CAR_Public/090126.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, January 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 17
  
                           Headlines

CALL-A-HEAD CORP: Faces Ex-Employees' Overtime Suit in New York
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Deal in Former Server's Suit Paid in 2Q 2009  
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Shareholder's Securities Suit in Fla.
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Suit by Former Red Lobster Servers
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Still Faces Suit by Ex-Red Lobster Managers

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Suits Over "Server Banking" Policies Settled
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Freudenberg" Complaint Still Pending in N.Y.
EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS: Parties Seek Approval of Merger Suit Deal
FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Lawsuit Over Discriminatory Pay Practices
FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Several Overtime Compensation Cases in N.C.

FAMILY DOLLAR: To Seek Supreme Court Review of FLSA Suit Ruling
HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Calif. Suit
LUND BOAT: Faces Minnesota Litigation Over Vacation Pay Dispute
MARCUS CORP: Unit to Contest "Goodman" Complaint Pending in Nev.
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: 2010 Trial Set for Utah Securities Fraud Suit

NETWORKS & PRODUCERS: Settles Reality-Show Workers' Calif. Suits
PALM INC: Calif. Court's Approval to Treo Suit Settlement Final
SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Settles Pa. Lawsuit Over Banco Santander Deal
SUPERVALU INC: Faces Wis. Suit Alleging Anticompetitive Behavior


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Susman Godfrey Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing
ROYAL BANK: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                           *********

CALL-A-HEAD CORP: Faces Ex-Employees' Overtime Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Call-A-Head Corp., a portable toilet company based in New York,
is being sued by dozens of ex-employees accusing CEO Charles
Howard of flouting state labor laws since 2002, Nicole Bode of
the New York Daily News reports.

The workers claim that they had to clean up to 100 toilets a day
around the metropolitan area.  The toilets were along routes
that took 15 hours to complete, but their pay was capped at 10
hours, according to the purported class-action lawsuit, which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

The New York Daily News reported that the lawsuit demands back
wages for every hour of overtime that went unpaid since July 17,
2002 -- the statute of limitations deadline.  That could amount
to more than $1 million, according to plaintiffs' lawyer Justin
Zeller, Esq.

Mr. Zeller told the New York Daily News that the company could
be hit hard because it advertised the jobs as paying a $1,000
flat rate for four days a week, at 10 hours a day.  Call-A-Head
also forced workers to punch in at the start of their shift, but
did not allow them to clock out, he added.

For more details, contact:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          Law Office of Justin A. Zeller
          251 West 14th Street, 4B
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Web site: http://www.zellerlegal.com/


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Deal in Former Server's Suit Paid in 2Q 2009  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by a former Olive
Garden server was paid during the second quarter of fiscal 2009,
according to Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s Jan. 2, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008.

In August 2007, an action was filed in California state court by
a former Olive Garden server alleging that Olive Garden's
scheduling practices resulted in failure to properly pay
reporting time (minimum shift) pay as well as to pay minimum
wage, to provide itemized wage statements, and to timely pay
employees upon the termination of their employment.

The complaint sought to have the suit certified as a class-
action suit.

Although the company believed that its policies and practices
were lawful and that it had strong defenses, following mediation
with the plaintiffs during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008,
the company reached a preliminary settlement of this matter
under which it would pay approximately $0.7 million.  

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Shareholder's Securities Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. intends to defend its position in the
purported class-action complaint filed by an institutional
shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.

On March 13, 2008, a purported class-action complaint alleging
violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an
institutional shareholder against Darden and certain of the
company's current officers, one of whom is also a director, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Darden's
common stock between June 19, 2007 and Dec. 18, 2007 (the
Class).

The complaint alleges that during that period, the defendants
issued false and misleading statements in press releases and
public filings that misrepresented and failed to disclose
certain information, and that as a result, had no reasonable
basis for statements about Darden's prospects and guidance for
fiscal 2008.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of
the Class, according to Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s Jan. 2, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Suit by Former Red Lobster Servers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., reaches settlement of a purported
class-action suit filed against its Red Lobster restaurant
concept and pending in a California state court.

In August 2008, an action was filed in California state court by
a former Red Lobster server related to employment practices at
Red Lobster.

In general the suit is alleging that Red Lobster's scheduling
practices resulted in failure to properly pay reporting time
(minimum shift) pay as well as to pay minimum wage, to provide
itemized wage statements, and to timely pay employees upon the
termination of their employment.

The complaint seeks to have the suit certified as a class-action
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008).

Although the company believed that its policies and practices
were lawful, it reached a preliminary settlement of this matter
under which it would pay approximately $0.5 million.

The company expects to pay the settlement amount during fiscal
2009 at the completion of the settlement process, according to
its Jan. 2, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Still Faces Suit by Ex-Red Lobster Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., continues to face a purported class-
action suit filed against its Red Lobster restaurant concept and
pending in a California state court, according to the company's
Jan. 2, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008.

In July 2008, an action was filed in California state court by a
group of former Red Lobster managers alleging that the salaried
general managers of the restaurants were not paid minimum wage
for all hours worked because they were not paid for time spent
attending various seminars and conferences.

In addition, the managers claim that they were not provided with
rest and meal breaks pursuant to California law.  The complaint
seeks to have the suit certified as a class action (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008).

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Suits Over "Server Banking" Policies Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., reached a preliminary settlement of
the complaints relating to its "server banking" policies and
practices during the third quarter of fiscal 2008.    

In January 2004, a former food server filed a purported class-
action suit in California state court alleging that Red
Lobster's "server banking" policies and practices improperly
required her and other food servers and bartenders to make up
cash shortages and walkouts in violation of California law.

The policies referred to in the case are those under which
servers settle guest checks directly with customers throughout
their shifts, and turn in collected monies at the shift's end.

The case was ordered to arbitration.  As a procedural matter,
the arbitrator ruled that class-wide arbitration is permissible
under our dispute resolution program.

In January 2007, plaintiffs' counsel filed in California state
court a second purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of
servers and bartenders alleging that Olive Garden's server
banking policy and its alleged failure to pay split shift
premiums violated California law.

Although the company believed that its policies and practices
were lawful, it reached a preliminary settlement of the matters
during the third quarter of fiscal 2008.  As a result, the
company accrued approximately $4.0 million in legal settlement
costs during fiscal 2008, which it expects to be paid in fiscal
2009.  No additional reserves have been taken in connection with
this settlement, according to the company's Jan. 2, 2009 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Freudenberg" Complaint Still Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit styled, "Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation
et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS," remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated Dec. 30, 2008.

Initially, on Oct. 2, 2007, a class-action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company and its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2008).

The suit was entitled "Larry Freudenberg, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, versus
E*TRADE Financial Corporation, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J.
Simmons, Defendants."

The plaintiff contends, among other things, that between Dec.
14, 2006, and Sept. 25, 2007, the defendants:

       -- issued materially false and misleading statements and
          failed to disclose that the company was experiencing a
          rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and home
          equity portfolios;

       -- failed to timely record an impairment on its mortgage
          and home equity portfolios and materially overvalued
          its securities portfolio, which includes assets backed
          by mortgages; and

       -- based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for
          the positive statements it made about the company's
          earnings and prospects.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages in an amount to be proven
at trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Four additional class action complaints alleging similar
violations of the federal securities laws and alleging either
the same or somewhat longer class periods were filed in the same
court between Oct. 12, 2007, and Nov. 21, 2007, by named
plaintiffs William Boston, Robert D. Thulman, Wendy M. Davidson,
and Joshua Ferenc.  Mr. Ferenc subsequently dismissed his
complaint on May 2, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2008).

The remaining suits were later consolidated.  The consolidated
class action suit is brought on behalf of people who bought
shares in E*Trade between April 20, 2006, and Nov. 9, 2007.

By order dated July 17, 2008, the trial court appointed the
"Kristen-Straxton Group" and Ira Newman co-lead plaintiffs and
Brower Piven and Levi & Kersinski, respectively, as lead and co-
lead plaintiffs' counsel (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008).

Subsequently, the trial court ordered Plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint by Dec. 31, 2008; Defendants to
file their respective motion to dismiss by March 15, 2009; and
all parties to complete briefing on Defendants' motion to
dismiss by July 31, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 23, 2008).

The suit is "Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Robert W.
Sweet, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants is:

          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          Dennis E. Glazer, Esq. (dennis.glazer@dpw.com)
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4900
          Fax: 212-450-3900


EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS: Parties Seek Approval of Merger Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to a purported class-action lawsuit in connection
with the proposed merger between AmCOMP Incorporated with a
subsidiary of Employers Holdings, Inc. seek court approval of a
stipulation of settlement.

On March 4, 2008, the purported class-action lawsuit was filed
by Broadbased Equities, an alleged stockholder of AmCOMP,
against AmCOMP, its directors and the company in connection with
the proposed merger.

The parties negotiated and entered into an Amended Memorandum of
Understanding under which the defendants agreed to pay up to
$675,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses to counsel for the
plaintiff.  

The parties have agreed to enter into and seek court approval of
a stipulation of settlement consistent with the Amended
Memorandum of Understanding and under which Employers would be
responsible for the payment of the $675,000, according to the
company's Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Dec. 31, 2008.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Lawsuit Over Discriminatory Pay Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. intends to defend the allegations in
the "Scott" case pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

On Oct. 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned, "Scott, et al v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc.," alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the company's female store managers.

This case was plead as a putative class-action or collective
action under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar
female store managers.

The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and punitive money
damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief.

The case has been transferred to the N.C. Federal Court,
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. 29, 2008.   

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a
selection of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  The company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Several Overtime Compensation Cases in N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. continues to face several overtime
compensation cases proceeding as collective or class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, 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. 29, 2008.  

Since 2004, numerous cases have been filed by other plaintiffs
making various allegations against the company, among others,
that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act or
similar state laws by classifying the named plaintiffs and other
current and former Store Managers as "exempt" employees who are
not entitled to overtime compensation.

The complaints in each action request that the cases proceed as
collective actions under the FLSA or as class actions under
state law and request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and court costs.

Several of these cases have been dismissed or voluntarily
withdrawn.

The first two of those remaining cases are "Grace v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc.," and "Ward v. Family Dollar, Inc.," both
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division.  

In those cases, the court has returned orders finding that the
plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, that
neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the
FLSA is appropriate.  Hence, the Grace and Ward cases are
proceeding as approximately 80 individual plaintiff cases.

In addition to Grace and Ward, a total of 12 other same or
similar class or collective cases are now pending, all of which
are before the N.C. Federal Court.  

All of these cases have been either transferred by U.S. District
Courts in various states to the N.C. Federal Court or were the
subject of an order entered by the U.S. Judicial Panel on
MultiDistrict Litigation transferring the cases, which were
originally filed in the U.S. District Courts in various states,
to the N.C. Federal Court for coordination of discovery with the
other pending cases.

While discovery in all of the cases has been stayed for the
conduct of settlement discussions between the parties, the
company anticipates that discovery in the Grace and Ward cases
will move forward on the merits of the individual's exemption
claims and discovery in the remaining cases will be conducted
regarding a determination whether the plaintiffs are "similarly
situated" such that the cases should proceed as collective
actions, or, in the case of the actions brought under state law,
as class actions.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--  
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a
selection of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: To Seek Supreme Court Review of FLSA Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. plans to petition the U.S. Supreme
Court to grant certiorari for review of the ruling in a
complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

On Jan. 30, 2001, Janice Morgan and Barbara Richardson, two
individuals who have held the position of Store Manager for
subsidiaries of the company, filed a Complaint against Family
Dollar in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.  

The Complaint alleged that the company violated the FLSA by
classifying the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated
current and former Store Managers as "exempt" employees who are
not entitled to overtime compensation.  

The court allowed the case to proceed as a "collective action"
and notice of the pendency of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 13,000 current and former Store Managers holding
the position on or after July 1, 1999.

Approximately 2,550 of those receiving such notice filed consent
forms and joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs, including
approximately 2,300 former Store Managers and approximately 250
then current employees.

After rulings by the Court on motions to dismiss certain
plaintiffs filed by the company, 1,424 plaintiffs remained in
the case at the commencement of trial.

A jury trial was held in June 2005, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and
ended with the judge declaring a mistrial after the jury was
unable to reach a unanimous decision in the matter.  

The case was subsequently retried before another Tuscaloosa
jury, which found that the company should have classified the
Store Manager plaintiffs as hourly employees entitled to
overtime pay, rather than as salaried exempt managers, and
awarded damages.  

Subsequently, the Court ruled that the company did not act in
good faith in classifying the plaintiffs as exempt, and after
making adjustments to the damages award based upon the filing of
personal bankruptcy by certain plaintiffs, the Court entered a
final modified judgment for approximately $35.6 million.

The District Court advised that it would consider the
plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
at the conclusion of the appellate process.

The company appealed this final judgment to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  On Dec. 16, 2008, the Court of
Appeals issued a ruling affirming the judgment of the District
Court.  The company plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to
grant certiorari for review of this ruling, 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. 29, 2008.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--  
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a
selection of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     TAINAN, Taiwan, Jan 22, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Himax Technologies, Inc. ("Himax" or "Company") today announced
that it has entered into a formal stipulation of settlement to
settle a shareholder class action lawsuit pending against it and
various officers and directors in the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).

     The lawsuit was originally filed in July 2007.  It asserts
various securities claims on behalf of persons who purchased the
securities of Himax pursuant to, or traceable to, Himax's
initial public offering in March 2006.  

     If approved, the settlement will result in a dismissal of
all claims against the Company and other defendants.  In
entering into the stipulation, the defendants explicitly denied
any liability or wrongdoing of any kind.  The amount of the
settlement is US$1.2 million, which will be paid by Himax's
insurance carrier.

     The stipulation of settlement must be approved by the
District Court, following notice to members of the settlement
class.  There can be no assurance that the Court will approve
the settlement.


LUND BOAT: Faces Minnesota Litigation Over Vacation Pay Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lund Boat Co., and its parent company, Brunswick Corp. are a
facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Minnesota in
connection to a dispute over vacation pay, Kevin Cederstrom of
the New York Mills Herald reports.

The suit was filed in Otter Tail County in the State of
Minnesota under the caption, "Roberts, et al. v. Brunswich Corp.
and Lund Boat Company, Court File No. 56-CV-07-1307."  It was
brought brought by a group of former and laid off Lund employees
that included:

       -- Darwin Roberts,
       -- Dave Dubs,
       -- Greg Morse,
       -- John Westhoff,
       -- Kenneth Mathewson,
       -- Jeff Small,
       -- Arthur Buntrock,
       -- Roger Grindstaff,
       -- James Baron,
       -- Jack Herr,
       -- Vincent Bernu,
       -- Richard Sydow,
       -- Steve Eklund,
       -- Leroy Atkinson,
       -- Michael Kroupa,
       -- Diana Makinen,
       -- Suzzy Harper,
       -- Gary Harper, and
       -- Thomas Kimmes.

The plaintiffs claim that the company violated the law by
failing to provide employees with all of their paid vacation
time that they say was earned between the model year beginning
June 30, 2004 and ending July 1, 2005, according to the New York
Mills Herald.

They also claim that when the company converted to a new paid
vacation policy on July 1, 2005, the company failed to credit
employees for paid vacation time they say they earned during the
previous model year.  

The plaintiffs contend that they lost up to four weeks vacation
and seek money damages for their claims, and the claims of class
members, reports the New York Mills Herald.

The New York Mills Herald reported that the purported class
includes all persons employed by Brunswick Corp. and Lund Boat
Co. at the New York Mills plant through July 1, 2005, whose
vacation time was calculated according to the model calendar
year (beginning July 1 and ending June 30), and ordinarily would
have earned vacation time on July 1, 2005 under the Genmar
vacation policy.


MARCUS CORP: Unit to Contest "Goodman" Complaint Pending in Nev.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, one of The Marcus Corp.'s
subsidiaries, plans to contest the class action complaint filed
by Adam Goodman, if and when it is ever served, according to the
company's Jan. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 27, 2008.

On Dec. 5, 2008, a class action complaint, captioned as "Goodman
v. Platinum Condominium Development, LLC," was filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada for Clark County
against Platinum LLC.

To date, Platinum LLC has not been served with a summons or a
copy of the complaint.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and alleges
violations of federal and Nevada law.

The complaint alleges that Platinum LLC made various
representations in connection with the sale of condominium units
in the Platinum Hotel & Spa development in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Marcus Corp. -- http://www.marcuscorp.com/-- is engaged  
primarily in two business segments: movie theatres and hotels
and resorts.  As of May 29, 2008, the company's theatre
operations included 56 movie theatres with 678 screens
throughout Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota,
Nebraska and Iowa, including one movie theatre with six screens
in Wisconsin owned by a third party but managed by the company.
It also operates a family entertainment center, Funset
Boulevard, which is adjacent to one of its theatres in Appleton,
Wisconsin.  As of May 29, 2008, the company's hotels and resorts
operations included eight owned and operated hotels and resorts
in Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois and Oklahoma.  It also manages
12 hotels, resorts and other properties for third parties in
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and
California, with threee additional hotels in Florida, Indiana
and Rhode Island under development.


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: 2010 Trial Set for Utah Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative April 19, 2010 trial is slated for the consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against Nature's Sunshine
Products, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah.

Between April 3, 2006 and June 2, 2006, five separate
shareholder class actions were filed against the company and
certain of our present and former officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

These matters were consolidated and on Nov. 3, 2006, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint against the company,
its Chief Executive Officer and former director, Douglas
Faggioli, its former Chief Financial Officer, Craig D. Huff, and
a former director and former Chair of its Audit Committee, Franz
L. Cristiani.  

The consolidated complaint asserts three separate claims on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock:

       -- a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the company for
          violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
          Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that Mr.
          Faggioli made a series of alleged material
          misrepresentations to the investing public;

       -- a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the company for
          violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, alleging
          that Mr. Faggioli made a series of misrepresentations
          to the company's then independent auditor, KPMG, LLP,
          for the purpose of obtaining unqualified or "clean"
          audit opinions and review opinions from KPMG
          concerning certain of our annual and quarterly
          financial statements; and

       -- a claim against Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and Cristiani
          for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
          alleging that the individual defendants have "control
          person" liability for the previously-alleged
          violations by the company.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, together with interest thereon, litigation
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
and any such other and further relief as may be allowed by law.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the company and Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and
Cristiani moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its
entirety.  

On May 21, 2007, the court issued its decision denying the
motion in large part, but shortening the proposed class period
on one of the plaintiffs' claims.  

On June 6, 2007, the company and the other defendants answered
the Consolidated Complaint, wherein they denied all allegations
of wrongdoing and raised a number of affirmative defenses.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.  

On Sept. 25, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in part, establishing the class as all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common
stock, and were damaged thereby, from March 16, 2005 to March
20, 2006.  

On May 9, 2008, at the invitation of the court based upon recent
case law developments, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second cause of action (a 10b-5 claim based on non-
public representations to KPMG).  The plaintiffs opposed this
motion.  On Sept. 23, 2008, the court granted the company's
motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' second cause of action.

The case is currently in the early stages of discovery.  The
trial is not scheduled to commence until April 19, 2010,
according to the company's Dec. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Hyman v. Nature's Sunshine Products et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00267-TS-SA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah, Judge Ted Stewart, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          Climaco Lefkowtiz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli
          55 Public Sq., Ste 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113-1972
          Phone: (216) 621-8484

               - and -

          Gary A. Dodge, Esq.
          Hatch James & Dodge
          10 W Broadway, Ste. 400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 363-6363
          e-mail: gdodge@hjdlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq.
          (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius, P.A.
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: (215) 963-5000

               - and -

          Erik A. Christiansen, Esq. (ecf@parsonsbehle.com)
          Parsons Behle & Latimer
          201 S. Main St., Ste. 1800
          P.O. Box 45898
          Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
          Phone: (801) 532-1234


NETWORKS & PRODUCERS: Settles Reality-Show Workers' Calif. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several television networks and production companies will pay
more than $4 million to settle two class-action lawsuits filed
by several hundred reality-show employees who said they had been
subjected to unlawful working conditions, Matthew Belloni and
James Hibberd of The Hollywood Reporter reports.

The dual class-action lawsuits were filed in 2005 by several
hundred employees who worked in various capacities, including
story editors, editors and segment producers, on such shows as
"The Bachelor," "Trading Spouses," "Are You Hot?" and "The Real
Gilligan's Island."  

They alleged that Fox, ABC, CBS and various production entities
told them to forge time cards and forgo meal breaks while
working 18-hour days.

The Writers Guild of America helped organize the employees who
filed the suits as part of a larger effort to have story editors
of reality series recognized as writers, reports The Hollywood
Reporter.

A Los Angeles judge recently gave preliminary approval to a
$2.57 million settlement with Fox Broadcasting and Rocket
Science Laboratories and a $1.54 million settlement with ABC,
CBS, Mike Fleiss' Next Entertainment and about six other
production companies, according to the The Hollywood Reporter.

Settlement negotiations had continued on and off since a March
2007 mediation, with the final details hammered out in December
2008.

If the settlement is approved by a judge, about 400 class
plaintiffs will split the settlement purse based on how many
hours they worked, with about 20 name plaintiffs receiving an
additional $8,250 each.  The law firms representing the
plaintiffs are set to receive up to $1.1 million in fees and
costs, according to settlement documents obtained by The
Hollywood Reporter.


PALM INC: Calif. Court's Approval to Treo Suit Settlement Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California's ruling on the proposed settlement in the matter "In
re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, Master Case No. C-05-03774-
RMW," is considered final.

In September and October 2005, five purported consumer class
action lawsuits were filed against Palm on behalf of all
purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650 products.

These lawsuits are:

      1. "Moya v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03926-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      2. "Berliner v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03854-RMW," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

      3. "Loew v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03980-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      4. "Geisen v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-04120-RMW," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California; and

      5. "Palza v. Palm," filed before the Superior Court of
         California for Santa Clara County.

The complaints allege in substance that Palm made false or
misleading statements regarding the reliability of its Treo 600
and 650 products in violation of various California laws, that
the products have certain alleged defects, and that Palm
breached its warranty of these products.

The suits' plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief.  

In September 2005, another purported consumer class action suit,
entitled, "Gans v. Palm," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against Palm.  That suit
was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo 650 product.

The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California
laws, Palm made false or misleading statements regarding
automatic email delivery to the Treo 650 product.  It seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and
injunctive relief.  

Palm removed the Palza case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

Subsequently, all six cases were consolidated before a single
judge in that Court and the plaintiffs provided a consolidated,
amended complaint.  

The parties subsequently agreed to a tentative settlement.  On
Jan. 7, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the deal
resolving the consolidate action.  Palm proceeded with a notice
to the settlement class members.  

A hearing to determine final approval of the settlement was
conducted in May 2008, and on July 9, 2008, the Court issued an
order approving the settlement on a final basis with respect to
the class and dismissing claims of the settlement class with
prejudice.

The Court reserved ruling on the application of plaintiffs'
counsel for attorneys' fees and incentive awards to the
representative plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008).

Intervenors at the hearing filed an appeal of the Court's ruling
on Aug. 11, 2008.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the appellate court dismissed it as being
untimely and the District Court ruling therefore became final.
The terms of the Order issued by the Court will result in a
resolution not material to Palm's financial position.  If
approved as requested, the terms of the proposed attorneys' fees
and incentive awards will result in a resolution not material to
Palm's financial position, according to the company's Jan. 5,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, Master Case
No. C-05-03774-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

          Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM)
          Green Welling LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710

               - and -

          Scott K. Johnson, Esq. (skjohnson@sheller.com)
          Sheller Ludwig & Badey, P.C.
          1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-790-7300
          Fax: 215-546-0942

Representing the defendants are:

          Roger E. Collanton, Esq. (rcollanton@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: 925-295-3345


SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Settles Pa. Lawsuit Over Banco Santander Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. settled a shareholder class-action suit
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, opposing the bank's sale to Spain's Banco
Santander, the Philadelphia Business Journal reports.

The settlement allows Sovereign to move forward with a Jan. 28,
2009 shareholder vote of the proposed takeover of the bank by
Banco Santander.  In exchange, Sovereign agreed not to cut
Pennsylvania workers in the 12 months following the Santander
deal, according the Philadelphia Business Journal.

However, employees in other states will not receive such
protection.  The settlement also does not include workers fired
for cause or the 1,000 job cuts announced several days before
Christmas, according to court papers obtained by the
Philadelphia Business Journal.

Sovereign though will provide severance to all bank employees
not protected by the no-layoff provision.  In addition, every
Sovereign worker employed on the closing date of the Santander
deal will receive 100 shares of Santander's American Depository
Receipts.  Those shares were trading at $6.85 each Thursday.

The Philadelphia Business Journal reported that the deal is
expected to close within the next month after a shareholder
meeting in New York.  The Spanish bank owns 24.35 percent of
Philadelphia-based Sovereign and would be purchasing the
remaining 75.65 percent for $1.9 billion at $3.81 per share.

The settlement is still subject to court approval.  A hearing is
set for April 2, 2009, reports the Philadelphia Business
Journal.

The class-action lawsuit was filed last year in Philadelphia
Common Pleas Court on behalf of Sovereign shareholders.  The  
proposed takeover of Sovereign in October triggered several
lawsuits that later were consolidated.

The intention of the suit was to have Judge Marc Bernstein
prevent next week's Sovereign shareholder vote from taking
place.  Stockholders accused Sovereign of not providing enough
information about the transaction.  They also complained
Santander was not paying any premium to buy the rest of
Sovereign the Spanish bank did not already own, reports the
Philadelphia Business Journal.  

Court papers show that the attorneys working for the plaintiffs
in the case are to split $6.9 million in fees, costs and
expenses.  The lead plaintiff lawyer was Michael Donovan, Esq.
of Philadelphia-based Donovan Searles, LLC, according to the
Philadelphia Business Journal report.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Donovan, Esq.
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street
          Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 732-6067
          Fax: (215) 732-8060
          Web site: http://www.donovansearles.com


SUPERVALU INC: Faces Wis. Suit Alleging Anticompetitive Behavior
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in Wisconsin over an alleged deal
between the two companies that limits competition and forces
neighborhood supermarkets and their customers pay more, Matt
McKinney of The Star Tribune reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin on Dec. 31, 2008, under the caption, "D&G
INC. v. Supervalu, Inc. et al., Case. No. 3:2008-cv-00761."  It
alleges that Eden Prairie-based Supervalu and C&S Wholesale of
Keene, N.H., divvied up the regions in which they operate so
that they wouldn't have to compete against one another.  

D&G Inc., which operates a small grocery known as Gary's Foods
in Mount Vernon, Iowa, filed the suit on behalf of itself and
other mom-and-pop operations, according to The Star Tribune
report.

Dennis Dietrich, owner of the 16,000-square-foot Gary's told The
Star Tribune , "Supervalu bet the whole empire on the
neighborhood grocer and now they just don't care anymore."

According to Mr. Dietrich, his family's store, named for his
father, severed a 40-year relationship with Supervalu three
years ago after it closed a Des Moines warehouse and began
taking on some $1,500 in extra weekly fees to ship groceries
from Minneapolis.  

The suit alleges that Supervalu could close warehouses without
fearing competition from C&S thanks to a deal the two companies
struck in August 2003.  The deal led to the closing of six
warehouses -- three for each company -- in the Midwest and New
England, reports The Star Tribune.

Mr. Dietrich, who is represented by attorney Dan Kotchen, Esq.
of Kotchen & Low, told The Star Tribune that he now buys
groceries from Edina-based Nash Finch Co., which has a Cedar
Rapids warehouse just 17 miles from his store.

In general, the suit alleges several counts of anticompetitive
behavior that constitute violations of the Sherman Act.  It
seeks class-action status for a pool of plaintiffs in the
"thousands."  The court has not yet ruled on that request, The
Star Tribune reported.

The suit is "D&G INC. v. Supervalu, Inc. et al., Case. No.
3:2008-cv-00761," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, Stephen L Crocker, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel Aaron Kotchen, Esq. (dkotchen@kotchen.com)
          Kotchen & Low
          2300 M Street, N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, D.C., DC 20003
          Phone: 202-416-1848

               - and -

          Richard B. Drubel, Esq. (rdrubel@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
          26 South Main Street
          Hanover, NH 03755
          Phone: 603-643-9090
          Fax: 603-643-9010


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     January 22, 2009: 06:39 PM ET -- Abraham, Fruchter &
Twersky, LLP today announced that it filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York arising from the proxy communications and other public
disclosures concerning the acquisition (the "Acquisition") by
Bank of America Corporation ("Bank America" or the "Company")
(NYSE: BAC) of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch").

     The action is brought on behalf of a class that consists of
all Bank America shareholders who held shares as of the record
date of October 10, 2008 and were entitled to vote with respect
to the Acquisition at a December 5, 2008 special meeting of Bank
America shareholders and were damaged thereby, and all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Bank
America in the period from January 2, 2009 through January 20,
2009 (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby (together,
the "Class").

     The Complaint asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC").  The Complaint also asserts separate claims under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC.  The defendants named in the Complaint
are Bank America, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Kenneth
D. Lewis ("Lewis"), and John A. Thain ("Thain"), the former
Chief Executive Officer of Merrill Lynch.

     The Complaint alleges that the September 15, 2008 Proxy
Statement issued with respect to the Acquisition of Merrill
Lynch by Bank America contained numerous material misstatements
and omissions.  

     In particular, the Complaint alleges that the Proxy
Statement failed to accurately disclose Merrill Lynch's
financial condition or the significant risks and liabilities
that Bank America would be assuming by acquiring Merrill Lynch.

     In addition, the Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement
failed to disclose that Bank America had not conducted adequate
due diligence on Merrill Lynch and that, as a result, the Bank
America directors lacked a reasonable basis for their
recommending that the Company's shareholders vote in favor of
the Acquisition.

     The Complaint also alleges that the press release issued by
Bank America on January 1, 2009, in connection with the
Acquisition's closing, was materially false and misleading
because it failed to reveal that Merrill Lynch's financial
condition was so bad that Bank America had considered
withdrawing from the Acquisition prior to closing.

     In fact, as was subsequently disclosed, Bank America only
completed the Acquisition because the U.S. Treasury and the
Federal Reserve Board had undertaken to assist Bank America in
absorbing the losses expected from the Acquisition through,
among other things, a purchase of additional Bank America
securities which would be highly dilutive to existing
shareholders.

     Investors began to learn the true facts through a series of
disclosures, including Bank America's January 16, 2009
announcement of a loss for the fourth quarter of $1.79 billion,
which included a stunning $15.31 billion fourth quarter net loss
at Merrill Lynch.

     These disclosures caused the price of Bank America stock to
tumble, from a closing price of $10.20 per share on January 14,
2009 to close at $5.10 per share on January 20, 2009, a 50%
decline.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


BANK OF AMERICA: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     January 22, 2009: 03:56 PM ET -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") today announced that it filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York arising from the proxy
communications and other public disclosures concerning the
acquisition (the "Acquisition") by Bank of America Corporation
("Bank of America" or the "Company") (NYSE: BAC) of Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch").  The plaintiffs named in
the action are BLB&G clients and institutional investors, Fort
Worth Employees' Retirement Fund ("Fort Worth") and City of
Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust ("Miami").

     As set forth in the Complaint, the action is brought on
behalf of a class that consists of all Bank of America
shareholders who held shares as of the record date of October
10, 2008 and were entitled to vote with respect to the
Acquisition at a December 5, 2008 special meeting of Bank of
America shareholders and were damaged thereby, and all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Bank of
America in the period from January 2, 2009 through January 20,
2009 (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby (together,
the "Class").  The case is captioned, "Fort Worth Employees'
Retirement Fund v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No., 09-CV-
638."

     The Complaint asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC").  The Complaint also asserts separate claims under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC.  The defendants named in the Complaint
are Bank of America, the Company's Chief Executive Officer
Kenneth D. Lewis ("Lewis"), and John A. Thain ("Thain"), the
former Chief Executive Officer of Merrill Lynch.

     As alleged in the Complaint, on September 15, 2008, Bank of
America and Merrill Lynch announced that they had entered into
an agreement for Bank of America to acquire Merrill Lynch in an
all-stock transaction valued at approximately $50 billion.  In
order to consummate the transaction -- which required the
approval of Bank of America shareholders -- Bank of America and
Merrill Lynch issued a joint proxy statement dated October 31,
2008 (the "Proxy Statement") to the shareholders of Bank of
America soliciting their approval for and recommending a vote in
favor of the Acquisition.

     The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement contained
numerous material misstatements and omissions.  In particular,
the Proxy Statement did not accurately disclose Merrill Lynch's
financial condition and did not disclose the significant risks
and liabilities that Bank of America and its shareholders would
be assuming by acquiring Merrill Lynch.  Nor did the Proxy
Statement reveal that Bank of America and its advisors had not
conducted adequate diligence on Merrill Lynch and that, as a
result, they lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendations
and other statements set forth in the Proxy Statement.

     As a result of the material misstatements and omissions
contained in the Proxy Statement, the Acquisition was
overwhelmingly approved, with 82% of votes cast in favor of the
transaction.

     As also alleged in the Complaint, on January 1, 2009, the
date the Acquisition closed, Bank of America issued a press
release announcing the Acquisition's completion.  The press
release contained numerous positive statements concerning the
Acquisition and the joined companies, announcing the "creat[ion
of] a premier financial services franchise with significantly
enhanced wealth management, investment banking and international
capabilities."  As alleged in the Complaint, these statements
were materially false and misleading when made in that they did
not reveal that Merrill Lynch's financial condition was in such
a deteriorated state that Bank of America had considered
withdrawing from the Acquisition prior to closing and, in fact,
only completed the transaction because the federal government
had undertaken to assist Bank of America to absorb the
acquisition of Merrill Lynch by, among other things, engaging in
a dilutive purchase of additional Bank of America shares.

     Investors began to learn the true nature of the financial
condition of Bank of America and the disastrous effect the
Acquisition had on its financial position through a series of
disclosures, including Bank of America's January 16, 2009
announcement of a loss for the fourth quarter of $1.79 billion,
which was led by a stunning $15.31 billion fourth quarter net
loss at Merrill Lynch.  These revelations and others caused the
price of Bank of America stock to tumble, from a closing price
of $10.20 per share on January 14, 2009 to close at $5.10 per
share on January 20, 2009, a 50% decline.

For more information, contact:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400


BANK OF AMERICA: Susman Godfrey Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Susman Godfrey L.L.P. has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those holders
of Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) common stock and series B
preferred shares as of October 10, 2008 (the "Class"). The case
number is 09-CIV-00606.

     The complaint claims Bank of America and Merrill Lynch and
their respective officers and directors made false and
misleading statements in the proxy materials for the December 5,
2008 vote regarding Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill
Lynch.  

     The complaint alleges that the true nature of Merrill
Lynch's financial condition was not revealed even though Merrill
Lynch and Bank of America knew or should have known of the large
losses at Merrill Lynch.

     The lawsuit seeks remedies under the federal Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all members of the class.

For more information, contact:

           Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
           1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
           Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
           Phone: 310-789-3102
           Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com/


RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     January 22, 2009: 06:46 PM ET -- Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Rackable Systems, Inc.
("Rack" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RACK) between October 30,
2006 and April 4, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period
defendants deliberately or recklessly disregarded that their
public statements concerning the Company'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:

       -- that the Company was experiencing competitive
          pressure;

       -- that competition was increasing;

       -- that, due to increasing competition, the Company was
          able to maintain and expand its customer base only by
          aggressively lowering its contract prices;

       -- that, as such, the Company was experiencing dramatic
          erosion of gross margin attainment in the Company's
          largest accounts as focused competitors aggressively
          dropped prices;

       -- that price increases for DDR (double data rate) memory
          were accelerating faster than the Company represented
          to investors;

       -- that, as a result of the above, the Company was
          unlikely to meet its quarterly gross margin targets;

       -- that the Company lacked effective internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, that statements made by
          the Company and management during the Class Period
          concerning the Company's business, operations and
          prospects were lacking any reasonable basis.

     On January 17, 2007, shares of Rack declined $12.44 per
share, more than 38%, to close at $19.98 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume. The decline in the stock was as a result
of the news that was reported one day earlier.  Rack shocked the
market when it reported preliminary financial results for the
fourth quarter 2006 and that the Company had achieved a gross
margin of between only 19.2% and 19.7%.

     Racks shares continued their downward slide once again on
April 4, 2007.  Rack further shocked the market when the Company
revealed that its GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins for first
quarter 2007 would be approximately 30% lower than the Company's
previously communicated expectations and that the primary factor
impacting gross margins in the first quarter was the intensity
of competition in the Company's three largest accounts. On this
news, shares of Rack declined $2.64 per share, more than 15%, to
close on April 5, 2007, at $14.24 per share, on unusually heavy
trade volume.

     No Class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Phone: 212-697-6484


ROYAL BANK: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK -- Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:51:30 GMT (Business Wire)
-- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP today filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Preferred Series "T" stock ("Preferred T") of Royal Bank of
Scotland Group PLC ("RBS" or the "Company") [NYSE: RBS-T, RBS-
PT, and CUSIP 780097713] from the date of the Company's public
offering on September 20, 2007 (the "Offering"), and all
purchasers traceable thereto (the "Class Period") against
certain officers and directors of RBS and the lead underwriters
of the Offering, pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k,
77l and 77o (the "Class").

     The case name is styled, "Harold H. Powell Trust v. Royal
Bank of Scotland Group PLC, et al."

     The Complaint alleges that the Company's Preferred T
Prospectus contained both material misstatements and omissions,
which Plaintiff and the Class relied upon to their detriment.

     The representations made in the Prospectus were materially
false and misleading because at the time of the Offering, RBS
was already suffering from several adverse factors that were not
revealed and/or adequately addressed in the document.

     These factors include, but are not limited to,

       -- the failure to disclose the Company's extensive
          investments in asset backed securities, including
          collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and their
          exposure to the subprime mortgage market;

       -- the failure to disclose all of the risks associated
          with the purchase of ABN Amro's assets;

       -- the insufficient capital levels;

       -- the failure to adequately write-down bad assets; and,

       -- the failure to prevent and remedy such improper and
          harmful actions that resulted in the Company being
          bailed out by the British government.

     The Complaint asserts that Defendants could have – and
should have – discovered the material misstatements and
omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing with
the SEC and distribution to the investing public.  Instead, they
failed to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly
inadequate due diligence investigation.

     As a result of the dissemination of the false and
misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market
price of RBS Preferred T was artificially inflated during the
Class Period.  In ignorance of the false and misleading nature
of the statements described in the complaint, plaintiff and the
other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the
integrity of the market price of RBS Preferred T. Had plaintiff
and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would
not have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased
them at the inflated prices that were paid.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phgone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.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  * * *