CAR_Public/090203.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, February 3, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 23

                           Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
CES ENVIRONMENTAL: Tex. Residents File Suit Over Treatment Plant
E-MEDSOFT.COM: Seeks Approval of Ohio Securities Fraud Suit Deal
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal to Dismissal of Short-Selling Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Junk Wash. Mutual Securities Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Exodus Case Dismissed Upon Reaching Settlement
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit Over NYSE Floor Specialist Activities
GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuits Over Issuers' Research Coverage Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Review of Certification Order in N.Y. Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit on Auction Rate Securities

GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement of Calif. Exodus Litigation Approved
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement of D.C. Stock Purchasers Suit Approved
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Claims on Trading of Treasury Futures
GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit for Alleged Montana Law Violations Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Unit Faces Britannia Bulk Securities Litigation

GOLDMAN SACHS: Units Defend Suit by Mortgage Certificates Buyers
INFINEON TECH: Consolidated Securities Action Pending in Calif.
INFINEON TECH: DRAM Price-Fixing Suits Still Pending in Canada
INFINEON TECH: Indirect U.S. Purchaser Class Suits Still Pending
LJ INT'L: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Litigation for $2M

TAKATA CORP: California Judge Rules in $247M Seatbelt Litigation
UBS AG: Faces N.Y. Suit Over U.S. Offshore Tax-Evasion Probe


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
BANK OF AMERICA: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
IBSG INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Litigation
ROYAL BANK: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
TRIAD GUARANTY: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     ST. PAUL, Minn., Jan. 30, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The
United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed the
dismissal of a massive antitrust class action brought by
merchants against the American Express Company ("Am Ex").

     The case alleges that American Express in 1999 began a
massive effort to take a share of the standard commodity credit
card business away from Visa and MasterCard.  However, Am Ex
wished to partner with banks in issuing these credit cards.  The
merchants alleged that Am Ex understood that a high merchant fee
would be attractive to the banks; therefore Am Ex illegally
forced merchants to pay excessive rates equal to Am Ex's more
attractive business and personal charge cards by tying the
acceptance of the credit and charge cards together.  As a
condition of accepting Am Ex's credit and charge cards, Am Ex
required merchants to sign away their ability to pursue claims
as a class (known as a "class action waiver").

     The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New
York granted Am Ex's motion to dismiss the case and send it to
arbitration.  The small merchants appealed the decision to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that "the class
action waiver . . . cannot be enforced in this case because to
do so would grant Amex de facto immunity from antitrust
liability by removing the plaintiffs' only reasonably feasible
means of recovery."

     The policy of putting anti-class action rules in consumer
and merchant agreements has been growing enormously in recent
years. This case was the first case decided by a U.S. Appellate
Court in which it was held that the high costs of the case
itself voids such rules because the case could only proceed if
all the plaintiffs were allowed to share the costs in a class
action.  The decision will no doubt be used by plaintiffs in
dozens of other cases where defendants have attempted to ban
class actions by inserting such a clause in a standard
agreement.


CES ENVIRONMENTAL: Tex. Residents File Suit Over Treatment Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Less than a month ago, Houston City Council members responded to
an avalanche of complaints about explosions and sickening smells
coming from a CES Environmental Services Inc. waste treatment
plant in southeast Houston and decided to sue the company under
nuisance laws in an attempt to remove the facility, Chris Vogel
of Houston Press reports.

CES Environmental Services, Inc. faces a purported class-action
suit in Texas about explosions and sickening smells coming from
a waste treatment plant in southeast Houston.

The Houston Press reported that since then, more than 30
residents of the Griggs Terrace subdivision, which is adjacent
to the plant, have filed a class-action lawsuit in Harris County
District Court against CES Environmental alleging a number of
illegal activities.

According to the lawsuit, the residents allege that CES is
"engaging in the illegal trafficking of hazardous substances
through their neighborhood," and that "CES is apparently
illegally changing labels on hazardous material barrels without
remediating the contents of such barrels."

The allegation is that drivers are bringing hazardous waste in
to the facility with non-hazardous labels and then shipping it
out, according to the Houston Press report.

In addition, the lawsuit claims that CES is believed to be
illegally disposing hazardous waste on and under the residents'
property.

"CES' conduct is offensive and illegal," the lawsuit states, and
"has caused physical sickness."

The residents are seeking to end CES' alleged activities and
also request continued medical monitoring to determine the
extent of the damage done to them, according to the lawsuit,
reports the Houston Press.


E-MEDSOFT.COM: Seeks Approval of Ohio Securities Fraud Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys have asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio to approve a settlement in a class-action suit
accusing former executives and directors of bankrupt health care
software company e-MedSoft.com of misleading investors about its
alliance with collapsed National Century Financial Enterprises,
Inc., Law360 reports.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an unopposed motion last week in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio asking
for approval of the deal, according to Law360 report.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal to Dismissal of Short-Selling Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their purported
class-action suit related to short-selling transactions against
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries remain
pending.

The Company, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Goldman Sachs Execution &
Clearing, L.P. are among the numerous financial services firms
that have been named as defendants in a purported class action
filed on April 12, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by customers who engaged in short-
selling transactions in equity securities since April 12, 2000.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the customers were
charged fees in connection with the short sales but that the
applicable securities were not necessarily borrowed to effect
delivery, resulting in failed deliveries, and that the
defendants conspired to set a minimum threshold borrowing rate
for securities designated as hard to borrow.

The complaint asserts a claim under the federal antitrust laws,
as well as claims under the New York Business Law and common
law, and seeks treble damages as well as injunctive relief.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted by a
decision dated Dec. 20, 2007.

On Jan. 18, 2008, plaintiffs appealed from this decision.

No further updates regarding the matter were provided by the
Company in its Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Nov. 28, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Junk Wash. Mutual Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a putative securities class action amended
complaint, which names The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co. as a defendant, remains
pending.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is among numerous underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action amended
complaint filed on Aug. 5, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington.

As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering
documents in connection with various securities offerings by
Washington Mutual, Inc. failed to describe accurately the
company's exposure to mortgage-related activities in violation
of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws.

The defendants include past and present directors and officers
of Washington Mutual, the Company's former outside auditors, and
numerous underwriters.

The underwriter defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 8, 2008.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote $788,500,000 principal amount of
securities in the offerings at issue, according to the Company's
Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) took over the primary banking operations of
Washington Mutual, Inc. and then sold them.

On Sept. 27, 2008, Washington Mutual, Inc. filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy in the U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Exodus Case Dismissed Upon Reaching Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class-action complaint against The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., over research coverage of Exodus
Communications, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement
disposing the case.

Goldman Sachs is one of several investment firms named as
defendants in substantively identical purported class-action
lawsuits that allege violations of the federal securities laws
in connection with research coverage of certain issuers and that
seek compensatory damages.  The suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Initially, Goldman Sachs was named as a defendant in several
actions that commenced beginning in May 2003 and relate to a
research coverage of Exodus Communications, Inc.

These actions were consolidated, Goldman Sachs' motion to
dismiss the case was granted with leave to replead, and the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
was granted by order dated Dec. 4, 2007.  The plaintiff moved
for reconsideration on Dec. 21, 2007.

By an order dated June 3, 2008, the district court denied the
plaintiff's motion seeking reconsideration of the complaint's
dismissal.

On July 7, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed from the federal
district court's order dismissing the complaint.

While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement on a non-class basis, disposing of the
case, according to the company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Nov. 28, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit Over NYSE Floor Specialist Activities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and its affiliates, Spear, Leeds &
Kellogg Specialists LLC (SLKS) and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P.
continue to face a consolidated amended class-action complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

SLKS, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg and the Company are among numerous
defendants named in purported class-action lawsuits brought
beginning in October 2003 on behalf of investors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and state common law
in connection with NYSE floor specialist activities.

The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution
and disgorgement on behalf of purchasers and sellers of
unspecified securities between Oct. 17, 1998 and Oct. 15, 2003.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
16, 2004.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
granted in part and denied in part by a decision dated Dec. 13,
2005.

On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a
class.

No further updates regarding the matter were provided by the
Company in its Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Nov. 28, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuits Over Issuers' Research Coverage Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., continues to defend purported class-action suit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with
research coverage of certain issuers.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is one of several investment firms that
have been named as defendants in substantively identical
purported class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York seeking compensatory damages.

In one such action, relating to coverage of RSL Communications,
Inc. commenced on July 15, 2003, Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s motion
to dismiss the complaint was denied.

The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by an order
dated Jan. 26, 2007, vacated the district court's class
certification and remanded for reconsideration, according to the
company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Nov. 28, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Review of Certification Order in N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Henry M.
Paulson, Jr. are seeking a review of a class certification order
in a purported class-action lawsuit, alleging that defendants
violated the federal securities laws in connection with the
firm's research activities, according to the company's Jan. 26,
2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008.

The Company, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Henry M. Paulson, Jr., the
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Group Inc., have
been named as defendants in a purported class action filed
originally on July 18, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of Group Inc. stock
from July 1, 1999 through May 7, 2002.

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and violated the federal securities laws in connection
with the firm's research activities.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and/or  rescission. The action was
transferred on consent to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and the district court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.

In a decision dated Sept. 29, 2006, the federal district court
granted Mr. Paulson's motion to dismiss with leave to replead
but otherwise denied the motion.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by a
decision dated Sept. 15, 2008, and on Sept. 26, 2008, the
Goldman Sachs defendants filed a petition in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking review of the
certification ruling.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit on Auction Rate Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. seeks dismissal of a purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York over auction rate
securities.

On Sept. 4, 2008, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was named as a
defendant, together with numerous other financial services
firms, in two complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the auction securities
market in violation of federal antitrust laws.

The actions were filed, respectively, on behalf of putative
classes of issuers of and investors in auction rate securities
and seek, among other things, treble damages.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the parties to the putative securities class-
action suit brought on behalf of Goldman Sachs customers who
purchased auction rate securities, alleging violation of the
federal securities laws, stipulated to dismiss the action with
prejudice, and the stipulation was approved by the district
court on Sept. 30, 2008.

The defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 15, 2009, according to
the company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Nov. 28, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement of Calif. Exodus Litigation Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of an amended purported class-action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming Goldman, Sachs & Co. as a defendant has been approved,
according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 26, 2009 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008.

By an amended complaint dated July 11, 2002, Goldman, Sachs &
Co. and the other lead underwriters for the February 2001
offering of 13,000,000 shares of common stock and $575,000,000
of 51/4% convertible subordinated notes of Exodus
Communications, Inc. were added as defendants in a purported
class-action suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The complaint, which also names as defendants certain officers
and directors of Exodus Communications, Inc., alleged violations
of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws
and seeks compensatory damages.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, with the
underwriter defendants contributing $1 million toward a
settlement fund.

The settlement was approved by the district court on Oct. 31,
2008 and has become final, according to the Company's Jan. 26,
2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement of D.C. Stock Purchasers Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of the purported class-action lawsuits against The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has been
granted final approval.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. has been named as a defendant in two
purported class-action lawsuits commenced, beginning on May 26,
1999, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
brought on behalf of purchasers of Class A common stock of
Iridium World Communications, Ltd. in a January 1999
underwritten secondary offering of 7,500,000 shares of Class A
common stock.

All parties entered into settlement agreements, with the
underwriter defendants contributing $8.25 million to a
settlement fund.

The settlement was approved by the Court by order dated Oct. 23,
2008 and has become final, according to the company's Jan. 26,
2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Claims on Trading of Treasury Futures
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face claims relating
to trading of treasury futures in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed on behalf of holders of short positions in 30-year
U.S. Treasury futures and options on the morning of Oct. 31,
2001.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, alleges that the firm purchased 30-year
bonds and futures prior to the Treasury's refunding announcement
that morning based on non-public information about that
announcement, and that such purchases increased the costs of
covering such short positions (Class Action Reporter, July 11,
2008).

The complaint also names as defendants the Washington, D.C.-
based political consultant who allegedly was the source of the
information, a former Goldman Sachs economist who allegedly
received the information, and another company and one of its
employees who also allegedly received and traded on the
information prior to its public announcement.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal commodities and
antitrust laws, as well as Illinois statutory and common law,
and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages including
treble damages under the antitrust laws.

The district court dismissed the antitrust and Illinois state
law claims but permitted the federal commodities law claims to
proceed.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the plaintiff moved for class certification.

On May 7, 2008, Goldman Sachs moved for summary judgment in the
purported class action pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

By a decision dated July 30, 2008, the federal district court
granted Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s motion for summary judgment
insofar as the remaining claims relate to trading of treasury
bonds, but denied the motion without prejudice to the extent the
claims relate to trading of treasury futures, according to the
company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Nov. 28, 2008.

By a decision dated Aug. 22, 2008, the court denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit for Alleged Montana Law Violations Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs
& Co., continue to face a purported class action alleging
violations of Montana law in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana, Butte Division.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and the Company have been named as
defendants in a purported class action commenced originally on
Oct. 1, 2001 in Montana District Court, Second Judicial District
on behalf of former shareholders of Montana Power Company.

The complaint generally alleges that Montana Power Company
violated Montana law by failing to procure shareholder approval
of certain corporate strategies and transactions, that the
Company's board breached its fiduciary duties in pursuing those
strategies and transactions, and that Goldman, Sachs & Co. aided
and abetted the board's breaches and rendered negligent advice
in its role as financial advisor to the company.

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages.

In addition to Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Group Inc., the
defendants include Montana Power Company, certain of its
officers and directors, an outside law firm for the Montana
Power Company, and certain companies that purchased assets from
Montana Power Company and its affiliates.

The Montana state court denied the Goldman Sachs defendants'
motions to dismiss.

Following the bankruptcies of certain defendants in the action,
defendants removed the action to federal court, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana, Butte Division,
according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Nov. 28, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Unit Faces Britannia Bulk Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., defends putative securities class actions arising from the
initial public offering of common stock of Britannia Bulk
Holdings, Inc.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is among the underwriters named as
defendants in numerous putative securities class actions filed
beginning on Nov. 6, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York arising from the June 17, 2008
$125 million IPO of Britannia Bulk common stock.

The complaints name as defendants the company, certain of its
directors and officers, and the underwriters for the offering.
The plaintiffs allege that the offering materials violated the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seek
compensatory damages.

Defendants have yet to respond, according to the Company's Jan.
26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote 3.75 million shares of common
stock for a total offering price of $56.25 million.

The principal operating subsidiary of Britannia Bulk Holdings,
Inc. is subject to an insolvency proceeding in the U.K. courts.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Units Defend Suit by Mortgage Certificates Buyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three subsidiaries of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. defend a
lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage
pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates,
according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Nov. 28, 2008.

Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS
Mortgage Securities Corp. are among the defendants in a
purported class action commenced on Dec. 11, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on
behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through
certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various
securitization trusts in 2007 and underwritten by Goldman, Sachs
& Co.

The other defendants include the various issuer trusts that
issued the securities as well as certain officers and directors
of certain of the entity defendants.

The complaint generally alleges that the registration statement
and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the
federal securities laws.

The complaint asserts claims against the issuer trusts and
Goldman, Sachs & Co. under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act
of 1933 (Securities Act), and a related "controlling person"
claim against the other defendants under Section 15 of the
Securities Act, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
rescission or recessionary damages.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


INFINEON TECH: Consolidated Securities Action Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Infineon Technologies AG is facing the third amended complaint
in a consolidated securities class action filed on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the company's publicly-traded
securities.

Between September and November 2004, seven securities class
action complaints were filed against the company and current or
former officers in U.S. federal district courts, later
consolidated in the Northern District of California, on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of the company's publicly-
traded securities who purchased them during the period from
March 2000 to July 2004 (Securities Class Actions).

The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of the
U.S. securities laws and asserts that the defendants made
materially false and misleading public statements about the
company's historical and projected financial results and
competitive position because they did not disclose the company's
alleged participation in dynamic random access memory chips
(DRAM) rice-fixing activities and that, by fixing the price of
DRAM, defendants manipulated the price of the Company's
securities, thereby injuring its shareholders.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

In September 2006, the court dismissed the complaint with leave
to amend.  In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint.  In March 2007, pursuant to a stipulation
agreed with the defendants, the plaintiffs withdrew the second
amended complaint and were granted a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint in July 2007.  A hearing was held on Nov. 19, 2007.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the court entered into an order granting in
part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the
Securities Class Action complaint.  The court denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
dismissed the claim under Section 20A of the act with prejudice.

On Aug. 13, 2008 the court denied a motion of the company for
summary judgment based on the statute of limitations.

On Aug. 25, 2008, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings against foreign purchasers, i.e., proposed class
members who are neither residents nor citizens of the United
States who bought securities of the company on an exchange
outside the United States.  On the same day, the plaintiffs also
filed a motion to certify the class.

A hearing on both motions was scheduled for Dec. 15, 2008.

No further updates were provided in the company's Dec. 29, 2008
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Infineon Technologies AG -- http://www.infineon.com-- is a
semiconductor company.  The Company designs, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of semiconductors and complete
systems solutions used in a variety of microelectronic
applications, including computer systems, telecommunications
systems, consumer goods, automotive products, industrial
automation and control systems, and chip card applications.  Its
products include standard commodity components, full-custom
devices, semi-custom devices and application-specific components
for memory, analog, digital and mixed-signal applications.  The
company has operations, investments and customers located in
Europe, Asia and North America. Infineon operates through its
five business segments: Automotive, Industrial and Multimarket,
Chip Card and Security, Wireless Solutions and Wireline
Communications. Infineon's memory products business is conducted
through its subsidiary, Qimonda AG.


INFINEON TECH: DRAM Price-Fixing Suits Still Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class proceedings are pending against Infineon
Technologies AG for alleged price-fixing of dynamic random
access memory chips (DRAM) products in Canada.

Between December 2004 and February 2005, two putative class
proceedings were filed in the Canadian province of Quebec, and
one was filed in each of Ontario and British Columbia against
the company, its U.S. subsidiary Infineon Technologies North
America Corporation and other DRAM manufacturers on behalf of
all direct and indirect purchasers resident in Canada who
purchased DRAM or products containing DRAM between July 1999 and
June 2002.

The cases seek damages, investigation and administration costs,
as well as interest and legal costs.

The plaintiffs primarily allege conspiracy to unduly restrain
competition and to illegally fix the price of DRAM, according to
the company's Dec. 29, 2008 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

Infineon Technologies AG -- http://www.infineon.com-- is a
semiconductor company. The Company designs, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of semiconductors and complete
systems solutions used in a variety of microelectronic
applications, including computer systems, telecommunications
systems, consumer goods, automotive products, industrial
automation and control systems, and chip card applications.  Its
products include standard commodity components, full-custom
devices, semi-custom devices and application-specific components
for memory, analog, digital and mixed-signal applications.  The
company has operations, investments and customers located in
Europe, Asia and North America. Infineon operates through its
five business segments: Automotive, Industrial and Multimarket,
Chip Card and Security, Wireless Solutions and Wireline
Communications. Infineon's memory products business is conducted
through its subsidiary, Qimonda AG.


INFINEON TECH: Indirect U.S. Purchaser Class Suits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Infineon Technologies AG continues to face class actions brought
by individuals and entities who indirectly purchased dynamic
random access memory chips (DRAM) in the United States.

A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed against
the company, its U.S. subsidiary Infineon Technologies North
America Corporation and other DRAM suppliers, alleging price-
fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seeking treble
damages in unspecified amounts, costs, attorneys' fees, and an
injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

In September 2002, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation ordered that these federal cases be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings as part of
a Multi District Litigation.

In September 2005, the company and IF North America entered into
a definitive settlement agreement with counsel for the class of
direct U.S. purchasers of DRAM (granting an opportunity for
individual class members to opt out of the settlement).  In
November 2006, the court approved the settlement agreement and
entered final judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice.

Sixty-four additional cases were filed through October 2005, in
numerous federal and state courts throughout the United States.
Each of these state and federal cases (except for one relating
to foreign purchasers) purports to be on behalf of a class of
individuals and entities who indirectly purchased DRAM in the
United States during specified time periods commencing in or
after 1999 (the Indirect U.S. Purchaser Class).

The complaints variously allege violations of the Sherman Act,
California's Cartwright Act, various other state laws, unfair
competition law, and unjust enrichment and seek treble damages
in generally unspecified amounts, restitution, costs, attorneys'
fees and injunctions against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

Twenty-three of the state and federal court cases were
subsequently ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of the MDL proceeding.

Nineteen of the twenty-three transferred cases are currently
pending in the MDL litigation.  The pending California state
cases were coordinated and transferred to San Francisco County
Superior Court for pre-trial proceedings.  The plaintiffs in the
indirect purchaser cases outside California agreed to stay
proceedings in those cases in favor of proceedings on the
indirect purchaser cases pending as part of the MDL pre-trial
proceedings.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the district court in the MDL proceedings
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings directed at
several of the claims.  Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint on Feb. 27, 2008.

On March 28, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs leave to
immediately appeal its decision to the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

On June 26, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
order agreeing to hear the appeal and the parties submitted a
stipulation and proposed order to that effect.  The district
court stayed proceedings pending the Court of Appeals' decision
whether to accept the appeal and scheduled a hearing for Oct.
30, 2008, to decide whether the stay should remain in place
until the appeal is decided.

On Oct. 30, 2008, the district court in the MDL proceedings
entered an order staying the indirect purchaser proceedings in
the Northern District of California during the period that the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considers the appeal on the
decision of the district court to dismiss certain claims of the
plaintiffs, according to the company's Dec. 29, 2008 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Infineon Technologies AG -- http://www.infineon.com-- is a
semiconductor company. The Company designs, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of semiconductors and complete
systems solutions used in a variety of microelectronic
applications, including computer systems, telecommunications
systems, consumer goods, automotive products, industrial
automation and control systems, and chip card applications.  Its
products include standard commodity components, full-custom
devices, semi-custom devices and application-specific components
for memory, analog, digital and mixed-signal applications.  The
company has operations, investments and customers located in
Europe, Asia and North America. Infineon operates through its
five business segments: Automotive, Industrial and Multimarket,
Chip Card and Security, Wireless Solutions and Wireline
Communications. Infineon's memory products business is conducted
through its subsidiary, Qimonda AG.


LJ INT'L: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Litigation for $2M
-------------------------------------------------------------
     HONG KONG, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-Asia-FirstCall/ -- LJ
International Inc. (LJI) (Nasdaq: JADE), a leading jewelry
manufacturer and retailer in China, today reported that it has
entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in
the class-action lawsuit against the Company filed in 2007.

     Under the settlement agreement dated January 14, 2009
between LJI and the lead plaintiff, LJI will create a settlement
fund of $2 million in cash, to be funded entirely by its
insurer.  As part of the settlement agreement, all claims
alleged in the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice and LJI
will be released from liability for all such claims.  The
settlement agreement is subject to preliminary approval and
final approval by the Court.  The Court has scheduled a hearing
on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement for February 23, 2009.

     The class covered by the lawsuit consists of all holders of
LJI common stock during the period from February 15, 2007
through September 6, 2007.  Plaintiffs had alleged, in a
consolidated amended complaint on April 8, 2008, that LJI had
made material misstatements concerning its projected fourth
quarter and year-end 2006 earnings and net income.  LJI has
denied each of the claims alleged by the plaintiffs and has
agreed to the settlement in order to eliminate the continuing
costs of litigation and the time and attention required by
senior management.


TAKATA CORP: California Judge Rules in $247M Seatbelt Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court has issued a ruling in a
purported $247-million class-action lawsuit against Takata Corp.
that was filed by car owners who claimed a seatbelt manufactured
by the company that was installed in some 4 million cars in
California was improperly tested and its buckle might open in a
crash, The Associated Press reports.

In a Jan. 16, 2009 preliminary ruling, Los Angeles County
Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that the TK-52
seatbelt by Takata was safe and met federal standards.  A final
ruling is expected in March 2009.

Car owner Lupe Zavala represented owners of about 80 different
auto models in the class-action suit.  He accused the Tokyo-
based company of violating state law by allegedly misleading
consumers about testing of the seatbelts, according to The
Associated Press.

The suit, which also named a New Jersey-based consumer testing
organization, SGS U.S. Testing Co., Inc., didn't claim anyone
was injured by the seatbelts, but argued they might cause future
problems.  In addition to money, it sought to have the seatbelts
recalled and retested.

Drew D. Hansen of Seattle, one of Mr. Zavala's attorneys told
The Associated Press, "We respectfully disagree with the trial
court's ruling and we plan to appeal."

The suit was ironic because Mr. Zavala said in a deposition that
the seatbelt had functioned properly in an accident involving a
pickup truck, according to Mark H. Berry, Esq., a Los Angeles
lawyer who represented Takata at trial.  "He conceded that the
seatbelt had protected his son" in the crash, Mr. Berry told The
Associated Press reports.


UBS AG: Faces N.Y. Suit Over U.S. Offshore Tax-Evasion Probe
------------------------------------------------------------
UBS AG (UBS) faces a purported class-action lawsuit over
allegations the Swiss bank helped thousands of Americans avoid
paying taxes, Chad Bray of Dow Jones reports.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Jan. 30, 2009 under the caption, "New
Orleans Employees' Retirement System v. UBS AG et al., Case No.
1:2009-cv-00893."

It alleges UBS bolstered the new account money it attracted by
engaging in a fraudulent scheme to help ultra high-net worth
U.S. clients avoid U.S. taxes by "secreting billions of their
funds in 'undeclared' Swiss bank accounts."

Dow Jones reported that the complaint alleges the Swiss bank
concealed the scheme from U.S. authorities, while intentionally
creating the impression the company's wealth-management group
was experiencing unprecedented growth.  It also claims UBS
routinely assured investors and analysts that it employed state-
of-the-art risk management tactics and had robust internal
controls to mitigate risks.

"These statements were all false and misleading because at the
time they were made defendants were actively engaged in a tax-
evasion scheme which, even when investigators had fingered some
of the company's lower level client advisors, defendants
ultimately could not abandon because it was simply too valuable
to UBS," according to the lawsuit.

The company's stock price "plummeted" when the scheme became
public, the complaint said, reports Chad Bray of Dow Jones.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the New Orleans Employees'
Retirement System, which manages about $400 million in assets
and is a UBS shareholder.  It is seeking class-action status on
behalf of investors who purchased UBS shares between May 4, 2004
and Jan. 26, 2009, according to Chad Bray of Dow Jones.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Updated 9:14 a.m. PT, Sat., Jan. 31, 2009 -- BALTIMORE, MD
- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a new
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of certain investors in Bank of America Corporation ("Bank of
America" or the "Company") (NYSE: BAC).

     The original action has been brought on behalf of all Bank
of America shareholders who held shares as of the record date of
October 10, 2008 and were entitled to vote with respect to the
acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch") by
Bank of America at a December 5, 2008 special meeting of Bank of
America shareholders and were damaged thereby, and on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Bank of America in the period from January 2, 2009 through
January 20, 2009 (the "Class Period").

     The new action has been brought only on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Bank of
America in the period from July 21, 2008 through January 20,
2009 (the "Extended Class Period").

     The complaint in the initial action accuses the defendants
of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue
of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period the
true financial condition of Merrill Lynch, a company acquired by
Bank of America.

     The complaint in the newer action that has created the
Extended Class Period does not include claims for holders of
Bank of America shares on October 10, 2008 who were entitled to
vote with respect to the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of
America at a December 5, 2008 special meeting of Bank of America
shareholders, but does claim that the Company's July 21, 2008
representations of the worst being behind on value declines was
the start of a period of deception by Bank of America as to its
prospects.

     According to both complaints, beginning on January 16,
2009, after the Company revealed the true extent of the
deterioration of Merrill's financial condition, as evidenced by
Merrill Lynch's $15 billion fourth quarter loss, the value of
Bank of America's stock declined significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in these actions.

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 30, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law
Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Bank of America Corp. ("BofA" or
the "Company") (NYSE:BAC) common stock during the period between
July 21, 2008 and January 20, 2009 (the "Class Period") for
violations of the federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results.

     Defendants concealed BofA's failure to properly value its
mortgage-related assets and engage in proper due diligence in
determining the fairness of its proposed merger with Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch").

     As a result of defendants' false statements, BofA's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $38.13 per share on October 1, 2008, and then
retaining value in the $22-$25 per share range even as the stock
market collapsed in early October 2008.

     It was at this time that BofA sold 455 million shares of
its common stock at $22 per share in a secondary common stock
offering that raised some $10 billion.  On December 5, 2008,
shareholders of both BofA and Merrill Lynch overwhelmingly
approved the merger with Merrill Lynch.

     Thereafter, on January 16, 2009, BofA announced its first
quarterly loss in 17 years. BofA announced a $1.8 billion loss
for the fourth quarter of 2008, citing deeper trading and loan
losses.  The Company further slashed its dividend from $0.32 to
a penny a quarter.

     In addition to its own losses, BofA reported that Merrill
Lynch's preliminary results for the fourth quarter of 2008
indicated a net loss of $15.3 billion. BofA further confirmed
that it would receive an additional $20 billion in assistance
from the U.S. Government and that the government had agreed to
provide guarantees against further Merrill Lynch losses of $118
billion.

    Over the course of the next several days, the complaint
alleges, details began to emerge concerning the truth behind
BofA's deal with Merrill Lynch, including the fact that BofA had
learned of Merrill Lynch's substantial fourth quarter losses
prior to completing its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

     Between January 15 and 20, 2009, as news of BofA's
financial position came to light, BofA's stock lost a dramatic
50% of its value, declining from $10.20 per share on January 14,
2009 to close at $5.10 per share on January 20, 2009.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


IBSG INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 30, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP ("Levi & Korsinsky") today announced that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of all persons or entities
who acquired IBSG International, Inc. ("IBSG" or the "Compnay")
(OTCBB:IBIN) common stock between April 1, 2008 and January 12,
2009 (the "Class Period").  The class action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

     The complaint alleges that the Company and senior
management issued false and misleading financial statements in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          39 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10006
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com


ROYAL BANK: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Business Wire 2009 -- 2009-01-31 05:02:03 -- Murray, Frank
& Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS") (NYSE:RBS),
certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters, on
behalf of a class of: 1) purchasers or acquirers of RBS Series
"Q" 6.75% Preferred stock pursuant to the May 18, 2006 public
offering; and/or 2) purchasers or acquirers of RBS Series "T"
7.25% Preferred stock pursuant to the September 20, 2007 public
offering.

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially false and misleading registration statement,
prospectuses, and other documents.

     These documents failed to disclose risks that:

       -- RBS's exposure to the sub-prime mortgage market was
          understated in violation of Generally Accepted
          Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

       -- RBS's risk control systems did not function properly;

       -- as a result of such exposure, RBS would be forced to
          take write-downs;

       -- such write-downs would substantially decrease RBS's
          capital levels; and

       -- this would force RBS to accept a bailout by the
          British government.

     As these events occurred, the price of RBS securities
plummeted. At the close of the market on January 29, 2008,
Series Q Stock closed at $5.44, and Series T Stock closed at
$5.95, a small fraction of their original $25 offering prices.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016-1101
          Phone: 212-682-1818
                 800-497-8076
          e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/


TRIAD GUARANTY: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 30, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law
Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit 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"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TGIC) common stock during the period
between October 26, 2006 and November 10, 2008 (the "Class
Period") for violations of the federal securities laws.

     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.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.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  * * *