
million into a common fund to be distributed pursuant to the
settlement benefit rules set forth in the settlement agreement.

The company has also agreed to provide qualified settlement
class members up to $3.5 million in Non-Cash Benefits.  It also
has agreed to not insert a flat-rate ETF provision into its
customer service agreements for personal wireless service in the
U.S. for 24 months.
Sprint Nextel customer agreements initiated after Nov. 3, 2008
have pro-rated ETFs, and the Settlement does not require Sprint
Nextel to modify those contracts.

The settlement will release all claims that customers may have
against Sprint Nextel relating in any way to its flat-rate ETFs
and term contracts, and will bar future claims, unless the
individual excludes him/her self from the settlement.

For more details, contact:

          Sprint ETF Settlement Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Company LLC
          P.O. Box 6002
          Larkspur, CA 94977- 6002
          Phone: 1-800-916-6940
          Web site: http://www.sprintetfsettlement.com

          Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
               Olstein
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: (973) 994-1744
          e-mail: Info@CarellaByrne.com
          Web site: http://www.carellabyrne.com/

               - and -

          Freed & Weiss LLC
          Phone: (312) 220-0000
          e-mail: Info@FreedWeiss.com
          Web site: http://www.freedweiss.com/


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Hip and Knee Replacements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., and two subsidiaries are facing a
purported class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, in connection with hip and
knee replacements.

The complaint was filed on April 24, 2008, before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled
"Thorpe v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2008cv03888," naming
the company and two of its subsidiaries as defendants.

The complaint relates to a putative class action suit on behalf
of certain residents of New York who had hip or knee implant
surgery involving Zimmer products during an unspecified period.

The complaint alleges that the company's relationships with
orthopaedic surgeons and others violated the New York deceptive
practices statute and unjustly enriched the company.

The plaintiff requests actual damages or $50.00, whichever is
greater, on behalf of each class member, a permanent injunction
from the company engaging in allegedly improper practices in the
future and restitution in an unspecified amount.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Thorpe et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:2008-cv-03888," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Colleen McMahon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andres F. Alonso, Esq. (aalonso@yourlawyer.com)
          Parker Waichman & Alonso, LLP
          111 Great Neck Road
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: 516-466-6500
          Fax: 516-466-6665

          Stuart George Gross, Esq. (sgross@shearman.com)
          Shearman & Sterling LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4527
          Fax: 646-848-4527

          Steven N. Williams, Esq. (swilliams@cpmlegal.com)
          Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Phone: 650-697-6997
          Fax: 650-697-0577

Representing the defendant is:

          Theodore Grossman, Esq. (tgrossman@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7268
          Fax: 216-579-0212


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit in Indiana, according to the company's Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Aug. 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, entitled, "Plumbers
and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings,
Inc., et al.," naming the company and two of its executive
officers as defendants.

The complaint relates to a putative class-action suit on behalf
of persons who purchased our common stock between Jan. 29, 2008
and July 22, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the company and two of its executive
officers engaged in violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning our business and financial results during
the relevant time period.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other relief.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com -- designs,
develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic
implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma
products and related orthopaedic surgical products.  The
Company's products include joint and dental reconstructive
orthopaedic implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and
related orthopaedic surgical products.  Its related orthopaedic
surgical products include surgical supplies and instruments
designed to aid in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post-
operation rehabilitation.  Orthopaedic surgeons and
neurosurgeons use spinal implants in the treatment of
degenerative diseases, deformities and trauma.  Trauma products
are used primarily to reattach or stabilize damaged bone and
tissue to support the body's natural healing process.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EMCORE CORP: Brualdi Law Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 2, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law
Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on
behalf of purchasers of Emcore Corporation ("Emcore" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:EMKR) securities during the period between
June 12, 2007 and March 17, 2008 (the "Class Period") for
violations of the federal securities laws.

     The Complaint alleges that the Defendants issued numerous
materially false and misleading statements regarding Emcore's
financial condition, business prospects, and revenue
expectations during the Class Period.

     Specifically, it alleges that Emcore's public statements
regarding its order backlog were false and misleading because
they overstated the value of the order backlog in Emcore's
terrestrial solar energy division.  Those misstatements and
omissions, the Complaint alleges, resulted in an artificially
inflated price for Emcore's common stock during the Class
Period.

     On March 18, 2008, the price of Emcore's common stock
dropped over 23% on news that Emcore's largest customer, Green
and Gold Energy ("GGE"), which accounted for $78 million of
Emcore's $86 million backlog in terrestrial solar technology,
would not be able to afford those transactions.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.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 S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. 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  * * *