CAR_Public/090107.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 4

                           Headlines

APPLE COMPUTER: iTunes Music & iPods Sales Tie-Up Suit Pending
APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Bader" Suit Remains Pending
APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Birdsong" Complaint Pending
APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Vogel" Suit Remains Pending
APPLE INC: April 20 Certification Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit

APPLE INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in "Gordon" Suit
APPLE INC: iPod Nano Screen Scratching Suits Pending in Ontario
APPLE INC: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Branning" Lawsuit
APPLE INC: "Vogel" Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Still Stayed
CIT GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York Court

DEERE & CO: Iowa Court Certifies Class in Retirees' Litigation
HORIZON LINES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Delaware
LEVITT CORP: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Florida
MEDSTAFF INC: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Petray" Lawsuit
NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE: Still Faces Suit Over Acquisition Offers

RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Multiple Antitrust Suits Over Natural Gas
SOURCEFIRE INC: Md. Court Mulls Motion in Securities Fraud Suit
TARGET CORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over "Immunity Supplement" Products
UNITED ONLINE: Settlement in California NetZero Lawsuit Approved
VCG HOLDING: Still Faces Suit in Minn. Over Employment Practices

WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Worker's Gender Bias Case
WILLIS GROUP: Settles 2001 Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals


                           *********

APPLE COMPUTER: iTunes Music & iPods Sales Tie-Up Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against Apple, Inc.,
formerly Apple Computer, Inc., accusing the company of illegally
tying iTunes music and iPods sales remains pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

                     Charoensak Litigation

The plaintiff filed the suit "Charoensak v. Apple Computer,
Inc." -- formerly "Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc." -- on Jan.
3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful
tying of music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the
purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or
maintenance of monopoly market power.

The plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California
Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq., California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law
monopolization.  It seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The company, on Feb. 10, 2005, filed a motion to dismiss the
suit, which motion was subsequently denied by the court in part
and granted in part.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005,
which the company answered.

On May 8, 2006, the court heard the plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new
plaintiffs for "Slattery."

In August 2006, the court dismissed "Slattery" without prejudice
and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming
two new plaintiffs.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

                          Tucker Case

The plaintiff filed the "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc." case as
a purported class-action suit on July 21, 2006, before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and
videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods
and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of
monopoly market power.

The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, California Business & Professions Code Section
16700 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The
plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which request was denied by the Court.

On Jan. 11, 2007, the company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.

                    Consolidation of Cases

On March 20, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases.  The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007.

On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1,
2008).

On July 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on Oct. 17, 2008, the Company filed its
opposition to plaintiffs' motion.  The class certification
hearing is set for Dec. 15, 2008.

The company did not disclose further updates regarding the class
certification hearing in its Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The suit is "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05-
cv-00037-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, P.C.
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq. (rak@katriellaw.com)
          The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-625-4342

               - and -

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. (jstoia@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

          Caroline N. Mitchell, Esq. (cnmitchell@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-875-5712
          Fax: 415-875-5700


APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Bader" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from a judgment by the Santa Clara County
Superior Court that completely dismissed a purported class-
action suit entitled, "Bader v. Anderson, et al.," filed against
Apple, Inc., remains pending.

On May 19, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed the purported
shareholder derivative action with the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, naming as defendants Apple, each of its then
current executive officers, and certain members of its board of
directors.

The suit is asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
material misstatements and omissions and violations of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition).

The lead plaintiff alleged that the company's March 14, 2005
proxy statement was false and misleading for failure to disclose
certain information relating to the Apple Computer, Inc.
Performance Bonus Plan, which was approved by shareholders at
the annual meeting held on April 21, 2005.

The lead plaintiff, who brought the suit also on the company's
behalf, made no demand on the Board of Directors, stating that
any demand is excused.  The lead plaintiff also sought
injunctive and other relief for purported injury to the company.

On July 27, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that, in addition to the purported derivative claims,
adoption of the bonus plan and distribution of the proxy
statement describing that plan also inflicted injury on her
directly as an individual shareholder.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the Court sustained the defendants' demurrer
to the amended complaint, with leave to amend.  The plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on Feb. 7, 2006, and the
company filed another demurrer.

After a hearing on June 13, 2006, the Court sustained the
demurrer without leave to amend as to the non-director officers
and with leave to amend as to the directors.

On July 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint,
which purported to bring claims derivatively as well as directly
on behalf of a class of common stockholders who have been or
will be harmed by virtue of the allegedly misleading proxy
statement.

In addition to reasserting prior causes of action, the third
amended complaint included a claim that the company violated the
terms of the plan, and a claim for waste related to restricted
stock unit grants to certain officers in 2003 and 2004 and an
option grant to the company's chief executive officer in January
2000.

The company filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint.  On
Jan. 30, 2007, the Court sustained the company's demurrer with
leave to amend.

On May 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint.
The company filed a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint,
which the court sustained, without leave to amend, on Oct. 12,
2007.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Court entered a final judgment in favor of
the defendant and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.

On Nov. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (Class
Action Reporter, July 31, 2008).

No further updates regarding the appeal were disclosed in the
company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Birdsong" Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of the third amended
complaint in a purported class-action suit entitled, "Birdsong
v. Apple Inc.," is pending.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted, with prejudice, a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint in a purported class action suit against Apple, Inc.,
which alleges that defects in the company's iPod products cause
hearing loss to users.

The action, entitled, "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc.,"
specifically alleges that the company's iPod music players, and
the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective
in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the
risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users.

The Birdsong Action was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  It
asserts causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana
class of iPod purchasers.

A similar action, "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed
on Jan. 31, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California asserting California causes of action on
behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the
four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006.

The Birdsong Action was transferred to the U.S. District Court
with the Northern District of California, and the Patterson
Action was dismissed.

An amended complaint was subsequently filed in "Birdsong,"
dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California
law-based claims equivalent to those in "Patterson."

After the company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006, the
plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second
amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2007.

That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches
of implied and express warranties, violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent
misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-
class.

On March 1, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
California law-based claims, which motion was heard on June 4,
2007.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the Court granted this request, with leave to
amend the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on Jan. 11, 2008,
which the company again sought to have dismissed.

On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice (Class Action
Reporter, July 31, 2008).

On July 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

A similar complaint, "Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and
Apple Canada, Inc.," was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on
Feb. 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action
on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec.  At the request of
plaintiffs' counsel, the Court has postponed class certification
proceedings in this action indefinitely, according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The suit is "Birdsong v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-02280-JW,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. (rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com)
          Neblett, Beard & Arsenault
          P.O. Box 1190, 2220 Bonaventure Court
          Alexandria, LA 71309
          Phone: 318-487-9874
          Fax: 318-561-2591

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq. (phil@bohrerlaw.com)
          Bohrer Law Firm
          8712 Jefferson Hwy., Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: 225-925-5297
          Fax: 225-231-7000

Representing the company is:

          James Alfred Lico, Esq. (Jlico@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-439-1400
          Fax: 415-439-1500


APPLE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Vogel" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case
No. 5:06-cv- 05208-JF," continue to appeal the dismissal of
their case, which named Apple Computer, Inc., as a defendant.

The purported class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 24, 2006.
It was brought against the company and certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors, alleging improper
backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain
defendants' profits, failing to properly account for those
grants and issuing false financial statements.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff.

On March 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
several classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts
claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act, as well as state law.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to
various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an
accounting and damages in an unspecified amount.

The defendants, on June 8, 2007, filed a motion to dismiss the
suit.  Subsequently, on Nov. 14, 2007, the Court issued an order
dismissing all securities claims with prejudice, and held that
any amended complaint could only be styled as a derivative case.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a first amended consolidated class action complaint.

On Jan. 23, 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion.  The plaintiffs' motion was heard on March
21, 2008.

On May 14, 2008, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.  The court entered
judgment dismissing the case on June 12, 2008.

On June 17, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008).

No further updates regarding the appeal were reported by the
company in its Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
27, 2008.

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
05208-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Mary Sikra Thomas, Esq. (mthomas@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq. (dfurbush@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-473-2600
          Fax: 650-473-2601


APPLE INC: April 20 Certification Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 20, 2009 hearing has been set for a purported class
action lawsuit entitled, "Stacie Somers et al. v. Apple Inc.,
Case No. CV 07 6507," which was filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against Apple,
Inc.

The suit, filed on Dec. 31, 2007, accuses the company of making
digitally recorded music sold through its online stores
inoperable with operating systems other than iPods, and of
making iPods unable to play music downloaded through
competitors' Web sites (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2008).

Named plaintiff Stacie Somers brought the action pursuant to
Rules 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf of all persons or entities in the U.S., that, during
the class period, purchased an Apple iPod, or who purchased
audio or video content from Apple's Music Store, from Dec. 31,
2203 through the conclusion of the trial of this matter.

Ms. Somers wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) the definition of the relevant markets;

     (b) Apple's market power within these markets;

     (c) Apple monopolized and continues to monopolize the
         relevant markets;

     (d) Apple attempted to monopolize and continues to attempt
         to monopolize the relevant markets;

     (e) the contractual conditions Apple imposes upon its
         customers are unconscionable;

     (f) whether Apple's conduct caused damage to the plaintiff
         which prices paid by the classes are higher than the
         and members of the classes, including the degree to
         prices that would be paid in a market free from tying,
         monopolization, and other illegal conduct; and

     (g) the appropriateness of injunctive relief to restrain
         ongoing and future violations of the law.

The plaintiff asks that the court declare, adjudge and decree
that:

     -- the action may be maintained as a class action
        pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        with respect to the claims for damages and other
        monetary relief, and declaring plaintiff as
        representatives of the class and her counsel as counsel
        for the classes;

     -- the conduct alleged constitutes unlawful tying,
        monopolization, and attempted monopolization in
        violation of Cartwright Act, California common law, and
        sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act;

     -- the conduct alleged is in violation of the
        California Unfair Competition Law and appropriate
        injunctive relief be granted pursuant to this law;

     -- the plaintiff and the classes are entitled to damages,
        penalties and other monetary relief provided by
        applicable law, including treble damages;

     -- the plaintiff and the classes recover their costs of
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and pre- and
        post-judgment interest;

     -- the company is permanently restrained and enjoined
        from continuing the alleged unfair and anti-competitive
        activities;

     -- all funds acquired from Apple's unfair business
        practices, including disgorgement of revenues and
        profits require full restitution;

     -- the plaintiff and the class are awarded expenses and
        costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to
        the extent provided by law; and

     -- the plaintiff and the classes are granted such other,
        further, and different relief as the nature of the case
        may require or as may be determined to be just,
        equitable, and proper by the court.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008).

The Court has scheduled the class certification hearing for
April 20, 2009, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The suit is "Stacie Somers et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. CV 07
6507," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alreen Haegguist, Esq.
          Haegguist Law Group
          501 West Broadway, Suite A-276
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-955-8218
          Fax: 619-342-7878

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. (helenz@zeldeslaw.com)
          Law Office of Helen Zeldes
          249 S. Highway 101, #370
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Phone: 858-523-1713
          Fax: 858-523-1783

               - and -

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq. (sskalet@findjustice.com)
          Craig L. Briskin, Esq. (cbrinskin@findjustice.com)
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-822-5100
          Fax: 202-822-4997


APPLE INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in "Gordon" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit, "Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.," await
final court approval for the settlement, according to Apple
Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The company has agreed, without admitting fault, to settle the
class-action lawsuit alleging that power adapters sold with
certain Power PC-based iBook and PowerBook notebooks were
defective in that they could dangerously fray, sparks and
prematurely fail to work, Katie Marsal writes for the Apple
Insider.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, claimed that the Adapter sold with the
Subject Computers is defective in that it "dangerously frays,
sparks and prematurely fails to work," and that Apple engaged in
misrepresentations regarding the Adapter.

The suit is filed on behalf of all United States residents who
purchased in the United States, for their own use and not for
resale, an Apple PowerBook or iBook computer.

According to Apple Inside, the settlement reached by the company
offers to provide a cash payment to customers who purchased
certain model Apple PowerBook or iBook computers, had their
power adapter fail within the first three years following the
initial retail purchase, and then purchased a replacement
adapter.

The settlement covers the purchase of a Replacement Adapter due
to failure of the Adapter sold with the Subject Computer within
the first three years following the initial retail purchase of
the Subject Computer, and before May 31, 2009.  The amount of
the cash payment will vary depending on when the Adapter
included with or sold for the Subject Computer failed.

Customers that meet the criteria of a class member and who wish
to file a claim must print, complete, sign and mail the Claim
Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked by Feb. 11, 2009,
for Replacement Adapters purchased on or before Oct. 14, 2008.

For filing a claim for a Replacement Adapter purchased after
October 14, class members must print, complete, sign and mail
the Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked within 120
days of the adapter failure OR by May 31, 2009, whichever date
is earlier.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on Dec. 1, 2008.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 9:00 a.m. on Dec. 15,
2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6, 2008).

The suit is "Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-
05358-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Class counsel is:

          Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street - 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016

Defense counsel is:

          Penelope A. Preovolos, Esq.
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482


APPLE INC: iPod Nano Screen Scratching Suits Pending in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., and its subsidiaries continue to face several
purported class-action lawsuits in Ontario, Canada over its iPod
Nano products.

In general, the suits allege that the company's iPod Nano was
defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during
normal use, rendering the screen unreadable.

Two similar complaints, "Carpentier v. Apple Canada, Inc.," and
"Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.,"
were filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on Oct. 27, 2005, and
Nov. 9, 2005, respectively, seeking authorization to institute
class actions on behalf of iPod Nano purchasers in Quebec.

The Royer-Brennan case was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the
Carpentier case.

Two similar complaints, "Mund v. Apple Canada Inc.," and "Apple
Computer, Inc.," were filed in Ontario, Canada, on Jan. 9, 2006,
seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of
iPod Nano purchasers in Canada.

Apple Canada and Apple Computer, Inc., have served Notices of
Intent to Defend (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008).

The parties have reached a settlement of the Quebec cases, and
have received final court approval of the settlement, according
to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended  Sept.
27, 2008.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Branning" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer,   Inc., continues to face
a purported class action suit, which alleges that the company
violated California's trade laws.

The plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action suit
styled, "Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," before the
San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005.

The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business
Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly
unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to,
allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor
warranties.

The plaintiffs also brought causes of action for
misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and
violation of the Song Beverly Act.  They requested unspecified
damages and other relief.

On May 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action
including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act
(California Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a
claim for false advertising.

On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the
court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005.  The court
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended
complaint on Dec. 29, 2005.

The plaintiffs' amended complaint adds three additional
plaintiffs and alleges many of the same factual claims as the
previous complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as
new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts
for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the
opening of the Apple Retail stores.

The plaintiffs continue to assert causes of action for unfair
competition (17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright
Act and allege new causes of action for fraud, conversion and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan.
31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006, on 16 of
17 causes of action.

The plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept. 21,
2006.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  On
Nov. 30, 2007, it filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
which the court denied.

The plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on March 19,
2008, and a Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 1.  The
company filed an answer to the Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint
on April 18, 2008.

The Court has scheduled a class certification hearing on the
purported consumer class for Oct. 17, 2008.

The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for an
order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim based upon the statute
of limitations, which was granted by the Court on June 24, 2008,
with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2008,
and a Seventh Amended Complaint on Aug. 22, 2008, adding three
new reseller plaintiffs.

On Sept. 22, 2008, the Company filed its answer to the consumer-
elated claims denying all allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses, and also filed a demurrer to the new
reseller claims.  The Company has filed motions for summary
adjudication of two named plaintiffs' claims, which were heard
on Oct. 14, 2008.

The Court requested further briefing on the motions for summary
adjudication.

On Aug. 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
consumer class and on Oct. 10, 2008, the Company filed its
opposition to plaintiffs' motion.  The class certification
hearing is set for Dec. 19, 2008, according to the company's
Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: "Vogel" Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
Apple, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California remains stayed, according to the company's Nov. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The purported class-action suit was filed on June 27, 2008,
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The allegations, which arise out of the company's past stock
option practices, are similar to those in the suit filed in 2006
entitled, "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv- 05208-
JF," which was dismissed on June 12, 2008.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several
classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock
option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and
damages in an unspecified amount (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1,
2008).

On July 22, 2008, the Court stayed this case pending the appeal
in the action styled, "Vogel v. Jobs et al."

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case No.
5:2008-cv-03123," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman PC
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: 845-356-2570
          Fax: 845-356-4335


CIT GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York Court
------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group, Inc., is facing a several purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 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 July 25, 2008 and Aug. 22, 2008, putative class-action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against CIT, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer.

The lawsuits allege violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder during the
period from April 18, 2007 to March 5, 2008.

On Aug. 15, 2008, a putative class-action suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the
holder of CIT PrZ equity units against CIT, its Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and members of its Board of
Directors.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 with respect to the Company's
registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC on
October 17, 2007 through March 5, 2008.

Each of the above lawsuits is premised upon allegations that the
Company made false and misleading statements and or omissions
about its financial condition by failing to account in its
financial statements or, in the case of the preferred
stockholder, its registration statement and prospectus, for
private student loans related to a pilot training school, which,
plaintiffs allege were highly unlikely to be repaid and should
have been written off.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and
interest.

CIT Group, Inc. -- http://www.cit.com-- is a global commercial
finance company that provides financial products and advisory
services to more than one million customers in over 50 countries
across 30 industries.  The products and services provided by CIT
include corporate finance, trade finance, transportation
finance, vendor finance, CIT bank and CIT insurance services.


DEERE & CO: Iowa Court Certifies Class in Retirees' Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
granted class-action status to the lawsuit, "Brubaker et al v.
Deere & Company, Plan Administrator and Named Fiduciary of the
John Deere Health Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees et al.,
Case No. 3:2008-cv-00113," which had been brought against Deere
& Co. by a group of company retirees, Jennifer DeWitt of Quad-
City Times reports.

In granting class-action status, Judge Charles Wolle ruled that
the suit by the Flex Retirees Organization, or FRO, can proceed
as a class-action case on two counts of the four-count
complaint, according to the Quad-City Times report.

                        Case Background

Previously, the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier reported that in
September 2008, the Flex Retirees Organization filed a purported
class- action lawsuit alleging that changes Deere made to their
health, dental and vision insurance benefits violated promises
the company made to 5,000 retired employees.  Those changes went
into effect Jan. 1, 2008.  The group asked the court to order
Deere to restore the benefits pending the outcome of the case
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2008).

The named plaintiffs in the suit are retirees Dora Brubaker, of
Johnston, Iowa; Thomas Blosch, of Dubuque, Iowa; and Michael
Stohlmeyer, of East Moline, who also is a FRO leader.

Although the suit names three individual retirees as the
plaintiffs, the purported class-action suit represents "all
those similarly situated," Daniel Bonnett, Esq., FRO's attorney,
told Quad-City Times.

The class includes former salaried and non-union wage Deere
employees who retired on or after July 1, 1993, and were
eligible to receive medical and health benefits.  Also included
are the retirees' eligible spouses and dependents.

According to Des Moines Register, documents estimate that
roughly 5,000 people who retired on or after July 1, 1993, have
received lesser health care as a result of the 2008 changes.

Quad-City Times notes that the suit asserts "Deere implemented
radically inferior healthcare benefits and coverage in
comparison to the benefits and coverage provided to plaintiffs
while working."  Among the changes the suit alleges are:

   -- significantly higher deductibles for both in- and out-of-
      network benefits as well as a significant increase in the
      maximum out-of-pocket expenses (co-payments); and

   -- elimination of any maximum on the amount of out-of-pocket
      expenses.

"As a result, many providers including hospitals such as the
Mayo Clinic are now prohibitively expensive and completely out
of reach for Class members," the suit adds.  It also says
prescription drug benefits were dramatically reduced.

Deere first announced the new health plan in September 2007,
indicating that it would allow retirees to be more involved in
their health care decisions, Quad-City Times recounts.  Deere
also said the new plan was designed to leverage changes made in
the federal laws.

The suit is "Brubaker et al v. Deere & Company, Plan
Administrator and Named Fiduciary of the John Deere Health
Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees et al., Case No. 3:2008-cv-
00113," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa, Judge Charles R. Wolle, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Earl A. Payson, Esq. (eappc@aol.com)
          1313 Harrison Street
          Davenport, IA 52803
          Phone: 563-323-8054
          Fax: 563-323-9112

Representing the defendants is:

          Frank B. Harty, Esq. (fharty@nyemaster.com)
          Hyemaster Goode West Hansell & O'brien PC
          700 Walnut Street
          Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Phone: 515-283-3170
          Fax: 515-283-8045


HORIZON LINES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines Inc. is facing a purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, the Charlotte Business Journal reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of investors who bought the
company's common stock from March 2, 2007, through April 25,
2008.  It alleges Horizon Lines made "material misstatements and
omissions in connection with alleged price-fixing" in its
shipping business in Puerto Rico and violated antitrust laws,
according to the Charlotte Business Journal.

As reported in the Jan 5, 2009 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP has filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Horizon Lines, Inc. ("Horizon" or the
"Company") (NYSE:HRZ), between March 2, 2007 and April 25, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Horizon and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.

Horizon is a container shipping and logistics company.  Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants misled investors
as to Horizon's profitability and artificially inflated its
stock price, by entering into improper price-fixing agreements
with competitors, in violation of federal antitrust laws.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including:

       -- that Horizon and its co-conspirators had engaged in a
          combination and conspiracy in the United States and
          elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by,
          among other things, fixing the prices of rates,
          surcharges and other fees charged to customers for
          Puerto Rico freight services;

       -- that the combination and conspiracy engaged in by
          Horizon and its co-conspirators had been an
          unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade
          and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
          Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

       -- that Horizon's publicly reported revenue and earnings
          had been improperly inflated due to improper price-
          fixing activities during the Class Period;

       -- that, as a result of defendants' participation in
          price-fixing activities, Horizon's earnings reports
          and revenue guidance issued during the Class Period
          were false and misleading;

       -- that the Company knew that its anti-competitive
          behavior, if discovered, could possibly subject the
          Company to future regulatory scrutiny;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
          and

       -- that the Company knew its financial results would be
          materially impacted if the Company were forced to stop
          its anti-competitive behavior.

On April 17, 2008, Horizon shocked investors when the Company
revealed it was the subject of an antitrust investigation being
conducted by the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ")
Antitrust Division.  On this news, the Company's shares declined
$3.53 per share, or 19.36 percent, to close on April 17, 2008,
at $14.70 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On April 25, 2008, Horizon further shocked investors when the
Company reported Horizon's financial results for the 2008 fiscal
first quarter ended March 23, 2008, and revised downward the
Company's earnings guidance for the 2008 fiscal year.  This news
caused the Company's shares to decline $3.83 per share, or 23.10
percent, to close on April 25, 2008, at $11.25 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Subsequently, on October 1, 2008, the DOJ issued a press release
announcing that four shipping executives -- including three
Horizon employees -- had agreed to plead guilty for their roles
in a conspiracy, which continued as late as April 2008, to
eliminate competition and raise prices for the movement of goods
in the U.S. to Puerto Rico shipping lane, by agreeing not to
compete for one another's customers, agreeing to rig bids
submitted to government and commercial buyers, and agreeing to
fix the prices of rates, surcharges and other fees charged to
customers.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


LEVITT CORP: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levitt Corp. -- now known as Woodbridge Holdings Corp. -- is
still facing a securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under the caption "Dance v. Levitt Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-
60111-DLG."

Robert D. Dance filed the purported class-action complaint
against Levitt Corp. and certain of its officers and directors
on Jan. 25, 2008, as a putative purchaser of the company's
securities, asserting claims under the federal securities law
and seeking damages.

The securities lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's securities beginning on Jan. 31,
2007, and ending on Aug. 14, 2007.  It alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing a series
of false and misleading statements concerning the company's
financial results, prospects and condition.

Woodbridge Holdings Corp. reported no development regarding the
matter in its 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 "Dance v. Levitt Corp., et al., No. 08-CV-60111-
DLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, Judge Donald L. Graham, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jay W. Eng, Esq. (jeng@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          222 Lakeview Avenue
          Suite 900
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-835-9400
          Fax: 561-835-0322

               - and -

          Paul Jeffrey Geller, Esq. (pgeller@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 E Palmetto Park Road
          Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

          Richard Bryan Jackson, Esq. (rjackson@swmwas.com)
          Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson
          150 W Flagler Street
          Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-789-3200
          Fax: 305-789-3395


MEDSTAFF INC: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Petray" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MedStaff, Inc., a subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.
filed a Motion to Decertify the class in a purported class-
action suit against  the company that was filed in the Superior
Court of California in Riverside County.

The suit, entitled "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda v.
MedStaff, Inc.," was filed on Feb. 18, 2005, and relates to
MedStaff corporate employees.  It alleges violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code, and seeks recovery of unpaid wages and
penalties.

The plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, purport to
sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
They specifically allege that MedStaff:

      -- failed, under California law, to provide meal period
         and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods
         and rest breaks;

      -- failed to compensate the employees for all hours
         worked;

      -- failed to compensate the employees for working
         overtime; and

      -- failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of
         time worked

The plaintiffs ask the Court for:

      -- an order enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the
         practices challenged in the complaint;

      -- an order for full restitution of all monies
         MedStaff allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs and their
         purported class;

      -- payment of interest;

      -- certain penalties provided for by the California
         Labor Code; and

      -- an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Court ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification by Sept. 5, 2006.  Yet, on July 21, 2006, the
company filed a motion seeking a stay of all proceedings until
the conditionally certified collective action in "Henry v.
MedStaff, Inc., et al.," has been either decertified or granted
final certification.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the court granted in part the company's stay
motion.

A joint stipulation was subsequently filed prohibiting the
plaintiffs from moving for class certification prior to Oct. 25,
2006, in order to allow for the completion of pre-certification
discovery and to allow for the completion of the opt-in period
in "Henry v. MedStaff, Inc., et al."

On Oct. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a certification motion.
On Feb. 5, 2007, the court granted class certification.  On Oct.
16, 2008, MedStaff, Inc. filed a Motion to Decertify the class,
according to Cross Country's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Boca Raton, Florida-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. --
http://www.crosscountry.com/ccinc/-- is a provider of
healthcare staffing services in the U.S.  Its healthcare
staffing business segment is comprised of travel and per diem
nurse staffing, allied health staffing, as well as clinical
research trials staffing.  Cross Country's brands include Cross
Country TravCorps and MedStaff.


NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE: Still Faces Suit Over Acquisition Offers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. and its Board of Directors continue
to face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that Northstar
management breached its fiduciary duties by not properly
considering two offers to buy the medical device company, The
Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.

On July 17, 2008, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company's Board of Directors in the King County,
Washington Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2008).

The lawsuit was filed by an alleged shareholder of the company,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.  It
alleges, among other things, that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with two alleged
acquisition offers for the company.

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs, but does not seek direct monetary
damages from the company.

Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. -- http://www.northstarneuro.com/
-- is a development stage medical device company.  The company
is focused on developing and commercializing neuromodulation
therapies to restore function of life for people suffering from
neurological diseases and disorders.  Its Renova Cortical
Stimulation System is designed to deliver targeted electrical
stimulation to the cortex, the outermost layer of the brain, in
a process called cortical stimulation.


RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Multiple Antitrust Suits Over Natural Gas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc., is a party to approximately 30 lawsuits,
several of which are class-action suits, filed in state and
federal courts in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

These lawsuits relate to the company's alleged conduct to
increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and
similar laws.  The suits also name a number of unaffiliated
energy companies as parties.

The suits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and
expenses.

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

Reliant Energy, Inc. -- http://www.reliant.com/-- provides
electricity and energy services to retail and wholesale
customers through two business segments.  Retail energy provides
electricity and energy services to more than 1.8 million retail
electricity customers in Texas, including residential and small
business customers and commercial, industrial and governmental
or institutional customers.  It also serves commercial,
industrial and governmental or institutional customers in the
PJM Market, which primarily covers Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and West Virginia.  Wholesale energy provides
electricity and energy services in energy markets in the U.S.
through its ownership and operation of or contracting for power
generation capacity.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company had
approximately 16,000 megawatts of power generation capacity.  On
Aug. 20, 2007, the company's Channelview, Texax, power-plant
project, filed for bankruptcy.


SOURCEFIRE INC: Md. Court Mulls Motion in Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland is
considering a motion to grant class-action status to a
consolidated securities fraud suit pending against Sourcefire,
Inc.

A putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
company and certain of its officers and directors.  The suit is
captioned, "Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01210-WMN."

Since then, two other putative class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland against the company
and certain of its officers and directors and other parties
making similar allegations.  These two additional suits are:

       1. "Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc.. et al., Case No.
          1:07-cv-01351-JFM," and

       2. "Joan Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.
          1:07-cv-01425-WMN."

In addition, a fourth putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its officers and directors
and other parties making similar allegations.  The fourth suit
is captioned, "Barry Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH."

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and in an order entered
on June 29, 2007, by the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of New York, the Pincus case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the company's initial public offering.

The lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 and
Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in
connection with allegedly material misleading statements and
omissions contained in the registration statement and
prospectus.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of
class action status, compensatory and rescission damages, a
rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and
costs on behalf of a putative class.

On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidate
the four cases, to appoint her as lead plaintiff, and to approve
her choice of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, and
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel.  The court granted
Ms. Amrhein's request.

On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been
asserted in one or more of the four original actions.

On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint, which motion was granted in part and
denied in part.

In May 2008, the defendants filed an answer denying all
liability, and later, the court entered a scheduling order.

On or about June 18, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, for the appointment of class representative
and for the appointment of class counsel and liaison counsel for
the class.  The defendants' opposition to that motion is due on
or before Nov. 19, 2008, and any replies are due on or before
Jan. 9, 2009.

On July 16, 2008, the court granted the parties' motion to amend
the prior scheduling order to provide the parties with an
opportunity to conduct a mediation.  The initial meeting with
the mediator took place on Oct. 17, 2008.

The Court has not made a determination of whether a class can be
certified, 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 "Howard Katz, et al. v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-01210-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714
          e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD, 21202
          Phone: 410-752-9700
          Fax: 410-757-5460
          e-mail: webmaster@tydingslaw.com


TARGET CORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over "Immunity Supplement" Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in St. Clair
County Circuit Court alleging that it engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices designed to mislead the public when
marketing its "Immunity Supplement" products, Kelly Holleran of
the St. Clair Record reports.

The suit was filed on Dec. 31, 2008 by Brian Buehlhorn.  It
alleges the retailer misled the public into believing Immunity
Supplement products protects users from airborne viruses, is a
form of immune system defense and decreases a person's
likelihood of getting sick.

Attorneys Paul M. Weiss, Esq., and George K. Lang, Esq., of
Freed and Weiss of Chicago, Richard J. Burke, Esq. of Richard J.
Burke in St. Louis and Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq., and Brian T.
Kreisler, Esq. of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson in
Belleville represent Mr. Buehlhorn and the putative class,
report the St. Clair Record.

According to the complaint, "Target's acts and omission
constitute, inter alia: (1) violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act, and (2) unjust enrichment."

Mr. Buehlhorn claims Target's "unfair and deceptive" scheme has
caused him and the class to incur substantial damages.  He also
alleges Target has benefited at the expense of its consumers,
according to the St. Clair Record.

The complaint states, "the profits and/or benefits obtained by
Target through sales of immunity supplement are to the determent
of Plaintiff and the class, and violate the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience."

The St. Clair Record reported that Mr. Buehlhorn is asking that
the case be certified as a class-action and that the court award
him and the class damages, attorneys' fees, costs of the suit
and other relief the court deems just.

For more details, contact:

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq. (paul@freedweiss.com)
          George K. Lang, Esq. (george@freedweiss.com)
          Freed and Weiss LLC
          111 W. Washington Street
          Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312 220 0000 and 312 855 2628
          Fax: 312 220 7777

               - and -

          Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson, P.C.
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, Illinois 62226
          Phone: (618) 235-0020 or (618) 271-1600
          Fax: (618) 235-8558
          Web site: http://bphtlaw.com/


UNITED ONLINE: Settlement in California NetZero Lawsuit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement in the consolidated consumer fraud class-
action lawsuit filed against NetZero, a brand name of United
Online, Inc. has been given final approval.

On March 6, 2006, Anthony Piercy filed a purported consumer
class action lawsuit before the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero, claiming
that NetZero continues to charge consumers fees after they
cancel their Internet access account.

On July 27, 2006, Donald E. Ewart filed another purported
consumer class action suit in the Superior Court of the State
ofCalifornia, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero containing
substantially similar allegations as the "Piercy" case.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought injunctive and declaratory
relief and damages.  NetZero filed a response to both lawsuits
denying the material allegations of the complaints.

Both Mr. Piercy and Mr. Ewart subsequently withdrew from the
actions as class representatives.  Then, on March 16, 2007,
Barbara Rasnake, Robert Du Verger, and Peter Chrisler were
substituted as purported class representatives.

On May 25, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases under the
caption, "Rasnake v. NetZero, Inc., Case No. BC348461."

On July 13, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class-action complaint at which time Peter Chrisler was also
substituted as a purported class representative.

A settlement agreement has been entered into by all parties in
this case and was granted final approval by the court on Nov. 6,
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.

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a
provider of consumer Internet and media services through a
number of brands, including NetZero, Juno, Classmates and
MyPoints.


VCG HOLDING: Still Faces Suit in Minn. Over Employment Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp. and its Class Affairs unit are still facing a
purported class-action suit in Minnesota over certain employment
practices, 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.

An ex-employee filed the lawsuit in December 2007, following his
termination from employment with Classic Affairs, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the company.

The plaintiff alleges that in connection with his employment, he
was subject to certain employment practices which violated
Minnesota law.  The initial action and subsequent pleading
assert that this matter is filed as a purported class-action
lawsuit.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff moved
to amend his complaint to name additional plaintiffs and later,
to name Classic Affairs as a party defendant.

The company and classic Affairs have answered this complaint
denying all liability to the plaintiffs.  The parties have
engaged in written discovery, but no depositions have yet been
taken in this case.

The parties have attempted, via mediation, to resolve this case.
That mediation was unsuccessful.

The defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for mid
January 2009.  If that motion is unsuccessful, trial is now
scheduled for May 2009.  While this case has been pending since
December 2007, no motion for class certification has been filed
or granted by the Court.

VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is engaged in
owning and operating nightclubs that provide live adult
entertainment, food and beverage services.  The majority of the
clubs operate under the branded names PT's, Diamond Cabaret and
The Penthouse Club under non-exclusive licensing agreements.  As
of Dec. 31, 2007, the company operated 18 adult entertainment
nightclubs and one upscale dance club (collectively referred to
as the Clubs).  Three of the Clubs offer full service
restaurants with fine dining.  16 Clubs serve alcoholic
beverages.  It owns International Entertainment Consultants,
Inc., which provides management services to its nightclubs and,
on a fee basis, to non-owned affiliated nightclubs.  VCG Holding
classifies its operations into two segments: the operations of
the Clubs and the management of non-owned adult nightclubs.

  
WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Worker's Gender Bias Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action suit against
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., filed by a former female employee,
alleging gender discrimination.

The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female employees alleging that the company
discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of
trial.

The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the
Court did not grant the Company permission to immediately file
an appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss.

The suit was recently amended to include two additional
plaintiffs.  The parties are in the discovery phase of the
litigation, 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.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Settles 2001 Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. Settled a purported class-action
suit alleging gender discrimination that was filed in New York
back in 2001, 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.

In 2008, the company settled an action in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York commenced against the
company in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female officer and officer equivalent
employees alleging that the Company discriminated against them
on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief,
money damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The eventual class period in the settled suit was 1998 to the
end of 2001.

Although the Court had denied plaintiffs' motions to certify a
nationwide class or to grant nationwide discovery, it did
certify a class of approximately 200 female officers and officer
equivalent employees based in the company's offices in New York,
New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

The parties' settlement agreement provides for certain
injunctive relief that the company agreed to provide as well as
a monetary settlement, including the amount of attorney fees
plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to receive, which was not
material to the Company.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
January 21-22, 2009
  14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, New York, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

May 18-19, 2009
  5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, Washington, District of Columbia
        Phone: 888-224-2480

July 9-10, 2009
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 9-10, 2009
  INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Langham Hotel
        Boston, Massachusetts
          Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS


                            *********

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  * * *