CAR_Public/090122.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, January 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 15
  
                           Headlines

AMERICAN FAMILY: Ill. Judge Seals Response in Medical Bills Suit
AOL: Federal Appeals Court Allows Californians Can Sue In-State
BIG RETAILERS: To Give Out Cosmetics as Part of Suit Settlement
CENTURYTEL INC: MOA of "Tyler" Suit Settlement Inked on Jan. 16
FCSTONE GROUP: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over Failure to Disclose

HARDINGE INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion in Securities Fraud Suit
LANDAMERICA 1031: Faces Fraud Lawsuit in Va. Bankruptcy Court
LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Lawsuit Pending in Minn.
MERRILL LYNCH: Deal with Retirement Plan Stockholders Pending
MERRILL LYNCH: Ohio State Teachers Agree to Proposed Settlement

MIGDAL INSURANCE: Faces Policyholders' Litigation in Israel
RED HAT: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification in Securities Suit
TYCO ELECTRONICS: Consolidated ERISA Suit v. Parent Co. Pending
TYCO ELECTRONICS: "Hall" Securities Lawsuit in Pre-trial Stage
TYCO ELECTRONICS: "Jasin" Securities Suit in Pre-trial Stage

TYCO ELECTRONICS: Remains Liable for Remaining Securities Suits
UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Calif. Court OKs Consumer Lawsuit Settlement
WD-40 CO: Plaintiff's Appeal to Denied "Drimmer" Class Pending


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Gardy & Notis Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
SATYAM COMPUTER: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SATYAM COMPUTER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SATYAM COMPUTER: Saxena White Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

AMERICAN FAMILY: Ill. Judge Seals Response in Medical Bills Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit court has
sealed a response by plaintiffs lawyers in a purported class-
action against American Family Insurance, claiming that the
company improperly reduced payouts on medical bills from car
crashes, Steve Korris of The Madison County Record reports.

In a Jan. 2, 2009 response to a Dec. 26, 2008 American Family
Insurance brief that argued, "This is not a class action,"
lawyers Brad Lakin, Esq. and Paul Weiss, Esq. have explained why
the suit has been led for five years by a dead man.  However,
the answer as to why it must be prolonged as a class-action suit  
is secret, according to the The Madison County Record report.

The lawsuit was originally filed against the company by Manuel
Hernandez in 2000, who claims that the insurer improperly
reduced a payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto
accident (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 16, 2008).

In 2002, Judge Daniel Stack, as associate judge, certified Mr.
Hernandez as representative of a class in 17 states.  As circuit
judge, Judge Stack trimmed the class to 11 states in 2005.

In 2007, the company discovered that Mr. Hernandez has been dead
since January 2004, and therefore asked the court to dismiss the
case on this basis.

Since Mr. Hernandez's death, the attorneys have been trying to
substitute him with a another class representative.  First it
was his wife, and then later on by a band of out of state
chiropractors.

The Madison County Record reported that American Family lawyer
Anthony Martin, Esq. of St. Louis, opposing a motion to
substitute for the late Manuel Hernandez, wrote, "It ceased
being a class action long ago."  He argued that class counsel
have converted themselves into "the de facto plaintiff."

Though Mr. Hernandez died in 2004, Judge Stack didn't hear about
it from Messrs Lakin and Weiss.  American Family reported his
death to Judge Stack in 2006.

In his December brief, Mr. Martin wrote, "Either class counsel
knew of Mr. Hernandez's death for over two years and failed to
act, or failed to attempt to contact the sole class
representative for over two years," reports The Madison County
Record.

Mr. Martin argued that because the class received no notice, the
class died with Mr. Hernandez.  He explains, "Notice is required
because absent class members have several constitutional due
process rights which have not been protected in this lawsuit."

He also wrote, "American Family's concern for absent class
members' constitutional due process rights is also a concern for
its own."

Mr. Martin pointed out that the chiropractors and clinics, which
would substitute for Mr. Hernandez knew nothing about the
litigation until Mr. Lakin solicited them, reports The Madison
County Record.

"Those chiropractors responded to the solicitation letters
trolling for substitute class representatives a little more than
one year ago," according to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin argues that the three potential substitutes don't
belong to the class.  In addition, he also questioned the
adequacy of class counsel who sued each other two years ago,
according to The Madison County Record.


AOL: Federal Appeals Court Allows Californians Can Sue In-State
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court said California residents can sue AOL
(formerly America Online), a unit of media conglomerate Time
Warner Inc. in their home state for privacy violations based on
a 2006 Internet posting, the Post Chronicle reports.

An AOL membership agreement stipulated that lawsuits against the
company had to be filed in Virginia, where class-action suits
are prohibited, according to a report by the Sacramento Bee.

Judge Sandra Armstrong upheld that agreement when customers sued
the company after it posted 20 million Web site searches by
658,000 of its members.

A class-action suit claimed that the information revealed
"personal struggles with various highly personal issues,
including sexuality, mental illness, recovery from alcoholism,
and victimization from incest, physical abuse, domestic
violence, adultery and rape."

On Jan. 16, 2009, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit overturned Judge Armstrong's ruling for
Californians, because the clause in the agreement "violates the
(California) Consumer Legal Remedies Act," reports the Post
Chronicle.

The court said that even though AOL took the information off the
Web site 10 days after it was posted, the incident that AOL
called "a screw up," allowed anyone with access to the
information "to openly criticize and pass judgment on AOL
members based on their searches," according to the Post
Chronicle report.


BIG RETAILERS: To Give Out Cosmetics as Part of Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting Jan. 20, 2009, several big retailers will giveaway $175
million worth of free high-end cosmetics including such brands
as Estee Lauder and L'Oreal to consumers as part of the
settlement of the antitrust class-action lawsuit, "Azizian, et
al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al.," WPTV reports.

According to WPTV, department stores such as Macy's and
Nordstrom will distribute free cosmetics as long as supplies
last to shoppers who bought certain cosmetics between May 29,
1994 and July 16, 2003 to settle claims that the stores violated
antitrust laws and tried to fix prices.

The offer is part of an agreement to settle several lawsuits
that were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California back in 2003.

Initially, department stores and specialty retailers were named
as defendants in nine separate, but virtually identical class-
action suits filed in various Superior Courts of the state of
California in May, June and July 1998.  The suits were
consolidated in Marin County Superior Court (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008).

In May 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a
number of manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two
other retailers as additional defendants.  

The plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that the retailer and
manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and
the California Unfair Competition Act collusively controlled the
retail price of the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics
and fragrances sold in department and specialty stores.

The plaintiffs sought treble damages and restitution in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on
behalf of a class of all California residents who purchased
cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the
defendants during the four years prior to the filing of the
original complaints.

Several defendant would later enter into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in order to avoid the cost and distraction
of protracted litigation.

In furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re-
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently
reside in the U.S. and who purchased "Department Store"
cosmetics and fragrances from the defendants from May 29, 1994
through July 16, 2003.

The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement, and a
summary notice of class certification and the terms of the
settlement were disseminated to class members.  

On March 30, 2005, the court entered a final judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and the
claims of all class members with prejudice, in their entirety.

On April 29, 2005, two class members who objected to the
settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's final
judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

One of the objectors has since dropped her appeal, but the other
filed her appeal brief on March 20, 2006.  The plaintiffs' and
defendants' briefs were filed on May 25, 2006.  The remaining
objector filed her reply brief on June 14, 2006.

The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal on March
14, 2007 and issued its decision on Aug. 23, 2007, affirming the
District Court’s ruling.

The deadline for the appellant to file a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision ended on Nov.
21, 2007.  

Accordingly, the settlement became final according to its terms
on Nov. 22, 2007.

Pursuant to the settlement, the defendants will provide class
members with certain free products with an estimated retail
value of $175 million and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
awarded by the Court, of $24 million.

WPTV reported that the products will be available starting Jan.
20, 2009.  Shoppers are only permitted to receive one product
made by cosmetic companies that include Chanel, Estee Lauder and
L'Oreal USA, among others.

Stores participating in the settlement include: Bergdorf
Goodman, Bergner's, Bloomingdale's, Boston Store, Carson Pirie
Scott, Dillard's, Gottschalks, Herberger's, Macy's, Neiman
Marcus, Nordstrom, Parisian, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Younkers,
according to WPTV.

WPTV reports that a complete list of products set for
distribution is available at http://www.cosmeticssettlement.com.


CENTURYTEL INC: MOA of "Tyler" Suit Settlement Inked on Jan. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyTel, Inc., Embarq Corp., and Cajun Acquisition Co. on
Jan. 16, 2009, entered into a memorandum of understanding
regarding the settlement of a putative class-action suit styled,
"Tyner v. Embarq Corp, et al., Case No. 08CV10121."

On Dec. 1, 2008, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative
class of Embarq stockholders in the District Court of Johnson
County, Kansas.  

The complaint names Embarq, its directors and CenturyTel as
defendants.  It alleges, among other things, that Embarq's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
Merger Agreement, including by failing to obtain the highest
price available for Embarq's stockholders and by failing to
disclose material information in the proxy materials in
connection with the merger, and that Embarq and CenturyTel aided
and abetted the directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, class action status,
court orders declaring the Merger Agreement unenforceable and
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, and the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the putative class representative and
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with
regard to the settlement of the Action.  

In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum
of understanding, Embarq and CenturyTel agreed, among other
things, to make certain additional disclosures related to the
proposed merger, which are set forth below.  The memorandum of
understanding contemplates that, pending certain confirmatory
discovery, the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to
Embarq's stockholders.  

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement.  

If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will
resolve and release all claims in the Action that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger,
the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection
therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement.  

In addition, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel
will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by
Embarq and/or its successor(s) in interest of not more than $1
million.  Embarq (and/or its successor(s) in interest) shall pay
or cause to be paid such award(s) of attorneys' fees and
expenses.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding
may be terminated, according to the company's Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 16,
2009.

CenturyTel, Inc., -- http://www.centurytel.com-- together with  
its subsidiaries, is an integrated communications company
engaged primarily in providing an array of communications
services, including local and long distance voice, Internet
access and broadband services.  It conducts its operations in 25
states located within the continental U.S.


FCSTONE GROUP: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over Failure to Disclose
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed against FCStone Group,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri is in its early stages, according to the company's Jan.
9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008.

The company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.

The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between Nov. 15,
2007 and July 9, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under
Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for alleged false statements and failure to disclose adverse
facts relating to an interest rate hedge and the company's bad
debt reserve.

FCStone Group, Inc. -- http://www.fcstone.com/-- is an  
integrated commodity risk management company providing risk
management consulting and transaction execution services to
commercial commodity intermediaries, end users and producers.  
It assists primarily middle market customers.  In addition, to
its risk management consulting services, the Company operates an
independent clearing and execution platforms for exchange-traded
futures and options contracts.


HARDINGE INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion in Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York is
deciding whether a California law firm and a Hardinge, Inc.
investor the firm represents will be the lead attorney and lead
plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed in October against the
the machine tool maker, G. Jeffrey Aaron of The Elmira Star-
Gazette reports.

A motion filed by the Glancy Binkow & Goldberg law firm of Los
Angeles identifies the investor as Paul J. Campbell.  According
to court papers, Mr. Campbell lost $136,525 when he sold 11,200
shares of Hardinge stock in April 2008 at a price of $14.01 per
share, The Elmira Star-Gazette reported.

Mr. Campbell purchased the shares between April and November
2007 at prices that ranged from $33.43 per share in June to
$20.30 in November 2008.  The value of his investment totaled
$293,521, according to The Elmira Star-Gazette report.

The motion requesting Mr. Campbell be named lead plaintiff
states the appropriate papers were presented to the court within
60 days after the original complaint against Hardinge was filed;
that Mr. Campbell has the largest financial interests of the
parties included in the lawsuit; and that he can "fairly and
adequately" protect the interests of those other parties,
reports The Elmira Star-Gazette.

The Elmira Star-Gazette reports that as lead plaintiff, Mr.
Campbell would be responsible for making the decisions related
to any settlement proposed in the case.  As lead attorney,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg would be in charge of the day-by-day
court activity and eligible for additional fees.

The suit charges Hardinge and certain of Hardinge's executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the company's business, operations and
prospects caused Hardinge's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008).

Hardinge is a machine tool manufacturer, which designs and
manufactures computer-numerically controlled cutting lathes,
machining centers, grinding machines, collets, chucks, indexing
fixtures and other industrial products.  The Company's brands
include Hardinge, Kellenberger, Bridgeport, and Hauser, Tripet,
and Tshudin.

The suit alleges that throughout the between Feb. 22, 2007 and
Feb. 21, 2008, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that
their public statements concerning Hardinge's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

     (1) that Hardinge's orders and sales were slowing;

     (2) slowing sales were causing Hardinge's inventory of
         outdated machinery to grow;

     (3) that the Company failed to timely record an impairment
         in the value of its inventory;

     (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated; and
   
     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

Hardinge, Inc. -- http://www.hardinge.com-- is a global  
designer, manufacturer and distributor of machine tools,
specializing in precision computer numerically controlled
material-cutting machines.  It supplies high-precision computer
controlled material-cutting turning machines, grinding machines,
and vertical machining centers, and accessories related to those
machines.  Industries directly and indirectly served by the
Company include aerospace, automotive, construction equipment,
defense, energy, farm equipment, medical equipment, recreational
equipment, telecommunications and transportation.  The Company
has manufacturing facilities located in Chemung County, New
York; St. Gallen, Switzerland; Biel, Switzerland; Nan Tou City,
Taiwan, and Shanghai, People's Republic of China.  It
manufactures the majority of the products it sells.


LANDAMERICA 1031: Faces Fraud Lawsuit in Va. Bankruptcy Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services, a unit of LandAmerica
Financial Group Inc., facing a purported class-action suit
claiming breach of contract, fraud and theft of property, Emily
C. Dooley of the Richmond Times Dispatch reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange
Services customers.

The Richmond Times Dispatch reported that named as defendants in
the suit are LandAmerica Financial Group Inc., its exchange
company, and several executives, including former chairman and
chief executive Theodore L. Chandler Jr., who stepped down
Friday; Chief Financial Officer G. William Evans; and controller
Christine R. Vlahcevic.

The lawsuit was filed by two California residents who represent
a family trust.  In October 2008, they transferred $230,000 to
the exchange company after the sale of property in California.  
With LandAmerica's bankruptcy filing in late November 2008,
their money was locked up before they had identified another
property in which to reinvest, reports the Richmond Times
Dispatch.

The plaintiffs are claiming that they were intentionally misled
on the financial health of LandAmerica and its exchange company,
according to the Richmond Times Dispatch.


LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Lawsuit Pending in Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A labor-related class-action lawsuit against Lawson Software,
Inc. is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008.

The punitive class action lawsuit was filed against the company
on May 20, 2008, on behalf of current and former business,
systems, and technical consultants.

The suit, "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," alleges that that the company failed to
pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
state law, and alleges violations of state record-keeping
requirements.  It also alleges certain violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and unjust enrichment.  

The relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan
credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2008).

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the ERISA and unjust
enrichment claims, but there is no assurance that the court will
grant that pending motion.  The company has successfully moved
the action from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.  

In addition to the motion to dismiss still pending, the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the FLSA
claims is also still pending.

The suit "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H. Stein, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq. (lgreen@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

          Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq.
          (lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com)
          Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
          190 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-747-0300
          Fax: 516-747-0653

               - and -

          Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq. (smcgrane@felhaber.com)
          Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A.
          220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-373-8511
          Fax: 612-338-0535


MERRILL LYNCH: Deal with Retirement Plan Stockholders Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement in connection with a class-action lawsuit
brought on behalf of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.'s employees who
invested in or held company stock in certain retirement plans
during the period Sept. 30, 2006 through Dec. 31, 2008, remains
pending.  

Under the terms of this proposed settlement, which is also
subject to court approval and other customary conditions,
Merrill Lynch will pay $75 million in cash, and the claims will
be dismissed.  

This case has also been filed under the caption, "In re Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation,
Master File No. 07cv9633 (JSR)(DFE)."

The claims focused primarily on Merrill Lynch's subprime-related
losses and related disclosures during the class periods.

The proposed settlement does not cover the shareholder
derivative actions and the claims brought principally by
bondholders in actions filed under the same caption, according
to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated Jan. 16, 2009.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Ohio State Teachers Agree to Proposed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., on Jan. 16, 2009, was notified that
the Ohio State Teachers' Retirement System agreed to a proposed
settlement of a class action brought on behalf of persons who
purchased Merrill Lynch stock and certain Merrill Lynch
preferred shares between Oct. 17, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2008.

STRS is the lead plaintiff in a class action captioned, "In re
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA
Litigation, Master File No. 07cv9633 (JSR)(DFE)."

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which is subject to
court approval and other customary conditions, Merrill Lynch
will pay $475 million in cash, and the claims will be dismissed.

The claims focused primarily on Merrill Lynch's subprime-related
losses and related disclosures during the class periods. The
proposed settlements do not involve any admission of wrongdoing
or liability, and there has been no adjudication of the merits
of the underlying claims.

There can be no assurance in either action that the parties will
ultimately enter into final settlement agreements or that the
court will approve the settlement agreements that the parties
execute.

The proposed settlement does not cover the shareholder
derivative action and the claims brought principally by
bondholders in actions filed under the same caption, according
to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated Jan. 16, 2009.

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


MIGDAL INSURANCE: Faces Policyholders' Litigation in Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Jan. 20, 2009 (Globes - McClatchy-Tribune Information
Services via COMTEX) -- The Tel Aviv District Court has ruled
against Migdal Insurance and Financial Holdings Ltd. (TASE:
MGDL), Menorah Mivtachim Holdings Ltd. (TASE: MORA), and Shiloah
Insurance Company Ltd. in a class-action lawsuit.  

     Judge Magen Altuvia ruled that the companies violated
proper disclosure by not explaining to policyholders serving in
the IDF that their ability to utilize supplementary medical
insurance policies was limited and subject to IDF regulations.

     Judge Altuvia dismissed the charge that the insurance
companies mislead and abused the policyholders.  She said that
the non-disclosure was not considered as misleading
policyholders, and the companies therefore owe no compensation
to the policyholders.

     Judge Altuvia nevertheless accepted the claimants' request
for remedy, and ordered the insurance companies to clearly
declare in their policies that the supplementary medical
insurance policies were subject to military regulations while
the policyholders were in the service, that these regulations
change from time to time, and to ensure that the policyholders
understood this.


RED HAT: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff's motion to certify the consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit against Red Hat, Inc., as a class
action awaits disposition by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action complaints were filed
against the company and several of its present and former
officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's
securities during various periods from June 19, 2001, through
July 13, 2004.  All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.  

All of the claims arise in connection with the company
announcement on July 13, 2004, that it would restate certain of
its financial statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and
former officers and the company variously violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from
trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the
company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were
consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR."

A lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have been
designated, and on May 6, 2005, an amended consolidated class-
action complaint was filed.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant,
filed a separate motion to dismiss.  

On May 12, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against
several of the individual defendants, but denying the motion to
dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the
company, its chief executive officer and its former chief
financial officer.

The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in
their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.  A
scheduling order has been entered in the matter and discovery
was scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007.

In November 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order
denying class certification and denying all other pending
motions, including certain plaintiffs' motions for appointment
as class representative, as moot.

Thereafter, on July 13, 2007, Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an order allowing Mr.
Gilbert's motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him
as a party plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.

On Jan. 14, 2008, Mr. Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to
certify the action as a class action (Class Action Reporter,
July 25, 2008).

The motion to certify the action as a class action has since
been briefed by the parties and now awaits disposition by the
Court, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-473," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Judge W. Earl Britt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         William Webb, Esq. (woodywebb@wwedmisten.com)
         The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm,
         P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602
         Phone: 919-831-8700

Representing the company is:
        
         Pressly M. Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com)
         Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Esq.
         P.O. Box 831
         Raleigh, NC 27602
         Phone: 919-755-2135


TYCO ELECTRONICS: Consolidated ERISA Suit v. Parent Co. Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class-action lawsuit against Tyco International
Limited and certain of its current and former employees,
officers, and directors under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) is in the pre-trial stage, according to
Tyco Electronics Limited's Jan. 16, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 26, 2008.

Tyco International Limited and certain of its current and former
employees, officers, and directors have been named as defendants
in eight class actions brought under ERISA.

All eight actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire.

The consolidated complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of
the Tyco International Retirement Savings and Investment Plans
and the participants therein and alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by negligently
misrepresenting and negligently failing to disclose material
information concerning, among other things, the following:
related-party transactions and executive compensation; Tyco
International's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting
therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed acquisitions; and
misstatements of Tyco International's financial results.

The complaint also asserts that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by allowing the Plans to invest in Tyco
International's shares when it was not a prudent investment.

The complaints seek recovery of alleged plan losses arising from
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all Participants in the Plans for whose
individual accounts the Plans purchased and/or held shares of
Tyco Stock Fund at any time from Aug. 12, 1998 to July 25,
2002."

Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/--  
is a global provider of engineered electronic components,
network solutions, wireless systems and undersea
telecommunication systems.  The company designs, manufactures,
and markets products for customers in industries from
automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to
telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics.  Its
products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites
in over 25 countries.  The company is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Tyco International Limited.


TYCO ELECTRONICS: "Hall" Securities Lawsuit in Pre-trial Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
An action entitled, "Hall v. Kozlowski, et al.," is in the pre-
trial stage, according to Tyco Electronics Limited's Jan. 16,
2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2008.

The action relates to plaintiff's employment, 401(k) and pension
plans, and ownership of Tyco International stock

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
"Hall" action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire.

Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/--  
is a global provider of engineered electronic components,
network solutions, wireless systems and undersea
telecommunication systems.  The company designs, manufactures,
and markets products for customers in industries from
automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to
telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics.  Its
products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites
in over 25 countries.  The company is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Tyco International Limited.


TYCO ELECTRONICS: "Jasin" Securities Suit in Pre-trial Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
The action entitled, "Jasin v. Tyco International Ltd., et al.,"
is in the pre-trial stage, according to Tyco Electronics
Limited's Jan. 16, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 26, 2008.

This action was filed on Sept. 2, 2004, in the Court of Common
Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

This pro se plaintiff named as additional defendants Tyco
International (U.S.) Inc. and certain of Tyco International's
former executives. Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of
action under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 11 of the Securities
Act.

Claims against the former executives also are asserted under
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act, as well as
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.

The plaintiff also asserts common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, unfair trade practice, breach of contract,
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation
of Section 1-402 of the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972.

Tyco International removed the complaint to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/--  
is a global provider of engineered electronic components,
network solutions, wireless systems and undersea
telecommunication systems.  The company designs, manufactures,
and markets products for customers in industries from
automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to
telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics.  Its
products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites
in over 25 countries.  The company is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Tyco International Limited.


TYCO ELECTRONICS: Remains Liable for Remaining Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco Electronics Limited is responsible for 31% of potential
liabilities that may arise upon the resolution of the remaining
pending litigation relating to the company's separation from
Tyco International Limited, according to its Jan. 16, 2009 Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2008.

Prior to the announcement by Tyco International of the planned
separation of Tyco Electronics and Covidien Ltd. in January
2006, Tyco International and certain of its former directors and
officers were named as defendants in over 40 purported
securities class action lawsuits.  

As a part of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, any
existing or potential liabilities related to the securities
class actions were allocated among Tyco International, Covidien,
and the company.

The company is responsible for 31% of potential liabilities that
may arise upon the resolution of the remaining pending
litigation.

Most of the securities class-action lawsuits were transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  

A consolidated securities class-action complaint was filed in
these proceedings, and on June 12, 2006, the court entered an
order certifying a class "consisting of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Tyco securities between Dec.
13, 1999 and June 7, 2002, and who were damaged thereby,
excluding defendants, all of the officers, directors and
partners thereof, members of their immediate families and their
legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any
entity in which any of the foregoing have or had a controlling
interest."

Tyco International settled 32 of the purported securities class-
action lawsuits arising from the actions alleged to have been
taken by its prior management, for which the company is
responsible for 31%.

All legal contingencies that could have affected the final order
entered in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire approving the settlement expired on Feb. 21, 2008.

As of the opt-out deadline for the settlement, Tyco
International received opt-out notices from individuals and
entities totaling approximately 4% of the shares owned by class
members.  A number of these individuals and entities have filed
actions separately against Tyco International and/or Tyco
International, Covidien, and the company.

Generally, the claims asserted by these plaintiffs include
violations of the disclosure provisions of federal securities
laws.  Tyco International has advised the company that it
intends to vigorously defend any litigation resulting from opt-
out claims.  

One of the opt-out lawsuits was filed by certain BlackRock funds
against Tyco International, Covidien and the company.  One of
the company's directors, Robert M. Hernandez, is a
trustee/director of certain of the BlackRock funds named as
plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  

However, Mr. Hernandez was not informed and had no knowledge of
the lawsuit because he had been recused from all discussions and
decisions relating to the lawsuit.  Mr. Hernandez will continue
to recuse himself from any and all matters relating to the
lawsuit in both his capacity as a director of Tyco Electronics
and as a trustee/director of certain BlackRock funds.

Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/--  
is a global provider of engineered electronic components,
network solutions, wireless systems and undersea
telecommunication systems.  The company designs, manufactures,
and markets products for customers in industries from
automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to
telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics.  Its
products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites
in over 25 countries.  The company is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Tyco International Limited.


UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Calif. Court OKs Consumer Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California gave final approval
of a settlement of a consumer fraud class-action lawsuit that
calls for Universal Studios, Inc. to stop selling park admission
gift cards with expiration dates, The Daily News Wire Service
reports.

The suit was filed by Colin Adams on December 2006, alleging
included unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices by
Universal Studios.

Under the settlement, Universal Studios has agreed to honor
existing cards with expiration dates and to post notices for six
months at the park.  In addition, the company will pay $110,000
in attorneys' fees to Mr. Adams' lawyers and will also donate
$36,000 to charity, according to The Daily News Wire Service
reports.

According to the lawsuit, Universal Studios sold gift cards that
were good for a day's admission at grocery stores throughout
California.  

In 2005, Mr. Adams obtained one of the admissions cards that had
an expiration date, which he maintained was in violation of the
state Civil Code.

In July 2006, Mr. Adams wrote a letter to Universal Studios
demanding that it stop selling gift cards with an expiration
date, according to his lawsuit.  

The Daily News Wire Service reported that Universal Studios
responded by sending him two tickets, but maintained that what
he bought was a "ticket card" rather than a gift card and had no
value until it was activated.

The lawsuit said that the company continued selling the cards
with expiration dates statewide.

The court granted class-action status to the case last February
2008 and preliminary approval to the settlement in October 2008,
reports The Daily News Wire Service.


WD-40 CO: Plaintiff's Appeal to Denied "Drimmer" Class Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal filed by the plaintiff in a purported class-action
lawsuit against WD-40 Co. from an order entered by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California denying
class-action status to their case remains pending.

James Drimmer filed the suit on April 19, 2006, alleging fraud
in the company's marketing of automatic toilet bowl cleaners.  
After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed
by way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
Sept. 20, 2006.

The amended complaint sought class-action status.  It alleged
that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and
2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl cleaners are
safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to advise
consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use of the
ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the company successfully defeated the
plaintiff's attempt to have the case certified as a class
action.  

The plaintiff then petitioned for permission to appeal the
District Court's decision and the company has opposed this move.

The plaintiff was granted permission to appeal the District
Court's ruling.

If the plaintiff is successful in an appeal and class-action
certification is granted in this legal action, it is reasonably
possible that the outcome could have a material adverse effect
on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows, according to the company's Jan. 9,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Drimmer v. WD-40 Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00900-W-
AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, Judge Thomas J. Whelan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert L. Kenny, Esq. (rkenny@kennylaw.net)
         The Law Offices of Robert L. Kenny
         401 West A Street, Suite 2300
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-234-1616
         Fax: 619-234-1650

Representing the company is:

         Shannon Sweeney, Esq.
         Baker and McKenzie
         101 West Broadway, Suite 1200
         San Diego, CA 92101-8213
         Phone: 619-236-1441
         Fax: 619-236-0429


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Gardy & Notis Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J., Jan. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed an amended complaint in the
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust
Securities, Callable Class A Certificates, Series 2007-1,
STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities,
Series 2007-1 ("STRATS") (NYSE:GJW) from the date of issuance on
June 29, 2007, through and including April 22, 2008 (the "Class
Period").

     The case has been assigned No. 08 Civ. 11241. The
defendants in the case are Robert J. Genader, Sean T. Leonard
and Ambac Financial Group, Inc.  

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing a series of false and misleading statements concerning
the financial results and operations of Ambac Financial Group,
Inc.

For more information, contact:

          Charles Germershausen, Esq.
          (cgermershausen@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/


RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood announces that on January 16, 2009, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Rackable
Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: RACK).  

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from October 30, 2006 through April 4, 2007.

     The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the
Class.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


SATYAM COMPUTER: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") today announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Satyam Computer Services Ltd. ("Satyam" or the "Company")
(NYSE:SAY) American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") during the
period between January 22, 2004 and January 6, 2009, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

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

     Satyam provides information technology services and
business process outsourcing services in North America, Europe,
the Asia Pacific, the Middle-East, Australia, Africa, and South
America. It offers consulting, systems design, software
development, system integration, and application maintenance
services.

     According to the complaint, during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
that misrepresented and failed to disclose that:

       -- Satyam was materially overstating its financial
          results by engaging in improper accounting practices;

       -- the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
          therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
          condition; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company"s balance
          sheet as of September 30, 2008 inflated non-existing
          cash and bank balances by 50.40 billion rupees
          (US$1.04 billion), understated a liability by 12.3
          billion rupees, and overstated debtors" position by
          4.9 billion rupees.

     On January 7, 2009, Satyam shocked the market when it
published the resignation letter of Defendant Raju, which stated
that he "inflated profits over a period of last several years
[sic]" and that the Company"s balance sheet as of September 30,
2008 inflated non-existing cash and bank balances by 50.40
billion rupees (US$1.04 billion), understated a liability by
12.3 billion rupees, and overstated debtors" position by 4.9
billion rupees.

     Upon this shocking news, shares of the Company"s ADRs
plunged 75% to US$2.38 per share in pre-market trading on
January 7, 2009, but never opened for trading in the U.S.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Satyam ADRs during the Class Period (the "Class").

For more details, contact:

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


SATYAM COMPUTER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan 20, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP ("Pomerantz") has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, which names as a defendant
Satyam's outside auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd.,
Price Waterhouse (collectively, "PwC") and Pricewaterhouse
Coopers International Limited.  Also named as defendants are
Satyam Computer Services Ltd. ("Satyam"); its 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.

     The class action, (Case No. 09-CV-489) was filed on behalf
of purchasers of the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of
Satyam from 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 allegations of fraud against Satyam and the
officer defendants, the complaint alleges that PwC was aware of,
or recklessly disregarded, a multi-year massive fraud by Satyam
management to overstate the Company's earnings, including
concocting $1 billion of cash that didn't exist, and overstating
revenues and profits.

     The case further alleges that PwC ignored red flags that
should have alerted it to the fraud, and moreover, failed to
perform its audits in accordance with the requisite accounting
principles.  PwC is currently under investigation by India's
Institute of Chartered Accountants for its role in auditing
Satyam's books.  Disclosure of Satyam's 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


SATYAM COMPUTER: Saxena White Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BOCA RATON, FL, Jan 20, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) --
Notice is hereby given that Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on
behalf of shareholders of Satyam Computer Service Ltd. ("Satyam"
or the "Company") in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

     The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Satyam
Computer Services Ltd. American Depository Shares (ADS's) and/or
common stock between January 6, 2004 through January 6, 2009,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Satyam is a global consulting
and information services company.

     Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued false and
misleading financial information about the Company and
perpetrated a financial fraud that is being called the "Enron of
India."

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

     Raju admitted to having inflated the amount of cash on the
Company's balance sheet by nearly $1 billion.  The top
executives have been arrested by Indian authorities, and new
auditors have been hired to review the company's books.  A large
accounting restatement is expected after the review is complete.

For more details, contact:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway
          Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.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  * * *