CAR_Public/090119.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monda, January 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 12

                           Headlines

BEAZER HOMES: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. RESPA Litigation
BEAZER HOMES: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Litigation
BEAZER HOMES: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
BEAZER HOMES: Seeks Dismissal of RESPA Violations Suit in N.C.
COCA-COLA CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Deceptive VitaminWater Claims

DBSI INC: Continues to Face Fraud Lawsuit in Idaho State Court
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Calif. Suit
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Securities Fraud Suits Remain Pending in N.Y.
LANDAMERICA 1031: Faces $330M Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
MEDIACOM COMM: Trial in "Ogg" Suit Postponed Until Jan. 26, 2009

MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Md.
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Still Faces "Parker" Suit for Unpaid Overtime
SEARS HOLDINGS: Still Seeking Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit
SPRINT NEXTEL: Offers To Settle Lawsuits by Call Center Workers

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Reaches $350M Reimbursement Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GEORGE THEODULE: Dimond Kaplan Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
MENTOR CORP: Shuman Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

BEAZER HOMES: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. RESPA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported class-action suit
against Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., Beazer Homes USA Inc., and
Security Title Insurance Co., alleging violations of Real Estate
Settlement Practices Act (RESPA).

The suit was filed on March 12, 2008, in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Placer.  The complaint was
amended on June 2, 2008.

The purported class is defined as all persons who purchased a
home from the defendants or their affiliates, with the
assistance of a federally related mortgage loan, from March 25,
1999, to the present where Security Title Insurance Co. received
any money as a reinsurer of the transaction.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated RESPA and
asserts claims under a number of state statutes alleging that
the defendants engaged in a uniform and systematic practice of
giving and accepting fees and kickbacks to affiliated businesses
including affiliated and recommended title insurance companies.
It also alleges a number of common law claims.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages under
RESPA, unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages
and injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs.  The defendants removed the action to federal
court.

On Nov. 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
which substituted new named plaintiffs, according to the
company's Dec. 2, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30,
2008.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- designs,
sells and builds primarily single-family homes in over 45
markets located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and
West Virginia.  Through Beazer Mortgage Corp., the Company
offered mortgage origination services to its homebuyers.  On
Feb. 1, 2008, Beazer effectively exited the mortgage origination
business.  In addition, it offers title insurance services to
its homebuyers in many of the Company's markets.  Beazer is a
diversified homebuilder with operations in 21 states.


BEAZER HOMES: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, which is alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, according to the company's Dec. 2, 2008 Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On April 30, 2007, a putative class-action complaint was filed
on behalf of a purported class consisting of present and former
participants and beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes 401(k) Plan,
naming Beazer Homes, certain of its current and former officers
and directors and the Benefits Administration Committee as
defendants.  The complaint was filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties, including those set
forth in ERISA as a result of the investment of retirement
monies held by the 401(k) Plan in common stock of Beazer Homes
at a time when participants were allegedly not provided timely,
accurate and complete information concerning Beazer Homes.

Four additional lawsuits were subsequently filed in May, June
and July 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, making similar allegations.

The court consolidated all five lawsuits and, on June 27, 2008,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants Beazer
Homes, our chief executive officer, certain current and former
directors of the Company, including the members of the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and certain
employees of the Company who acted as members of the Company's
401(k) Committee.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  Briefing of the
motion is expected to be completed in January 2009.

The suit is "In re: Beazer Homes USA, Inc. ERISA Litigation,
Case No. 1:07-cv-00952-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Richard W. Story,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Katherine B. Bornstein, Esq. (kbornstein@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-676-7706

               - and -

          Corey Daniel Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer, Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West
          Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-392-0090

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com)
          Cravath Swaine & Moore
          825 Eighth Avenue
          Worldwide Plaza
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Phone: 212-474-1227

               - and -

          John J. Dalton, Esq. (john.dalton@troutmansanders.com)
          Troutman Sanders, LLP
          Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3000


BEAZER HOMES: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and certain of its current and former
executive officers are seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Beazer Homes and certain of its current and former executive
officers are named as defendants in a putative securities class-
action suit filed on March 29, 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of Beazer Homes' common stock between July 27,
2006, and March 27, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects because the company did not disclose facts related to
alleged improper lending practices in our mortgage origination
business.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages.

Two additional lawsuits were subsequently filed on May 18 and
21, 2007, before the same district court, asserting similar
factual allegations and proposing class periods of July 28,
2005, through March 27, 2007, and March 30, 2005, through March
27, 2007, respectively.

The three cases were subsequently consolidated by the court and
the court appointed Glickenhaus & Co. and Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiffs.

On June 27, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended and
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws, which purports to assert claims on behalf of a
class of persons and entities that purchased or acquired the
securities of Beazer Homes during the period Jan. 27, 2005,
through May 12, 2008.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts a claim against the
defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company business and prospects, including, among other things,
alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to alleged
improper lending practices in the company's mortgage origination
business, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to
improper revenue recognition and other accounting improprieties
and alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
company's land investments and inventory.

The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims against the
Individual Defendants under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Exchange Act.

The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that the suit is
properly maintained as a class action, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  Briefing of the
motion is expected to be completed in February 2009, according
to the company's Dec. 2, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Eugene Kratz, et al. v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milberg.com)
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-594-5300

          Krissi T. Gore, Esq. (KGore@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

               - and -

          Francis P. Karam, Esq. (karam@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com)
          Cravath Swaine & Moore
          825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide Plaza
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Phone: 212-474-1227


BEAZER HOMES: Seeks Dismissal of RESPA Violations Suit in N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and subsidiaries Beazer Homes Corp. and
Beazer Mortgage Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of the
purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of Real
Estate Settlement Practices Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat.
Section 75-1.1.

The putative class-action suit was filed on April 8, 2008,
before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.  The complaint alleges that Beazer violated the Real
Estate Settlement Practices Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat.
Section 75-1.1 by:

       -- improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned
          mortgage and settlement services as part of a down
          payment assistance program, and

       -- illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement
          services sold by Beazer Homes Corp.

The plaintiff also asserts that Beazer was unjustly enriched by
these alleged actions.

The purported class consists of all residents of North Carolina
who purchased a home from Beazer, using mortgage financing
provided by and through Beazer that included seller-funded down
payment assistance, between Jan. 1, 2000, and Oct. 11, 2007.

The complaint demands an unspecified amount of damages, various
forms of equitable relief, treble damages, attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 4, 2008.
On July 25, 2008, in lieu of a response to the dismissal motion,
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The Company has moved
to dismiss the amended complaint, according to the company's
Dec. 2, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Davis v. Beazer Homes U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No.
1:08-cv-00247-UA-PTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel Kent Bryson, Esq. (akf@lewis-roberts.com)
          Lewis & Roberts, PLLC
          POB 17529
          Raleigh, NV 27619
          Phone: 919-981-0191
          Fax: 919-981-0431

Representing the defendants is:

          Kenneth D. Bell, Esq. (kbell@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams
          Bank of America Plaza
          101 S. Tryon St., Ste. 3500
          Charlotte, NC 28280
          Phone: 704-378-4834


COCA-COLA CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Deceptive VitaminWater Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- A class action lawsuit
was filed late yesterday in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Coca-Cola
Company alleging that Coca-Cola has used deceptive advertising
in marketing its VitaminWater line of beverages.

     The plaintiff is represented by Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC
("WDK"), Reese Richman LLP, and the Center for Science in the
Public Interest (CSPI).

     The complaint alleges that Coca-Cola deceived consumers by
marketing VitaminWater as a healthy alternative to soft drinks
formulated to provide a host of health benefits including
reducing the risk of certain diseases, promoting healthy joints,
and supporting optimal immune function.

     Contrary to Coca-Cola's claims of health benefits, the
complaint alleges that the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of
VitaminWater may contribute to serious health problems, such as
obesity and diabetes.

     "Consumers are increasingly health-conscious, with more and
more people avoiding soft drinks in favor of healthier
alternatives," said WDK attorney Patrick Sheehan. "Coca-Cola has
taken advantage of that trend -- and of consumers -- by
purposefully misrepresenting their product as 'healthy' when in
fact it is essentially sugar water with a few added vitamins.
Consumers should not have to look beyond the misleading claims
on VitaminWater labels in order to discover the truth on an
ingredients list."

     VitaminWater does not name Coca-Cola anywhere on its
packaging or labeling, instead marketing these purportedly
healthy drinks without any reference to the soft drink
manufacturer that produces them.

     "It's clear that Coca-Cola has attempted to market an
alternative to its soda products in a way that deliberately
deceives consumers," continued Sheehan.  "Whatley Drake & Kallas
is proud to be playing a role in protecting those consumers
through this class action suit filed on their behalf."


DBSI INC: Continues to Face Fraud Lawsuit in Idaho State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
DBSI, Inc. is still facing a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging that it took in $500 million in illegal profits since
October 2003 as a result of securities fraud, banking fraud and
tax fraud, including $160 million personally siphoned to
president and chief executive officer, The the Idaho Business
Review reports.

The suit specifically names as defendants the company; its
president and chief executive officer, Douglas L. Swenson; and
several others.

Doug Swenson and Simon Shifrin of the Idaho Business Review
previously reported that the suit was filed on on Oct. 27, 2008
in Idaho's Fourth Judicial District Court by a California trust
on behalf of tenant-in-common investors (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 25, 2008).

It claims that DBSI:

       -- treated some securities as real estate transactions to
          avoid disclosures;

       -- induced investors to violate the federal tax code;

       -- reneged on promises not to sell fractional ownership
          interests to third parties;

       -- created a "Ponzi" scheme in which the proceeds from
          the marked-up sale of new properties were used to pay
          investors on existing properties; and

       -- intentionally concealed fair market values of
          properties it sold to investors, among other things.

In particular, the lawsuit says that two separate DBSI
affiliates, DBSI Securities LLC and For 1031 LLC, treated nearly
identical transactions differently - as securities or real
estate.

According to court papers obtained by the Idaho Business Review
treating tenant-in-commons (TIC) solely as real estate requires
minimal disclosure and constitutes fraud.

The suit seeks $2 billion on behalf of all TIC investors since
October 2003 and dissolution or reorganization of the company,
reports the Idaho Business Review.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
IMPAX Laboratories, Inc., four of its Directors, and two former
officers, are seeking for the dismissal of several class-action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, all of which have since been
consolidated as case No. 04- 4808-JW.

These actions, brought on behalf of all purchasers of shares of
Company common stock between May 5 and Nov. 3, 2004, allege the
Company and the individual defendants, in violation of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws,
artificially inflated the market price of the stock during this
period by filing false financial statements for the first and
second quarters of 2004, based upon the Company's subsequent
restatement of its results for those periods.

The court twice granted the Company motions to dismiss the
complaint, both times with leave to amend, but denied the
Company's motion to dismiss a fourth amended complaint as well
as two motions for reconsideration.

The case is now in discovery phase.

In August 2008, the Company filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
to direct the district court to dismiss the complaint, according
to the company's Dec. 2, 2008 Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Securities Fraud Suits Remain Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
iStar Financial Inc. continues to face two purported securities
fraud class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, asserting substantially similar
claims.

                     Citiline Litigation

On April 14, 2008, Citiline Holdings, Inc., filed a suit on
behalf of purchasers of common stock in iStar's Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

                    Christenson Litigation

On April 24, 2008, Dennis Christenson filed suit on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock on its Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

The court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuits, no class has been certified and discovery has not yet
commenced, 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.

iStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.istarfinancial.com/-- is a
finance company focused on the commercial real estate industry.
The company provides custom-tailored financing to private and
corporate owners of real estate, including senior and mezzanine
real estate debt, senior and mezzanine corporate capital,
corporate net lease financing and equity.  It has two primary
lines of business: lending and corporate tenant leasing.  Its
primary sources of revenues are interest income, which is the
interest that borrowers pay on loans, and operating lease
income, which is the rent that corporate customers pay to lease
corporate tenant lease properties.  The lending business
primarily consists of senior and mezzanine real estate loans
that range in size from $20 million to $150 million, and have
maturities ranging from 3 to 10 years.  The company's corporate
tenant leasing business provides capital to corporations and
others who control facilities leased primarily to single credit-
worthy customers.


LANDAMERICA 1031: Faces $330M Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services, a unit of LandAmerica
Financial Group Inc., and SunTrust Banks Inc. are facing a $330
million class-action lawsuit that accuses them of defrauding
clients by using their money to pay off other clients, Emily C.
Dooley of the Richmond Times Dispatch reports.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California by four LandAmerica clients on behalf of
about 400 customers, characterizes the companies' actions as a
Ponzi scheme.

It alleges SunTrust allowed LandAmerica to take money from
exchange customer accounts and give it to other clients whose
money was locked up in auction-rate securities, a type of
investment once considered safe.

The suit alleges that the firms either engaged in or allowed the
breach of fiduciary duty, the commission of fraud, and
intentionally did not disclose vital information.

The Richmond Times Dispatch reported that the suit also names
two LandAmerica 1031 Exchange executives, Stephen Connor and G.
William Evans. Evans also is chief financial officer for
LandAmerica Financial Group.  SunTrust was named because it is
the bank customers were told would hold their money, according
to the suit.

LandAmerica's exchange company served as a legal tax shelter for
investors who sold property and wanted to park the money
somewhere while looking to reinvest.  So long as the money was
held by a third party and then reinvested in a similar property
within 180 days, the capital-gains taxes were deferred,
according to the Richmond Times Dispatch.

The transactions are sanctioned by the Internal Revenue Service,
but the third-party companies that offer the exchanges are not
regulated or certified, reports the Richmond Times Dispatch.

The lawsuit claims that LandAmerica used money from new
customers to pay off older customers whose money had become
inaccessible because it was invested in auction-rate securities,
a type of credit that froze in February.

According to California attorney Robert L. "Rusty" Brace, Esq.,
"Once that market failed, [LandAmerica Exchange Services] should
have shut down."  He adds, "Our money was used to pay those
other exchangers."

The class-action suit represents the 400 LandAmerica customers
whose money was lumped together in a single account and invested
in auction-rate securities, said to be reliable, liquid
investments until the market dried up in February 2008,
according to the Richmond Times Dispatch report.


MEDIACOM COMM: Trial in "Ogg" Suit Postponed Until Jan. 26, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a putative class-action lawsuit captioned, "Gary Ogg
and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC," has been postponed until Jan.
26, 2009, according to Mediacom Communications Corporation's
Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Mediacom LLC, one of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries, is
named as a defendant in the putative class action, captioned,
"Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC," pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, by which the plaintiffs
are seeking class-wide damages for alleged trespasses on land
owned by private parties.

The lawsuit was originally filed in April 2001.

The lawsuit alleges that Mediacom LLC, in areas where there was
no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from landowners
to place its fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding the
possession of agreements or permission from other third parties.

An order declaring that this action is appropriate for class
relief was entered in April 2006.

While the parties continue to contest liability, there also
remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.  Based on
a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claimed compensatory
damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal fees, prejudgment
interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could
increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.  The
plaintiffs have recently proposed an alternative damage theory
of $40.0 million in compensatory damages.

On July 23, 2008, Mediacom LLC filed a motion to strike the
expert testimony presented by plaintiffs in its first damage
theory and another motion to preclude plaintiffs' presentation
of the second alternative damage theory.

A trial date of Nov. 3, 2008 was set for the claim by the class
representatives, Gary and Janice Ogg, but has been postponed
until Jan. 26, 2009.

In the interim, motions to strike testimony from plaintiff's
experts and the recently restated theory that plaintiff's
espouse were argued before the court.

Mediacom LLC has tendered the lawsuit to the company's insurance
carrier for defense and indemnification.  The carrier has agreed
to defend Mediacom LLC under a reservation of rights, and a
declaratory judgment action is pending regarding the carrier's
defense and coverage responsibilities.

Mediacom Communications Corp/ -- http://www.mediacomcc.com-- is
a cable television company serving smaller cities and towns in
the United States.  The company provides its customers with an
array of products and services, including video services, such
as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television (HDTV) and
digital video recorders (DVR); high-speed data (HSD), also known
as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service, and phone
service.


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, and a number of its current
and former officers and directors have been made the subject of
purported class-action lawsuits relating to it financial
reporting and other matters.

These suits have been combined into a single consolidated class-
action lawsuit which is before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.

An amended complaints in the consolidated class-action lawsuit
was filed in December 2008, according to the company's Dec. 22,
2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Dec. 18, 2008.

Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC -- http://www.munimae.com/--
provides debt and equity financing to developers of multi-family
housing and other types of commercial real estate.  The Company
invests in tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds issued by state and
local authorities to finance multi-family housing developments.
MuniMae operates in three business segments: debt segment, which
invests in tax exempt bonds and bond securitizations, and
permanent loans, provide loan servicing; tax credit equity
segment that provides tax credit equity syndication and asset
management services; structured finance segment that invests in
other real estate-related securities, including equity
investments in real estate operating partnerships, and fund
management segment, which provides loan origination, asset
management and other related services, and invests in real
estate operating partnerships.  In September 2007, the Company
acquired SLF Management, LLC, also known as the Sustainable Land
Fund (SLF).


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class-action
suit filed against NutriSystem, Inc., and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 remains
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 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 9, 2007.  They purport to bring
claims on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased the
company's common stock between Feb. 14, 2007, and Oct. 3 or Oct.
4, 2007.

The complaints allege that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
company's projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.

These suits were consolidated in December 2007 under the
caption, "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-04215-MK."

On Jan. 3, 2008, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on March 7, 2008.

The consolidated amended complaint raises the same claims but
alleges a class period of Feb. 14, 2007, through Feb. 19, 2008.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit
on May 6, 2008.  The plaintiffs' opposition is due July 7, 2008,
and defendants' reply is due on Aug. 6, 2008.

The Court has scheduled oral argument on the motion to dismiss
for Nov. 24, 2008.

The suit is "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-04215-MK," filed with the the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Marvin Katz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, PC
          100 Penn Square East
          John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (DRosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100

               - and -

          Leon W. Silverman, Esq. (leon@steinandsilverman.com)
          Stein & Silverman PC
          230 S. Broad St. 18th Fl.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-985-0255
          Fax: 215-985-0342

Representing the defendants is:

          Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq.
          (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: 215-963-5740
          Fax: 215-963-5001


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Still Faces "Parker" Suit for Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
NutriSystem, Inc. continues to face a class-action complaint
alleging it failed to pay overtime to an estimated 400 sales
associates, according to its Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On March 28, 2008, Adrian E. Parker, a former NutriSystem Inc.
sales representative, filed a putative collective action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that NutriSystem unlawfully failed to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint purported to bring claims on behalf of a class of
current and former sales representatives who were compensated by
NutriSystem pursuant to a commission-based compensation plan,
rather than on an hourly basis.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 28, 2008, adding
a state-law class claim under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
alleging that NutriSystem's compensation plan also violated
state law.

On June 11, 2008, NutriSystem answered the amended complaint and
moved to dismiss the plaintiff's state-law class claim.  Also,
on June 11, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion to proceed as a
collective action and send class members notice under the Fair
Labor Standards Act claim.

On July 25, 2008, the Court granted NutriSystem's motion to
dismiss with respect to the state law claim.

On Sept. 29, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally proceed as a class action.

On Oct. 14, 2008, Plaintiff's counsel mailed notice to potential
class members.

The suit is "Parker v. NutriSystem, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-
01508-HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Harvey Bartle III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq. (scarson@bm.net)
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust St.,
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-875-4656
          Fax: 215-875-4674

               - and -

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. (pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com)
          The Winebrake Law Firm LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 114
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: 215-884-2491
          Fax: 215-884-2492

Representing the defendants is:

          Sarah E. Bouchard, Esq. (sbouchard@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-5077


SEARS HOLDINGS: Still Seeking Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. continues to seek for the dismissal of the
purported class-action lawsuit, entitled, "In re: Sears Holdings
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES."

In May and July 2006, two putative class action complaints --
each naming as defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward S.
Lampert -- were filed before U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a class
of persons that sold shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on or
after May 6, 2003, through June 4, 2004.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. merged with Kmart which resulted in the
2004 formation of Sears Holdings.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart's Plan of
Reorganization and Disclosure Statement filed on Jan. 24, 2003,
which was amended on Feb. 25, 2003, misrepresented Kmart's
assets, particularly its real estate holdings, as evidenced by
the prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of its
stores in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears.

The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged misrepresentations.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the Court consolidated the two suits and a
consolidated complaint was later filed.

On April 15, 2008, the Court denied without prejudice
defendants' motion to dismiss.  After taking some additional
discovery, defendants filed another motion to dismiss which
remains pending before the Court, according to the company's
Dec. 2, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John
E. Sprizzo, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. (nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-9330
          Fax: 212-983-9331

          Mark Casser Gardy, Esq. (mgardy@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue
          Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337

               - and -

          Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq. (gjarvis@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, PA
          Chase Manhattan Centre
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7040
          Fax: 302-622-7100

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com)
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000


SPRINT NEXTEL: Offers To Settle Lawsuits by Call Center Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. has offered to pay $8.8 million to settle
class-action lawsuits from call center employees in North
Carolina and other states who claimed they weren't paid for
overtime they worked, The Associated Press reports.

The settlement was detailed in federal court documents filed
this week in Kansas City, Kanas, according to The Associated
Press.

The lawsuits were filed in April 2007.  They alleged that
Overland Park, Kan.-based Sprint Nextel didn't allow the
employees to record their work time, but provided them with time
sheets showing they worked 40 hours a week, even if they worked
more.

The Associated Press reported that the settlement covers
employees who worked at call centers in North Carolina, New
York, California, Kansas, Oklahoma, Florida, New Mexico and
Texas, in some cases going back to June 2001.

A federal judge still must give the settlement preliminary
approval, The Associated Press reported.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Reaches $350M Reimbursement Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
     MINNEAPOLIS, Jan 15, 2009 (A. M. Best via COMTEX) --
UnitedHealth Group said it will pay $350 million to settle
class-action lawsuits over reimbursements for out-of-network
medical services filed by the American Medical Association,
state medical societies, health care providers and health plan
members.

     The proposed settlement covers UnitedHealth's and
affiliated companies' reimbursement policies for out-of-network
services from March 15, 1994 through the date of final court
approval.  The amount will pay health plan members and out-of-
network providers for procedures these providers performed since
1994, UnitedHealth said.

     Earlier this week, the Minneapolis-based UnitedHealth
reached a national settlement with New York Attorney General
Andrew Cuomo, who alleged a health-billing database run by its
Ingenix Inc. unit -- used by many U.S. health insurers ripped
off consumers by manipulating reimbursement rates when they used
health care providers outside their insurer's networks
(BestWire, Jan. 13, 2008).

     Under the agreement, UnitedHealth must close two Ingenix
databases and pay $50 million to a nonprofit organization, which
will establish a new, independent database.

     The settlement, along with the agreement with Cuomo,
resolves the issues he and the AMA raised concerning its two
databases, UnitedHealth said.

     Last July, a New Jersey federal judge approved a $255
million settlement in three class-action lawsuits against Health
Net Inc. (NYSE: HNT) that alleged it used an Ingenix database
that sometimes under-reimbursed members' insurance claims.
Approved by U.S. Judge Faith S. Hochberg, Health Net was to pay
$215 million to more than 2 million members in its health plans
in several states (BestWire, July 25, 2008).









  







Form 10-K -- Annual report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item
405]
Period of Report: 2008-09-30
Filing Date Changed: 2008-12-02
Documents: 9

SEC Accession No.
0000950144-08-009069
Filing date: 2008-12-02
Accepted: 2008-12-02 16:27:18








                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GEORGE THEODULE: Dimond Kaplan Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     MIAMI, Jan. 15, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Dimond Kaplan &
Rothstein, P.A. announced today that it has commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative Class
consisting of all persons and entities who provided moneys to
Defendants George Theodule; Creative Capital Consortium, LLC; A
Creative Capital Concept$, LLC; Dorothy Delisort-Theodule;
Yolette Theodule-Williams; Mario Theodule; Julius Theodule; or
Yves Theodule (collectively, the "Defendants"); or to
individuals or entities who were raising funds on behalf of any
of those Defendants, for purposes of "investing" in Defendants'
fraudulent Ponzi scheme (the "Class"), from January 2007 through
today and thereafter ("Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Defendants with perpetrating a Ponzi
scheme by which the Class members were defrauded out of
significant moneys.

     The Complaint alleges that Defendants - soliciting
investments largely from the Haitian community - misrepresented
to the Class that the principal amount invested was guaranteed
at a "zero-loss," and that pursuant to Defendants' investment
"strategies," the Class Members' moneys would double in value
every three months.

     The crux of the case is that Defendants failed to inform
the Class that:

       -- any and all investment returns were dependent on
          contributions of moneys from new investors; and

       -- that Defendants intended simply to steal the Class
          Members' moneys pursuant to a fraudulent Ponzi scheme.

     Finally, the Complaint alleges that Defendants have failed
to honor the Class Members' withdrawal requests, causing losses
to the Class.

     Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the Class,
and have brought claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 for fraud in connection with
securities transactions and for selling unregistered securities,
as well as claims under the common law for breach of fiduciary
duty and unjust enrichment.

For more details, contact:

          Jared A. Levy, Esq.
          Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A.
          Phone: (561) 671-1920
          Web site: http://www.dkrpa.com


MENTOR CORP: Shuman Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, Jan 15, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- The
Shuman Law Firm today announced that a Class Action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who currently hold Mentor Corporation
("Mentor" or the "Company") (NYSE:MNT) common stock.

     The Complaint charges certain of the Company's executive
officers and directors with breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with Mentor's proposed acquisition by Johnson &
Johnson by failing to maximize shareholder value.

     The Complaint cites an industry analyst who claims Johnson
& Johnson "stole" the Company and "likely underpaid."  In
addition, the Complaint also charges certain Mentor executive
officers and directors with self-dealing.

For more information, contact:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80203
          Phone: 866-974-8626
          Fax: 303-484-4886
          Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *