CAR_Public/090114.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 9

                           Headlines

CENDANT CORP: March 16 Hearing Set for $4M Homestore.com Deal
CHINA LIFE: Plaintiffs in U.S. Securities Fraud Suit Drop Appeal
COVENTRY HEALTH: "Tag-Along" Lawsuit Proceeds with Arbitration
CUMULUS MEDIA: Motions to Junk Cloud Merger Suits in Ga. Pending
CUMULUS MEDIA: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Del. Suit Over Merger Deal

EQUITRUST LIFE: Hagens Berman Files Consumer Fraud Litigation
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Scandal
GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Pension Fund's Lawsuit
GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues
LEAP WIRELESS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.

MEDICI BANK: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Suit Over Madoff Scandal
MORTGAGE DEPOT: Mo. Court Gives Preliminary OK to TCPA Suit Deal
PDI INC: Lawsuits Over Use of Baycol Medication Remain Pending
PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending
RAIT FINANCIAL: Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: March 16 Hearing Set for $925.5M Settlement
VAN LINES: April 7 Fairness Hearing Set for MDL-1865 Settlement
WACHOVIA CORP: Jan. 22, 2009 Fairness Hearing Set Pa. Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ROYAL BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ROYAL BANK: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
VMWARE INC: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals


                           *********

CENDANT CORP: March 16 Hearing Set for $4M Homestore.com Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on March 16, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $4,000,000 settlement by Cendant Corp. (now know as
Avis Budget, Inc.) and Richard A. Smith in the matter, "In re
Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01-
CV-11115 RSWM (Cwx)."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew,
U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 312 N. Spring St.,
Los Angeles, CA 90012.

The proposed settlement with Cendant and Smith applies to all
persons and entities, including Cendant, who purchased
Homestore.com, Inc. common stock from Jan. 1, 2000 through Dec.
21, 2001.

Cendant is a member of the Class because in October 2000,
Cendant sold two subsidiaries, Move.com and Welcome Wagon
International, Inc., to Homestore in exchange for approximately
21.5 million shares of Homestore stock with a market value of
approximately $750 million at that time and representing
approximately 20% of the outstanding shares of Homestore stock.

                        Case Background

Beginning in December 2001, numerous separate complaints
purporting to be class-action suits were filed in various
jurisdictions alleging that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors violated certain
provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints contain varying allegations, including that the
company made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to the company's 2000 and 2001 financial results
included in the company's filings with the SEC, analysts'
reports, press releases and media reports.  The complaints
sought an unspecified amount of damages.

In March 2002, the California State Teachers' Retirement System
was named lead plaintiff and the complaints were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

In November 2002, the plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint naming the company, certain
of its current officers, directors and employees, certain of the
Company's former officers, directors and employees, and various
other parties, including, among others, PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP as defendants.

The amended complaint made various allegations, including that
the company violated federal securities laws, and sought an
unspecified amount of damages.

In general, the suit was brought on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
the company during the period from Jan. 1, 2000 through Dec. 21,
2001.

For more details, contact:

          Claims Administrator
          In re Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          PO Box 1670
          Faribault, MN 55021-1670
          Phone: 1-866-216-0264
          Web site: http://www.homestoresettlement.com

               - and -

          Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. (bsimon@cpsmlaw.com)
          Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
          SF Airport Office Ctr., 840 Malcolm Rd., Ste. 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Phone: (650) 697-6000
          Fax: (650) 697-0577
          Web site: http://www.cpsmlaw.com/


CHINA LIFE: Plaintiffs in U.S. Securities Fraud Suit Drop Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BEIJING, Jan. 13, 2009 (XFN-ASIA via COMTEX) -- China Life
Insurance Co Ltd (SHA 601628; HK 2628; ADR LFC) said plaintiffs
in the U.S. class action lawsuit against the company have
decided not to pursue further litigation after a U.S. court
dismissed the lawsuit in September 2008.

     The suit, filed in the southern district of New York,
alleged that the company did not disclose material information
before its IPO in Hong Kong and New York. China's National Audit
Office (NAO) found 5.4 bln yuan in irregularities at China Life
in January 2004, one month after the IPO.

     In September 2008, the court dismissed the lawsuit for lack
of merit and also ruled it had no jurisdiction over non-US
investors who purchased shares of China Life from the Hong Kong
Stock Exchange.

     "On Jan 8, the plaintiffs-appellants filed with the court a
motion of voluntary dismissal of appeal, which motion was
granted by the court on the same day," the company said in a
statement filed with the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

     The company said that the action makes the summary judgment
decision granted in September final.


COVENTRY HEALTH: "Tag-Along" Lawsuit Proceeds with Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
The matter "Harrison vs. Coventry Health Care of Georgia, Inc.
(CHCGA)" -- a tag-along action that is included in the Multi-
District Litigation "In Re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No.
1334" -- which names Coventry Health Care, Inc., as defendant,
proceeds with arbitration, according to Conventry's Nov. 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The company was a defendant in the provider track of "In Re:
Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division, in the suit captioned "Charles B. Shane., et al., vs.
Humana, Inc., et al."

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company
on all claims asserted in the litigation.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's
order granting summary judgment.

The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class-
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals.  Each of these actions has been
transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along"
actions.  There are three tag-along actions currently filed
against the company.

The trial court had entered an order which stayed all
proceedings in these tag-along actions.

Recently, the trial court requested the parties in the tag-along
actions to refile all motions pending at the time of the stay
and to file any new motions.

On July 14, 2008, the trial court entered an order in the
Harrison tag-along action, dismissing all of the plaintiffs'
claims except their breach of contract claim, which the court
ordered to arbitration.

In addition, the court deferred to the arbitrator for decision
the company's affirmative defenses that the plaintiffs waived
their right to arbitration and their claim is barred by the
doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata.

The Harrison tag along action is a purported class-action suit
on behalf of all physicians in Georgia who had written provider
contracts with CHCGA.  The plaintiffs allege that CHCGA breached
their contracts by not paying statutory interest on claims not
adjudicated in compliance with Georgia's prompt pay statute.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a
national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland,
operating health plans, insurance companies, network
rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation
services companies.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Motions to Junk Cloud Merger Suits in Ga. Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media, Inc.'s motions for the dismissal of two purported
class-action lawsuits over its merger agreement with Cloud
Acquisition Corp. and Cloud Acquisition's subsidiary, Cloud
Merger Corp., remain pending.

On July 23, 2007, Cumulus Media entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Cloud Acquisition and Cloud Merger.  Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cloud Merger will be merged
with and into Cumulus Media, with Cumulus continuing as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cloud
Acquisition.  The proposed acquisition of the company was
terminated in May 2008.

The two purported class-action suits related to the merger are:

    1. "Jeff Michelson, on behalf of himself and all others
       similarly situated v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al."
       (Case No. 2007CV137612, filed July 27, 2007), which
       was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
       Georgia, against the company, Lew Dickey, the other
       directors and the sponsor; and

    2. "Paul Cowles v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al." (Case No.
       2007-CV-139323, filed August 31, 2007), which was
       filed before the Superior Court of Fulton County,
       Georgia, against the company, Lew Dickey, the other
       directors and the sponsor.

The complaints in the two Georgia lawsuits made similar
allegations initially, but on June 25 and July 11, 2008,
respectively, plaintiffs filed amended complaints, alleging,
among other things, entirely new state law claims, including
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate
waste, unjust enrichment, rescission and accounting.

The amended complaints further allege, for the first time,
misrepresentations or omissions in connection with the purchase
or sale of securities.  The amended complaints seek, among other
relief, damages on behalf of the putative class.

With respect to the two Georgia lawsuits, defendants removed
them to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on July 17, 2008 and filed motions to dismiss both cases
on July 24, 2008.  In August 2008, plaintiffs moved to remand
the cases back to state court. As of Cumulus Media's Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, all motions
remain pending.

Cumulus Media Inc. -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- owns and
operates frequency modulation (FM) and audio modulation (AM)
radio station clusters serving mid-sized markets throughout the
U.S.  Through its investment in Cumulus Media Partners, LLC
(CMP), the company also operates radio station clusters serving
large-sized markets throughout the U.S.  As of Dec. 31, 2007,
Cumulus owned and operated 303 radio stations in 56 mid-sized
U.S. media markets and operated the 33 radio stations in eight
markets, including San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta
that are owned by CMP.  Under an local marketing agreement
(LMA), the Company provides sales and marketing services for one
radio station in the United States in exchange for a management
or consulting fee.  In summary, Cumulus owns and operates,
directly or through its investment in CMP, a total of 336
stations in 64 U.S. markets.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Del. Suit Over Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media, Inc., anticipates seeking dismissal of a
purported class-action lawsuit in Delaware over a merger
agreement with Cloud Acquisition Corp. and Cloud Acquisition's
subsidiary, Cloud Merger Corp.

On July 23, 2007, Cumulus Media entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Cloud Acquisition and Cloud Merger.  Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cloud Merger will be merged
with and into Cumulus Media, with Cumulus continuing as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cloud
Acquisition.  The proposed acquisition of the company was
terminated in May 2008.

The suit is entitled, "Patricia D. Merna, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3151," which was filed on Aug. 8, 2007, in the Chancery
Court for the State of Delaware, New Castle County, against the
company, Lew Dickey, the other directors, the sponsor, Cloud
Acquisition and Cloud Merger.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the terminated
transaction was the product of an unfair process, that the
consideration to be paid to the company's stockholders pursuant
to the terminated transaction was inadequate, and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
stockholders.

The suit further alleges that the parties to the transaction
aided and abetted the actions of the company's directors in
breaching such fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks, among
other relief, an injunction preventing completion of the
transaction.

In order to resolve the case, the company reached an agreement
along with the individual defendants in that lawsuit, without
admitting any wrongdoing, pursuant to a memorandum of
understanding dated Nov. 13, 2007.  The MOU extended the
statutory period in which holders of the company's common stock
may have exercised their appraisal rights and allowed for
further disclosures in the proxy statement filed in connection
with the terminated transaction as requested by the counsel for
the plaintiff.

The parties completed confirmatory discovery and the company
anticipates seeking dismissal of the lawsuit.  Any such
dismissal will be subject to court approval, 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.

Cumulus Media Inc. -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- owns and
operates frequency modulation (FM) and audio modulation (AM)
radio station clusters serving mid-sized markets throughout the
U.S.  Through its investment in Cumulus Media Partners, LLC
(CMP), the company also operates radio station clusters serving
large-sized markets throughout the U.S.  As of Dec. 31, 2007,
Cumulus owned and operated 303 radio stations in 56 mid-sized
U.S. media markets and operated the 33 radio stations in eight
markets, including San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta
that are owned by CMP.  Under an local marketing agreement
(LMA), the Company provides sales and marketing services for one
radio station in the United States in exchange for a management
or consulting fee.  In summary, Cumulus owns and operates,
directly or through its investment in CMP, a total of 336
stations in 64 U.S. Markets.


EQUITRUST LIFE: Hagens Berman Files Consumer Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     PHOENIX, Jan. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Two Arizona senior
citizens filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against
EquitTrust Life Insurance Company, claiming the Iowa-based
financial company duped consumers into purchasing financial
products through deceptive sales practices, among other charges.

     According to the lawsuit, EquiTrust designed a scheme that
defrauds policyholders, especially the elderly -- a group in
need of retirement saving and spending vehicles without onerous
surrender charges and lengthy maturation periods -- to create
large product spreads in order to pay its agents oversized
commissions, to lure prospects with illusory bonuses, and to
earn a large profit margin.

     "The sales and marketing of these deferred annuities are
chock-full of misleading promises to policyholders," said Rob
Carey, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in
Phoenix.  "Unfortunately, the elderly are the primary purchasers
of such annuities, and they are taking the brunt of this
underhanded scheme."

     To help protect this group, 47 states have adopted a
consumer protection statute -- the Standard Nonforfeiture Law
for Individual Deferred Annuities (SNFLIDA) -- that limits
surrender penalties through a prospective test.  This test
generally protects those over the age of 60 from individual
deferred annuity products that have optional maturity dates and
surrender charges that exceed 10 percent of the policyholder's
premium.

     The suit claims EquiTrust's surrender charges are often 20
percent, twice the permitted amount.  The SNFLIDA test also
prohibits issuing such annuities to the elderly that have
surrender penalty periods in excess of 10 years.  EquiTrust's
annuities often have surrender penalty periods of up to 14
years.

     The lawsuit claims EquiTrust builds into its annuities
package a maturity that occurs after the policyholders' 105th
birthday.  As the fine print is built into plaintiff's contracts
with EquiTrust, these dates cannot be changed.  This conniving
tactic protects the insurance company from risk while
significantly damaging the financial security of the
policyholder, the suit claims.

     Annuities receive a beneficial tax treatment under U.S. Tax
Code in that the growth on principal within the annuity
accumulates on a tax-deferred basis until the funds are
withdrawn.  This is a big incentive for prospective purchasers
and one EquiTrust offsets by its product spread in its indexed
annuities, plaintiffs claim.

     The lawsuit claims the "scheme was devised and
intentionally crafted to ensure that plaintiffs and class
members would purchase indexed annuities and not receive full
benefits from the annuities or be subject to exorbitant
surrender charges."

     Plaintiffs claim the class has been forced to pay hundreds
of millions of dollars in premiums and surrender charges for
annuity products that, by design, could not perform as
advertised.

     The lawsuit names several counts against EquiTrust
including violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), unjust enrichment and common law civil
conspiracy.

     The suit seeks to represent anyone who purchased an indexed
annuity product from EquiTrust from 2004 until present.

For more information, contact:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          Web site: http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/


FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfield Greenwich Group is facing another purported class-
action lawsuit concerning the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme
claimed to have been run by Bernard L. Madoff under the guise of
a hedge fund, Thom Weidlich of Bloomberg reports.

                           Background

Bernard Lawrence Madoff is a businessman and former chairman of
the NASDAQ stock market.  He started the Wall Street firm
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960 and was its
chairman until Dec. 11, 2008, when he was arrested and charged
with securities fraud.

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, which is in the process
of liquidation, was one of the top market maker businesses on
Wall Street, often functioning as a "third-market" provider that
bypassed "specialist" firms and directly executed orders over-
the-counter from retail brokers.  The firm also encompassed an
investment management and advisory division that is now the
focus of the fraud investigation.

On Dec. 11, 2008, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents
arrested Mr. Madoff on a tip-off from his sons, Andrew and Mark,
and charged him with one count of securities fraud.  On the day
prior to his arrest, Mr. Madoff told his senior executives at
the firm that the management and advisory segment of the
business was "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme."

Five days after his arrest, Mr. Madoff's assets and those of the
firm were frozen and a receiver was appointed to handle the
case.  Mr. Madoff's alleged fraud may be valued at a loss of up
to a $50 billion in cash and securities.

Banks from outside the U.S. have announced that they have
potentially lost billions in U.S. dollars as a result.  The FBI
complaint states that Mr. Madoff told his sons he believed the
losses from his scheme could exceed that $50 billion sum.

To date, it is the largest investor fraud ever attributed to a
single individual.

                           Litigation

Thom Weidlich of Bloomberg reported that Fairfield Greenwich
Group, Walter Noel's hedge-fund firm that had $7.5 billion with
alleged fraudster Bernard Madoff, was sued for at least the
third time by investors over claims it failed to protect their
assets.

The latest complaint was filed on Jan. 11, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the
caption, "Inter-American Trust v. Fairfield Greenwich Group,
Case No. 09-cv-301."  It was filed on behalf of investors by
lawyer David Boies, Esq.

In the complaint -- obtained by Bloomberg -- Mr. Boies wrote,
"Most, if not all, of the assets of the plaintiff class had
invested with defendants were stolen through the Madoff Ponzi
scheme."  He added, "These losses could have been avoided if
defendants had fulfilled their duties" and "if they had
adequately investigated and monitored Madoff."

Two trusts and a holding company based in the Cayman Islands and
Carlos Gauch of Mexico sued on behalf of investors in the
Fairfield Sentry Fund.  It's the third suit filed against
Fairfield Greenwich since Mr. Madoff was arrested on Dec. 11,
2008 after he allegedly said he'd been running a $50 billion
Ponzi scheme, according to Bloomberg.

The plaintiffs "invested in Fairfield Sentry, which in turn
handed substantially all of its assets -- at least 95 percent --
over to" Mr. Madoff, according to the complaint.

Bloomberg reported that the plaintiffs are seeking return of
their investments and fees, in addition to damages.  They also
claim Fairfield Greenwich didn't conduct proper due diligence


GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Pension Fund's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaylord Entertainment Co. moves for the dismissal of a purported
derivative and class action complaint pending in Tennessee
federal court, 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.

In August 2008, a union-affiliated pension fund filed a
purported derivative and class action complaint in Tennessee
state court alleging that the directors of the Company breached
their fiduciary duties by adopting a shareholder rights plan.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs purported to dismiss their state
court action, and they re-filed it in federal court.

On Oct. 27, 2008, the company (as the nominal defendant) filed a
motion to dismiss this lawsuit claiming, among other things,
that the plaintiff failed to make the required pre-suit demand
on the Company and that the allegations fail to state a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty.

Gaylord Entertainment Co. -- http://www.gaylordentertainment.com
-- is a hospitality and entertainment company that owns and
operates Gaylord Hotels (www.gaylordhotels.com), its network of
meetings-focused resorts and the Grand Ole Opry (www.opry.com),
the weekly showcase.  The company's entertainment brands and
properties include the Radisson Hotel Opryland, Ryman
Auditorium, General Jackson Showboat, Gaylord Springs Golf
Links, Wildhorse Saloon and WSM-AM Radio.  The company's
operations are organized into three principal business segments:
Hospitality, which includes its hotel operations; Opry and
Attractions, which includes its Nashville attractions and assets
related to the Grand Ole Opry, and Corporate and Other.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded Qwest Rights-of-Way Lawsuit faced by subsidiaries
of Global Crossing Ltd. (GX) is proceeding in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

In May 2001, a purported class-action suit was commenced against
three of Global Crossing's subsidiaries in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  The complaint
alleges that GX had no right to install a fiber-optic cable in
rights-of-way granted by the plaintiffs to certain railroads.

Pursuant to an agreement with Qwest Communications Corp., GX has
an indefeasible right to use certain fiber-optic cables in a
fiber-optic communications system constructed by Qwest within
the rights-of-way.

The complaint alleges that the railroads had only limited
rights-of-way granted to them that did not include permission to
install fiber-optic cable for use by Qwest or any other
entities.

The action has been brought on behalf of a national class of
landowners whose property underlies or is adjacent to a railroad
right-of-way within which the fiber-optic cables have been
installed.

The suit seeks actual damages in an unstated amount and alleges
that the wrongs done by the Company involve fraud, malice,
intentional wrongdoing, willful or wanton conduct and reckless
disregard for the rights of the plaintiff landowners.  The
plaintiffs also request an award of punitive damages.

GX made a demand of Qwest to defend and indemnify it in the
lawsuit.  In response, Qwest has appointed defense counsel to
protect GX's interests.

The company's North American network includes capacity purchased
from Qwest on an Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) basis.  Though
the amount of the claim is unstated, an adverse outcome could
have an adverse impact on the company's ability to utilize large
portions of the company's North American network.

This litigation was stayed against the company pending the
effective date of its Plan of Reorganization, and the
plaintiffs' pre-petition claims against the company were
discharged at that time in accordance with the Plan of
Reorganization.

By agreement between the parties, the Plan of Reorganization
preserved plaintiffs' rights to pursue any post-confirmation
claims of trespass or ejectment.

If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the company could lose its
ability to operate large portions of its North American network,
although it believes that it would be entitled to
indemnification from Qwest for any losses under the terms of the
IRU agreement under which the company originally purchased this
capacity.

As part of a global resolution of all bankruptcy claims asserted
against the company by Qwest, Qwest agreed to reaffirm its
obligations of defense and indemnity to the company for the
assertions made in this claim.

In September 2002, Qwest and certain of the other
telecommunication carrier defendants filed a proposed settlement
agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

On July 25, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and entered an order enjoining competing class action
claims, except those in Louisiana.

The settlement and the court's injunction were opposed by a
number of parties who intervened and an appeal was taken to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In a decision dated Oct. 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed
the approval of the settlement and lifted the injunction.  The
case has been remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Nov. 6 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Global Crossing, Ltd. -- http://www.globalcrossing.com/-- is a
communications solutions provider, offering a suite of Internet
protocol and legacy telecommunications services worldwide.


LEAP WIRELESS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leap Wireless International, Inc., and certain of its current
and former officers and directors continue to defend purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, according to the
company's Nov. 7 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suits were filed between November 2007 and February 2008
purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased Leap common
stock between May 16, 2004, and Nov. 9, 2007.

The company's independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these
lawsuits.

The suits allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege that the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making false and misleading statements about the company's
business and financial results arising from its Nov. 9, 2007
announcement of its financial restatement.  Some of the lawsuits
also allege false and misleading statements revealed by Leap's
Aug. 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release.

The class action complaints seek determinations that the suits
are proper class actions.  They also seek unspecified damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

A consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on Aug. 28, 2008.

The first identified complaint is "HCL Partners Limited
Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-2245," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          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 is:

          Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
          Latham and Watkins
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Phone: 619-236-1234
          Fax: 619-696-7419


MEDICI BANK: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Suit Over Madoff Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES - (Business Wire) Stull, Stull & Brody has
commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 09 CIV
00289) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all persons and
entities who invested in the Herald USA Fund, Herald Luxemburg
Fund, Primeo Select Funds and the Thema International Fund
between January 12, 2002 through and including January 12, 2008
(the "Class Period").

     The Complaint asserts that, during the Class Period,
unbeknownst to investors, defendant Medici Bank, along with
defendants Sonja Kohn, Peter Scheithauer, Bank Austria
Creditanstalt, Unicredit S.A., Pioneer Alternative Investments,
Ernst & Young LLP, and HSBC Holdings plc, caused the Funds to
concentrate almost 100% of their investment capital with
entities that participated in the massive, fraudulent scheme
perpetrated by defendants Bernard L. Madoff and Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities.

For more details, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212/490-2022
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


MORTGAGE DEPOT: Mo. Court Gives Preliminary OK to TCPA Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SPRINGFIELD, Mo., Jan. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- The United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri has
preliminarily approved settlement of a class action lawsuit
against Mortgage Depot, LLC of Merriam, Kansas for sending
unsolicited facsimile advertisements.

     The lawsuit, "Evans & Green, LLP v. Mortgage Depot, LLC et
al.," alleged that Mortgage Depot sent thousands of unsolicited
facsimile advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

     The primary subscriber to a facsimile telephone number
which received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement from
Mortgage Depot, LLC between September 1, 2004 and January 1,
2005 may receive up to $500 as part of the settlement.

     A website has been created to provide more details about
the settlement to members of the class, including how to claim
their money or be excluded from the case.  It is located at
www.MDFaxSettlement.com.  Class members can also contact the
Claims Administrator, c/o Class Action Administration, Inc.
toll-free at (866) 802-7915.


PDI INC: Lawsuits Over Use of Baycol Medication Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
PDI, Inc., continues defending two purported class-action suits
alleging claims arising from the use of Baycol, a prescription
cholesterol-lowering medication.

Baycol was distributed, promoted and sold by Bayer Corp. in the
U.S. until early August 2001, at which time Bayer voluntarily
withdrew Baycol from the U.S. market.  Bayer had retained
certain companies, such as PDI, to provide detailing services on
its behalf pursuant to contract sales force agreements.

To date, PDI has defended these actions vigorously and have
asserted a contractual right of defense and indemnification
against Bayer for all costs and expenses the company incur
relating to these proceedings.

In February 2003, the company entered into a joint defense and
indemnification agreement with Bayer, pursuant to which Bayer
has agreed to assume substantially all of the company's defense
costs in pending and prospective proceedings and to indemnify
the company in these lawsuits, subject to certain limited
exceptions.

Furthermore, Bayer agreed to reimburse the company for all
reasonable costs and expenses incurred through such date in
defending these proceedings.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, Bayer has reimbursed the company for
approximately $1.6 million in legal expenses, the majority of
which was received in 2003 and was reflected as a credit within
selling, general and administrative expense.

The company has not incurred any costs or expenses relating to
these matters since 2003.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Nov. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

PDI Inc. -- http://www.pdi-inc.com/-- is a provider of contract
sales teams to pharmaceutical companies, offering a range of
sales support services.  In addition to contract sales teams,
the company also provides marketing research, physician
interaction and medical education programs.  The services offer
customers a range of promotional and educational options for the
commercialization of their products throughout their lifecycles,
from development through maturity.  The three segments of the
company are Sales Services, Marketing Services and PDI Products
Group.


PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuits filed against one of Peabody Energy
Corp.'s subsidiaries, Gold Fields Mining, LLC, are pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Gold Fields and two other companies are defendants in two class
action lawsuits allegedly involving past operations near Picher,
Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of
intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking
compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of
medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected
individuals.

The company did not provide further details regarding the matter
in its Nov. 7 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Peabody Energy Corp. -- http://www.peabodyenergy.com/-- is a
coal company.  It sells coal to over 340 electricity generating
and industrial plants in 19 countries.  The Company owns
majority interests in 31 coal operations located throughout all
the United States coal producing regions and in Australia.  In
addition, it owns a minority interest in one Venezuelan mine,
through a joint venture arrangement.  Most of the production in
the western United States is low-sulfur coal from the Powder
River Basin.  Peabody owns and operates six mines in Queensland,
Australia, and five mines in New South Wales, Australia.


RAIT FINANCIAL: Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the motions to dismiss the complaint captioned,
"In re RAIT Financial Trust Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:07-cv-03148," have not yet been set, 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.

RAIT, certain of its executive officers and trustees and the
lead underwriters involved in the company's public offering of
common shares in January 2007, were named defendants in one or
more of nine putative class action securities lawsuits filed in
August and September 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

By Order dated Nov. 17, 2007, the court consolidated these cases
under the caption, "In re RAIT Financial Trust Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-03148," and appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

On Jan. 4, 2008, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class-
action complaint, or the complaint, on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of our securities between June 8, 2006 and
Aug. 3, 2007.

The complaint names as defendants RAIT, 11 current and former
officers and trustees of RAIT, 10 underwriters who participated
in certain of the company's securities offerings in 2007, and
its independent accounting firm.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain
defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by making materially false and misleading
statements and material omissions in registration statements and
prospectuses about the company's credit underwriting, its
exposure to certain issuers through investments in debt
securities, and its loan loss reserves and other financial
items.

The complaint further alleges that certain defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making materially false and
misleading statements and material omissions during the putative
class period about the company's credit underwriting, its
exposure to certain issuers through investments in debt
securities, and its loan loss reserves and other financial
items.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right
to rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings,
interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

On March 10, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on
a number of grounds.  The Court permitted plaintiffs to file a
single brief in opposition to all defense motions to dismiss on
May 15, 2008.   All defendants filed reply briefs in support of
their motions to dismiss on June 5, 2008.

RAIT and certain of the officer/trustee defendants sought leave
to file a supplemental brief, which the Court permitted as of
June 24, 2008.  Plaintiffs were permitted a response to the
supplemental brief, which was deemed filed as of July 1, 2008.

The parties have requested oral argument on the motions to
dismiss, but no argument has been scheduled.

RAIT Financial Trust -- http://www.raitft.com-- is a specialty
finance company that provides a set of debt financing options to
the real estate industry.  It originates and invests in real
estate-related assets that are underwritten through an
integrated investment process.  RAIT conducts business through
its subsidiaries, which include RAIT Partnership, L.P. And
Taberna Realty Finance Trust, as well as through their
respective subsidiaries.  RAIT is a self-managed and self-
advised real estate investment trust (REIT), which originates
and invests in asset classes, such as commercial mortgages,
mezzanine loans and other loans; trust preferred securities
(TruPS), and subordinated debentures; residential mortgage
loans; mortgaged-backed securities, including residential
mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS), unsecured REIT notes and other real estate-
related debt securities, and real estate investments and
preferred equity interests in entities that own real estate.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: March 16 Hearing Set for $925.5M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold
a fairness hearing on March 16, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $925,500,000 million settlement by  in the matter, "In
re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-
01691-JMR-FLN"

The hearing will be held before the Honorable James M.
Rosenbaum, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota, 300 South
Fourth St., Minneapolis, Minneosta.

                         Case Background

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class-action suits
alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought
by an individual shareholder against certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
22, 2008).

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Dec. 8, 2006,
consolidating the seven actions into a single case.  The action
is captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN."  The appointed lead plaintiff is
California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants,
in connection with the same alleged course of conduct identified
in the shareholder derivative actions, made misrepresentations
and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005, and May
17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially
inflated the price of the company's common stock.

The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain
defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in
possession of material, non-public information concerning the
matters set forth in the complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims under Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act.  It seeks
unspecified money damages and equitable relief.

On March 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On July 2, 2008, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with CalPERS and the plaintiff class
representative Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension
Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of the class, to
settle the lawsuit.

The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against
the company, all current officers and directors of the company
named in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors
of the Company named in the lawsuit.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company has
accrued $895 million to be paid into a settlement fund for the
benefit of class members in two installments.

An installment of $450 million will be deposited into the
settlement fund on the earlier of 10 days following preliminary
court approval of the settlement or Sept. 15, 2008.

The remaining $445 million settlement amount will be deposited
into the settlement fund on the earlier of:

        -- 10 days following final non-appealable court approval
           of the settlement of the claims,

        -- 10 days following execution by the plaintiffs and the
           non-settling defendants of an agreement in principle
           for the settlement of the claims against the non-
           settling defendants, or

        -- Jan. 1, 2009.

In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company
will also supplement the substantial changes it has already
implemented in its corporate governance policies with additional
changes and enhancements.

The proposed settlement, which has been approved by the boards
of directors of CalPERS and the company, is subject to
completion of final documentation, and preliminary and final
court approval.

The suit is "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              -and -

         Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com)
         Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
         651 Nicollet Mall Ste 501
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
         Phone: 612-341-0400
         Fax: 612-341-0844

Representing the defendants is:

         Gretchen A. Agee, Esq. (agee.gretchen@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-492-6741
         Fax: 612-340-8856

             - and -

         Charles E. Bachman, Esq. (cbachman@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         7 Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-408-2421


VAN LINES: April 7 Fairness Hearing Set for MDL-1865 Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on April 7, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in
the bankruptcy proceedings know as "In re: DJK Residential LLC,
et. al., Case No. 08-10375" to consider the proposed $5 million
settlement reached by North American Van Lines, Inc., and Allied
Van Lines, Inc. (Van Lines) in the matter, "In re Household
Goods Movers Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1865," which is
proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina.

The Fairness Hearing will be held in Courtroom No. 601, One
Bowling Green, New York, New York 10004.

The case involves fuel surcharges allegedly added to the cost of
Household Goods Moving Services during the period from March 19,
2003 to March 19, 2007.  It claims that the Van Lines were among
a group of moving companies that overcharged their customers by
adding illegal fuel surcharges to their invoices.

The suit also claims that Van Lines conspired with other moving
companies to fix and maintain those fuel surcharges.

The settlement generally includes everyone in the U.S.  That
purchased moving services for interstate shipments from any of
the following companies between March 19, 2003 and March 19,
2007: Allied Van Lines, Inc.; North American Van Lines Inc.;
American Moving and Storage Association, Inc.; SIRVA, Inc.;
SIRVA Worldwide, Inc.; Atlas Van Lines, Inc.; Unigroup, Inc.;
Atlas World Group, Inc.; United Van Lines LLC; Bekins Van Lines,
Inc.; Wheaton Van Lines, Inc.; and Mayflower Transit LLC.

For more details, contact:

          DJK Residential Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 4540
          Portland, OR 97208-4540
          Phone: 1-800-809-3150
          Web site: http://vanlinessettlement.com


WACHOVIA CORP: Jan. 22, 2009 Fairness Hearing Set Pa. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on the settlements of two putative class-
action lawsuits filed against Wachovia Corp. is scheduled for
Jan. 22, 2009.

On Feb. 17, 2006, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania filed a civil fraud complaint against a
former Wachovia Bank, N.A. customer, Payment Processing Center
(PPC).  PPC was a third party payment processor for
telemarketing and catalogue companies (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 17, 2008).

On April 12, 2007, a civil class-action suit, "Faloney et al. v.
Wachovia," was filed against Wachovia in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a putative class of
consumers who made purchases through telemarketer customers of
PPC.

The suit alleges that between April 1, 2005 and February 21,
2006, Wachovia conspired with PPC to facilitate PPC's purported
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

On Feb. 15, 2008, a second putative class-action suit, "Harrison
v. Wachovia," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a putative class of
consumers who made purchases through telemarketing customers of
three other third party payment processors which banked with
Wachovia.

On Aug. 14, 2008, Wachovia reached agreements to settle the
Faloney and Harrison class-action lawsuits.  The settlements
have received preliminary approval from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

For more details, contact:

          United States Court Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 37765
          Philadelphia, PA 19101-7765
          Phone: 1-866-680-6659
          Web site: http://restitutionpayment.com

               - and -

          Langer, Grogan & Diver P.C.
          1717 Arch Street
          Suite 4130
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-320-5660
          Fax: 215-320-5703


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ROYAL BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, Jan 12, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP today announced that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of The
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS" or the "Company")
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to
a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's June 2007 initial public offering
of 38 million Non-cumulative Dollar Preference Shares, Series S
(the "Offering").

     The complaint charges RBS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     RBS is a holding company of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
and National Westminster Bank plc, which are United Kingdom-
based clearing banks.

     The complaint alleges that defendants consummated RBS's
Offering pursuant to the false and misleading Registration
Statement, selling 38 million Non-cumulative Dollar Preference
Shares, Series S ("Series S ADSs") at $25 per share, for
proceeds of approximately $950 million.

     The Registration Statement incorporated RBS's financial
results for 2004, 2005 and 2006.  RBS ultimately announced huge
multi-billion pound impairment charges associated with its
exposure to debt securities, including mortgage-related
securities tied to the U.S. real estate markets, causing the
price of RBS's Series S ADSs issued in the Offering to decline.
The ADSs now trade at approximately $10 per share.

     According to the complaint, the true facts that were
omitted from the Registration Statement were:

       -- defendants' portfolio of debt securities was impaired
          to a much larger extent than the Company had
          disclosed;

       -- defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting its debt
          securities;

       -- the Company's participation in the consortium which
          acquired ABN AMRO would have disastrous results on the
          Company's capital position and overall operations; and

       -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to
          withstand the significant deterioration in the
          subprime market and, as a result, RBS would be forced
          to raise significant amounts of additional capital.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of RBS Series S ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement for the Offering (the "Class").

For more details, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rbs/


ROYAL BANK: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (NYSE: RBS)
("RBS" or the "Company") American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's June 2007 initial public
offering of 38 million Non-cumulative Dollar Preference Shares,
Series S (the "Offering").

     The Complaint charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a materially false and misleading
Registration Statement.

     Specifically, the following facts were omitted from the
Registration Statement:

       -- defendants' portfolio of debt securities was impaired
          to a much larger extent than RBS had disclosed;

       -- defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent RBS from improperly reporting its debt
          securities;

       -- the Company's participation in the consortium which
          acquired ABN AMRO would have disastrous results on the
          Company's capital position and overall operations; and

       -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to
          withstand the significant deterioration in the
          subprime market and, as a result, RBS would be forced
          to raise significant amounts of additional capital.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com


VMWARE INC: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, Jan. 12, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Dyer &
Berens LLP (www.DyerBerens.com) today reminded investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of VMware, Inc.
("VMware" or the "Company") (NYSE:VMW) between April 22, 2008
and July 22, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the
upcoming January 23, 2009 deadline to seek a lead plaintiff
appointment in the class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

     The class action complaint charges that two of the
Company's senior officers, Diane B. Greene (former President and
CEO) and Mark S. Peek (CFO), violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and breached their fiduciary duties by making and/or
allowing false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business, operations and prospects.

     Specifically, the defendants allegedly knew but recklessly
disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public that:

       -- the Company was facing increasing competition and
          lower-priced rival products were lengthening the time
          it took for VMware to close deals;

       -- customers were taking longer to sign lucrative multi-
          year enterprise license agreements, and were instead
          signing smaller, short-term contracts; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants
          misrepresented the Company's business and future
          prospects.

     The complaint further charges that, during the Class
Period, Company insiders took advantage of the undisclosed
adverse information by collectively selling 86,541 shares of
their personally held VMware common stock for gross proceeds in
excess of $5.8 million.

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


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

Copyright 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  * * *