CAR_Public/090112.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 7

                           Headlines


ARKANSAS BEST: Seeks Dismissal of Shipment Fuel Surcharges Suit
BEAR STEARNS: N.Y. Court Consolidates Suits Over 2008 Collapse
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Leathermon" Suit in Ind.
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery Ongoing in FSLA Violations Suit
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement of "Means" Suit Pending Approval

DEAN FOODS: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still in Discovery Stage
GEO GROUP: Probes Inmate Claim on Strip-Search Policy Violations
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Maryland
KAI USA: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over "Illegal" SpeedSafe Knives
MAZER CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Alleging WARNT Act Violations

N.C. Baptist: Settles Employees' Suit Over Group Health Plan
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in Md.
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Utah Court Considers Approving Lawsuit Deal
NUVELO INC: Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit Still Pending
STATE STREET: Suits Over Active Fixed-Income Strategies Pending

VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Junked Fraud Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Motion in "Herbert" Pending
VERISIGN INC: Still Disputes Stock Option Grants Suit in Calif.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JA SOLAR: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
SATYAM COMPUTER: Glancy Binkow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SATYAM COMPUTER: Sarraf Gentile Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

ARKANSAS BEST: Seeks Dismissal of Shipment Fuel Surcharges Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a consolidated class action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
accusing Arkansas Best Corp. and other less-than-truckload
carriers of conspiring throughout four years or more to fix fuel
surcharges on LTL shipments remains pending.

On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. (doing
business as Water Tech) and C.B.J.T. (doing business as
Agricultural Supply), on behalf of themselves and other
plaintiffs, filed the putative class-action lawsuit against
Arkansas Best and other companies engaged in the LTL trucking
business in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2008).

The other named defendants in the complaint are:

       -- Arkansas Best Corp.,
       -- Averitt Express,
       -- Con-Way, Inc.,
       -- Fedex Corp.,
       -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.,
       -- Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC,
       -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.,
       -- R+L Carriers, Inc.,
       -- Saia, Inc.,
       -- United Parcel Service, Inc.,
       -- YRC Worldwide Inc., and
       -- Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc.

Farm Water and its subsidiary, C.B.J.T. contend that the
practice dates back to 2003.  They assert that the carriers
agreed to impose identical or nearly identical surcharges by
linking them to diesel fuel prices published by the U.S.
Department of Energy and by listing surcharges on their websites
to communicate pricing.

The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or
their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003, through the
conclusion of the trial in this matter.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed
         for LTL services sold in the United States;

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this
         complaint and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business and property plaintiffs and
         other members of the classes;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         LTL services sold in the United States during the class
         period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the damages class.

The plaintiffs pray that:

     -- the court determines that this action may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure;

     -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts
        done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co-
        conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of
        Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the
        damages class against defendants for three times the
        amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the
        damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs
        of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- defendants and their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner:

         (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
             combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging
             in any other contract, combination or conspiracy
             having a similar purpose or effect, and from
             adopting or following any practice, plan, program
             or device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
             other person engaged in the manufacture,
             distribution or sale of any product except to the
             extent necessary in connection with a bona fide
             sales transaction between the parties to such
             communications; and

     -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other,
        further and different relief as the case may require and
        the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

Subsequent to this original complaint, similar complaints have
been filed against the defendants and other LTL motor carriers,
each with the same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel
surcharge rates.

On Dec. 20, 2007, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order centralizing and transferring the
pending lawsuits for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia as requested by the
defendants, including the Company.

The defendants have asked the Court to dismiss the case.  The
motion to dismiss has been fully briefed by the parties and is
under consideration by the Court, 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.

Arkansas Best Corp. -- http://www.arkbest.com/-- is a holding
company, which through its subsidiaries, is engaged in motor
carrier transportation operations.  Its principal subsidiary is
ABF Freight System, Inc.  ABF offers national, inter-regional
and regional transportation of general commodities through
standard, expedited and guaranteed less-than-truckload services.
General commodities include all freight except hazardous waste,
dangerous explosives, commodities of exceptionally high value
and commodities in bulk.  ABF accounted for 96.4% of the
company's consolidated revenues for 2007.  The company's LTL
motor carrier operations are conducted through ABF, ABF Freight
System Ltd., ABF Freight System Canada, Ltd., ABF Cartage, Inc.
and Land-Marine Cargo, Inc.  On June 15, 2006, the company sold
its wholly owned subsidiary, Clipper Exxpress Co., to a division
of Wheels Group. With this sale, the company exited the
intermodal transportation business.


BEAR STEARNS: N.Y. Court Consolidates Suits Over 2008 Collapse
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
consolidated several lawsuits that have been filed against Bear
Stearns Cos., Inc. since its collapse last year, Rebecca Moore
of Planadviser.com reports.

Approximately 22 class-action cases are pending before the
court, some alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
and some alleging fiduciary breaches of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), and one derivatives class-action.

Judge Robert W. Sweet consolidated the securities actions,
naming the State of Michigan Retirement Systems as lead
plaintiff, and consolidated the ERISA actions, with Aaron Howard
and Shelden Greenberg as interim co-lead plaintiffs.  The
derivatives class action was left as a separate case, according
to Planadviser.com.

Judge Sweet said that consolidating all 22 cases into one action
was not appropriate because the "securities and ERISA Actions
involve different parties, claims, burdens, pleading standards,
losses, and insurance issues."

Planadviser.com reported that the court reserved the ability to
alter this structure at any time and for any reason, and warned
that it "will do so if it finds that the progress of the
litigation is being delayed, that expenses are being
unnecessarily enlarged, or if the structure established proves
detrimental, in any way, to the best interests of the proposed
class."

According to an opinion issued by Judge Sweet, all claims relate
to events that happened in March 2008 that led to the eventual
sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase.

The plaintiffs allege that on March 10, 2008, information about
Bear Stearns liquidity problems began leaking into the market
causing its stock price to drop.  When it was announced that
JPMorgan agreed to purchase Bear Stearns, the stock price fell
to $4.30 per share from a 15-month high of approximately $160.

The securities cases allege that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Bear
Stearns' business and financial results, resulting in the
trading of the firm's stock at artificially inflated prices
during the relevant time period, Planadviser.com reported.

In the ERISA cases, it is alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by continuing to offer Bear Stearns stock
as an investment option in the Bear Stearns Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, despite the fact that they knew Bear Stearns
stock to be an imprudent investment.

The case is "In re Bear Stearns Cos. Securities, Derivative, and
Employee Retirement Income Security Act Litigation, S.D.N.Y.,
No. 08 M.D.L. 1963 (RWS), 1/5/09," reports Planadviser.com.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Leathermon" Suit in Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, which suit is captioned "Leathermon, et al. v.
Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-137."

On Aug. 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class-action
suit against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery
in Madison, Indiana, including Carriage subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery.

The plaintiffs claim that the cemetery owners performed burials
negligently, breached plaintiffs' contracts, and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

The Company has filed its answer denying the claims and will
defend this action vigorously, according to 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 "Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-137," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge Sarah Evans
Barker, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John C. Eckert, Esq. (john@eckertlawfirm.net)
          Eckert Law Firm
          606 E. Main Street
          Madison, IN 47250
          Phone: 812-265-1606
          Fax: 812-265-2951

               - and -

          J. Anthony Goebel, Esq. (tony@goebellawoffice.com)
          Goebel Law Office
          1034 Copperfield Drive
          Georgetown, IN 47122
          Phone: 812-951-2500
          Fax: 812-951-2522

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert Lewis Barlow, II, Esq. (rbarlow@blueriver.net)
          Barlow Law Office
          201 East Main Street
          Madison, IN 47250
          Phone: 812-273-4440
          Fax: 812-273-2329

               - and -

          John B. Drummy, Esq. (jdrummy@k-glaw.com)
          Kightlinger & Gray
          151 North Delaware Street, Suite 600
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-638-4521
          Fax: 317-636-5917


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery Ongoing in FSLA Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit filed against Carriage Services,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, is in discovery.

On Nov. 28, 2007, five former funeral directors filed suit for
themselves and on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees of
Carriage.  The plaintiffs allege violations of state wage and
hour laws and FLSA, as well as related tort and contract claims.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Carriage failed to
properly compensate employees for time spent on community work,
on-call time, pre-need appointments, and training, failed to
provide required meal and rest breaks under California state
law, and failed to maintain proper records.

Carriage filed its answer to the complaint on Jan. 28, 2008,
denying all material allegations and asserting appropriate
affirmative defenses.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification under the FLSA.  The parties have
effectuated notice of the lawsuit to all potential class members
pursuant to the Court's order.

The opt-in period expired on Aug. 5, 2008, by which time 441
people had filed consent forms to join the action.

The litigation is in the discovery stage, but has been stayed
while the parties engaged in mediation.  The mediation was not
successful, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Spencer Cranney, et al., v. Carriage Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01587," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Roger L. Hunt,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
          (jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com)
          Dolin Thomas Solomon LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: 585-272-0540

               - and -

          Kyle T. McGee, Esq. (kmcgee@margolisedelstein.com)
          Margolis Edelstein
          525 William Penn Place
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-281-4256
          Fax: 412-642-2380

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael L. Banks, Esq. (mbanks@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-5387
          Fax: 215-963-5001


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement of "Means" Suit Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement in a purported class-action lawsuit,
captioned "Means v. Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 49D12-0704-PL-016504," which was filed against Carriage
Services, Inc., in the Indiana Superior Court, in Marion County,
Indiana, remains subject to approval.

On April 20, 2007, the plaintiff, Cecilia Means, filed the
putative class-action complaint alleging that one or more of the
current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in Madison,
Indiana, including the Carriage subsidiaries that owned the
cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, and one or more
of the bank trustees who served as trustee of Grandview
Cemetery's Pre-Arrangement Trust Fund improperly withdrew funds
from the Grandview Trust Fund.

Carriage denies all material allegations because the subject
withdrawals occurred in a period other than during Carriage's
ownership.  The company also filed a motion for summary judgment
with respect to the plaintiff's claims against it.  The
plaintiff, in turn, has also filed a motion to certify a class.

On Oct. 2, 2008, Plaintiff and Carriage entered into a
settlement agreement, under which Carriage has agreed to
provide, among other things, pre-paid burial goods to class
members at their time of need.  The Court preliminarily approved
the settlement on Oct. 7, 2008.

The settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court on
Jan. 23, 2009 after notice to potential class members, according
to its Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Carriage Services, Inc. -- http://www.carriageservices.com/--
is a provider of death care services and merchandise in the U.S.
The company operates two types of businesses: funeral homes,
which principally service businesses that provide burial and
cremation services and sell related merchandise, such as caskets
and urns, and cemetery operations, which provides interment
rights (grave sites and mausoleums) and related merchandise,
such as markers and memorials.


DEAN FOODS: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Co. and others in the milk industry continue to face
a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee that accuses the defendants of
working together to limit the price the Southeastern dairy
farmers are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers
access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities.

The company was named, among several defendants, in two
purported class-action antitrust complaints filed on July 5,
2007.  The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, and allege generally that the
company and others in the milk industry conspired against the
dairy farmers.

A third purported class-action antitrust complaint, known as a
retailer action, was filed on Aug. 9, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The complaint in
the retailer action was amended on March 28, 2008.

The amended complaint alleges generally that the company, either
acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry,
lessened competition in the Southeastern U.S. for the sale of
processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially
inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers.

Four additional purported class-action complaints were filed on
Aug. 27, 2007, Oct. 3, 2007, Nov. 15, 2007, and Feb. 13, 2008,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The allegations in these complaints are similar to
those in the dairy farmer actions.

On Jan. 7, 2008, the U.S. MDL Panel ordered the consolidation of
all of the pending cases in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.

On April 1, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the six
dairy farmer actions, and ordered the retailer action to be
administratively consolidated with the coordinated dairy farmer
actions.

A motion by the defendants to dismiss the dairy farmer actions
was denied on May 20, 2008, and an amended consolidated
complaint was filed by the dairy farmer plaintiffs on June 20,
2008.  A motion to dismiss the retailer action is currently
pending.

These cases are currently in discovery and the company intend to
vigorously defend them, according 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.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and
beverage company.  The company has two segments: the Dairy Group
and WhiteWave Foods Co.  The Dairy Group manufactures and sells
its products under a variety of local and regional brand names
and under private labels.  The company WhiteWave Foods Co.
develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of
nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such
as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy
products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES
creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy
products.


GEO GROUP: Probes Inmate Claim on Strip-Search Policy Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. is in the initial stages of investigating
the claim in a purported class-action suit in Pennsylvania that
was filed by an inmate at one of its jails over the company's
strip search policy, 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. 28, 2008.

The suit, "Allison and Hocevar v. The GEO Group, Inc., Case No.
08-467," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 30, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company has a company-wide blanket
policy at its immigration/detention facilities and jails that
requires all new inmates and detainees to undergo a strip search
upon intake into each facility.

The plaintiff alleges that this practice, to the extent
implemented, violates the civil rights of the affected inmates
and detainees.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for all purported class
members, a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring the
alleged policy from being implemented in the future.

The suit is "Bussy v. The Geo Group, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:08-
cv-00467-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District Pennsylvania, Judge Jan E. Dubois, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Christopher G. Hayes, Esq. (chris@chayeslaw.com)
          Law Offices of Christopher G. Hayes
          225 South Church Street
          West Chester, PA 19382
          Phone: 610-431-9505
          Fax: 610-431-1269

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. (bfj@chimicles.com)
          Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Ave.
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 610-642-8200

               - and -

          David Rudovsky, Esq. (drudovsky@krlawphila.com)
          Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg
          The Cast Iron Building Suite 501 South
          718 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: 215-925-4400
          Fax: 215-925-5365


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integral Systems, Inc. is facing a purported class-action suit
in Maryland claiming that the satellite systems provider made
false financial statements, violated federal Securities and
Exchange Commission rules and damaged stockholders, Lindsey
Robbins of the Business Gazette reports.

The suit was filed on Dec. 15, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.  In it, plaintiff Anthony Vidmar
of Montgomery County says Integral "shocked investors" when it
announced on Dec. 10, 2008 that its unaudited financial
statements could no longer be relied on due to accounting
errors.

Integral said about $10 million in revenues would have to be
deferred as a result of the company's audit.  That day,
Integral's stock price fell from $22.42 to $15.92.  By late
December, stock was selling at about $8.90 per share. Shares
were at $12.80 on Thursday.

The Business Gazette reported that the law firm Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC of Washington, D.C. filed the suit on behalf
of Mr. Vidmar.  It is calling for any other parties that were
affected from April 28, 2008 to Dec. 10, 2008 to join the case.

According to the complaint, "As a result of these materially
false and/or misleading statements, and for failure to disclose,
Integral Systems' securities traded at artificially inflated
prices."


KAI USA: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over "Illegal" SpeedSafe Knives
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAI USA, Ltd., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Cabela's, Inc., Gander
Mountain Company, Academy Sports & Outdoors, Ltd., Academy
Stores, Inc. and Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. are facing a
purported class-action suit for selling switchblade knives that
they know are illegal in Texas, The Courthouse News Service
reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 7, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas by Richard Atkins, Oscar
Zubiate, Jr., Michael T. Craddock, and Theresa McLean.

It claims that the sporting goods stores are knowingly and
illegally selling Kershaw's so-called "SpeedSafe Knives," which
"incorporate torsion bar technology for assisted opening" that
in effect classifies them as "switchblade knives," the sale of
which is prohibited by state law.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants know the knives are illegal
but sell them anyway.  They seek restitution, damages and an
injunction, according to The Courthouse News Service.

The suit is "Atkins et al v. KAI USA, Ltd. et al., Case No.
5:09-cv-00014-FB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Judge Fred Biery, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher A. Bandas, Esq.
          (cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com)
          Bandas Law Firm, P.C.
          500 N. Shoreline
          Suite 1020
          Corpus Christi, TX 78471
          Phone: (361) 698-5200
          Fax: 361-698-5222 (fax)

               - and -

          Allen M. Stewart, Esq. (astewart@allenstewart.com)
          Allen Stewart, P.C.
          325 N. St. Paul Street
          Suite 2750
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 965-8700
          Fax: (214) 965-8701


MAZER CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Alleging WARNT Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mazer Corp. is facing a purported federal class-action lawsuit
in Ohio by employees of the educational publishing services firm
who are seeking compensation and benefits that they allege the
company owes them following its sudden closure last year of
facilities in Ohio and Tennessee, Tim Tresslar of Dayton Daily
News reports.

The suit filed on Jan. 6, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio by Scott Bent of Troy and John
Boyd of Johnson City, Tenn., also alleges that the company
violated a federal law that requires companies to give notice
before a plant closing or a mass layoff.  It seeks class-action
status.

The Dayton Daily News reported that on Dec. 30, 2008 Mazer
closed its creative services group and corporate operations in
Vandalia, Ohio, and a printing plant in Johnson City, Tenn., and
laid off the workers at those locations.

The lawsuit alleges that Mazer Corp.'s sudden closure violated
the Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) act.  A
federal law, the WARN act requires companies to give 60 days
notice of a plant closing or mass lay off.

The suit is "Bent et al v. Mazer Corporation, Case No. 3:2009-
cv-00004," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Judge Walter H. Rice, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Felix John Gora, Esq. (fjg@rendigs.com)
          Rendigs Fry Kiely & Dennis LLP
          One West Fourth Street
          Suite 900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3688
          Phone: 513-381-9245
          Fax: 513-381-9278


N.C. Baptist: Settles Employees' Suit Over Group Health Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
N.C. Baptist Hospitals, Inc. settled a purported federal class-
action lawsuit accusing it of requiring its employees to pay
more in fees for a group health plan -- which it co-owns -- than
other corporate clients, Richard Craver of the Winston-Salem
Journal reports.

The preliminary settlement includes an agreement to increase
discounts and lower co-payments in the MedCost plan.  It has the
potential to affect more than 8,000 current Baptist employees,
along with current and former beneficiaries and employees
connected to its provider network.  Employees also could be
compensated for damages, particularly overpayments, as far back
as March 2002, according to the Winston-Salem Journal.

The agreement was filed on Jan. 6, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for the U.S.
District Court.

The plaintiffs -- a current employee and a former employee --
are not identified in the filings, but both live in Forsyth
County.  A hearing on the agreement has not been set.  A notice
of a potential class-action lawsuit has been filed with the
court system, reports the Winston-Salem Journal.

Also listed in the lawsuit were MedCost LLC and MedCost Benefit
Services LLC.  MedCost LLC is co-owned by Carolinas HealthCare
System of Charlotte.

The litigation accuses Baptist of violating the duties,
responsibilities, and obligations imposed upon them as a
fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or
ERISA.

The Winston-Salem Journal reported that the lawsuit also accuses
Baptist of requiring employees to pay more for services rendered
at the hospital through MedCost than alternative health-care
plans would have, including higher co-payments and lower
discounts.  It also said that employees paid higher fees than
those required by MedCost from other corporate clients.

Plan participants made contributions of between $9 million and
$13 million a year since March 2002, the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, "NCBH selected its subsidiary,
MedCost, as the network provider for the plan knowing that
MedCost would include NCBH in its provider network at
substantially inflated reimbursement rates."  It adds, "The
selection was made not on the basis of quality or cost from a
fiduciary standpoint, but rather was based on NCBH's own
economic interests."


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BETHESDA, Md., Jan. 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Northwest
Biotherapeutics, Inc. (OTCBulletinBoard: NWBO) (the "Company" or
"NWBT") announced today settlement of a putative securities
class action lawsuit, "In re Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. C-07-1254-RAJ."

     The Company has agreed to pay in settlement US$1 million,
which is to be funded out of insurance proceeds.  The settlement
must be approved by the Court.

     Additional details about the settlement can be found in the
formal settlement documents, which are available from the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

     The case alleged that the Company misrepresented certain
facts that resulted in the artificial inflation of the price of
Northwest Biotherapeutics publicly-traded common stock between
April 17, 2007 and July 18, 2007.

     The Company disputes the allegations of the lawsuit, and
denies that there was any such misrepresentation or that the
shares of Northwest Biotherapeutics common stock were
artificially inflated.

     Nevertheless the Company is settling the lawsuit to avoid
potentially expensive and protracted litigation.

The suit is "Michael C. Rosenblat, et al. v. Northwest
Biotherapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-01254," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bridget A. Baker-White, Esq. (bridgetbw@igc.org)
          Smith & Lowney PLLC
          2317 e. John St.
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Phone: 206-860-4102

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave.
          Ste. 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

Representing the defendants are:

          Dane H. Butswinkas, Esq. (dbutswinkas@wc.com)
          Williams & Connolly LLP
          725 Twelfth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-434-5110

               - and -

          Michael D. Hunsinger, Esq.
          (mike_hunsingerlawyers@yahoo.com)
          The Hunsinger Law Firm
          100 South King Street, Ste. 400
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-624-1177
          Fax: 206-624-1178


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Utah Court Considers Approving Lawsuit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit against NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah remains subject to negotiation of definitive
settlement documents and court approvals.

Initially, several suits were filed:

     -- "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;"

     -- "Baird v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;"

     -- "McCormick v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.;" and

     -- "Skubella v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al."

All lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and
allege that between August 2005 and May 2006, the defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
market prospects for its proprietary drug, PREOS(R), in
violation of federal securities laws.  PREOS is for the
treatment of osteoporosis.

By order dated Sept. 14, 2006, the court consolidated the four
separately filed lawsuits into one action.  By order dated Nov.
17, 2006, the court appointed lead plaintiff and counsel for the
proposed class.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff and its counsel filed a
consolidated amended complaint asserting two federal securities
claims on behalf of lead plaintiff and all other shareholders of
the company who purchased publicly traded shares of company
between Aug. 7, 2001, and May 2, 2006.

The consolidated complaint asserts two claims:

      -- a claim founded upon Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the 1934 Act, and

      -- SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, which is
         asserted against all defendants, and a claim founded
         upon Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, which is asserted
         against the individual defendants.

Both claims are based on the allegations that, during the class
period, the company and the individual defendants made false and
misleading statements to the investing public concerning PREOS.

The consolidated complaint alleges that false and misleading
statements were made during the class period concerning the
efficacy of PREOS as a treatment for post-menopausal
osteoporosis, the potential market for PREOS, the dangers of
hypercalcemic toxicity as a side effect of injectable PREOS, and
the prospects of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of
NPS's New Drug Application for injectable PREOS.

The complaint also alleges claims of option backdating and
insider trading of stock during the class period.  The
consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, unspecified equitable or injunctive relief,
and an award of an unspecified amount for plaintiff's costs and
attorneys' fees.

On March 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, which the court denied on July 3, 2007.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the court entered a scheduling order setting a
trial date for the action on April 20, 2009.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed its motion to certify
the class of shareholders that it seeks to represent in the
action.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to this
motion.

On Feb. 29, 2008, lead plaintiff filed its reply brief in
support of the motion for class certification.  On March 20,
2008, the court entered a stipulation by the parties staying the
action pending mediation commencing on June 3, 2008.

Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement to settle
this matter and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with respect to the same.  The MOU memorializes the terms
pursuant to which the plaintiffs and the defendants intend to
settle the case, subject to court approval.

Under the terms of the MOU, the defendants' directors' and
officers' liability insurers will pay $15 million in resolution
of the matter and all claims asserted against the company, and
the other named defendants will be dismissed with prejudice with
no admission or finding of wrongdoing on the part of any
defendant.

The company has recorded $15.0 million as Litigation receivable
and Litigation payable on its balance sheet as of Sept. 30,
2008.  The settlement is subject to negotiation of definitive
settlement documents and preliminary and final court approvals
following notices to shareholders and members of the class,
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 is "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-00570-PGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah, Judge Paul G. Cassell, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
         Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
         Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
         One Penn Plaza, Ste. 2805
         New York City, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-279-5050

              - and -

         Scott A. Call, Esq. (scall@aklawfirm.com)
         Anderson & Karrenberg
         50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700
         Salt Lake City, UT 84101
         Phone: 801-534-1700


NUVELO INC: Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud complaint filed against Nuvelo,
Inc.

The company and certain of its former and current officers and
directors were named as defendants in the purported securities
class action suit, which was filed on Feb. 9, 2007.

The suit alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase,
which the company announced on Dec. 11, 2006.  Specifically, the
suit alleges that the company misled investors regarding the
efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood of success.

The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers of
company's common stock during the period between Jan. 5, 2006,
and Dec. 8, 2006.

Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of
New York in February and March 2007.

On April 18, 2007, the company filed a motion to transfer all
four cases to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The transfer motion was granted by the New York
Court in July 2007.

Separate motions to consolidate the cases, appoint lead
plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff's counsel were
subsequently filed.  A consolidated complaint was then filed in
the Northern District of California on Nov. 9, 2007.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.  The plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the company's dismissal request on Feb. 4, 2008.

On June 12, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the dismissal
motion.  The motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint is
still 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 is "Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103,
I.B.E.W. v. Nuvelo, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00975-HB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

          Marisa Megur Seifan, Esq. (mseifan@cooley.com)
          Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212 479-6204
          Fax: 212 479-6275


STATE STREET: Suits Over Active Fixed-Income Strategies Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corp. continues to face purported class-action
lawsuits filed by customers who invested in certain of State
Street Global Advisors' active fixed-income strategies.

Several customers have filed litigation claims against the
company, some of which are putative class actions purportedly on
behalf of customers invested in certain of SsgA's active fixed-
income strategies.

These claims relate to investment losses in one or more of
SSgA's strategies that included sub-prime mortgage-backed
investments.

In December 2007, the company established a reserve of
approximately $625 million to address legal exposure associated
with the under-performance of certain active fixed-income
strategies managed by SSgA and customer concerns as to whether
the execution of these strategies was consistent with the
customers' investment intent.

According to the company's Nov. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, these strategies were adversely impacted
by exposure to, and the lack of liquidity in, sub-prime mortgage
markets that resulted from the disruption in the global
securities markets during the second half of 2007.  After
aggregate settlement and related payments of $390 million
through Sept. 30, 2008, the reserve totaled approximately $235
million at Sept. 30, 2008.

State Street Corp. -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- is a
financial holding company.  The Company, through its
subsidiaries, including its banking subsidiary, State Street
Bank and Trust Co., State Street Corp. provides a range of
products and services for institutional investors globally.  The
lines of business of the Company are Investment Servicing and
Investment Management.  The business provide services to support
institutional investors, including custody, daily pricing and
administration, brokerage and other trading services, deposit
and short-term investment facilities, loan and lease financing,
investment manager and hedge fund manager operations
outsourcing, performance, risk and compliance analytics,
investment research and investment management, including passive
and active U.S. and non-U.S. equity and fixed income strategies.


VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Junked Fraud Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc.'s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit a decision by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denying the company's motion to
dismiss a purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned
"Cheryl Bentley et al. v. NBC Universal Inc et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-03647-FMC-VBK," remains pending.

Initially, on June 5, 2007, plaintiff Cheryl Bentley, on behalf
of herself and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a
complaint against VeriSign, m-Qube Inc., and other defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants collectively operate
an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing
viewers of the NBC television show "The Apprentice" to incur
premium text message charges in order to participate in an
interactive television promotion called "Get Rich With Trump."

The company sought to dismiss the case, which request was denied
by the District Court.

The case is now pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, awaiting resolution of the defendants' petition
for interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial of the
dismissal motion, 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.

The suit is "Cheryl Bentley, et al. v. NBC Universal Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03647-FMC-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Florence-
Marie Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Michiyo M. Furukawa, Esq. (mfurukawa@milberg.com)
          Milberg LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-617-1200
          Fax: 213-617-1975

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com)
          Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812

Representing the defendants are:

          Ronald L. Johnston, Esq. (ronald_johnston@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Chad S. Hummel, Esq. (chummel@manatt.com)
          Manatt Phelps & Phillips
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Phone: 310-312-4000


VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Motion in "Herbert" Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc.'s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denying the company's motion to
dismiss a purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned
"Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No. CV 07
3537FMC," is still pending.

Also named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Endemol USA,
     -- Verisign, Inc.,
     -- M-Qube, Inc., and
     -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc.

The named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi
Eberhart and Cheryl Bentley -- claim that the Internet
promotion, known as the "Lucky Case Game," which costs 99 cents
per text message, is a game of chance that offers a winner a
shot at "Deal or no Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million
grand prize (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2007).

At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold
briefcases (different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are
displayed on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to
participate in the Promotion by submitting the number one
through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold
briefcase.  The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to
reveal that night's "Lucy Case."

The game allegedly involves the three elements of illegal
gambling: consideration, chance and prize.  Viewers of the
program enter the promotion via text message for which they
incur a premium text message fee, or via the Internet.  The
potential winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random,
and have the opportunity to win cash and other prizes.

The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show,
the plaintiffs say.

The plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from
California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against
gambling.

The defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as
follows:

     (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its
         rules and conditions;

     (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal";

     (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the
         "Lucky Case Game";

     (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message
         entries to the "Lucky Case Game";

     (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by
         entrants in the promotion;

     (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the
         promotion;

     (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly
         select and contact the potential prize winner amongst
         the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case";

     (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to
         winning entrants; and

     (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky
         Case Game."

The plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action suit pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of a class consisting of all
persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message
charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game,"
and who did not win a prize.

The plaintiffs brought the action in their individual
capacities,  and for the First and Second Causes of Action, as a
class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid or
incurred premium text message charges in connection with
entering the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, and who have not won
any prize.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal
        gambling;

     2. the extent of each defendants' participation in
        conducting the promotion;

     3. whether defendants' conduct violated California
        Business and Professions Section 17200;

     4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately
        caused injury to plaintiffs and the class;

     5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs
        and the class are entitled to damages, restitution,
        disgorgement, or other monetary remedies;

     6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or
        related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws
        ch. 137, Section 1:

     7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
        recover the amount of premium text messages paid to
        enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and

     8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
        the "Lucky Case Game."

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against
        conducting the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion;

     -- a declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion
        constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the
        class as may be just and proper; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

The company and the other defendants had sought to dismiss the
case, but this this request was denied by the District Court.

The case is currently pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit awaiting resolution of the defendants'
petition for interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial
of their dismissal motion, 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.

The suit is "Karen Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case
No. CV 07 3537FMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com)
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812

          William A. Pannell, Esq. (billpannell@mindspring.com)
          William A. Pannell, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: 404-353-2283

               - and -

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq. (kaw30328@aol.com)
          Kevin T. Moore, P.C.
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E.
          Building C, Suite 201
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: 770-396-3622


VERISIGN INC: Still Disputes Stock Option Grants Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc., continues to challenge a purported class-action
suit in California that alleges false representations and
disclosure failures regarding certain historical stock option
grants.

On May 15, 2007, the putative class action suit -- "Mykityshyn
v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign, Inc." -- was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County,
naming the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned
VeriSign common stock between April 3, 2002, and Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and
2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the
1998 Option Plan.  It also seeks to enjoin the defendants from
granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any
currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006
Option Plans.  It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, costs and attorneys fees.

Defendants' collective pleading challenges to the putative
consolidated class action complaint were granted with leave to
amend in August 2008, 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.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is a provider of
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JA SOLAR: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
      DENVER, Jan. 8, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Dyer & Berens LLP
(www.DyerBerens.com) today announced that it has filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the American
Depository Shares ("ADS") of JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd. ("JA
Solar" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:JASO) during the period between
August 12, 2008 and November 12, 2008 (the "Class Period").

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

     In the class action complaint, the plaintiff alleges that,
during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements about the Company's financial condition
and operating results.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that JA Solar
purchased from a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Inc. a three
month, $100 million note, on or about July 9, 2008.

     According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose:

       -- that JA Solar had made a material, highly speculative
          investment in a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers, an
          entity that was then undergoing a credit crisis and
          under significant financial distress;

       -- that the value of JA Solar's investment in the Lehman
          note had diminished considerably; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
          positive statements concerning JA Solar's financial
          performance, outlook and earnings guidance were
          materially false and misleading and without reasonable
          basis.

     At the end of the Class Period, JA Solar wrote off its $100
million investment in the Lehman note.  After JA Solar fully
disclosed and recorded an impairment in the value of its
investment in the Lehman note, on November 12, 2008, JA Solar's
stock closed at $2.38 per share, a price that represented a
decline of more than 87% from the high during the three month
Class Period.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          (888) 300-3362
          (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


SATYAM COMPUTER: Glancy Binkow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Jan 8, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class
consisting of all purchasers of American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") of Satyam Computer Services Limited ("Satyam" or the
"Company"), between January 6, 2004 and January 6, 2009,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     Satyam provides information technology services and
business process outsourcing services in North America, Europe,
the Asia Pacific, Middle-East, Australia, Africa and South
America.

     Plaintiff claims that defendants artificially inflated the
price of Satyam ADSs by issuing material misrepresentations to
the market concerning the Company's financial performance.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants issued financial information about the Company,
including information contained in certain of its Annual Reports
to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 20-F,
which was false and misleading because, among other things, the
Company's financial information was systematically falsified,
its cash amounts "inflated" by material amounts, and its assets
purely "fictitious."

     On January 7, 2009, the Company's Chairman, B. Ramalinga
Raju, sent a letter to the Satyam Board of Directors and the
Securities & Exchange Board of India acknowledging a multi-year
fraud in which Satyam's financial accounts and disclosures were
systematically falsified, its profits were overstated for the
past several years, the debt owed to the Company was overstated
and its liability understated.

     Further, B. Ramalinga Raju admitted to having inflated the
amount of cash on the Company's balance sheet by nearly $1
billion and overstating Satyam's September 2008 quarterly
revenues by 76% and profits by 97 percent, and that 50.4 billion
rupees, or $1.04 billion, of the 53.6 billion rupees in cash and
bank loans the Company listed in assets for its second quarter,
which ended in September 2008, were nonexistent.

     The Chairman's letter described the scheme as a small
discrepancy that grew beyond his control: "What started as a
marginal gap between actual operating profit and the one
reflected in the books of accounts continued to grow over the
years.  It has attained unmanageable proportions as the size of
company operations grew," he wrote.  "It was like riding a
tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten."

     On January 7, 2009, the Company announced that Ram
Myanpati, President and whole-time director of Satyam, is acting
as interim CEO pending ratification by the Board.  Also on
January 7, DSP Merrill Lynch Limited, which had been previously
retained by Satyam to assist a review of the Company's strategic
options, terminated its engagement with Satyam, prompted by the
disclosure of "material accounting irregularities."

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


SATYAM COMPUTER: Sarraf Gentile Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP has filed a securities
fraud class action lawsuit against Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
("Satyam" or the "Company") (NYSE: SAY) on behalf of those
investors who acquired the Company's American Depository Shares
during the period January 6, 2004 and January 6, 2009, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit is pending in Manhattan
federal court.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants issued false and misleading financial information
about the Company.

     According to the complaint, on January 7, 2009, the
Company's former Chairman, B. Ramalinga Raju, issued a letter to
the Company's board of directors acknowledging a multi-year
fraud in which Satyam's financial accounts and disclosures were
systematically falsified, its profits overstated and its
liability understated.

     According to Raju: "What started as a marginal gap between
actual operating profit and the one reflected in the books of
accounts continued to grow over the years.  It has attained
unmanageable proportions as the size of company operations
grew." Raju admitted to having inflated the amount of cash on
the Company's balance sheet by nearly $1 billion, according to
the complaint.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile LLP
          11 Hanover Square
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-868-3610
          Fax: 212-918-7967
          web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.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 2009.  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  * * *