CAR_Public/090129.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, January 29, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 20

                           Headlines

ANTHEM BLUE: Calif. Judge Issues TRO in Suit Over Medical Claims
APPLE INC: Appeal to Ruling in "St-Germain" Suit Still Pending
APPLE INC: Feb. 20 Trial Set for "Branning" Certification Motion
APPLE INC: June 1 Hearing Set for Certification in "Somers" Suit
APPLE INC: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Amended "Vitt" Suit Pending

APPLE INC: Still Faces Monopolization Claims in Calif. Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces N.Y. Suit over Merril Lynch Acquisition
CATERPILLAR INC: Court Issues Ruling in Tenn. Retirees' Lawsuit
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Appellate Court Remands Suit to State Court
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: More Natural Gas Prices Cases Pending in Nevada

DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Nev. Court Mulls Motions in Natural Gas Lawsuit
JABIL CIRCUIT: Fla. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
NORTH SHORE: Enters Into Settlement in Birchwood Builders' Case
NORTH SHORE: PEC Opposes Class Certification Motion in "Alport"
PACWEST BANCORP: Reaches Settlement in "Gilbert" Litigation

QUEST SOFTWARE: Files Answer To Second Amended Complaint
TAYLOR MORRISON: Faces Fla. Suit Over Possible Tainted Drywalls
UNITED STATES: N.Y. Court Dismisses Suit Over "Bailout" Program


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANCO SANTANDER: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in Fla.
BANK OF AMERICA: Squitieri & Fearon Announces Stock Suit Filing
HORIZON LINES: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Suit Filing
ROYAL BANK: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Securities Suit Filing
SATYAM COMPUTER: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ANTHEM BLUE: Calif. Judge Issues TRO in Suit Over Medical Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony Mohr of the Los Angeles County Superior Court
issued a temporary restraining order against Anthem Blue Cross
on Jan. 26, 2009, barring the company from sending a notice to
former customers offering them $1,000 to drop all legal claims
against the health insurer, The Associated Press reports.

The order stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the Los
Angeles city attorney against the health insurer for allegedly
dropping coverage to people who file expensive medical claims.

Anthem Blue Cross reached a settlement with the state Department
of Managed Health Care last July 2008 that required the insurer
to send out offers of new coverage to about 1,700 people who had
their policies canceled.  The company also offered former
customers $1,000 each if they drop all legal claims, reports The
Associated Press.

The city attorney argued the $1,000 offer was misleading about
the rights plaintiffs would forfeit if they accepted the money,
and appealed to the court to stop the company from sending the
notices.

City attorney spokesman Nick Velasquez told The Associated Press
that the temporary restraining order prevents Anthem Blue Cross
from sending a second notice and, therefore, blocks the previous
settlement between the company and state regulators.

The city attorney's office learned that Anthem Blue Cross
planned to send out a second notice on Jan. 27, 2009 through a
legal mailing service, Garden City Group, and went to court to
stop them.

Anthem Blue Cross attorneys said the order does not block the
settlement with the state.  "The court ordered that a third
party, Garden City Group, not send second notices relating to
the DMHC settlement to former enrollees until after a further
court hearing," the statement said.

The parties are due back in court on Feb. 5, 2009, according to
The Associated Press report.


APPLE INC: Appeal to Ruling in "St-Germain" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc.'s appeal from the ruling in favor of the plaintiff
in the suit styled "St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc." is
pending, according to the company's Jan. 22, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008.

The plaintiff filed the case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on
Aug. 5, 2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action
for the refund by the Company of the Canadian Private Copying
Levy that was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec
between Dec. 12, 2003 and Dec. 14, 2004 but later declared
invalid by the Canadian Court.

The Company has completed a refund program for this levy.

A class certification hearing took place Jan. 13, 2006.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the Court granted class certification and
notice was published during the last week of March 2006.

The trial was conducted on Oct. 15 and Oct. 16, 2007.

On Jan. 11, 2008, the Court issued a ruling in plaintiff's
favor.  The Court ruled that despite the company's good faith
efforts with the levy refund program, the company must pay the
amount claimed, and that the class is comprised of 20,000
persons who purchased an iPod in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003
and Dec. 14, 2004.  The Court ordered the company to submit a
statement of account showing the amount received by the Canadian
Private Copying Collective, and the amount that has already been
paid to class members in Quebec under the Company's levy refund
program.  The Court also ordered the parties to submit further
briefing regarding the collective recovery award by Feb. 23,
2008.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the Company filed an appeal.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Feb. 20 Trial Set for "Branning" Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
An additional hearing is set for Feb. 20, 2009, on the class
certification motion in a purported class-action lawsuit, which
alleges that Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc.,
violated California's trade laws.

The plaintiffs originally filed the purported class-action suit
styled, "Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," before the
San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005.

The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business
Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly
unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to,
allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor
warranties.

The plaintiffs also brought causes of action for
misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and
violation of the Song Beverly Act.  They requested unspecified
damages and other relief.

On May 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action
including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act
(California Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a
claim for false advertising.

On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the
court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005.  The court
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended
complaint on Dec. 29, 2005.

The plaintiffs' amended complaint adds three additional
plaintiffs and alleges many of the same factual claims as the
previous complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as
new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts
for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the
opening of the Apple Retail stores.

The plaintiffs continue to assert causes of action for unfair
competition (17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright
Act and allege new causes of action for fraud, conversion and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan.
31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006, on 16 of
17 causes of action.

The plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept. 21,
2006.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  On
Nov. 30, 2007, it filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
which the court denied.

The plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on March 19,
2008, and a Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 1.  The
company filed an answer to the Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint
on April 18, 2008.

The Court has scheduled a class certification hearing on the
purported consumer class for Oct. 17, 2008.

The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for an
order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim based upon the statute
of limitations, which was granted by the Court on June 24, 2008,
with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2008,
and a Seventh Amended Complaint on Aug. 22, 2008, adding three
new reseller plaintiffs.

On Sept. 22, 2008, the Company filed its answer to the consumer-
related claims denying all allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses, and also filed a demurrer to the new
reseller claims.  The Company has filed motions for summary
adjudication of two named plaintiffs' claims, which were heard
on Oct. 14, 2008.  The company's demurrer to the new reseller
claims is set for a hearing on Jan. 30, 2009.

The Company filed motions for summary adjudication for certain
claims of two named plaintiffs', which was granted on Nov. 10,
2008.  Plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of
certiorari from the summary adjudication ruling and a motion to
stay the class certification hearing, which the Court of Appeal
denied on Dec. 17, 2008.

On Dec. 19, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the plaintiffs'
class certification motion.  The Court requested further
briefing and an additional hearing is set for Feb. 20, 2009,
according to the company's Jan. 22, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 27, 2008.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: June 1 Hearing Set for Certification in "Somers" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has scheduled the class certification hearing in the complaint,
Somers v. Apple Inc., for June 1, 2009.

The class-action complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of
music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase
of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance
of monopoly market power.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California Business &
Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition) and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses, according
to its Jan. 22, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Amended "Vitt" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on Apple, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint
in the action styled "Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc." remains
pending.

The plaintiff filed this purported class-action suit on Nov. 7,
2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all
purchasers of the iBook G4 alleging that the computer's logic
board fails at an abnormally high rate.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising).

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 19, 2007, which
the Court granted on March 13, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2007.
The company filed a motion to dismiss on Aug. 16, 2007, which
was heard on Oct. 4, 2007.  The Court has not yet issued a
ruling, according to the company's Jan. 22, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Still Faces Monopolization Claims in Calif. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc., continues to face
monopolization claims in a consolidated class-action lawsuit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

                     Charoensak Litigation

The plaintiff filed the suit "Charoensak v. Apple Computer,
Inc." -- formerly "Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc." -- on Jan.
3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful
tying of music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the
purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or
maintenance of monopoly market power.

The plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California
Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq., California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law
monopolization.  It seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The company, on Feb. 10, 2005, filed a motion to dismiss the
suit, which motion was subsequently denied by the court in part
and granted in part.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005,
which the company answered.

On May 8, 2006, the court heard the plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new
plaintiffs for "Slattery."

In August 2006, the court dismissed "Slattery" without prejudice
and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming
two new plaintiffs.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

                          Tucker Case

The plaintiff filed the "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc." case as
a purported class-action suit on July 21, 2006, before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and
videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods
and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of
monopoly market power.

The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, California Business & Professions Code Section
16700 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The
plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which request was denied by the Court.

On Jan. 11, 2007, the company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.

                    Consolidation of Cases

On March 20, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases.  The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007.

On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1,
2008).

On July 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on Oct. 17, 2008, the Company filed its
opposition to plaintiffs' motion.

The class certification hearing took place on Dec. 16, 2008.

On Dec. 22, 2008, the Court granted certification of the
monopolization claims and denied without prejudice certification
of the tying claims pending reconsideration of its denial of the
company's motion to dismiss, according to the company's Jan. 22,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008.

The suit is "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05-
cv-00037-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, P.C.
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq. (rak@katriellaw.com)
          The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-625-4342

               - and -

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. (jstoia@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

          Caroline N. Mitchell, Esq. (cnmitchell@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-875-5712
          Fax: 415-875-5700


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces N.Y. Suit over Merril Lynch Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. faces a complaint filed by shareholder
Steven Sklar on Jan. 21, 2009, alleging that the bank failed to
disclosed of Merrill Lynch & Co.'s US$15.3 billion losses before
investors voted on its acquisition, Andrew Harris writes for
Bloomberg News.

Mr. Sklar said in his complaint filed in a federal court in New
York that the Dec. 5, 2008, vote to buy Merrill Lynch was based
on an Oct. 31, 2008, proxy statement that wasn't revised to
account for its poor performance in the last quarter of 2008.
Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch for US$29 billion in a
transaction that closed on Jan. 1, 2009.

Mr. Sklar added the losses were only disclosed on Jan. 16, 2009.

The suit seeks class-action, or group, status on behalf of all
Bank of America shareholders who were eligible to vote on the
acquisition, plus unspecified money damages for the loss of
value of their holdings, Bloomberg News relates.

The suit styled "Sklar v. Bank of America Corp., 09cv580, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)" names
as defendants Bank of America Lewis chairman and Merril Lynch
final chairman and CEO John Thain.

Bank of America Corp. -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- is
one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving
individual consumers, small and middle market businesses and
large corporations with a full range of banking, investing,
asset management and other financial and risk-management
products and services.  The company provides unmatched
convenience in the United States, serving more than 59 million
consumer and small business relationships with more than 6,100
retail banking offices, nearly 18,700 ATMs and award-winning
Online banking with nearly 29 million active users.


CATERPILLAR INC: Court Issues Ruling in Tenn. Retirees' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has issued a
ruling that could effectively dismiss a purported class-action
suit against Caterpillar, Inc. over retiree benefits, the Peoria
Journal Star reports.

In a majority decision, the federal appeals court has ruled most
-- if not all -- of Caterpillar retirees involved in the lawsuit
against the company were not eligible for free medical benefits
for life.

That's because their right to receive those benefits did not
vest until they actually retired, not when they became eligible
for the benefit but continued working, the Sixth Circuit ruled,
reports the Peoria Journal Star.

Also, the court said on Jan. 27, 2009, most of the 4,000
plaintiffs retired when there was no labor contract in effect
between Caterpillar and the United Auto Workers.  The 1988
contract granting the benefit had expired in 1991, and the 1998
contract did not grant the benefit.

The Sixth Circuit's decision, which was written by Judge Boyce
Martin Jr., sent the case back to U.S. District Court Judge
Aleta Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee and directed her to dismiss any claims in the
lawsuit that hinge on the plaintiffs' theory that retirees'
medical benefits vested before actual retirement, according to
the Peoria Journal Star.

That, according to the Sixth Circuit, could resolve the vast
majority of the claims.  In other words, it could gut the
plaintiffs' case, reports the Peoria Journal Star.

However, the ruling does not put an end to the case, said the
lead attorney for the plaintiffs.  Michael Mulder, Esq. of the
Chicago law firm of Meites, Mulder, Mollica and Glink told the
Peoria Journal Star, "It certainly eliminates a claim, but there
are still a lot of issues that have to resolved."

In particular, Mr. Mulder cited the appeals court's opinion that
there still exists the question of whether Caterpillar's failure
to issue a summary medical plan description until after 1998
would affect the claims and also that this ruling did not impact
decisions affecting subclasses of retirees.

The case was one of two filed against Caterpillar on the
question of whether retirees and the surviving spouses of those
who left after 1992 were eligible to receive free lifetime
medical coverage, as Caterpillar promised in earlier labor
contracts, according to the Peoria Journal Star report.

It was filed by retirees Gary Winnett and Fred Jackson-Chittum
and other retirees and surviving spouses who contend provisions
of the 1988-1991 contract remained in effect until a new
contract was ratified in 1998.  The suit was filed in Nashville,
Tenn., now the home of Mr. Winnett.

Caterpillar contends it capped retiree health benefits in 1992
and, thus, those who retired between then and the 1998 contract
were not eligible for free lifetime medical benefits, reports
the Peoria Journal Star.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Appellate Court Remands Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The appellate court reverses the dismissal of, and remands the
class-action lawsuit filed against Dynegy Holdings, Inc., and
several of its affiliates.

The plaintiffs claimed damages resulting from alleged process
manipulation and false reporting of natural gas prices to
various index publications in the 2000-2002 timeframe.

In February 2007, the Tennessee state court previously dismissed
a class action on defendants' motion.  Plaintiffs appealed and
in November 2007, the case was argued to the appellate court.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is
engaged in the production and selling of electric energy,
capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating
power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of
generating capacity.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: More Natural Gas Prices Cases Pending in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are six more cases pending against Dynegy Holdings, Inc.,
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  Of
the six, three of which seek class certification.

Currently, these cases are in the discovery phase.

Five of the cases were transferred through the multi-district
litigation management process from other states, including
Kansas, Wisconsin, Missouri and Illinois.

All of the cases similarly alleged that the Company is engaged
in an illegal scheme to inflate natural gas prices by providing
false information to natural gas index publications.

The complaints rely heavily on prior FERC and CFTC
investigations into and reports concerning index manipulation in
the energy industry.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is
engaged in the production and selling of electric energy,
capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating
power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of
generating capacity.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Nev. Court Mulls Motions in Natural Gas Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in the District of Nevada is considring
motions filed by Dynegy Holdings, Inc., and its other co-
defendants in a Colorado class-action lawsuit, which is claiming
damages resulting from alleged price manipulation and false
reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications in
the 2000-2002 timeframe.

The lawsuit had been transferred to Nevada through the multi-
district litigation process, thus dismissing the case and all of
the plaintiffs' claims.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and the
Court orders additional briefing on plaintiffs' declaratory
judgment claims.

Currently, the Court is deliberating on the issues submitted to
it for decision.

Dynegy Inc., through its subsidiary, Dynegy Holdings, Inc., is
engaged in the production and selling of electric energy,
capacity and ancillary services from the fleet of 29 operating
power plants in 13 states totaling nearly 20,000 megawatt of
generating capacity.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Fla. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Jabil Circuit, Inc.
that alleged officers of the electronics parts maker improperly
backdated stock options to enrich themselves, The Associated
Press reports.

According to a press statement by the St. Petersburg-based
company, the court dismissed the complaint on Jan. 26, 2009 in
an order that "precludes the plaintiffs from filing a fourth
amended complaint," reports The Associated Press.

                         Case Background

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class-action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, captioned, "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v.
Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No. 8:06-cv-01716" against the
company and various of its present and former officers and
directors (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2008).

The suit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs
comprised of persons who purchased shares of the company between
Sept. 19, 2001, and June 21, 2006.

It asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
as well as under Section 20(a) of that Act.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants had
engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant dates of
options for various senior officers and directors, causing the
company's financial statements to understate management
compensation and overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the
company's stock price.

In addition, the suit alleged that the company's proxy
statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
its shares on the trading date immediately prior to the date of
the grant.

A second putative class action suit, containing virtually
identical legal claims and allegations of fact, captioned,
"Steven M. Noe v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No., 8:06-cv-
01883," was filed on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and
on Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
the company's publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001,
and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the company and certain of its
current and former officers, including:

     -- Forbes I.J. Alexander,
     -- Scott D. Brown,
     -- Wesley B. Edwards,
     -- Chris A. Lewis,
     -- Mark T. Mondello,
     -- Robert L. Paver, and
     -- Ronald J. Rapp,

as well as certain of the company's directors:

     -- Mel S. Lavitt,
     -- William D. Morean,
     -- Frank A. Newman,
     -- Laurence S. Grafstein,
     -- Steven A. Raymund,
     -- Lawrence J. Murphy,
     -- Kathleen A. Walters, and
     -- Thomas A. Sansone.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.  It contained
allegations of fact and legal claims similar to the original
putative class action and, in addition, alleged that the
defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances
that led the company, on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was
lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third
quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class-action complaint asserting claims
substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
it replaced but adding allegations relating to the restatement
of earnings previously announced in connection with the
correction of errors in the calculation of compensation expense
for certain stock option grants.

At the company's request, the Court, on April 9, 2008, dismissed
the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint without
prejudice, but with leave to amend the complaint by May 12,
2008.

On May 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.  The Second Amended Class Action Complaint
asserts substantially the same causes of action against the same
defendants, predicated largely on the same allegations of fact
as in the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
except insofar as plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's
independent registered public accounting firm, as a defendant
and added additional allegations with respect to:

       -- pre-class period option grants,

       -- the professional background of certain defendants,

       -- option grants to non-executive employees,

       -- the restatement of the Company's financial results for
          certain periods between 1996 and 2005, and

       -- trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the
          defendants during the class period.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an
additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants
pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the
Exchange Act.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint and
is awaiting the Court's ruling on the motion.

The suit is "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01716-SDM-EAJ," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under
Judge Steven D. Merryday.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese (whoese@kohnswift.com)
         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: 215-238-1700

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq. (michael.chapman@hklaw.com)
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813-227-8500
         Fax: 813-229-0134


NORTH SHORE: Enters Into Settlement in Birchwood Builders' Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Shore Gas Co. and Birchwood Builders, LLC, stipulate their
agreed terms of a settlement in a purported class-action lawsuit
over the improper charging of fees to customers.

In June 2005, a purported class action was filed by Birchwood
Builders against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois alleging that the Company was fraudulently and
improperly charging fees to customers.

The Company subsequently filed its Court-approved motions to
dismiss the lawsuit.  The judge, however, gave the plaintiffs
the option of filing an amended complaint.

On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the Circuit Court, which was responded by the Company's
motion to dismiss.

The subsequent motion was granted on April 16, 2008, and this
case was dismissed.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied in August
2008.

North Shore Gas Company's principal activities are to purchase,
store, distribute and market natural gas.  The Company is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Peoples Energy Corporation.


NORTH SHORE: PEC Opposes Class Certification Motion in "Alport"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The subsidiary of North Shore Gas Co. has filed its opposition
to a class certification motion filed by the plaintiffs in the
matter, "Alport et al. v. Peoples Energy Corporation."

The Company's subsidiary, Peoples Energy Corp., opposes the
class certification of certain customers who filed complaints
against the Company and PEC, among others, for alleged
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

The Company was subsequently dismissed as defendant.  The
lawsuit against PEC, however, remained, alleging that PEC acted
in concert with others to commit a tortuous act.

On July 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and PEC responded in opposition of this motion.
Its status hearing was scheduled for Nov. 17, 2008.

North Shore Gas Company's principal activities are to purchase,
store, distribute and market natural gas.  The Company is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Peoples Energy Corp.


PACWEST BANCORP: Reaches Settlement in "Gilbert" Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
PacWest Bancorp has reached a settlement in the matter, "Gilbert
et. al v. Cohn et al.," which became effective on Sept. 29,
2008, when the time for appeal expired without an appeal being
taken.

On June 8, 2004, the Company was served with an amended
complaint naming First Community, the predecessor to PacWest
Bancorp, and Pacific Western as defendants in a class-action
lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court pending as "Gilbert
et. al v. Cohn et al."

The plaintiffs alleged that the former officer of First Charter
improperly induced several First Charter customers to invest in
900 Capital or affiliates of 900 Capital.

Moreover, they further alleged that Four Star, 900 Capital and
some of their affiliated entities perpetuated a fraud upon
investors through various accounts at First Charter and Pacific
Western.

The key allegations include several violations under the
California Business and Professions Code, negligence, seeking
relief under the California Securities Act.

In November 2005, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a
settlement, which was subsequently approved by the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Shortly thereafter, the Company paid US$750,000 to the
plaintiffs as contribution to the settlement.

PacWest Bancorp is a bank holding company registered under the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended.  The Company's
principal business is to serve as a holding company for its
banking subsidiary, Pacific Western Bank.


QUEST SOFTWARE: Files Answer To Second Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Quest Software, Inc., has files its answer to the second amended
complaint in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in
California.

In October 2006, a purported shareholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Company improperly backdated
stock options, resulting in false or misleading disclosures
concerning the Company's financial condition.

Moreover, the plaintiffs claimed that the Company's officers and
directors sold Company stock while in possession of material
nonpublic information, and that their conduct caused damages to
the putative plaintiff class.

Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b),
20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In October 2007, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended class action complaint.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action
complaint in February 2008.

Thereafter, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended class action complaint in March 2008, which the Court
denied in July 2008.

Quest Software, Inc., designs, develops, markets, distributes,
and supports enterprise systems management software products.


TAYLOR MORRISON: Faces Fla. Suit Over Possible Tainted Drywalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Morrison, formerly Taylor Woodrow, a wholly owned
subsidiary of U.K.-based Taylor Wimpey that builds luxury homes
and high-rise condominiums and develops communities is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in Florida from homeowners over a
possible tainted drywall, Jessica Klipa of the Bradenton Herald
reports.

The drywall, which is blamed for a foul odor and corrosion on
metal in the home, has been reported in homes developed by
Lennar Homes and Taylor Morrison.

The purported class-action lawsuit seeks monetary damages for
severe structural damage to the homes, electrical wiring,
plumbing, metal components and personal property, according to
the Bradenton Herald report.

The lawsuit was filed by Darren Inverso, a Sarasota attorney, on
behalf of Kristin Culliton, a Lakewood Ranch resident.  Ms.
Culliton has not lived in her Greenbrook Terrace home for more
than a year.  She believes that drywall imported from China was
to blame for a bad odor and corroded air conditioning
components.

The Bradenton Herald reported that the defendants named in the
lawsuit are Taylor Morrison, Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., the
manufacturers of the Chinese drywall and Rothchilt
International, a company that distributes the product into the
United States.

Mr. Inverso estimates a minimum of 100 homeowners will
eventually join the class-action lawsuit, reports the Bradenton
Herald.


UNITED STATES: N.Y. Court Dismisses Suit Over "Bailout" Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
threw out a motion for a temporary restraining order against the
Troubled Assets Relief Program, filed by eight businesses and
individuals who claimed the so-called "bailout" program violated
their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Mark Fass of the
New York Law Journal reports.

The decision essentially dismissed a purported class-action suit
filed against the United States of America, Henry M. Paulson,
J.P. Morgan Chase, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC and Option One
Mortgage Corp.

The suit entitled, "Henry Builders v. United States, 09-cv-
0288," was filed on Jan. 23, 2009 by Henry Builders, Inc., Avery
Enterprises, Inc., HKL Enterprises, LLC, Stanley Henry, Julie
Henry, Emily S. Henry, Julie Ann Henry and Hilda Robbins.

The named plaintiffs in the proposed class-action suit claimed
the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and its
centerpiece, TARP, violated their equal protection rights,
reports the New York Law Journal.

They also alleged Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's actions
were "unlawful, capricious an abuse of discretion and/or not in
accordance with law."

In a sua sponte decision, Judge Eric N. Vitaliano of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New york denied the
request.  "Assuming the truth of their [allegations], plaintiffs
nevertheless do not establish a 'concrete and particularized'
injury in fact, which is required by Article III," he wrote.

The judge adds, "This is not to say that plaintiffs have no
general interest in the substance of the Act, or that they are
not impacted in some indefinite way by its application. It is
rather to state simply that such an 'injury' ... is not
judicially cognizable," according to the New York Law Journal.

The suit is "Henry Builders v. United States, 09-cv-0288," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
Judge Eric N. Vitaliano, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Emanuel A. Towns, Esq. (townslit@nj.rr.com)
          1672 BROADWAY
          Suite 2
          Brooklyn, NY 11207
          Phone: 718-789-9390
          Fax: 718-789-9436


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANCO SANTANDER: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:19:29 GMT, NEW YORK - (Business Wire)
Labaton Sucharow LLP and Cremades & Calvo-Sotelo filed a class
action lawsuit on January 26, 2009 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, on behalf of all
persons who continued to have an investment in the Optimal
Strategic US Equity Fund on December 10, 2008. The putative
Class seeks a recovery of billions of dollars in damages.

     The complaint's principal allegation is that Defendants
were negligent and reckless in investing substantially all of
the assets of the Strategic US Equity Fund with Bernard L.
Madoff ("Madoff") and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC ("BMIS") without conducting reasonable and adequate due
diligence.

     The Defendants include:

       -- Banco Santander, S.A.;
       -- Banco Santander International;
       -- Optimal Investment Services, S.A.;
       -- PricewaterhouseCoopers (Ireland);
       -- HSBC Securities Services (Ireland) Ltd.;
       -- HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Ltd.;
       -- Manuel Echeverrˇa Falla;
       -- Anthony L.M. InderRieden; and
       -- Brian Wilkinson.

     As alleged in the complaint, Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing materially false and misleading statements about their
due diligence and oversight of Madoff and BMIS.

     Among the allegedly false statements made in the
Explanatory Memorandum dated January 7, 2008, that was
distributed to investors, was the assurance that Optimal "bases
its investment decisions on a careful analysis of many
investment managers."

     The complaint further asserts that had the Defendants
conducted a reasonably "careful analysis" of Madoff and BMIS,
Defendants would not have lost billions of dollars belonging to
the investors.

     In addition, the complaint also alleges common law causes
of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and professional
malpractice.

If you purchased shares in the Optimal Strategic US fund between
January 27, 2004 through December 10, 2008 (the "Class Period")
you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff
applications must be filed with the Court no later than March
28, 2009. If you would like to consider serving as Lead
Plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please
contact

For more details, contact:

          Javier Bleichmar, Esq. (jbleichmar@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 212-907-0887
          Fax: 212-883-7087
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Squitieri & Fearon Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 27, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The following
statement was issued today by Squitieri & Fearon, LLP.

You are hereby notified that a Class Action has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of holders of Bank of America Corporation
(NYSE:BAC) ("Bank of America" or the "Company") common stock as
of October 10, 2008 by the firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP.

     The Complaint charges Bank of America and certain of its
officers and directors with violating the federal securities
laws.  The plaintiff claims that defendants misrepresented and
concealed material facts concerning the Company's Merger with
Merrill Lynch including issuing a false and misleading Proxy
Statement and its financial results.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all holders of Bank of America's common stock as of October 10,
2008.

For more information, contact:

           Lee Squitieri (lee@sfclasslaw.com)
           Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
           Phone: (212) 421-6492


HORIZON LINES: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Jan. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- The following
statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz
Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

     Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of purchasers of securities of Horizon Lines,
Inc. (NYSE: HRZ) ("Horizon" or the "Company") between March 2,
2007 and April 25, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     Horizon Lines engages in container shipping and integrated
logistics operations.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

       -- that Horizon Lines had engaged in a price-fixing
          scheme to set the prices of rates, surcharges, and
          other fees charged to its customers for Puerto Rico
          freight services, in violation of the laws of the
          United States;

       -- that Horizon Lines' conduct, with respect to its
          price-fixing scheme, amounted to an unreasonable
          restraint of interstate and foreign trade and
          commerce;

       -- that, as a result of Defendants' conduct, Horizon
          Lines' publicly reported earnings and revenue had been
          artificially inflated due to illegal price-fixing
          activities;

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

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          financial statements were materially false and
          misleading at all relevant times; and

       -- that, as a result of the above, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being and future
          business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
          basis when made.

     On April 17, 2008, Horizon Lines shocked investors when the
Company revealed that it was the subject of an investigation
being conducted by the Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice ("DOJ").  The Company also disclosed that
federal agents had served the Company with search warrants and a
grand jury subpoena related to an investigation into the pricing
practices of ocean carriers operating in the Puerto Rico trade.
Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined
$3.53 per share, or 19.36 percent, to close on April 17, 2008 at
$14.70 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Then, on April 25, 2008, Horizon Lines again shocked
investors when the Company released its financial results for
the first quarter of fiscal 2008 (ended March 23, 2008), and
revised its earnings guidance downward for fiscal year 2008.
The Company updated its earnings guidance for the full year
2008, and stated that its operating revenue would now be between
$1.315 - $1.350 billion, its EBITDA would be between $145 - $160
million, and its diluted earnings per share would be between
$1.30 - $1.69. The downward revisions to Horizon Lines' fiscal
year 2008 earnings guidance was shocking to investors because
the Company had just increased its fiscal 2008 guidance on
February 1, 2008. Upon the release of this news, the Company's
shares declined an additional $3.83 per share, or 23.10 percent
to close on April 25, 2008 at $11.25 per share, again on
unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com


ROYAL BANK: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 27, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group PLC ("RBS" or the "Company") (NYSE:RBS) American
Depository Shares ("ADS's") pursuant and/or traceable to a false
and misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's June 2007 initial public offering
of Non-cumulative Dollar Preference Shares, Series S (the
"Offering").

     RBS, certain of its officers and directors, and the
investment banks which underwrote the Offering are charged with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
consummated the Offering pursuant to a false and misleading
Registration Statement which omitted numerous facts, including:

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

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

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

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

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

     RBS ultimately announced huge multi-billion pound
impairment charges associated with its exposure to debt
securities, including mortgage-related securities tied to the
U.S. real estate markets, causing the price of RBS's ADSs issued
in the Offering to substantially decline.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired RBS Series S ADSs pursuant and/or
traceable to Registration Statement for the Offering.

For more details, contact:

          Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. (Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330


SATYAM COMPUTER: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 27, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of Satyam Computer Service
Ltd. ("Satyam" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAY) American Depository
Shares ("ADS's") between January 6, 2004 and January 6, 2009,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     Satyam and certain of its officers and directors are
charged with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Satyam failed to
disclose that the information contained in the Company's
financial statements were systematically falsified, its cash
amounts inflated by material amounts and its assets purely
fictitious.

     On January 7, 2009, Satyam shocked investors when it
announced the resignation of the Company's Chairman, defendant
B. Ramalinga Raju ("B. Raju"), who admitted inflating the amount
of cash on the Company's balance sheet by nearly $1 billion and
overstating Satyam's September quarterly revenues by 76% and
profits by 97%. B. Raju also admitted that 50.4 billion rupees,
or $1.04 billion, of the 53.6 billion rupees in cash and bank
loans the Company listed as assets for its second quarter, ended
September 2008, were nonexistent. As a result of these
revelations, trading in ADS's were halted.  When trading resumed
in the Company's ADS's on January 12, 2009, the stock plunged to
as low as $0.76 per share before closing at $1.46 per share.
This represented a drop of 84% from the Company's closing share
price on January 6, 2009.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Satyam ADS's between January 6, 2004
through January 6, 2009, excluding defendants and their
affiliates.

For more details, contact:

          Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. (Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330


                            *********

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  * * *