CAR_Public/090115.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, January 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 10

                           Headlines

BRIGGS & STRATTON: Faces Consolidated Wis. Suit Over HP Ratings
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Arbitration in 2 Accreditation Suits
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Hardwick" FLSA Violations Lawsuit Pending
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Leask" Suit Pending in Santa Clara, Calif.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Dismissed Lawsuit

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: To Defend "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Wash. Suit Over Appraisal Process
DELL INC: Settles Suit Over Misleading Financing, Service Offers
DUANE READE: Reaches $3.5M Settlement for Labor-Related Lawsuits
FIRSTENERGY CORP: N.J. Unit to Defend Action Over Power Outages

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Denied Motions Pending
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Faces Lawsuits Over Bruce Mansfield Plant
GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Denies Request in Parking Brakes Suit
H&R BLOCK: "Peace Of Mind" Litigation Remanded to Madison County
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in Texas

INVESTMENT PROPERTIES: Owner Faces Suit Over 1031 Tax Shelters
MICHELIN NORTH: Md. Court Mulls Approving Suit Over "Rub-Flats"
VALERO ENERGY: Appeal to "Rosolowski" Ruling Pending in Illinois
VALERO ENERGY: Kansas Fuel Temperature Lawsuits in Discovery
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Awaits Final Approval of OSB Suit Settlement

WEYERHAEUSER CO: To Appeal $84M Judgment in Alder Antitrust Suit

* Class Certification Ruling Vacated in Hydrogen Peroxide Matter


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Statman Harris Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
SATYAM COMPUTER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TALEO CORP: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


                           *********

BRIGGS & STRATTON: Faces Consolidated Wis. Suit Over HP Ratings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corp. and other small-engine makers are facing
a consolidated lawsuit that claims the companies lied about
horsepower ratings and misled consumers, Rick Barrett of the
Journal Sentinel reports.

The lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Lynn Adelman,
with 39 of the cases on file now and three more coming,
according to court officials.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are seeking class-action status,
meaning a favorable outcome for them could have implications for
thousands of consumers and cost the engine manufacturers
millions of dollars, reports the Journal Sentinel.

By Jan. 15, 2008, attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants
are supposed to file brief statements of the facts involved in
the litigation and the critical issues.

The cases allege that small-engine manufacturers and companies
selling outdoor power equipment misrepresented and overstated
horsepower ratings in advertising and marketing, according to
the Journal Sentinel.

Specifically, the cases are charging that defendants have
purposely misstated horsepower valuations on their products in
order to justify higher prices.

The Journal Sentinel reported reported that identical engines
were labeled with different horsepower ratings, misleading
consumers into believing they were getting more power by
purchasing more expensive models, according to one of the
lawsuits.

The horsepower lawsuits in Wisconsin have not been certified as
class-action litigation, but that's one of the first issues to
be decided, according to attorneys.

The cases are in their early stages and could last a year or
more, attorneys told the Journal Sentinel.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Arbitration in 2 Accreditation Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., faces a consolidated arbitration
proceeding in two lawsuits regarding the status of its
accreditation with other colleges, 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 March 8, 2004, the company was served with two virtually
identical putative class-action complaints:

     -- "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges,
         Inc.," and

     -- "Florida Metropolitan University, and Satz v. Rhodes
         Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida
         Metropolitan University."

On April 15, 2005, the company received another complaint
captioned "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University,
Inc."

The "Alvarez" first amended and supplemental complaint named 99
plaintiffs.  Additionally, the court in the "Alvarez" case
granted the plaintiffs' motion to add additional seven
plaintiffs to the first amended and supplemental complaint.

The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former
students in the company's Florida Metropolitan University
campuses in Florida and online.

The plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the fact that it is not
accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools and that FMU credits are not
transferable to other institutions.

The "Satz" and "Travis" plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees under common law and Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all
similarly situated people.

The "Alvarez" plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves
under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the "Satz" case found for the company on all
counts in an award on the Company's motion to dismiss.

The arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his agreement
with FMU by filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and
is therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages associated with
compelling the action to arbitration.

The arbitrator also declared FMU the prevailing party for
purposes of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The company is continuing to pursue its remedies against Mr.
Satz related to these findings.

Additionally, the company affirmatively filed an arbitration
action against Ms. Travis seeking damages for breach of her
obligations to file in arbitration rather than in court and
declaratory relief regarding her allegations.

The arbitrator ruled against the Company in its affirmative
claims against Ms. Travis.  The Company has prevailed on its
motions in court to dismiss the court actions and compel
arbitration in both the Alvarez and Travis matters.  Ms. Travis
has filed a motion to certify a class in her arbitration
proceeding on behalf of all similarly situated persons, and the
Company has opposed that motion.

The Company and the plaintiffs in the Alvarez and Travis matters
have agreed to consolidate those actions before a single
arbitrator.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-
profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. And
Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30,
2006.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions
in the U.S. and Canada.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Hardwick" FLSA Violations Lawsuit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend a purported class
action suit in California that generally alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 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 Nov. 14, 2007, the company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned, "Hardwick, et al. v.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc."

The plaintiff is a former instructor at the company's
Merrionette Park, Illinois campus.  Her complaint seeks
certification of a class composed of all campus instructors
nationwide, alleging wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as a class of Illinois instructors
alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act and Illinois' Eight-Hour Work Day Act.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Paula Hardwick v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Case
No. 2:07-cv-07222-DDP-E," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Dean D. Pregerson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq. (tbuehler@touhylaw.com)
          Touhy Touhy Buehler Williams
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-372-2209

               - and -

          Peter M. Callahan, Esq. (peter_callahan@cmwlaw.net)
          Callahan McCune & Willis
          111 Fashion Ln
          Tustin, CA 92780-3397
          Phone: 714-730-5700

Representing the defendants are:

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. (jkb@paynefears.com)
          Payne & Fears
          4 Park Plz, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: 949-851-1100

               - and -

          Mark Easton Earnest, Esq. (mee@paynefears.com)
          Payne & Fears LLP
          4 Park Plaza Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92675
          Phone: 949-851-1100


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Leask" Suit Pending in Santa Clara, Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action complaint entitled, "Leask v. Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., and Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al.," 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.

The Company was notified that on Dec. 31, 2007, the putative
class action complaint was filed in the Santa Clara, California
Superior Court.

The plaintiffs are a former medical assisting student from the
Company's Everest College (formerly Bryman College) campus in
San Jose and her mother.

The complaint alleges violations of the California Education
Code and of California's Business and Professions Code Section
17200 related to allegedly missing or inadequate student
disclosures and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and an unspecified amount of damages.

In addition, the complaint seeks to certify a class composed of
all medical assisting students in California over the last four
years.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-
profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. And
Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30,
2006.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions
in the U.S. and Canada.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Dismissed Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated class-action lawsuit against
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continue to seek an en banc review by
the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 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.

From July 8, 2004 through Aug. 31, 2004, various putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by certain alleged purchasers of
the Company's common stock against the Company and certain of
its former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis Beal, Paul
St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

On Nov. 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases
were consolidated into one action.  A first consolidated amended
complaint was filed in February 2005.

The consolidated case is purportedly brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock during
a specified class period from Aug. 27, 2003 through July 30,
2004.

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the SEC, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the plaintiffs to
purchase the company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St.
Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
and costs, as well as other relief.

On April 24, 2006, the U.S. District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's third consolidated amended
complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On July 25, 2008, the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the
District Court's dismissal.

The plaintiffs have sought a rehearing from the panel and an en
banc review by the Ninth Circuit.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-
profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. And
Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30,
2006.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions
in the U.S. and Canada.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: To Defend "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. intends to defend itself against the
allegations in a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned, "Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc.," 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 28, 2008, the "Rivera" action was filed with the American
Arbitration Association.

The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC students from the
Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland campuses.

The arbitration demand alleges violations of California's
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud
and intentional deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment / restitution, all related to
alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding the HVAC
program at these two campuses.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the past four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-
profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. And
Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30,
2006.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions
in the U.S. and Canada.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Wash. Suit Over Appraisal Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Jan. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- A group of Washington
homeowners this week filed a lawsuit against Countrywide
Financial Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America
(NYSE: BAC) and the nation's largest mortgage company, claiming
the mortgage giant illegally rigged the appraisal process in a
scheme to boost profits at the expense of homeowners and
independent appraisers.

     Filed under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Practices Act (RICO), the suit claims that Countrywide forces
homeowners to use its wholly owned subsidiary LandSafe, for
appraisals.  The company then turns around and subcontracts the
work to independent appraisers while charging homeowners as much
as 200 percent of the actual cost of the appraisal.

     The suit also contends that if independent appraisers do
not accept Countrywide's fee structure or appraisal guidelines,
they stand the risk of being blacklisted for further work by the
industry giant.

     The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, seeks
to represent all homeowners who purchased or refinanced their
home through Countrywide and LandSafe, and asks the court to
award plaintiffs damages.

     "As we investigated Countrywide for our clients, it was
immediately obvious that Countrywide is a well-oiled operation,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner and lead attorney at Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro.  "Unfortunately, the company's
efficiencies are focused on soaking every penny from consumers
and independent appraisers in ways we believe violate the law."

     The lawsuit claims LandSafe subcontracts much if its
appraisal work to a network of independent appraisers, but
offers them rates as low as $140 per appraisal.  The company
then marks the costs of the appraisal back as high as $410 when
invoicing homeowners.

     The suit also claims that Countrywide, through its
arrangement with LandSafe, has excessive influence on the
appraisal process, designed to be an independent verification of
a property's value.

     "When you control the entire appraisal process, including
your hands around the necks of appraisers financially speaking,
you have a lot of influence," Berman added.

     Berman noted that hundreds of thousands of homeowners have
fallen prey to the alleged scheme.

     The suit states that if appraisers fail to agree to the fee
schedule set by LandSafe, their names appear on the Field Review
List, a database of appraisers Countrywide refuses to use unless
the mortgage broker also submits a report from a second
appraiser.

     Plaintiffs claim that Countrywide created LandSafe to
guarantee a continual source of significant profit and control
over the appraisal process.

     The real estate market boomed from 2000 through 2006,
allowing Countrywide to exert its will on appraisers, forcing
them to lower fees for loans.  Countrywide maintained market
rates to its borrowers and kept the excess, all for no
additional services rendered.

     The plaintiffs, Carol and Gregory Clark of Washington
state, refinanced their home in February 2007.  Countrywide
required them to use LandSafe for their home appraisal.  Under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Countrywide
is required to provide an 'Affiliated Business Arrangement'
disclosure to its customers.  This alerts customers that
LandSafe is a subsidiary of Countrywide.

     However, according to the lawsuit, the Clarks never
received an 'ABA Disclosure' document.  While Sound Value
performed the appraisal, LandSafe charged the Clarks $410 and
paid a fraction of the fee to the third party, the suit claims.

     The lawsuit cites violations of federal law under RICO and
RESPA.  Other counts include unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty and violation of California unfair competition
law.

For more information, contact:

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


DELL INC: Settles Suit Over Misleading Financing, Service Offers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc. confirms they are settling a class-action lawsuit
against it that claims it made misleading financing and service
offers to PC buyers, WTVD-TV/DT reports.

According to the company, it will pay $3.85 million to North
Carolina and 44 other states involved in the settlement.

The suit claimed Dell offered customers 0 percent financing, but
later applied a high interest rate without their knowledge.  It
also claims problems with Dell's warranty service and rebate
programs, WTVD-TV/DT reported.

The settlement requires Dell to tell customers whether they must
troubleshoot problems by phone before qualifying for in-person
technical support at home, according to WTVD-TV/DT.

People who bought a computer or service on or after April 1,
2005, and had a problem with a financing offer, rebate or
service can file a claim within 90 days with their state
attorney general, reports WTVD-TV/DT.


DUANE READE: Reaches $3.5M Settlement for Labor-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Duane Reade Holdings,
Inc. today reported that, without admitting liability, it has
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle two class
action cases for $3.5 million.

     The two class action cases concern the Company's alleged
past payment practices for certain overtime and employee non-
exempt classifications.  These settled cases are referred to as:

       -- "Damassia v. Duane Reade Inc." and

       -- "Chowdhury v. Duane Reade Inc. and Duane Reade
          Holdings Inc."

     The settlement is subject to the approval of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  While the
Company believes it can strongly defend against the matters
involved in this litigation, it has agreed to this settlement so
that it may avoid future defense costs and uncertainty
surrounding this litigation.

As a result of this settlement agreement, the Company will
record a $3.5 million one-time, pre-tax charge for the fourth
quarter ended December 27, 2008.  The Company expects to
announce its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2008 results in
March 2009.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: N.J. Unit to Defend Action Over Power Outages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jersey Central Power & Light Co., a unit of FirstEnergy Corp.,
is defending the plaintiffs' proposed plan of action relating to
July 1999 service interruptions in the JCP&L territory.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L's
territory.  In an investigation into the causes of the outages
and the reliability of the transmission and distribution systems
of all four of New Jersey's electric utilities, the New Jersey
Board of Public Utilities concluded that there was not a prima
facie case demonstrating that, overall, JCP&L provided unsafe,
inadequate or improper service to its customers.

Two class-action lawsuits, which were subsequently consolidated
into a single proceeding, were filed in New Jersey Superior
Court in July 1999, against JCP&L, GPU, Inc. and other GPU
companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages arising
from the July 1999 service interruptions in the JCP&L territory.

In August 2002, the trial court granted partial summary judgment
to JCP&L and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for consumer
fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and strict
product liability.

In November 2003, the trial Court granted JCP&L's motion to
decertify the class and denied plaintiffs' motion to permit into
evidence their class-wide damage model indicating damages in
excess of $50 million.  These class decertification and damage
rulings were appealed to the Appellate Division.  The Appellate
Division issued a decision in July 2004, affirming the
decertification of the originally certified class, but remanding
for certification of a class limited to those customers directly
impacted by the outages of JCP&L transformers in Red Bank, NJ,
based on a common incident involving the failure of the bushings
of two large transformers in the Red Bank substation resulting
in planned and unplanned outages in the area during a 2-3 day
period.

In 2005, JCP&L renewed its motion to decertify the class based
on a very limited number of class members who incurred damages
and also filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining
plaintiffs' claims for negligence, breach of contract and
punitive damages.

In July 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court dismissed the
punitive damage claim and again decertified the class based on
the fact that a vast majority of the class members did not
suffer damages and those that did would be more appropriately
addressed in individual actions.  Plaintiffs appealed this
ruling to the New Jersey Appellate Division which, in March
2007, reversed the decertification of the Red Bank class and
remanded this matter back to the Trial Court to allow plaintiffs
sufficient time to establish a damage model or individual proof
of damages.  JCP&L filed a petition for allowance of an appeal
of the Appellate Division ruling to the New Jersey Supreme
Court, which was denied in May 2007.

Proceedings are continuing in the Superior Court and a case
management conference with the presiding Judge was held on
June 13, 2008.  At that conference, the plaintiffs stated their
intent to drop their efforts to create a class-wide damage model
and, instead of dismissing the class action, expressed their
desire for a bifurcated trial on liability and damages. The
judge directed the plaintiffs to indicate, on or before Aug. 22,
2008, how they intend to proceed under this scenario.  The judge
expects to hold another pretrial conference to address the
proposed procedure after that.

JCP&L has received the plaintiffs' proposed plan of action, and
intends to file its objection to the proposed plan, and also
file a renewed motion to decertify the class, according to
FirstEnergy Corp.'s Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is
principally a holding company that holds, directly or
indirectly, all of the common stock of its eight principal
electric utility operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co.,
Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc.,
Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co., and
Pennsylvania Electric Co.  The company's consolidated revenues
are primarily derived from electric service provided by its
utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of its other
principal subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Denied Motions Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the denial of their motion for
certification as a class action and motion to amend their
complaint against FirstEnergy Corp.'s subsidiary, Ohio Edison
Company, remains pending.

On Aug. 22, 2005, a class-action complaint was filed against OE
in Jefferson County, Ohio Common Pleas Court, seeking
compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at trial
based on claims of negligence and eight other tort counts
alleging damages from W.H. Sammis Plant air emissions.

The two named plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief to
eliminate harmful emissions and repair property damage and the
institution of a medical monitoring program for class members.

On April 5, 2007, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' request to
certify this case as a class action and, accordingly, did not
appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives or their counsel
as class counsel.

On July 30, 2007, plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily withdrew their
request for reconsideration of the April 5, 2007 Court order
denying class certification and the Court heard oral argument on
the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, which OE
opposed.

On Aug. 2, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
amend their complaint.

The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's denial of the motion
for certification as a class action and motion to amend their
complaint and oral argument was held on Nov. 5, 2008.

No further updates regarding the matter were disclosed by the
company in its Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is
principally a holding company that holds, directly or
indirectly, all of the common stock of its eight principal
electric utility operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co.,
Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc.,
Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co., and
Pennsylvania Electric Co.  The company's consolidated revenues
are primarily derived from electric service provided by its
utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of its other
principal subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Faces Lawsuits Over Bruce Mansfield Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., which owns and operates non-
nuclear generating facilities, continues to face several
purported class-action suits in Pennsylvania over the Bruce
Mansfield Plant, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s Nov. 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On July 22 and 23, 2008, three complaints were filed against
FGCO, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania as well as in the
Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, seeking damages based on
Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions.

In addition to seeking damages, two of the complaints seek to
enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a
"safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner."  One of these
complaints was filed on behalf of 21 individuals and the other
is a class-action complaint, seeking certification as a class
action with eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the Court granted FGCO's motion to consolidate
discovery for all complaints pending against the Bruce Mansfield
Plant.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is
principally a holding company that holds, directly or
indirectly, all of the common stock of its eight principal
electric utility operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co.,
Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc.,
Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co., and
Pennsylvania Electric Co.  The company's consolidated revenues
are primarily derived from electric service provided by its
utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of its other
principal subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.


GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Denies Request in Parking Brakes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a request by General Motors
Corp. to block a class-action lawsuit that alleges it sold 4
million trucks and sport utility vehicles with defectively
designed parking brakes, The Associated Press reports.

The Associated Press reported that a Miller County, Ark.,
circuit judge earlier granted class certification to Boyd
Bryant, who filed a lawsuit against the automaker in September
2006.  Mr. Bryant sued the company over vehicles manufactured
from 1999 through 2002.

Mr. Bryant claimed the company discovered the defect in late
2000, redesigned the brake defect in October 2001 and withheld
from dealers admission of responsibility for the defect until
Jan. 28, 2003, reports The Associated Press.

The company argued on appeal that the case should not be granted
class status because of the differences in motor vehicle product
defect laws among the states, according to The Associated Press.


H&R BLOCK: "Peace Of Mind" Litigation Remanded to Madison County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois remanded a a purported class-
action suit against H&R Block Tax Services, Inc. to Madison
County, Steve Korris of The Madison County Record reports.

In a Dec. 17, 2008 order it was stated to the effect that Judge
Reagan couldn't swallow a novel argument that a judge's order
turned an old case into a new one for purposes of the national
Class Action Fairness Act.

Additionally, the judge's order denied an award of attorney
fees, finding that Block did not act unreasonably in removing
the suit to federal court, according to The Madison County
Record.

St. Clair Record recounts that The Lakin law firm filed the suit
for Lorie Marshall, alleging that H&R Block and its affiliates
sold "peace of mind" warranties that customers did not need
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 7, 2008, the
purported class action suit is captioned "Lorie J. Marshall, et
al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action
2003L000004," filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois.  The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002, and was granted
class-action status on Aug. 27, 2003.

According to the CAR report, the plaintiff's claims consist of
five counts relating to the POM Program under which the
applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability
for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return
preparation error.  The plaintiff alleges that the sale of POM
guarantees constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

The CAR reported that the plaintiff classes consist of all
persons who, from Jan. 1, 1997, to final judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

The Madison County Record reported that in granting class-action
status to the case, Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn actually
certified three classes.  Judge Mendelsohn also certified a
defendant class of Block entities.

The first certified class included customers who paid a separate
peace of mind fee, the second included those who bought peace of
mind from businesses without licenses to sell insurance, and the
third included those who had charges posted to their bills.  The
biggest class included 30 states.

The company moved to decertify the classes in 2006, in light of
an Illinois Supreme Court decision in "Avery v. State Farm," in
which the court overturned a $1.2 billion class action verdict
from Williamson County, reports The Madison County Record.

Judge Mendelsohn held a hearing on decertification last July
2008, after which Lakin lawyers asked him to narrow the class to
13 states.

In August 2008, Judge Mendelsohn certified the first and third
classes in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.  He omitted Florida,
Michigan and Missouri from the second class.  In addition, the
judge also decertified the defendant class, according to The
Madison County Record.

The company removed the suit to federal court, arguing that
changes in the classes and decertification of the defendant
class triggered the Class Action Fairness Act.

The plaintiffs moved for remand in September 2008, arguing that
the act didn't apply because Judge Mendelsohn's order related
back to the original complaint.

In granting remand, Judge Reagan wrote that he had not located
any other action that was removed to federal court in this
context, The Madison County Record reported.

Judge Reagan further wrote, "It is evident that Judge Mendelsohn
found that his modification of the definition of the plaintiff
classes and decertification of the defendant class related back
to plaintiffs' amended complaint."

He also wrote, "Judge Mendelsohn clearly believed that he was
eliminating Avery-barred claims and making the action more
manageable rather than commencing a new suit."

The judge also pointed out that changes occurred "not as a
result of plaintiffs' amending their complaint but because Block
moved for decertification."  He also said that Judge Mendelsohn
added no new transactions to the case.

Finally, Judge Reagan also stated, "Block, as the parent company
and franchiser, established and imposed the policies and
procedures for peace of mind transactions," reports The Madison
County Record.


HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hooters of America, Inc. faces a purported gender discrimination
class-action suit in Corpus Christi, Texas that was filed by a
man who claims he applied for a serving position and was denied
because he's a male, KRIS-TV reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on Jan. 8, 2009 by Nikolai Grushevski under
the caption, "Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:09-cv-00002."  Aside from Hooters other defendants named in
the suit are:

       -- Texas Wings, Inc.,
       -- Corpus Christi Wings, Ltd., and
       -- TWI XXII, Inc.

KRIS-TV reported that Mr. Grushevski unsuccessfully applied for
a waiter's job with Hooters in May 2008.  At the time, he
claimed gender discrimination, but a complaint to the labor
department went nowhere.

Now, with the help of attorney Martin A. Shellist, Esq. of
Shellist Lazarz LLP he has filed a federal lawsuit against
Hooters.

Mr. Shellist told KRIS-TV that he believes they have a strong
case.  In his lawsuit, he said, "Hooters attempts to circumvent
the law by referring to its waiters as 'Hooters Girls'."

"I think we've got a strong case.  I think if you take Hooters'
logic to the extreme, it violates the law at every point.  I
think it's unfair," according to Mr. Shellist.

In the mid-90s, the federal courts ruled that Hooters was
allowed to only employ girls as Hooters Girls, but Mr. Shellist
argues that his client's case is different.

The complaint said, "Grushevski applied to become a food server,
not a Hooters Girl."  It also said that he is not trying to
deprive Hooters of its right to employ Hooters Girls.

Hooters representatives told KRIS-TV that they do hire men, just
not as servers, but Mr. Grushevski argued that position should
be gender neutral.

Vice President for Hooters Restaurants in Texas, Mike Herrick,
told KRIS-TV that it appears Mr. Grushevski is filing the
lawsuit for the money.

Mr. Shellist wants to turn the case into a class-action suit and
find other men who claim they have also been discriminated
against.  He hopes the case will go before a jury sometime next
year, reports KRIS-TV.

The suit is "Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:09-cv-00002," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Judge Janis Graham Jack, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Martin A. Shellist, Esq. (mshellist@eeoc.net)
          Shellist Lazarz LLP
          1900 West Loop South
          Suite 1910
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: 713-621-2277
          Fax: 713-621-0993


INVESTMENT PROPERTIES: Owner Faces Suit Over 1031 Tax Shelters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Okun, the owner of the now bankrupt Investment Properties
of America of Richmond, Va. Is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Massachusetts over allegations that he and his
company stole $132 million from a group of clients including
Braintree auto dealer Daniel Quirk, The Patriot Ledger reports.

The company has in the past set up 1031 exchange tax shelters
for people selling real estate.

The Patriot Ledger reported that rather than keeping clients'
money in bank accounts until they needed it to purchase another
property, Mr. Okun allegedly used them to pay for a string of
purchases including mansions, a helicopter and a yacht to
impress his 27-year-old girlfriend.

Mr. Quirk has filed a class-action lawsuit against Okun in U.S.
District Court in Boston seeking to recoup lost funds.  He
claims he lost $2 million that was deposited in a 1031 exchange
account at Atlantic Exchange of Boston, one of Mr. Okun's
companies, according to The Patriot Ledger.


MICHELIN NORTH: Md. Court Mulls Approving Suit Over "Rub-Flats"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
grant preliminary approval to a proposed settlement by Michelin
North America Inc. and American Honda Motor Co. Inc. of a
nationwide class-action lawsuit brought by consumers who claimed
they were misled about the benefits of their "run-flat" tires
and were then further burdened by the slow and expensive repair
process,

Brendan Kearney of The Daily Record reports that the agreement
will go before the court for preliminary approval on Jan. 14,
2008, even though a federal appeals court ruled in the defense's
favor in a run-flat warranty case last week.

Under the terms of the proposed deal, Michelin North America
Inc. and American Honda Motor Co. will pay $3 million to the
plaintiffs' attorneys and cover replacement costs in proportion
to the wear on the tires as an extension of Michelin's 36-
month/36,000-mile warranty, according to The Daily Record.

In addition, they will offer either a $110 rebate on a spare-
tire kit or a $300 rebate on a new version of the same minivan
or car model, according to the settlement agreement.

Brendan Kearney of The Daily Record previously reported that in
a two-page motion filed on Dec. 29, 2008, attorneys for the
plaintiffs and defendants announced the agreement although the
terms of the deal were not disclosed (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 5, 2009).

According to filing, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily
Record, the parties have "essentially completed the paperwork,"
but end-of-the-year corporate closures will put off disclosure
of the specifics for the purposes of preliminary approval by
Judge Roger W. Titus until Jan. 7, 2009.  A hearing on the
matter is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2009.

In their 140-page consolidated amended complaint filed in May
2008, the plaintiffs allege Michelin, which made the tires, and
Honda, which outfitted certain cars and minivans with Michelin's
PAX Tire and Wheel Assembly System, failed to disclose that the
tires last half as long as radial tires.

They also alleged the tires are "prohibitively expensive to
repair and replace" and that sufficient repair facilities and
stock of the tires and other parts of the PAX system do not
exist in the U.S.

According to the suit, the Honda Odyssey was the first minivan
sold in North America to have the PAX system, which was supposed
to allow drivers to travel farther 125 miles on a flat tire,
thus obviating the need for a spare.  The 2005-2007 models came
with the system, which was discontinued within the past year.
Certain Acura RL and Nissan Quest models also featured the run-
flat tire system, which cost more than $2,000.

Quoting Michelin statistics, the suit states more than 200,000
PAX systems have been sold in Europe and the U.S. Since 1998
when it was introduced to the market.

The suit states that the paucity of repair facilities,
exacerbated by the system's discontinuation, has led to
inconvenience and poses a safety risk for those who must drive
on bad tires.

The Daily Record reported that class-action lawsuits filed by
owners and leasers of the vehicles in Arizona, Florida, Illinois
and New York were transferred to Judge Titus, who is presiding
over the multidistrict litigation, in February 2008.  Classes
from other states are included in the suit before Judge Titus.

Michelin and Honda decided not to retrofit, despite the ability
to do so, the plaintiffs alleged.  "Instead of taking this
responsible action to remedy their unlawful actions and
misconduct, Defendants have cynically chosen to disclaim
responsibility for their misconduct and, instead, have sought to
shift the economic burden of their development, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and/or sale of the inherently defective
PAX System to Plaintiffs and Class members," the amended
complaint states.


VALERO ENERGY: Appeal to "Rosolowski" Ruling Pending in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy, Inc.'s appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court
regarding a recent decision in the matter "Rosolowski v. Clark
Refining Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 95-L 014703," remains
pending.

The purported class-action lawsuit was assumed by the company
after its acquisition of Premcor Inc. under a merger agreement
on Sept. 1, 2005.

The suit, filed on Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release
to the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of
heavy metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery
on Oct. 7, 1994.  The release resulted in the temporary
evacuation of certain areas near the refinery.

The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three
classes, two of which received nominal or no damages, and one of
which received a sizeable jury verdict.

That class consisted of local residents who claimed property
damage or loss of use and enjoyment of their property over a
period of several years.

In November 2005, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
of $80.1 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in
punitive damages.

However, following the company's motions for new trial and
judgment notwithstanding the verdict (citing, among other
things, misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel and improper class
certification), the trial judge in November 2006 vacated the
jury's award and decertified the class.

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to vacate the
$120 million judgment and decertify the class.  The plaintiffs'
appeal was heard before the state appeals court in February
2008, and in June 2008, the state appeals court reversed the
trial court's decision to decertify the class and set aside the
judgment.

The appeals court preserved the company's rights, and on Aug. 4,
2008, the company filed an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

No further updates regarding the matter were disclosed by the
company in its Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


VALERO ENERGY: Kansas Fuel Temperature Lawsuits in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the matter "In re: Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, Multi-District
Litigation Docket No. 1840," according to Valero Energy Corp.'s
Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008

As of Nov. 1, 2008, the company was named in 21 consumer class-
action lawsuits relating to fuel temperature.  The complaints,
filed before federal courts in several states, allege that
because fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the
defendants have violated state consumer protection laws by
failing to adjust the volume of fuel when the fuel temperature
exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

The complaints seek to certify classes of retail consumers who
purchased fuel in various locations.  They seek an order
compelling the installation of temperature correction devices as
well as associated monetary relief.

In June 2007, the federal lawsuits were consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation case in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, Multi-District Litigation Docket No.
1840).

In February 2008, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaints.

In July 2008, the plaintiffs filed a pleading attempting to name
Valero and other petroleum companies as class representatives of
defendant classes composed of their respective branded outlets,
including retail outlets owned by other parties.

The court has scheduled briefing on class certification through
2008 and early 2009, although this schedule may be delayed
further into 2009, according to the company's latest Form 10-Q
filing with the SEC.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Awaits Final Approval of OSB Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to give final approval to the proposed settlement in a
consolidated antitrust class-action lawsuit with regard to
Oriented Strand Boards, which names Weyerhaeuser Co. as a
defendant.

In 2006, a series of suits that had been filed against the
company were consolidated into one case in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The cases were
brought on behalf of persons and entities who directly or
indirectly purchased OSB between June 2002 and February 2006
from the company or from Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific,
Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber, Tolko Forest Products, Grant Forest
Products, Norbord or J.M. Huber Corp.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges that:

       -- the defendants conspired to fix and raise OSB prices
          in the U.S. during the class period, and

       -- the plaintiffs paid artificially inflated prices for
          OSB during that period.

No specific damages were alleged, but the direct and indirect
plaintiffs have estimated total damages from all defendants,
with trebling, of $4.9 billion.  This amount is lower than
previously reported because the plaintiffs' experts have
modified their opinions and because the class period ending is
now February 2006 rather than "to the present."

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has issued a number of rulings approving class action status for
various classes of direct and indirect purchasers for the period
from June 2002 through February 2006.

J.M. Huber, Georgia-Pacific and Ainsworth have reached
settlement with the direct and indirect purchasers.

A June 2008 trial has been scheduled and motions for summary
judgment have been filed on behalf of the remaining defendants,
including the company.

In March 2008, the company reached a settlement with the direct
purchasers for $18 million and recognizes a charge of $18
million in the first quarter of 2008.  The settlement was
finalized in June.  The court conducted a hearing on
Weyerhaeuser's settlement with direct purchaser plaintiffs on
Aug. 5, 2008.

In April 2008, the company also reached a settlement with the
indirect purchasers for approximately $1 million.  A formal
settlement agreement with the indirect purchasers for $1 million
was signed Aug. 4, 2008.

Both settlement agreements received preliminary court approval.
A hearing on final approval is scheduled for Nov. 24, 2008,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 28, 2008.

The suit is "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-
00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond, presiding.

Representing the defendants are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue
         N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com)
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300

Representing the defendants are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com)
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com)
         James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144
                312-861-2350

              - and -

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com)
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475


WEYERHAEUSER CO: To Appeal $84M Judgment in Alder Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser Co. plans to appeal the $84 million judgment in a
purported antitrust class-action lawsuit over alder logs and
lumber.

The suit was filed in 2004 before U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon.  It claims that as a result of the company's
alleged monopolization of what was claimed to be the alder
sawlog market in the Pacific Northwest, the company also had
monopolized or controlled an alleged market for finished alder
and charged monopoly prices for finished alder lumber.

In 2004, the judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as
class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder
lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purpose
of awarding monetary damages.

In 2005, the class counsel notified the court that 5% of the
class members opted out of the class-action lawsuit.

In 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a
second amended complaint, extended the claims period to Dec. 31,
2006, and scheduled trial on the matter for April 2008.  In the
same year, the court denied the company's motion to decertify
the class.

Also, in 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request to file
a third amended complaint, which eliminated all allegations of
overbidding and overbuying of alder sawlogs as a mechanism to
affect the price of alder lumber.  In turn, the company filed a
motion for summary judgment.

In April 2008, a jury found in favor of the class and imposed
trebled damages of $84 million.  There are currently several
post-trial motions pending before the trial court.

The company believes that multiple errors occurred during the
trial and it intends to appeal the judgment once the post-trial
motions are decided, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2008.

Weyerhaeuser Co. -- http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/-- is an
integrated forest products company.  The company's business
segments are Timberlands, which includes logs, chips and timber;
Wood Products, which includes softwood lumber, engineered
lumber, structural panels, hardwood lumber, and building
materials distribution; Cellulose Fibers, which comprises pulp
and liquid packaging board; Real Estate, which comprises real
estate development, construction and sales, and Corporate and
Other. The Company grows and harvests trees, builds homes, and
makes wood and paper products.  It has operations in 13
countries and has customers worldwide.  The company manages 22
million acres of forests.


* Class Certification Ruling Vacated in Hydrogen Peroxide Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has vacated a
lower court's decision to certify a class-action lawsuit over an
alleged price-fixing conspiracy in the market for hydrogen
peroxide, Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports.

In its 55-page opinion in the matter, "In Re: Hydrogen Peroxide
Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1682," the unanimous three-
judge panel found that Judge Stewart Dalzell of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had
erred by failing to conduct a sufficiently "rigorous analysis"
before concluding that the proposed class would be able to prove
"antitrust impact" through common rather than individual
evidence, according to The Legal Intelligencer.

Significantly, the court found that Judge Dalzell appeared to
have erred by accepting the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert
witness without considering the contradictory testimony of the
defense expert, reports The Legal Intelligencer.

Judge Dalzell will now get the case back on remand, to apply the
Third Circuit's newly announced standards for class
certification.

The Legal Intelligencer reported that attorneys in the case
disagreed about the impact of the decision, with the plaintiffs'
team saying they remain confident that Judge Dalzell will again
certify the class, while defense lawyers predicted that the
plaintiffs will never be able to satisfy the strict new
standards announced by the Third Circuit.

Prior to the appeal of Judge Dalzell's class certification
ruling, four of the defendants named in the suit had agreed to
settle, paying more than $87 million.

However, Arkema and FMC Corp. continued to fight and took an
immediate appeal of the class certification decision to the
Third Circuit, The Legal Intelligencer reported.

The suit stems from a criminal antitrust investigation by the
European Union that resulted in price-fixing charges against 18
hydrogen peroxide manufacturers.

In the wake of those charges, nearly three dozen lawsuits were
filed in U.S. federal courts.  Soon after, all of the cases were
consolidated and assigned to Judge Dalzell by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation.

Akzo later agreed to pay more than $23.3 million to settle
claims brought by direct purchasers, and Solvay paid more than
$38 million.  The plaintiffs also struck a $21 million
settlement with Evonik Degussa and a $5 million settlement with
Kemira Chemicals.

But now the plaintiffs have suffered a significant setback in
their pursuit of the remaining defendants, according to The
Legal Intelligencer.




















                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Statman Harris Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     CINCINNATI, Jan. 13, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The
Cincinnati class action law firm of Statman, Harris & Eyrich,
LLC announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on Friday,
December 12, 2008 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of investors who purchased
the common stock of AtriCure, Inc. ("Company") (Nasdaq:ATRC)
between May 10, 2007 and October 31, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The complaint charges AtriCure and certain of its officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that AtriCure
misrepresented its profitability by, among other things,
illegally promoting its products contrary to FDA regulations and
filing false claims for Medicare reimbursement.

     The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements and SEC filings
concerning the Company's operations, finances and performance
and that the price of AtriCure common stock to investors was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Elizabeth L. Hutton, Esq. (ehutton@statmanharris.com)
          Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC
          441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Phone: (513) 621-2666 or (888) 876-7881


SATYAM COMPUTER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 13, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (www.pomerantzlaw.com)
("Pomerantz") has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, against
Satyam Computer Services Limited ("Satyam")(NYSE:SAY) and
certain officers of the Company. The class action, (Case No. 09-
CV-00337) was filed on behalf of purchasers of the American
Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Satyam between January 6, 2004
through January 6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

     In addition to Satyam, the complaint names as defendants
the admitted ringleader of this fraud, former Chairman B.
Ramalinga Raju; his brother, B. Rama Raju, the Company's former
Managing Director and CEO; and the former Chief Financial
Officer, Srinivas Vadlamani. All of these individuals have been
arrested by the Indian authorities for their complicity in this
fraud.

     The complaint alleges a multi-year massive fraud by these
defendants, which has been admitted to by defendant Raju, in
which these individuals cooked Satyam's books by, among other
things, concocting $1 billion of cash that didn't exist, and
overstating revenues and profits.

     The egregiousness of the fraud is evident from Raju's
admissions in a letter to the Satyam board. Raju admitted that
for the second quarter 1998 alone, Satyam reported $555 million
in revenues when the actual number was $434 million; $136
million in profit when the correct number was only $12.5
million; and a reported hefty $1.1 billion in available cash,
when it had a mere $66 million.

     Raju acknowledged that the fraudulent scheme "simply
reached unmanageable proportions," which he likened to "riding a
tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten."

     The complaint further alleges that disclosure of this
stunning fraud materially impacted the price of the Company's
ADRs. Indeed, trading in the Company's ADRs was briefly halted
after the fraud was revealed, and the ADRs are now currently
trading between $1 and $2, a precipitous drop from the Company's
52-week high of $29.84.

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529


TALEO CORP: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC ("Cohen
Milstein") has filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of its
client and on behalf of other similarly situated purchasers of
Taleo Corp. ("Taleo" or the "Company") (NASDAQGM:TLEO- News)
common stock during the period between October 4, 2005 and
November 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Taleo and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

     Taleo is a global provider of talent management software
solutions.  The Company offers recruiting, performance
management, internal mobility and other staffing management
software solutions.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Taleo
and certain of its officers and directors (collectively
"Defendants") violated federal securities laws by issuing
numerous materially false and misleading statements which caused
Taleo's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices.

     The complaint alleges that Defendants' misrepresented to
the investing public information regarding the Company's
accounting practices related to the timing for recognition of
certain application and consulting revenues under generally
accepted accounting principles ("GAAP").

     The complaint alleges that these practices, which resulted
in inappropriate acceleration of the recognition of revenues,
had been part of a scheme to defraud investors since at least
October 2005.

     On November 10, 2008, after the close of trading, Taleo
issued a press release announcing that it would file a
notification with the SEC that the Company would be late in
filing its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008.

     In the press release, Taleo announced to investors that "On
November 6, 2008, Deloitte & Touche LLP, the Company's
independent registered public accounting firm, requested that
the Company re-evaluate whether the Company's historical and
current practices with respect to the timing for recognition of
application and consulting revenues were appropriate under
generally accepted accounting principles in the United States,
or GAAP.  As a result, Taleo is reviewing the issues raised by
its auditors to determine if an alternative accounting treatment
should be adopted."

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


                            *********

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  * * *