CAR_Public/090202.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 22

                           Headlines

ABLE ENERGY: CCIG Shareholders' Suit in N.J. Dismissed Last Dec.
AVALON CORRECTIONAL: Faces Litigation Over Preferred Stocks
CITIGROUP INC: Adelphia Investors Suit Settlement Pending Appeal
CITIGROUP INC: Awaits Court Approval of Labor Suits Settlement
CITIGROUP INC: Backloading/Notice Claims Ruling Still on Appeal

CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated ERISA Action Remains Pending in N.Y.
CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Face Subprime Mortgage-Related Suits
CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss "Disher" Suit Remains Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Motions to Merge Securities Fraud Actions Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Parmalat Domestic Purchasers Claims Still Pending

CITIGROUP INC: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Suit Over Parmalat Collapse OK'ed to Proceed
INFOSONICS CORP: April 23 Hearing Set for Securities Settlement
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging ERISA Violations
KV PHARMACEUTICAL: BOD Appoints Special Committee for Lawsuits

LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit Pending in Wash.
PAROGAN INC: Settles Indiana Litigation Alleging FCRA Violations
PHILADELPHIA GAS: March 23, 2009 Hearing Set for "Brophy" Deal
SOVEREIGN BANCORP: April 2, 2209 Hearing Set for Pa. Suit Deal
SPRINT NEXTEL: Calif. Judge Orders New Trial in ETF Litigation

WELLCARE HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
WESTBOROUGH FINANCIAL: March 26, 2009 Hearing Set for $550T Deal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Gilman and Pastor Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TRIAD GUARANTY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.C. Securities Fraud Suit
TRIAD GUARANTY: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ABLE ENERGY: CCIG Shareholders' Suit in N.J. Dismissed Last Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, on Dec. 15,
2008, dismissed a purported class action brought by shareholders
of CCI Group, Inc. against Able Energy, Inc., its Chief
Executive Officer, Gregory D. Frost, and its Vice-President of
Business Development, Frank Nocito (Prior Action).

On Jan. 7, 2008, the company, Mr. Frost, and Mr. Nocito, were
served with a summons and complaint in a purported class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

This action, which seeks class certification, was brought by
shareholders of CCIG.

The complaint relates to a Share Exchange Agreement, dated July
7, 2006, between All American Properties, Inc. (Properties) and
CCIG, under which 70% of the outstanding and issued shares of
CCIG were exchanged for 618,557 shares of the Company's common
stock which were owned by Properties of which 250,378 shares
were to be distributed to the shareholders of CCIG and the
balance of the shares were to be used to pay debts of CCIG.

According to the its Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-K, neither the
Company nor Messrs. Frost or Nocito were parties to the Share
Exchange Agreement.

Properties remain the largest shareholder of the Company.

The Share Exchange Agreement was previously disclosed by the
Company in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on
July 7, 2006 as part of a disclosure of a loan by the Company to
Properties.

Each of the Company and Messrs. Frost and Nocito have filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The motion has been fully
briefed and submitted to the Court (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
25, 2008).

The Dec. 15, 2008 dismissal ruling was on the ground that the
District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
action, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission on Dec. 29,
2008.

The dismissal came three days after counsel for the plaintiffs
conceded in a letter to the District Court, dated Dec. 12, 2008,
that, after consulting with his expert, the District Court did
not have jurisdiction.  The company and Messrs. Frost and Nocito
intend to file a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs and
their counsel to recover all legal fees incurred in defending
the Prior Action.

On Dec. 19, 2008, the Company and Messrs. Frost and Nocito were
served with a summons and complaint in a purported class action
commenced in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County,
Docket No. L-3709-08.  The complaint in this action and the
parties bringing the action are substantially identical to those
found in the Prior Action.

Able Energy, Inc. -- http://www.ableenergy.com/-- is engaged in
the retail distribution of and the provision of services
relating to home heating oil, propane gas, kerossene and diesel
fuels.  The Company offers complete heating, ventilation and
air-conditioning installation and repair services and markets
other petroleum products to commercial customers, including on-
road and off-road diesel fuel, gasoline and lubricants.


AVALON CORRECTIONAL: Faces Litigation Over Preferred Stocks
-----------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- On January 26, 2009, the
Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P. and Ravenswood Investments
III, L.P. (together, the "Ravenswood Companies") filed a direct,
derivative and class-action lawsuit against Avalon Correctional
Services, Inc. (Pink Sheets: CITY) and Donald E. Smith, Avalon's
founder, CEO, chairman, and sole director.

     In the suit, the Ravenswood Companies alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty against Smith in connection with causing Avalon
to make sales of its preferred stock to insiders, repurchase
Avalon's shares and pledge such repurchased shares to a trust as
collateral for a Supplement Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP"),
make excessive cash contributions to the SERP, make excessive
cash contributions for a separate retirement plan for the
benefit of Smith, lend cash to insiders to purchase common and
preferred stock of Avalon, lease transportation equipment from
an entity owned by Smith and make payments to such entity at
above-market rates, and extend for a term of 15 years the
exercise period of 750,000 Common Stock Purchase Warrants
granted by Avalon to Smith.

     In addition, the lawsuit alleges oppression of minority
shareholders by Smith and alleged unjust enrichment of Smith,
both in connection with the foregoing actions, and made a demand
for books and records.

     Robert E. Robotti, Managing Member of Ravenswood Management
Company, LLC, the general partner of the Ravenswood Companies
said, "We are following with interest the recent demand for
inspection made by Avalon, as a stockholder of The Providence
Service Corporation (Nasdaq: PRSC), under Section 220 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.  Prior to the lawsuit noted
herein, we had made a demand to inspect books and records upon
Avalon, and despite our demand, Avalon refused and continues to
refuse to produce any books and records."

For more details, contact:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          Law Office of William Coudert Rand
          Phone: (212) 286-1425

               - and -

          Matthew J. Day, Esq.
          Law Office of Matthew J. Day
          Phone: (212) 673-0484


CITIGROUP INC: Adelphia Investors Suit Settlement Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the class-action suit brought by certain
Adelphia Communications Corporation investors against Citigroup
Global Markets Inc. is pending appeal, according to Citigroup
Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009.

CGMI was among the underwriters named in civil actions brought
by investors in Adelphia debt securities in connection with
Adelphia securities offerings between September 1997 and October
2001.

Following settlements of the class action, which is pending
appeal, and other individual actions, two cases remain
outstanding.

The Second Circuit is considering whether the plaintiff in one
has proper standing to sue.

In September 2007, motions to dismiss in the other case were
granted in part and denied in part.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into
five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional
Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services)
Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions
- North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico);
Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including
Mexico); and Asia (including Japan).


CITIGROUP INC: Awaits Court Approval of Labor Suits Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.'s agreement in principle to the
settlement of class actions relating to overtime violations and
unlawful payroll deductions remains subject to court approval,
according to Citigroup Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23,
2009.

Numerous financial services firms, including Citigroup and its
affiliates, have been named in putative class actions alleging
that certain present and former employees in California were
entitled to overtime pay under state and federal laws; were
subject to certain allegedly unlawful deductions under state
law; or were entitled to reimbursement for employment-related
expenses incurred by them.

The first of these class actions filed in the Fall of 2004, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
"Bahramipour v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.," seeks damages
and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of
California employees.

Similar complaints have been subsequently filed against CGMI on
behalf of certain statewide or nationwide putative classes in
(i) the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New
York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New
York, the District of Massachusetts, and the Middle District of
Pennsylvania; and (ii) the New Jersey Superior Court.

Without admitting any liability, CGMI has reached an agreement
in principle, which is subject to court approval, to a
nationwide settlement for up to approximately $98 million of
various class actions asserting violations of state and federal
laws relating to overtime and violations of various state laws
relating to alleged unlawful payroll deductions.

Additional putative class-action lawsuits alleging a variety of
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws have been
filed against various other Citigroup businesses, according to
the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into
five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional
Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services)
Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions
- North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico);
Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including
Mexico); and Asia (including Japan).


CITIGROUP INC: Backloading/Notice Claims Ruling Still on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals on the judgment on the backloading and notice claims in
the matter styled, "In Re: Citigroup Pension Plan ERISA
Litigation," remains pending.

Beginning in June 2005, certain participants in the Citigroup
Pension Plan filed putative class action complaints against the
Plan, Citigroup Inc., and the Plans Administration Committee of
Citigroup, alleging that certain aspects of the Plan violate
provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The claims were later consolidated as "In Re: Citigroup Pension
Plan ERISA Litigation," in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In December 2006, the District Court denied defendants' summary
judgment motion; granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on their
backloading, age discrimination and notice claims; and ordered
the Plan reformed to comply with ERISA.  The District Court also
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In November 2007, the District Court:

       -- ordered that defendants fix the Plan's unlawful
          backloading by increasing certain pay credits,

       -- denied plaintiffs' request for additional relief on
          their backloading claims,

       -- denied plaintiffs' request for relief on their notice
          claims, and

       -- reserved its rulings on the proper remedy, if any, for
          the Plan's violation of ERISA's ban on age
          discrimination.

In January 2008, the Court entered a partial final judgment on
the backloading and notice claims pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(b) and stayed the judgment pending appeal.

Defendants filed a notice of appeal on Jan. 22, 2008, and
plaintiffs cross appealed on Jan. 30, 2008, according to the
company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into
five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional
Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services)
Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions
- North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico);
Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including
Mexico); and Asia (including Japan).


CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated ERISA Action Remains Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against Citigroup
Inc. and certain company employees under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) is pending in the Southern District
of New York.

Thirteen putative class actions have been filed in the Southern
District of New York asserting claims under the ERISA against
the company and certain company employees alleged to have served
as ERISA plan fiduciaries.

These complaints allege that defendants improperly allowed
participants in Citigroup's 401(k) Plan to invest in the
company's common stock, notwithstanding that they knew or should
have known that the company's stock price was artificially
inflated, and that defendants failed adequately to disclose its
subprime exposure to the Plan beneficiaries.

On Jan. 22, 2008, these thirteen actions were consolidated by
the Court, and interim lead plaintiff and counsel were
appointed, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan.
23, 2009.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into
five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional
Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services)
Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions
- North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico);
Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including
Mexico); and Asia (including Japan).


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Face Subprime Mortgage-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., along with numerous others, face several
lawsuits by shareholders of entities that originated subprime
mortgages, and for which Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
underwrote securities offerings.

These actions assert that CGMI violated Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising out of
allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the
registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection
with those offerings.

Specifically, CGMI has been named as a defendant in (i) two
putative class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of
American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and (ii)
three putative class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of
Countrywide Financial Corp. and its affiliates, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The company has not yet responded to the complaints in these
actions.

A motion to remand to California state court has been filed in
one of the Countrywide-related actions, according to the
company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into
five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional
Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services)
Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions
- North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico);
Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including
Mexico); and Asia (including Japan).


CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss "Disher" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the purported class-action suit styled,
"Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.," remains pending,
according to Citigroup Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23,
2009.

In March 2004, the putative research-related customer class-
action suit alleging various state law claims arising out of the
issuance of allegedly misleading research analyst reports was
filed in Illinois state court.

Citigroup removed this action to federal court, and in August
2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed
the District Court's August 2004 order remanding the case to
state court, and directed the District Court to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims as pre-empted.

On June 26, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs'
petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the Seventh Circuit's
opinion and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit for further
proceedings.

On Jan. 22, 2007, the Seventh Circuit dismissed Citigroup's
appeal from the District Court's removal order for lack of
appellate jurisdiction.

On Feb. 1, 2007, plaintiffs secured an order reopening this case
in Illinois state court, and on February 16, Citigroup removed
the reopened action to federal court.

On May 3, 2007, the District Court remanded the action to
Illinois state court, and on June 13, 2007, Citigroup moved in
state court to dismiss the action.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into
five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional
Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services)
Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions
- North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico);
Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including
Mexico); and Asia (including Japan).


CITIGROUP INC: Motions to Merge Securities Fraud Actions Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to consolidate four putative shareholder securities
class actions filed against Citigroup Inc. in the Southern
District of New York remain pending.

Four putative class-action lawsuits were filed in the Southern
District of New York by shareholders alleging violations of
Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs in these actions allege that Citigroup's stock
price was artificially inflated as a result of allegedly
misleading disclosures relating to the company's subprime-
mortgage-related exposures, and that plaintiffs suffered losses
when the company's exposure to these assets was disclosed.

Various plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate the actions
and for appointment as lead plaintiff, which remain pending,
according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into
five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional
Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services)
Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions
- North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico);
Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including
Mexico); and Asia (including Japan).


CITIGROUP INC: Parmalat Domestic Purchasers Claims Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The claims of domestic purchasers of Parmalat Finanziaria S.P.A.
securities remain pending against Citigroup Inc., according to
the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009.

Beginning in 2004, Citigroup and Citibank, N.A. (along with, in
many cases, other investment banks and certain Parmalat officers
and/or accountants) were named as defendants in a series of
class-action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to the collapse of
Parmalat and consolidated under the caption, "IN RE PARMALAT
SECURITIES LITIGATION."

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on Oct. 18, 2004,
alleges violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Parmalat
securities between Jan. 5, 1999 and Dec. 18, 2003.

On Jan. 10, 2005, the Citigroup defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the action, which the District Court granted in part and
denied in part on July 13, 2005.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint on
Aug. 25, 2005, and filed a third amended consolidated complaint
on July 26, 2006.

On Sept. 21, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which is currently pending.

On Oct. 10, 2006, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings
dismissing the claims of all foreign purchasers for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

On July 24, 2007, the District Court converted Citigroup's
motion to a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims
of foreign purchasers of Parmalat securities.

As a result, only the claims of domestic purchasers of Parmalat
securities remain against Citigroup. Fact and expert discovery
in this action are complete.

Citigroup Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is a diversified
global financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding company organized into
five segments: Global Cards; Consumer Banking; Institutional
Clients Group (Securities and Banking and Transaction Services)
Global Wealth Management and Corporate/Other - and four regions
- North America (including the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico);
Europe, Middle East and Africa; Latin America (including
Mexico); and Asia (including Japan).


CITIGROUP INC: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on a motion seeking review of the district court's decision
certifying a class in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst
Metromedia Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 7966."

Shareholders sued Citicorp, Inc. -- an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. -- Citicorp USA; Salomon Smith
Barney, now known as Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; and analyst
Jack Grubman for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007).

The shareholders allege that the defendants issued false and
misleading analyst reports as to Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.
stocks.

The district court dismissed several claims, but allegations
that analyst reports containing false buy recommendations issued
between March 8 and July 25, 2001, survived.  The shareholders
moved for certification of a class as to these claims.

The plaintiffs had sought certification of the class comprised
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Metromedia from March 8, 2001, through July 25,
2001, inclusive, and who were therefore damaged.

In order to allege a violation of Section 10(b), a complaint
must allege with particularity that the defendant made
fraudulent misstatements or omissions in connection with the
sale or purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the
plaintiffs relied, that caused plaintiffs' economic loss.

Certification requires numerous class members to share common
claims.

On June 20, 2006, Judge Gerard E. Lynch granted class
certification, ruling that all elements of Rule 23 were
satisfied.  He then appointed three law firms as class counsel,
finding that the firms were qualified to adequately represent
the interests of the class.

The three firms certified as class counsel are:

     -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP;
     -- Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP; and
     -- Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw.

The plaintiffs' motion to certify Technology Associates
Management Co. and Techgains I, II, III, IV and V as class
representatives is denied.

On Oct. 6, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit accepted an appeal of the class certification order,
which appeal was argued on Jan. 30, 2008, and remains pending.

Fact discovery has concluded, and expert discovery has been
stayed, by agreement of the parties, pending resolution of the
appeal, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 23, 2009.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West.  Both
have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as
its commodity broker.

The suit is "In Re: Salomon Metromedia, et al v. Salomon Smith
Barney, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-07966-GEL," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Gerard E. Lynch, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert Alan Abrams, Esq. (rabrams@katskykorins.com)
          Katsky Korins, LLP
          605 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10158
          Phone: (212) 716-3237
          Fax: (212) 716-3337

               - and -

          Richard A. Adams, Esq.
          Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, LLP
          Century Bank Plaza
          2900 St. Michael Drive
          Suite 400
          Texarkana, TX 75505-6128
          Phone: (903) 334-7000

Representing the defendants are:

          Eric S. Goldstein, Esq. (egoldstein@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212)-373-3000
          Fax: (212)-492-0204

               - and -

          Robert Bruce McCaw, Esq. (robert.mccaw@wilmer.com)
          Wilmer, Cutler, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P.
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-230-8810
          Fax: 212-230-8888


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Suit Over Parmalat Collapse OK'ed to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York is letting a lawsuit proceed against
accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP in the collapse of the
Italian dairy giant Parmalat, The Associated Press reports.

The ruling, issued on Jan. 27, 2009, allows the class-action
lawsuit brought by buyers of Parmalat securities to proceed
against the U.S. Company, reports The Associated Press.

The Associated Press reported that the investors want the
accounting firm held liable for a fraud they blame on its
Italian arm, one of Parmalat's auditors.  The $18 billion
collapse of the company in 2003 remains Europe's largest
corporate bankruptcy.

In his ruling, Judge Kaplan stated that limiting the lawsuit to
Deloitte Italy would hurt investors' effort to recover damages
and government efforts to enforce securities laws against
corporations, according to The Associated Press report.


INFOSONICS CORP: April 23 Hearing Set for Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 23, 2009 fairness hearing in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California has been set for the
settlement in the consolidated class-action lawsuit "In Re:
InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV
1231."

Six securities action complaints, originally filed between June
and July 2006, were consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp.
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14,
2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of the
U.S. Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in
connection with the company's restatement announced June 12,
2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements and
accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with
VK Corp.

The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecified
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified
relief.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint.  In April 2008, the Court
issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' dismissal motion.

In June 2008, the Court dismissed without prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of first
quarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claims
against a certain individual defendant (Class Action Reporter,
June 27, 2008).

On Aug. 8, 2008, prior to defendants filing a motion to dismiss
or other responsive pleading to the third amended consolidated
complaint, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to resolve the case.

On Oct. 17, 2008, the parties entered a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the Securities Settlement) of the case,
which provides the securities class action settlement is
contingent on preliminary and final Court approval (after
appropriate notice), as well as settlement of the derivative
action against the company, among other contingencies, and
provides for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice of
the lawsuit, releases of the defendants, and a payment by the
Company or its insurer of $3.8 million to plaintiffs (inclusive
of any plaintiffs' attorneys fees, to be determined by the
Court). It is anticipated that the settlement payment will be
funded entirely by the Company's insurer.

The Securities Settlement further provides that defendants deny
any liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no
admission of any wrongdoing.

On Oct. 30, 2008, the Court took under submission without oral
argument the request for an order preliminarily approving the
Securities Settlement.

On Jan. 20, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying the
class, preliminarily approving the Securities Settlement,
providing for notice to the class, and setting a fairness
hearing on April 23, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, according to the
company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 26, 2009.

The suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
Latham and Watkins
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101-3375
Phone: 619-236-1234
Fax: 619-696-7419


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging ERISA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. faces purported a securities fraud
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York over losses the plan sustained through the bank's
securities lending program, alleging violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The suit was filed by the Board Of Trustees Of The AFTRA
Retirement Fund on Jan. 23, 2009 under the caption, "Board Of
Trustees Of The AFTRA Retirement Fund et al v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00686."

The $1.5 billion pension fund of the American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), claims JPMorgan Chase lost
a "substantial portion" in cash collateral in medium-term notes
issued by Sigma Finance Inc., a structured investment vehicle
sponsored by Sigma Finance Corp.

According to the lawsuit, creditors seized more than $25 billion
of Sigma's $27 billion in assets in September and October of
2008, leaving about $1.9 billion as security for about $6.2
billion of outstanding medium-term notes.

According to pension fund lawyer Ed Ciolko, Esq., a partner with
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, the suit, which seeks
class-action status, asks that JPMorgan Chase repay the pension
plan losses and for profits.

The suit is "Board Of Trustees Of The AFTRA Retirement Fund et
al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00686,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Milo Silberstein, Esq.
          (msilberstein@dealysilberstein.com)
          Dealy & Silberstein, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1405
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 385-0066
          Fax: (212) 385-2117


KV PHARMACEUTICAL: BOD Appoints Special Committee for Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
KV Pharmaceutical Co.'s Board of Directors has appointed a
special committee in response to the initiation of a series of
putative class action shareholder lawsuits, according to the
company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Jan. 26, 2009.

The special committee consists of the following members of the
Board: Jean M. Bellin, Kevin S. Carlie, Terry B. Hatfield,
Jonathon E. Killmer and Norman D. Schellenger.

Mr. Hatfield, the Chairman of the Board, has been appointed to
serve as the Chairman of the special committee.

The special committee was formed in response to the initiation
of a series of putative class-action shareholder lawsuits
alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the
company and certain individuals as well as the receipt of an
informal inquiry from the SEC.

KV Pharmaceutical Co. -- http://www.kvpharma.com-- is a fully
integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures, acquires and markets branded and generic/non-
randed prescription pharmaceutical products.  The company has a
range of dosage form capabilities, including tablets, capsules,
creams, liquids and ointments.  KV conducts its branded
pharmaceutical operations through Ther-Rx Corp. (Ther-Rx) and
its generic/non-branded pharmaceutical operations through ETHEX
Corp. (ETHEX).  Through Particle Dynamics, Inc. (PDI), the
company also develops, manufactures and markets value-added raw
material products for the pharmaceutical, nutritional, personal
care, food and other markets.  The company has developed a
variety of drug delivery and formulation technologies, which are
primarily focused in four principal areas: SITE RELEASE;
tastemasking; oral controlled release, and oral quick dissolving
tablets.


LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit Pending in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit styled, "Global Education
Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc." is pending in King County
(Washington) Superior Court.

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. (GES) filed a
consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the company in King
County (Washington) Superior Court.

GES has alleged in its complaint that the company's use of
activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.

GES is seeking injunctive relief against our use of the checks,
as well as a judgment in an amount equal to three times the
alleged damages sustained by GES and the members of the class.

LiveDeal has denied the allegations, according to the company's
Dec. 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com-- delivers best of
breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium-
sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow
Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way
for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local,
relevant customers via the Internet.  Through its online
property, www.livedeal.com, LiveDeal delivers local search
engine marketing (SEM) through its LiveAdvisor TM and LiveClicks
TM products that combine best-of-breed technology with a strong
partnership model and an inside sales team to create an
efficient platform local businesses need to create and optimize
their Internet search advertising campaigns.  Livedeal partners
with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK, Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com
and others. LiveDeal, Inc. is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


PAROGAN INC: Settles Indiana Litigation Alleging FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parogan, Inc. d/b/a Paragon Restaurant settled a purported
class-action suit in Indiana, which is alleging violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The suit, entitled, "Bood v. Parogan, Inc. d/b/a Paragon
Restaurant, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00421," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana by Dana A.
Bood, a restaurant customer.

The plaintiff alleged that Parogan, Inc. d/b/a Paragon
Restaurant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by printing
credit or debit card receipts that contained the cardholder's
entire credit card number and the expiration date.  She was
seeking statutory damages for herself and the members of the
Class.

For more details, contact:

          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC
          Paragon Restaurant Settlement (Case No. 20352)
          120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 739-4200
          e-mail: info@edcombs.com
          Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?38e0


PHILADELPHIA GAS: March 23, 2009 Hearing Set for "Brophy" Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas will hold fairness
hearing on March 23, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Brophy v. Philadelphia Gas Works, et
al., Case No. 04-197,"

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Mark I. Bernstein,
in Courtroom 246, City Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

The class-action suit was filed by Donald Brophy against
Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) and Philadelphia Facilities
Management Corp., related to the defendants' removal of gas
regulators from some homes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The
regulators  contained mercury, a hazardous substance.

Mr. Brophy claimed that PGW's procedures for removing Mercury
Regulators were deficient, constituting a "threatened release"
of mercury, that is, the risk of mercury spilling, when the
regulators were removed.  He brought this action, for himself
and others, to obtain testing to determine whether or not
mercury was spilled when PGW removed his and others' Mercury
Regulators.

For more details, contact:

        Alan M. Feldman, Esq. (afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com)
        Thomas More Marrone, Esq. (tmarrone@feldmanshepherd.com)
        Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock
        1845 Walnut Street, 25th Floor
        Philadelphia, PA  19103
        Phone: (215) 567-8300
        Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?38df


SOVEREIGN BANCORP: April 2, 2209 Hearing Set for Pa. Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on April 2, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in a purported class-action suit
against Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.

The hearing will be held in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Courtroom 246 at Philadelphia City Hall,
Broad and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA.

The Philadelphia Business Journal reported that 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 (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2009).

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


SPRINT NEXTEL: Calif. Judge Orders New Trial in ETF Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bonnie Sabraw of the Superior Court of California in
Alameda County has ordered a new trial for the $300 million
class-action lawsuit brought against Sprint Nextel Corp. over
damages related to early terminations fees (ETF), Phil Goldstein
of FierceWireless.

The ruling, issued last week, sets aside a previous jury's
decision which had awarded damages.  The new trial will
determine damages, reports FierceWireless.

FierceWireless reported that Judge Sabraw has ruled before that
ETFs are illegal and last July 2008 she ordered Sprint to pay
$73 million in refunds to customers for the fees.

Judge Sabraw said that, according to the first jury, "Sprint's
actual damages from the early termination of the class's
contracts ($225,697,433) were exactly equal to the amount of the
charged but unpaid ETFs ($225,697,433)."  This meant that Sprint
would not have to pay any damages.

Sprint said it would appeal the new ruling, according to the
FierceWireless report.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
WellCare Health Plans, Inc., faces an amended consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, according to the
company's Jan. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, two putative class-action suits, entitled, "Eastwood
Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al.," and "Hutton v. WellCare
Health Plans, Inc. et al.," were filed on Oct. 26, 2007, and on
Nov. 2, 2007, respectively.

These suits were filed against the company; its former chairman
and chief executive officer, Todd Farha; and its former senior
vice president and chief financial officer, Paul Behrens.
Messrs. Farha and Behrens were also officers of various
subsidiaries of the company.

The Eastwood Enterprises complaint alleges that the defendants
materially misstated the company's reported financial condition
by, among other things, purportedly overstating revenue and
understating expenses in amounts unspecified in the pleading in
violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

The Hutton complaint alleges that various public statements
supposedly issued by defendants were materially misleading
because they failed to disclose that the company was purportedly
operating its business in a potentially illegal and improper
manner in violation of applicable federal guidelines and
regulations.  It also asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Both complaints seek, among other things, certification as a
class action and damages.  The two actions were consolidated,
and various parties and law firms filed motions seeking to be
designated as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

In an order issued on March 11, 2008, the Court appointed a
group of five public pension funds from New Mexico, Louisiana
and Chicago (Public Pension Fund Group) as lead plaintiffs.

The Court has directed that the Lead Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint, which will become the operative
pleading in the case, no later than Sept. 9, 2008, to which the
defendants must respond within 60 days thereafter (Class Action
Reporter, July 24, 2008).

On Oct. 31, 2008, an amended consolidated complaint was filed in
this class action against the company, Messrs. Farha and
Behrens, and adding Thaddeus Bereday, the company's former
senior vice president and general counsel, as a defendant.  The
response to the amended complaint was filed in January 2009.

The suit is "Eastwood Enterprises, LLC v. Farha et al., Case No.
8:07-cv-01940-SCB-MSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Judge Susan C. Bucklew, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David C. Cimo, Esq. (dcimo@gjb-law.com)
          Genovese, Joblove & Battista, PA
          44th Floor, 100 SE 2nd St
          Miami, FL 33131-2311
          Phone: 305-349-2300
          Fax: 305-349-2310

               - and -

          Laura Gundersheim, Esq. (LauraG@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400
          Fax: 212-554-1444

Representing the defendants are:

          Laura E. Besvinick, Esq. (lbesvinick@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson, LLP
          Suite 1900, 1111 Brickell Ave.
          Miami, FL 33131-3142
          Phone: 305-459-6622
          Fax: 305-459-6550

               - and -

          Ronald Sturgis Holliday, Esq.
          (ronald.holliday@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US, LLP
          Suite 2200, 100 N. Tampa Street
          Tampa, FL 33602-5809
          Phone: 813-229-2111
          Fax: 813-371-1160


WESTBOROUGH FINANCIAL: March 26, 2009 Hearing Set for $550T Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Worcester Superior Court (Massachusetts) will hold a
fairness hearing on March 26, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed
$500,000 settlement in the matter, "Gut v. MacDonough, et al.,
Civil Action No. 07-1083-C."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Christine M. Roach
in the Worcester Superior Court, 225 Main Street, Worcester,
Massachusetts 01608.

                         Case Background

Bob Kievra of Telegram and Gazette reported that Westborough
Financial Services Inc. investors filed a lawsuit seeking class-
action status in Worcester Superior Court (Mass.) to block a
proposed merger of Westborough Financial and Assabet Valley
Bancorp (Class Action Reporter, June 11, 2007).

In addition to West Financial, the lawsuit names the following
Westborough Financial directors as defendants:

       -- President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph F.
          MacDonough,

       -- John L. Casagrande, Westborough Financial's senior
          vice president and chief financial officer,

       -- James N. Ball,

       -- Nelson P. Ball,

       -- Edward S. Bilzerian,

       -- David E. Carlstrom,

       -- Nancy M. Carlson,

       -- Benjamin H. Colonero Jr.,

       -- Robert A. Klugman,

       -- Jeffrey B. Leland,

       -- Paul F. McGrath,

       -- Charlotte C. Spinney,

       -- Phyllis A. Stone, and

       -- James E. Tashjian.

In November 2006, Westborough Financial announced a $20.6
million cash transaction merger with Assabet Valley -- the
parent of Hudson Savings Bank -- that would create a nearly $1
billion community bank and produce no layoffs or branch
closings.

Named plaintiffs Philippe E. Gut and Gwen Pratt Gut allege the
transaction is unfair in both price and procedure.  They further
allege Westborough Financial and its 14 directors, including
President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph F. MacDonough,
breached their fiduciary duties by structuring a deal that
includes $2.4 million in payments to directors and executive
officers.

The Guts said the merger is also discriminatory because it
cashes out minority shareholders while enabling majority
shareholders to maintain an equity interest in the merged
institution.

In addition, the complaint, which also names Assabet Valley as a
defendant, alleges the $35 per share offered by Assabet Valley
is inadequate, citing unsolicited offers in recent months of
$38.50 per share, $40 per share and $41 per share, all of which
have been rejected by Westborough Financial, parent of The
Westborough Bank.

The complaint further alleges that Westborough Financial enacted
a flood of changes to its executive compensation and benefits
packages during the merger discussion with Assabet Valley,
increasing the price of the transaction solely for their benefit
and to the detriment of public shareholders.

Directors who stood to benefit from the Assabet Valley deal
ignored higher offers because they were in line for significant
payouts and future positions with the merged entity, according
to the complaint.

"The individual defendants are hopelessly conflicted and unable
to protect the best interests of the public shareholders,"
according to the complaint.

The Guts' lawyers are seeking a preliminary injunction to block
the merger and any payments that would occur as a result of the
transaction.

"The total compensation as a percentage of the deal is high and
significant," said the Guts' lawyer, Patrick T. Egan of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo of Boston. "All of these
directors also have conflicts in their actions because they have
a financial interest in seeing this deal go through."

Mr. Egan can be contacted at:

          Patrick T. Egan , Esq. (pegan@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 542-8300
          Fax: (617) 1194-0322


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Gilman and Pastor Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BOSTON, Jan. 29, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Notice is hereby
given that Gilman and Pastor, LLP filed a lawsuit on January 15,
2009 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York seeking class action status on behalf of
purchasers of American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") Medium-
Term Notes, Series AIG-FP ("Notes") issued by AIG pursuant
and/or traceable to AIG's public offerings of Notes pursuant to
a prospectus dated July 24, 2006 and a series of prospectus
supplements (the "Offering Documents"), during the period from
November 17, 2006 through April 10, 2008.  AIG issued a
prospectus supplement for each of the 59 series of Notes offered
for sale, commencing with the prospectus supplement for FP-1 on
November 17, 2006.

     The Complaint names as defendants AIG, several investment
banking firms that acted as sales agents for the Note offerings,
and certain directors and officers of AIG, and asserts claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

     The Notes were offered and sold to the public through
various investment banking firms and broker-dealers, including
the following: AIG Financial Securities Corp., ABN AMRO
Incorporated, Banca IMI S.p.A., Banc of America Securities LLC,
Barclays Capital, Inc., Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., BMO Capital
Markets Corp., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., BNY Capital
Markets, Inc., Calyon Securities (USA) Inc., Citigroup Global
Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Daiwa
Securities America, Inc., Daiwa Securities SMBC Europe Limited,
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Greenwich
Capital Markets Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc., McDonald Investments
Inc., Mitsubishi UFJ Securities International plc, Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Nomura Securities International,
Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Santander Investment
Securities Inc., Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., SG Americas
Securities, LLC, TD Securities (USA), LLC, UBS Securities LLC,
and Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC.

     The Complaint asserts that the Offering Documents were
materially false and misleading in failing to disclose material
facts relating to the severely deteriorating financial condition
of AIG at the time of the offering and that when such facts were
disclosed, the market value of the Notes declined substantially.
In particular, the Offering Documents failed to disclose:

       -- that AIG's significant exposure to the subprime
          mortgage market as a result of AIG's extensive
          holdings in subprime mortgage-backed securities
          constituted a serious and material risk to AIG's
          creditworthiness and credit standing;

       -- that AIG's exposure from its sale of credit default
          swaps constituted a serious and material risk to AIG's
          creditworthiness and credit standing; and

       -- that these serious risks and exposures adversely
          affected the market value of the Notes, which declined
          substantially upon disclosure of this adverse
          information.

For more details, contact:

          Kenneth Gilman, Esq. (kgilman@gilmanpastor.com)
          Gilman and Pastor, LLP
          Phone: 239-598-3541


TRIAD GUARANTY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.C. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:02:00 GMT SAN DIEGO - (Business Wire)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Coughlin Stoia)
today announced that a class action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Triad Guaranty Inc.
("Triad") (NASDAQ:TGIC) common stock during the period between
October 26, 2006 and November 10, 2008 (the "Class Period").

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

     Triad, through its subsidiary, Triad Guaranty Insurance
Corporation, provides private mortgage insurance products to
residential mortgage lenders and investors in the United States.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results.  As a
result of defendants' false statements, Triad stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching
its Class Period high of $58.45 per share in January 2007.

     However, beginning in late August 2007 and continuing
throughout 2008, Triad began to acknowledge serious issues
surrounding its exposure to anticipated losses and defaults
related to its book of business for its Alt-A and pay-option
adjustable rate mortgage ("ARM") products written in 2006 and
2007 due to a failure to engage in proper underwriting
practices, resulting in a decline in Triad's stock price.

     Then, on November 10, 2008, Triad issued its financial
results for the third quarter of 2008, reporting a net loss for
the quarter ended September 30, 2008 of $160.1 million. On this
news, Triad's stock price dropped $0.11 per share to close at
$0.70 per share on November 11, 2008.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

       -- the Company was not adequately accounting for its loss
          reserves in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles, causing its financial results to be
          materially misstated;

       -- the Company failed to engage in proper underwriting
          practices for its book of business related to
          insurance written in 2006 and 2007, including the
          insurance related to its Alt-A and pay-option ARM
          products;

       -- the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
          losses and defaults related to its book of business
          related to insurance written in 2006 and 2007,
          including its Alt-A and pay-option ARM portfolios,
          than it had previously disclosed;

       -- the Company lacked effective internal controls to
          detect fraud and misrepresentations in the
          underwriting process; and

       -- the Company failed to disclose the true risks
          associated with its ability to continue to write new
          business and, given rating downgrades and capital
          limitations, the Company would be forced to liquidate
          its Canadian subsidiary and stop writing new insurance
          policies and transition the business to run-off.

     The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Triad common stock during the Class Period (the
"Class").

For more details, contact:

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


TRIAD GUARANTY: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, CT, Jan 29, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- The
law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities
fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on behalf of those who purchased the
common stock of Triad Guaranty, Inc. ("Triad" or the "Company")
between October 26, 2006 and November 10, 2008, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Triad and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements concerning the Company's
business and financial results.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose the following:

       -- Triad was not adequately accounting for loss reserves
          in violation of GAAP, causing its financial results to
          be materially misstated;

       -- Triad failed to engage in proper underwriting
          practices for its insurance written in 2006 and 2007,
          including the insurance related to its Alt-A and pay-
          option ARM products; and

       -- Triad had far greater exposure to anticipated losses
          and defaults related to insurance written in 2006 and
          2007 than it had disclosed.

     On November 10, 2008, Triad issued its financial results
for the third quarter of 2008, reporting a net loss for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008 of $160.1 million.  On this
news, Triad's stock price dropped to $0.70 per share on November
11, 2008. During the Class Period, Triad traded as high as
$58.45 per share in January 2007.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.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  * * *