CAR_Public/090113.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 8

                           Headlines

ADVOCAT INC: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Arkansas
AMERICAN LAND: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Greene Courte Deal
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Gilbert Oshinsky Files Lawsuit Over Menu Items
LE CIRQUE: Faces Lawsuit in New York Alleging FLSA Violations
LITHIA MOTORS: Appeals Denial of Judgment Bid in "Johnson" Suit

LITHIA MOTORS: Lawsuits Over Sale of Used Vehicles Still Pending
LITHIA MOTORS: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status in "Dunham"
LITHIA MOTORS: Unit Faces "VanSyoc" Suit in Fresno, California
MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gasoline Suit Settlement Pending Approval
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Misstated Prospectuses

MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suits on Opes Prime/Lift Capital Collateral
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suits Over AIG's Dec. 2007 Public Offering
MERRILL LYNCH: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation Ongoing in N.Y.
MERRILL LYNCH: Lehman Brothers Securities Litigation Ongoing
MERRILL LYNCH: "McReynolds" Discrimination Suit Pending in Ill.

MERRILL LYNCH: To Seek Dismissal of Suits Over Alleged Collusion
PIER SIXTY: Faces New York Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations
SPRINT NEXTEL: Cases v. Unit Over Easements Pending in Tennessee
SPRINT NEXTEL: Continues to Face Shareholders' Securities Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia

UTSTARCOM OMC: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Stock Lawsuit Still Pending
UTSTARCOM INC: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Rudolph" Lawsuit
WELLS REAL: Affiliates to Defend Md. Lawsuit V. Piedmont REIT


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HORIZON LINES: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PFF BANCORP: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ADVOCAT INC: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
     BRENTWOOD, Tenn., Jan. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Advocat
Inc. (Nasdaq:AVCA) announced that it received notice on January
7, 2009 of a purported class action complaint filed January 2,
2009.

     The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland
County, Arkansas against Advocat Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the
"Facility").

     The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
statutory and contractual obligations to the residents of the
Facility over the past five years.

     The lawsuit is in its very early stages and has not yet
been certified by the court as a class action.

Advocat, Inc. -- http://www.irinfo.com/avc-- provides long-term
care services to nursing center patients in eight states,
primarily in the Southeast and Southwest.  The Company's centers
provide a range of health care services to their patients and
residents.  In addition to the nursing, personal care and social
services usually provided in long-term care centers, Advocat
offers different rehabilitation services as well as nutritional
support services.  As of December 31, 2007, the Company's
continuing operations consist of 50 nursing centers with 5,773
licensed nursing beds and 66 assisted living units.  Advocat's
continuing operations included nine owned nursing centers and 41
leased nursing centers.  Effective August 11, 2007, the Company
purchased the leasehold interests and operations of seven
skilled nursing facilities from Senior Management Services of
America North Texas, Inc.  These facilities include 1,266
licensed nursing beds, with 1,105 beds available for use.


AMERICAN LAND: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Greene Courte Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Land Lease is facing two purported shareholder lawsuits
that seeks to stop Green Courte Partners's $428 million
acquisition of the Pinellas County-based public real estate
investment trust that owns manufactured home communities in
Florida, Arizona and Alabama, Janet Leiser of Tampa Bay Business
Journal reports.

The complaints allege American Land Lease's board of directors
breached its fiduciary duty Dec. 9, 2008 in approving the sale
to the Chicago private equity firm for $14.20 a share in cash —
a 264 percent premium over the $3.90 closing price of the stock
that same day.

The federal lawsuit, filed on Dec. 31, 2008 alleges that
American Land Lease's top managers were motivated by employment
offers from Green Courte in accepting the deal when the stock
was trading at an all-time low because of problems on Wall
Street.  In August 2008, stock in the company traded at $22.89 a
share, Tampa Bay Business Journal reported.

CEO and Chairman Terry Considine "had a significant incentive to
and did in fact drive the sale of ANL to Green Courte Partners,"
the complaint reads.  It seeks class-action status, according to
Tampa Bay Business Journal.

    
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Gilbert Oshinsky Files Lawsuit Over Menu Items
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Oshinsky, LLP has filed a 27-page class-action lawsuit
in Kansas City, Missouri against  Applebee's International,
Inc., its parent company and Weight Watchers, KSNW-TV reports.

The suit alleges that the restaurant conspired with the weight
loss organization to mislead customers about the calorie and fat
content of certain menu items.

For example, the Cajun Lime Tilapia was advertised as having six
grams of fat, but results from Analytical Labs of Boise Idaho
showed twice that with 12 grams of fat.  The Garlic Herb Chicken
is supposed to also have six grams of fat, but the lab counted
18 fat grams, according to KSNW-TV.

KSNW-TV reported that anyone who has eaten at Applebee's in the
last couple of years and eaten from the Weight Watchers menu
qualifies to be part of this class-action lawsuit.

For more details, contact:

          Gilbert Oshinsky, LLP
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202.772.2441 or 202.772.2200
          Fax: 202.772.3333
          e-mail: info@gilbertoshinsky.com
          Web site: http://www.gotofirm.com/


LE CIRQUE: Faces Lawsuit in New York Alleging FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Le Cirque, Inc. and Sirio Maccioni are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit in New York on behalf of cater waiters who work
private parties, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, New York Magazine reports.

The suit was filed by attorney Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of the named plaintiff is Deon Serrant.

It is alleging that the management charges party hosts mandatory
gratuities, often called "service charges," of as much as 20
percent, then doesn't pass the money on to the servers,
depriving them of tips, according to New York Magazine.

The suit is "Serrant v. Le Cirque, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:09-
cv-00151-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. (maimon@jhllp.com)
          Joseph and Herzfeld
          757 3rd Avenue
          25th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 688-5640x2548
          Fax: (212) 688-5639


LITHIA MOTORS: Appeals Denial of Judgment Bid in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc.'s appeal from the denial of its summary
judgment motion in the lawsuit filed by Marcia Johnson and
Theron Johnson, on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed
plaintiff class of all other similarly situated individuals and
entities, remains pending.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Johnsons filed the suit in the Superior
Court for the State of Washington, Spokane County (Case No.
05205059-9).

The Johnsons sued Lithia Motors, Inc., and one of Lithia's
wholly-owned subsidiaries, individually and as representatives
of a proposed defendant class of other motor vehicle dealers,
asking for an award of declaratory and injunctive relief, and
damages, based on defendants' allegedly illegal practice of
itemizing and collecting the Washington State Business and
Occupation Tax (B&O Tax) from customers buying vehicles from
defendants.

The allegations in the Johnson case involve legal issues similar
to those that were litigated in the case of "Nelson vs. Appleway
Chevrolet, Inc."

By agreement of the parties, the Johnson case was stayed while
the Nelson case, which had been filed in 2004, was appealed to
the Washington State Supreme Court.

In April 2007, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the lower
court decisions in favor of the plaintiffs in the Nelson case.
The decision was based on the Appleway dealer's practice of
adding a B&O tax charge to a vehicle's purchase price after the
customer and the dealer reached agreement on the vehicle's
price.

Because Lithia's subsidiary negotiated with the Johnsons over a
proposed B&O tax charge before reaching agreement with the
Johnsons on a purchase price for the Johnsons' new vehicle,
Lithia and its subsidiary believe the subsidiary's actions are
permissible under the law as established by the Supreme Court's
decision in the Nelson case.  They moved for summary judgment
based on the Washington Supreme Court's decision in the Nelson
case.

Shortly after the filing of that motion, the Johnsons filed an
amended complaint.  They added an allegation that the
defendants' actions also violated Washington's Consumer
Protection Act, and requested an award of treble damages up to
$10,000 for each alleged violation of the Act.

The Johnsons then cross-moved for partial summary judgment,
contending that the Supreme Court's decision in the Nelson case
established that Lithia and its subsidiary had violated
Washington's tax and Consumer Protection Act laws.  After
hearing oral argument on the motions, the trial court judge, on
Oct. 12, 2007, issued an oral ruling in favor of the Johnsons
and against the Lithia subsidiary.  The court denied Lithia's
and its subsidiary's summary judgment motion.  The court entered
its written order to that effect on Nov. 9, 2007.

Lithia and its subsidiary asked the trial court to certify its
order as a final judgment.  After the trial court denied their
request, Lithia and its subsidiary petitioned the Washington
Court of Appeals for discretionary review of the summary
judgment decision, which was granted in April 2008.  Defendants
opening briefs have been filed and the appeal is set for oral
arguments on Dec. 2, 2008.

Pending an ultimate ruling from the court of appeals, discovery
in this matter is stayed.  The court has not yet been requested
to certify a plaintiff or defendant class, 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.

Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator
of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles
and services.


LITHIA MOTORS: Lawsuits Over Sale of Used Vehicles Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of Lithia Motors, Inc., continue to face a
consolidated class action in Alaska over the sale of a used
vehicle, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On May 30, 2006, four of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries
located in Alaska were served with a lawsuit, captioned, "Jackie
Lee Neese et al. v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3AN-06-04815CI," which is alleging that the
dealerships failed to comply with Alaska law relating to various
disclosures required during the sale of a used vehicle.

The complainant seeks to represent other similarly situated
customers.  The court has not yet certified the suit as a class
action.

During the pendency of the Neese case, the State of Alaska
brought charges against Lithia's subsidiaries alleging the same
factual allegations, and also alleging violations related to the
practice of charging document fees.

The company settled the State action to resolve the disputes.

However, the plaintiffs in the private action moved to intervene
in the State of Alaska matter.  They also filed a second
putative class action, entitled, "Jackie Lee Neese, et al, v.
Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., Case No. 3AN-06-
13341CI," related to the document fee claims identified in the
State of Alaska's complaint.

The second Neese lawsuit was consolidated with the first case.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request to intervene in the
State of Alaska matter and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal
with the Alaska Supreme Court challenging that denial.

The trial court dismissed two of the stores involved in the
first lawsuit because none of the named plaintiffs had purchased
any vehicles from the two stores.  The plaintiffs have also
appealed that dismissal to the Alaska Supreme Court.

Both the private lawsuits, as well as the implementation of the
settlement with the State of Alaska, have been stayed pending a
ruling in the appeal of the State of Alaska case.

Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator
of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles
and services.


LITHIA MOTORS: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status in "Dunham"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc. seeks reconsideration of the class
certification granted in the matter styled, "Dunham, et al. v.
Lithia Support Services, et al., 3AN-06-6338 Civil, Superior
Court for the State of Alaska."

Alaska Service and Parts Advisors and Managers Overtime Suit

On March 22, 2006, seven former employees in Alaska brought suit
against the company seeking overtime wages, additional
liquidated damages and attorney fees.

The complaint was later amended to include a total of 11 named
plaintiffs.

The court ordered the dispute to arbitration.

In February 2008, the arbitrator granted the plaintiffs' request
to establish a class of plaintiffs consisting of all present and
former service and parts department employees totaling
approximately 150 individuals who were paid on a commission
basis.

The company has filed a motion requesting reconsideration of
this class certification, but the arbitrator died before issuing
his opinion.  No determination has been made whether to seek the
appointment of a new arbitrator or request the court to assume
jurisdiction.  The reconsideration seeks a ruling whether these
employees or some of these employees are exempt from the
applicable state law that provides for the payment of overtime
under certain circumstances, 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.

Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator
of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles
and services.


LITHIA MOTORS: Unit Faces "VanSyoc" Suit in Fresno, California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Lithia Motors, Inc. subsidiary faces a purported class-action
lawsuit filed by Steven H. VanSyoc in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Fresno.

On Aug. 14, 2002, Mr. VanSyoc filed a lawsuit in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Fresno (Case No.
08CECG02785) against a Lithia Motors subsidiary alleging fraud,
deceit, intentional misrepresentation, concealment and failure
to disclose, and negligence.

Further, plaintiff asserts violations of California Civil Code
Section 1770(a)(2),(5),(6), (7), (9), (13), (14), (16) and (19)
(a pattern, plan or scheme with intent to deceive or induce the
purchase and increase the cost of vehicles; and California Civil
Code Section 17200, et.seq. (Unfair Competition Law)) and seeks
an order enjoining the practice, unstated actual damages and an
order certifying the case a class-action.

The plaintiff alleges that the company failed to disclose the
vehicle he purchased was a former daily rental vehicle and
misrepresented the terms and conditions of the Extended Service
Agreement purchased by Plaintiff, and failed to disclose that
the time and mileage limits actually started at a date
significantly earlier than the purchase date.

The company has not yet filed an answer nor has any discovery
been undertaken, 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.

Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator
of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles
and services.


MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gasoline Suit Settlement Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Oil Corp. awaits the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia's approval of the proposed
settlement of a purported lawsuit over defective gasoline that
the company had sold.

The lawsuit, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al.," alleges that the company's
Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline to wholesalers and
retailers, causing permanent damage to storage tanks, dispensers
and related equipment, resulting in lost profits, business
disruption, and personal and real property damages.

In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Co. conducted extensive cleaning
operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent
damages resulted from the incident.

Class-action certification was granted in August 2007.

The company has entered into a tentative settlement agreement in
this case, but both a notice to the class members and approval
by the court after a fairness hearing are required before the
settlement can be finalized, 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 "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00966," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory B. Breedlove, Esq. (gbb@cbcbb.com)
         Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove
         P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660
         Phone: 251/471-6191
         Fax: 251/479-1031

              - and -

         James M. Cawley, Jr., Esq. (jay@jaycawley.net)
         Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana Street
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/426-1700
         Fax: 713/425-5325

Representing the defendants are:

         Joseph S. Beeson, Esq. (jsb@ramlaw.com)
         Robinson & Mcelwee
         400 Fifth Third Center
         700 Virginia Street, East
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566

              - and -

         Jeffrey V. Mehalic, Esq.
         The Law Offices Of Jeffrey V. Mehalic
         P.O. Box 11133
         Charleston, WV 25339-1133
         Phone: 304/346-3462
         Fax: 302/346-3469


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Misstated Prospectuses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit styled,
"Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Conway, et al.,"
according to its Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
26, 2008.

On Oct. 3, 2008, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund
and the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
filed a class action against Merrill Lynch & Co., certain of its
officers and directors, its underwriters, and its outside
auditors in New York Supreme Court.

The complaint seeks relief on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Merrill Lynch debt securities
issued under a shelf registration statement dated March 31,
2006.

The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch's prospectuses
misstated Merrill Lynch's financial condition and failed to
disclose its exposures to losses from investments tied to
subprime and other mortgages, as well as its significant
liability arising from its participation in the market for
auction rate securities.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with
its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and
related services to individuals and institutions on a global
basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial
services subsidiaries.  The company's operations are organized
into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment
Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM).  GMI provides
service global markets and origination products and services to
corporate, institutional, and government clients around the
world.  GWM creates and distributes investment products and
services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and
employee benefit plans.


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suits on Opes Prime/Lift Capital Collateral
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class-action lawsuits claiming that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
did not have the right to liquidate Opes Prime and Lift Capital
collateral are pending in Australia and Hong Kong.

Merrill Lynch acted as prime broker for both Opes Prime and Lift
Capital, two Australian margin lending and stockbroking firms
that defaulted on loans in 2008.

When these firms defaulted on margin loans, Merrill Lynch sold
hundreds of millions of dollars of securities that had been
pledged to it as collateral.

A class-action lawsuit and numerous other actions have been
filed against Merrill Lynch in Australia and Hong Kong claiming
that Merrill Lynch did not have the right to liquidate the
collateral, 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. 26, 2008

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with
its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and
related services to individuals and institutions on a global
basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial
services subsidiaries.  The company's operations are organized
into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment
Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM).  GMI provides
service global markets and origination products and services to
corporate, institutional, and government clients around the
world.  GWM creates and distributes investment products and
services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and
employee benefit plans.


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suits Over AIG's Dec. 2007 Public Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. faces class-action suits filed in line
with the American International Group, Inc.'s public offering of
7.70% Series A-5 Junior Subordinated Debentures on Dec. 11,
2007.

On Oct. 9, 2008, the class-action lawsuit styled, "Carroll v.
American International, Group, Inc., et al.," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against AIG, its officers and directors, and its underwriters,
including Merrill Lynch, in connection with the AIG's Dec. 11,
2007 public offering.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and
misleading because, among other things, it allegedly failed to
reveal AIG's significant exposure to the subprime market as the
largest underwriter of U.S. mortgage bonds and the risk of its
failing as a going-concern.

The complaint alleges that the defendant, including the
underwriters, failed to conduct adequate due diligence regarding
AIG's disclosures.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, 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.
26, 2008.

On Oct. 24, 2008, a nearly identical complaint, captioned,
"Bernstein v. American International Group, Inc., et al.," was
filed in the same court.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with
its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and
related services to individuals and institutions on a global
basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial
services subsidiaries.  The company's operations are organized
into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment
Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM).  GMI provides
service global markets and origination products and services to
corporate, institutional, and government clients around the
world.  GWM creates and distributes investment products and
services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and
employee benefit plans.


MERRILL LYNCH: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation Ongoing in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class=action lawsuits filed against the Federal National
Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), its officers and directors,
and its underwriters, including Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., in
connection with the sale of securities issued by Fannie Mae
remain pending.

Beginning in September 2008, multiple class-action lawsuits were
filed in New York Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Federal National
Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), its officers and directors,
and its underwriters, including Merrill Lynch, in connection
with the sale of securities issued by Fannie Mae.

The complaints allege that the prospectuses were false and
misleading because, among other things, they allegedly
overstated Fannie Mae's capitalization and asserted that
management believed that the current securities offerings would
be adequate to fund Fannie Mae through the end of the year.

The complaints allege that the defendants, including the
underwriters, failed to conduct adequate due diligence regarding
Fannie Mae's disclosures.

The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount, 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.
26, 2008.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with
its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and
related services to individuals and institutions on a global
basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial
services subsidiaries.  The company's operations are organized
into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment
Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM).  GMI provides
service global markets and origination products and services to
corporate, institutional, and government clients around the
world.  GWM creates and distributes investment products and
services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and
employee benefit plans.


MERRILL LYNCH: Lehman Brothers Securities Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Class-action lawsuits filed against officers and directors of
Lehman Brothers, Inc. and its underwriters, including Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc., in connection with the sale of securities
issued by Lehman Brothers remain ongoing.

Beginning in September 2008, multiple class-action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York and New York Supreme Court against officers and
directors of Lehman Brothers and its underwriters, including
Merrill Lynch, in connection with the sale of securities issued
by Lehman Brothers.

On Sept. 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers filed a voluntary petition to
reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

The complaints allege that the representations made in Lehman
Brothers' prospectuses were materially false and misleading
because, among other things, they allegedly failed to disclose
Lehman's marketing of risky products linked to sub-prime
mortgages and its alleged failure to adequately write down
commercial and residential mortgage and real estate assets.

The complaints allege that the defendants, including the
underwriters, failed to conduct adequate due diligence regarding
Lehman's disclosures.

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. 26, 2008, the complaints seek damages in an
unspecified amount.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with
its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and
related services to individuals and institutions on a global
basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial
services subsidiaries.  The company's operations are organized
into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment
Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM).  GMI provides
service global markets and origination products and services to
corporate, institutional, and government clients around the
world.  GWM creates and distributes investment products and
services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and
employee benefit plans.


MERRILL LYNCH: "McReynolds" Discrimination Suit Pending in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit captioned, "McReynolds. v. Merrill
Lynch," remains pending, according to Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008.

On Oct. 24, 2008, a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
African-American and female Financial Advisors.

The complaint alleges that a retention bonus procedure recently
announced by Merrill Lynch and Bank of America disadvantages
African Americans and women because it is based on the amount of
the Financial Advisers' production and that, allegedly as a
result of discrimination, African-American and female Financial
Advisors have lower production than white males.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, the value of
compensation and benefits that plaintiffs have lost and will
lose as a result of defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with
its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and
related services to individuals and institutions on a global
basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial
services subsidiaries.  The company's operations are organized
into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment
Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM).  GMI provides
service global markets and origination products and services to
corporate, institutional, and government clients around the
world.  GWM creates and distributes investment products and
services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and
employee benefit plans.


MERRILL LYNCH: To Seek Dismissal of Suits Over Alleged Collusion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. intends to move to dismiss or file an
answer denying the principal allegations in the complaints
alleging collusion in connection with their auction rate
securities practices, 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. 26, 2008.

On Sept. 4, 2008, plaintiffs filed two purported class actions
under the antitrust laws against over a dozen defendants in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
actions are "Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Maryland v.
Citigroup, Inc., et al.," and "Russell Mayfield, et al. v.
Citigroup, Inc., et al."

One seeks to represent a class of issuers of auction rate
securities underwritten by the defendants between May 12, 2003
and Feb. 13, 2008.  The other seeks to represent a class of
persons who acquired auction rate securities directly from
defendants and who held those securities as of Feb. 13, 2008.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants colluded in connection
with their auction rate securities practices.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with
its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and
related services to individuals and institutions on a global
basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial
services subsidiaries.  The company's operations are organized
into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment
Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM).  GMI provides
service global markets and origination products and services to
corporate, institutional, and government clients around the
world.  GWM creates and distributes investment products and
services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and
employee benefit plans.


PIER SIXTY: Faces New York Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pier Sixty LLC and Abigail Kirsch are facing a purported class-
action in New York on behalf of cater waiters who work private
parties, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
New York Magazine reports.

The suit was filed by attorney Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
the caption, "Spicer et al v. Pier Sixty LLC et al., Case No.
1:08-cv-10240-LBS."

The named plaintiffs are:

       -- Celeste Spicer,
       -- Autumn Burgess,
       -- Amy Ledin,
       -- Joseph Russo,
       -- Esther Martinez,
       -- Lysette Roman, and
       -- Serena Siying Hui.

According to Mr. Kirschenbaum servers aren't allowed to accept
tips during the course of a private party.  "If you're really
drunk at a wedding and you pull out a $100 bill and hand it to
them, they're instructed to tell you, 'The host of this party
has already given a gracious gratuity and I'm going to have to
reject it,'" Mr. Kirschenbaum tells New York Magazine.

The suit is "Spicer et al v. Pier Sixty LLC et al., Case No.
1:08-cv-10240-LBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Leonard B. Sand, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. (maimon@jhllp.com)
          Joseph and Herzfeld
          757 3rd Avenue
          25th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 688-5640x2548
          Fax: (212) 688-5639


SPRINT NEXTEL: Cases v. Unit Over Easements Pending in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cases filed against Sprint Nextel Corp.'s subsidiary, Sprint
Communications Company L.P., for alleged failure to obtain
easements for fiber optic network installations remain pending
in Tennessee.

A number of cases that allege Sprint Communications failed to
obtain easements from property owners during the installation of
its fiber optic network in the 1980's have been filed in various
courts.  Several of these cases sought certification of
nationwide classes, and in one case, a nationwide class was
certified.

In 2003, a nationwide settlement of these claims was approved by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
but objectors appealed the preliminary approval order to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the
settlement and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.  The parties proceeded with litigation and/or
settlement negotiations on a state by state basis, and
settlement negotiations have been coordinated in all cases but
those pending in Louisiana and Tennessee.  The Louisiana claims
have been separately settled for an amount not material to the
company, and that settlement was given final approval by the
Court, and the time to appeal that approval has expired.

The company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
claims in all the other states, excluding Tennessee, for an
amount not material to the company.  The Court issued its
preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2008, and a
final fairness hearing on the settlement was scheduled for Nov.
17, 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.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Continues to Face Shareholders' Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. continues to face a shareholder class-action
lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws.

In September 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging
that the company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and
misleading in violation of federal securities laws to the extent
they described new employment agreements with certain senior
executives without disclosing that, according to the
allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable.

These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit
originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the company and
certain current and former officers and directors, and seek to
recover any decline in the value of our tracking stocks during
the class period.

The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class
action.

All defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations and intend to
defend this matter vigorously, 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.

Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims
against the same defendants and the company's former independent
auditor, were dismissed by the Court in April 2004.

The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
denied, and the parties are engaged in discovery.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


TD AMERITRADE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Atlanta, GA (PRWEB) January 10, 2009 -- Notice is hereby
given that a class action has been commenced in the Northern
District of Georgia (Case No. 1:08-cv-3731) on behalf of
customers of TD Ameritrade who purchased shares in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund ("Fund") during the period between July 27, 2007
and September 16, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges the Fund, TD Ameritrade, Inc., TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp., their affiliates, and certain of their
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and other statutory and common law
provisions.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements about
the Fund's financial condition and operating results.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges Defendants failed to
disclose:

       -- that the Fund abandoned its stated objectives of
          preserving capital in an effort to achieve greater
          yields through the pursuit of risky instruments, such
          as Lehman Brothers commercial paper;

       -- that the Fund was not designed to protect the $1.00
          net asset value of each share and was thus
          significantly riskier than money market funds;

       -- that the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Fund from taking on excessive risk;

       -- that the extent of the Fund's relationship with TD
          Ameritrade was not disclosed;

       -- that TD Ameritrade knowingly misrepresented the Fund's
          true characteristics;

       -- that the Fund's financial statements were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles and, therefore, were materially false and
          misleading; and

       -- other material disclosures.

     According to the complaint, on July 27, 2007, the Fund
issued a statement representing the Fund's intention to maintain
a $1.00 net asset value, consistent with alleged representations
by TD Ameritrade personnel.

     On September 16, 2008, the net asset value collapsed from
$1.00 per share to close at $0.97 allegedly due to the Fund's
investments in risky instruments and securities.


UTSTARCOM OMC: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Stock Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned "In re: UTSTARCOM,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is
pending, 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.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class-action
complaints alleging federal securities violations were filed
against the company and various officers and directors.  The
actions were later consolidated as "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on July 26, 2005, alleging violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit was brought
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the
company's stock after April 16, 2003, and before Sept. 20, 2004.

On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of the
class period to Oct. 6, 2005.  In addition to the company
defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank.  The
plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an
unspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On March 21,
2007, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the
second amended complaint.  The court, however, granted the
plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which the
plaintiffs did on May 25, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the third
amended complaint.  This was granted by the court, but with
leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which the plaintiffs
also did on May 14, 2008.

On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008
dismissal order, the company and the individual defendants filed
objections to the form and content of the fourth amended
complaint.

On July 24, 2008, the court overruled the objections, but stated
that the company and the individual defendants would be
permitted to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the
fourth amended complaint.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain
allegations from the Fourth Amended Complaint.

The suit is "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

              - and -

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100

              - and -

         Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. (halls@sullcrom.com)
         Sullivan & Cromwell
         1870 Embarcadero Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94303
         Phone: 650-461-5600
         Fax: 650-461-5700


UTSTARCOM INC: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Rudolph" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTSTARCOM, Inc. continues to face the remaining claims in a
class-action lawsuit entitled "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et
al., Case No. 3:07-cv-04578-SI," which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The purported shareholder class-action suit was filed on Sept.
4, 2007, against the company and some of its current and former
directors and officers.  It alleges violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed improper
accounting practices concerning the company's historical equity
award grants.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between July
24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court appointed James R. Bartholomew as
lead plaintiff.  On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint and in April, the court granted a motion by
the company to dismiss the amended complaint.

The court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second
amended complaint no later than May 16, 2008, which the lead
plaintiff did so.  On June 6, 2008, the defendants again filed a
motion to dismiss, this time pertaining to the second amended
complaint.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, 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 "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-04578-SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

               - and -

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. (ekt@ftllaw.com)
          Attorney at Law
          1050 30th Street
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000

Representing the defendants is:

          Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100


WELLS REAL: Affiliates to Defend Md. Lawsuit V. Piedmont REIT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leo F. Wells, III, Wells Capital, Inc., and Wells Management
Company, Inc. intend to defend lawsuit filed against Piedmont
Office Realty Trust, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT, filed a
putative class-action and derivative complaint, presently
styled, "In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.
Securities Litigation," in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Mr.
Wells and Wells Capital, the company's General Partners; Wells
Management, its property manager; certain affiliates of Wells
Real Estate Funds, Inc.; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and
certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors
of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007, as amended.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT internalization
transaction.

On April 9, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for an order enjoining the internalization transaction.

On April 17, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in the Northern
District of Georgia on April 24, 2007.

On June 7, 2007, the Court granted a motion to designate the
class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of those
persons who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont
REIT proxy statement filed with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2007 and
derivative claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On July 9, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery related to an anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court dismissed
five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their
entirety. The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the
exception of allegations regarding the failure to disclose in
the Piedmont REIT proxy statement details of certain expressions
of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the
internalization transaction.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

As of Nov. 7, 2008, the date of the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the SEC for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, the time for
the defendants to respond to the plaintiff's motion for class
certification has not yet passed.  The parties are presently
engaged in discovery.  Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells
Management intend to vigorously defend this action. Any
financial loss incurred by Wells Capital, Wells Management, or
their affiliates could hinder their ability to successfully
manage the company's operations and its portfolio of
investments.

Wells Real Estate Funds -- http://www.wellsref.com/-- is a
national real estate investment company.  More than 200,000
individuals have invested in Wells-sponsored investment programs
through their financial advisors, and these programs
collectively own over $7.5 billion in assets.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HORIZON LINES: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law
Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
behalf of purchasers of Horizon Lines, Inc. ("Horizon" or the
"Company") (NYSE:HRZ) between March 2, 2007 and April 25, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal
securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that investors were misled about the
Company's profitability, emanating from Horizon's use of
improper price-fixing agreements with its competition, in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

     On April 17, 2008, investors first learned the Company was
the subject of a United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ")
investigation for violations of antitrust laws.  On this news,
Horizon shares fell $3.53 per share, almost 20 percent.

     On April 25, 2008, Horizon shares fell another $3.83 per
share, over 20 percent, as the Company reported 1st Quarter 2008
results and revised downward the Company's earnings guidance for
the 2008 fiscal year.

     Recently, on October 1, 2008, the DOJ announced that three
Horizon employees pled guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to
eliminate competition and raise prices for the movement of goods
between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, by agreeing not to compete for
customers, to rig bids submitted to buyers, and to fix the
prices of rates, surcharges and other fees charged to customers.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, Jan. 10, 2009 - (Business Wire) The law firm of
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has filed a lawsuit on behalf
of its client and a proposed class of persons who purchased the
securities of KV Pharmaceutical Company between February 15,
2008 and November 12, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The proposed class would be comprised of purchasers of KV's
Class A Common Stock (NYSE: KV-A), Class B Common Stock (NYSE:
KV-B) and 7% cumulative convertible Preferred Stock (Symbol:
KVPHP or CUSIP: 482740305) during the Class Period.  The lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

     The Complaint filed in the lawsuit charges that KV and
certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
to investors and by failing to disclose to investors information
that they were required to disclose.

     According to the Complaint, during the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose:

       -- that KV's manufacturing facilities were in disarray,
          resulting in the manufacture of unsafe drug products;

       -- that KV's management engaged in misconduct by failing
          to recall the Company's unsafe drug products;

       -- that KV's manufacturing facilities failed to comply
          with federal regulations;

       -- that manufacturing disruptions and inefficiencies had
          caused a material backlog of unshipped customer
          orders, eroding the Company's revenues and earnings;

       -- that the Company failed to write off at least $24
          million in inventories of discontinued products,
          seized by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District
          of Missouri because of defendants' violation of FDA
          enforcement notices;

       -- that KV's post-January 2008 sales of generic drugs had
          been negatively impacted by material price erosion
          following the expiration of the company's exclusive
          sales period for the drug metoprolol succinate; and

       -- that KV's financial statements failed to comply with
          Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

     On November 13, 2008, KV unexpectedly announced that it
would be unable to file its SEC Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008 due to a continuing investigation by the
Company's Audit Committee into allegations of management
misconduct concerning recalls of the Company's drug products.

     Following this statement, the price of KV common stock fell
from $14.26 per share to $5.90 per share—a drop of nearly 59%—on
volume of more than 6.6 million shares, 33 times the stock's
average trading volume.

For more details, contact:

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


PFF BANCORP: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 9, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX News
Network) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of PFF Bancorp, Inc. ("PFF" or the "Company")
(OTCBB:PFFBQ) during the period between October 23, 2006 through
November 21, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges that defendants concealed the
Company's improper lending to borrowers with little ability to
repay the amount loaned and failed to inform investors of the
impact of changes in the real estate market in San Bernardino
and Riverside counties (the "Inland Empire").

     As a result of defendants' concealment, PFF's stock traded
at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period,
reaching a high of $35.45 per share in December 2006.  On
November 21, 2008, after the market closed, the Bank was closed
by regulators and taken over by U.S. Bancorp. Following this
announcement, PFF's stock declined to $0.01 per share, a total
loss for investors.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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  * * *