CAR_Public/090204.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 4, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 25

                           Headlines

APPLE INC: Faces Tex. Consumer Fraud Suit Over iPhone 3G Defects
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of a Fees Litigation
CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES: Reaches Tentative Deal in Furnaces Suit
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Reaches $9M Settlement in Calif. Litigation
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over "Chinese Drywalls"

MCKESSON CORP: Faces Amended & Consolidated Complaint in Kansas
MCKESSON CORP: Civil Litigation by Panama City, Florida Pending
MCKESSON CORP: Connecticut State's Suit Still Pending in Mass.
MCKESSON CORP: Oklahoma's RICO, OCPA Violations Suit Dismissed
MCKESSON CORP: Proposed Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval

MCKESSON CORP: San Francisco Health Plan's Suit Remains Pending
MEDICAL INFORMATION: Ruling on Motions in "Hubert" Suit Pending
NOBU RESTAURANT: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Tips With Waiters, Staff
PARKER-HANNIFIN: Certification Bid in Price-Fixing Suit Pending
PFIZER INC: Face Securities Fraud Litigation Over Celebrex Drug

SOURCECORP INC: Seeks Preliminary OK for $3M Deal in Texas Suit
TYSON FOODS: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Suit Over Soggy Chicken
WELLS FARGO: Hagens Berman Files Ariz. Lawsuit Over Appraisals


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BEACON ASSOCIATES: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Suit
TRIAD GUARANTY: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

APPLE INC: Faces Tex. Consumer Fraud Suit Over iPhone 3G Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit claiming that the iPhone not only fails to live
up to 3G speeds, but that it also prematurely develops hairline
cracks in its outer casing, Zach Spear of Apple Insider reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on Jan. 29, 2009 under the caption, "Payne et
al v. Apple Inc. et al, Case No. 4:2009-cv-00042."

The lawsuit was filed by Texas residents Alyce R. Payne, William
French, Karen Michaels, and Lorna Harris on their own behalf as
well as all customers who are not satisfied with their iPhone 3G
purchase, claiming that Apple has committed breaches of contract
and warranty, violating Texas business and commerce codes, and
other infractions, according to the Apple Insider.

The plaintiffs are claiming the iPhone 3G performs poorly when
connected via 3G because it "demand(s) too much power from the
3G bandwidths."

The plaintiffs also blame AT&T's infrastructure and name the
exclusive carrier of the Apple-built smartphone as a co-
defendant, claiming AT&T's system can't cope with the
"overwhelming 3G signal" of the sheer number of iPhones sold,
reports Apple Insider.

They cite an Associated Press article on tests by Swedish
engineering weekly Ny Teknik that concluded some handsets aren't
sensitive enough to 3G signals and boost their signals to
compensate, creating the network conflict.  Subsequent tests,
however, showed no hardware issue and instead suggested it was a
network congestion issue.

Apple Insider reported that besides those claims, the suit is
also alleging faulty manufacturing of the exterior plastic case.
"The iPhones have had well-known and documented issues regarding
the premature 'wear-and-tear' of the iPhones' housing," the
complaint says, "including the formation of hairline cracks in
the iPhones' casing."

Although these issues weren't an issue with the original iPhone,
which came with an aluminum backing, the iPhone 3G comes with a
black or white hard plastic back that, just after launch, had
triggered multiple complaints of stress around key points of the
handsets.  According to the lawsuit, cracks form "around the
camera, near the volume rocker," and in other areas reported by
users, reports Apple Insider.

Moreover, hardware defects aren't the only problems mentioned in
the complaint.  The plaintiffs list a raft of problems caused by
the iPhone 2.0 software update and the subsequent 2.1 update,
which they claim did not fix the original problems of "crashes,
'bricked' handsets, slower applications, a lag in the virtual
keyboard, internet connection issues, and spotty call
reception," according to Apple Insider report.

The suit is "Payne et al v. Apple Inc. et al, Case No. 4:2009-
cv-00042," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Judge Michael H. Schneider, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Roger F. Claxton, Esq. (roger@claxtonhill.com)
          Claxton & Hill
          10000 N. Central Expressway
          Suite 725
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Phone: 214/969-9029
          Fax: 12149530583


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of a Fees Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NETANYA,Israel, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Cellcom
Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (the "Company") announced today that in
January 29, 2009, an appeal was filed with the Israeli Supreme
Court against the dismissal of a purported class action against
the Company (and another Israeli cellular operator) in December
2008.

     The purported class action was filed in the District Court
of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa in December 2002, in connection with the
defendants' incoming call tariff to subscribers of other
operators when calling the subscribers of the defendants during
the period preceding the regulation of interconnect fees.

     If the claim is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS
1.6 billion. The Company is studying the appeal and intends to
defend its position.

For additional information please visit the Company's website
http://investors.ircellcom.co.il.


CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES: Reaches Tentative Deal in Furnaces Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Feb. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Owners of residential
furnaces manufactured before 2001 are urged to check whether
they are covered by a proposed class action settlement that
covers more than one million furnaces with faulty burners, heat
exchangers, and/or expansion joints.  The defects create a
serious risk of fire and/or carbon monoxide leaks.

     The settlement covers furnaces manufactured by Consolidated
Industries under dozens of well-known brand/trade names.  For
details, including a list of furnaces covered by the settlement,
visit http://www.consolidatedfurnacesettlement.com. For more
information, call 1888-286-8201.

     As part of a $51.8 million nationwide class action
settlement, qualifying current and former owners of covered
furnaces (and other persons and companies with claims regarding
these furnaces) may be eligible to receive a free or discounted
inspection, a rebate on the purchase of a qualifying replacement
furnace, a partial reimbursement for a prior replacement, and
other potential benefits.

     To request benefits under the settlement, complete a claim
form (available at http://www.consolidatedfurnacesettlement.com
and return it by August 1, 2009.

     An Indiana state court preliminarily approved the class
action settlement.  Because Consolidated Industries is in
bankruptcy, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing and
also approved this settlement.  The settlement fund and the
potential settlement benefits are subject to available assets in
the Consolidated bankruptcy estate.

     The Tippecanoe County Superior Court for the State of
Indiana will hold a final approval hearing on March 26, 2009.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Reaches $9M Settlement in Calif. Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
IMPAX Laboratories Inc. will pay $9 million to shareholders who
alleged that the Hayward generics drug makers artificially
inflated the market price of its stock in 2004, Ron Leuty of the
San Francisco Business Times reports.

In a Jan. 29, 2009 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Impax said about $3.4 million of the settlement will
be paid by the company.  The remainder will be funded by its
directors and officers liability insurance, according to the San
Francisco Business Times reports.

The San Francisco Business Times reported that nearly a dozen
class-action lawsuits against the company and some current and
former officers and directors had been filed before mid-2005
alleging that the company made false statements about sales of
generic Wellbutrin, an antidepressant.

Those several class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, have all been
consolidated as case No. 04- 4808-JW (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 19, 2009).

These actions, brought on behalf of all purchasers of shares of
Company common stock between May 5 and Nov. 3, 2004, allege the
Company and the individual defendants, in violation of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws,
artificially inflated the market price of the stock during this
period by filing false financial statements for the first and
second quarters of 2004, based upon the company's subsequent
restatement of its results for those periods.

The court twice granted the Company motions to dismiss the
complaint, both times with leave to amend, but denied the
Company's motion to dismiss a fourth amended complaint as well
as two motions for reconsideration.  The case is now in
discovery phase.

In August 2008, the Company filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
to direct the district court to dismiss the complaint.

The settlement is pending court approval, reports the San
Francisco Business Times.


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over "Chinese Drywalls"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., LTD, The Knauf Group, Rothchilt
International Limited and the Banner Supply Co., are facing a
purported class-action suit alleging that fly ash residue from
Chinese power plants was used in drywall that's the subject of
growing scrutiny in Florida Nick Spinetto of WINK News reports.

Parker Waichman and Alonso LLP of Bonita Springs filed the suit
in U.S. District Court for the Middle District for Florida on
behalf of Shane M. Allen and Nicole J. Allen of North Fort Myers
and other homeowners who may be adversely affected by the
drywall, according to a report by the South Florida Business
Journal.

The Allen's moved into their home in 2006.  Since then they have
had several problems with their air conditioner unit.  After
several repairs, the Allen's traced the problem to defective
drywall in their home, reports WINK News.

Known as "Chinese Drywall", it was manufactured oversees and was
made from waste materials.  As a result, it emits sulfur
compounds that corrode copper wiring and other metals found in
homes.  This is what happened in the Allen's case, according to
WINK News.

Banner Supply is based out of Miami.  The Knauf Group and its
subsidiaries are in Europe and Asia.

WINK News reported that the lawsuit, which seeks class-action
status, accuses defendants of negligence among other things.  It
also claims 10 million square feet of the defective drywall were
used to build Florida homes in 2004-2006.

According to the complaint provided to the South Florida
Business Journal by Jordan Chaikin, Esq., the lead plaintiff's
attorney, "Defendants' drywall was made with waste material from
scrubbers on coal-fired power plants, also called 'fly ash.'
These materials can leak in the air and emit one of several
sulfur compounds including sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide."


MCKESSON CORP: Faces Amended & Consolidated Complaint in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corp. faces an amended and consolidated complaint in
the class action styled "Board of County Commissioners of
Douglas County, Kansas v. McKesson Corporation et al., (Civil
Action No. 1:08-CV-11349-PBS).

On Aug. 7, 2008, the action was filed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas on behalf of itself and
a purported national class of state, local and territorial
governmental entities in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the company and First
DataBank, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege violations of civil Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and federal antitrust
laws.

The plaintiffs seek damages and treble damages, as well as
injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
all in unspecified amounts.

The action is based on factual allegations substantially
identical to those asserted in the civil action styled, "New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First
DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:05-
CV-11148-PBS."

On Dec. 24, 2008, an amended and consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Kansas action.

The amended complaint added the named plaintiffs from the
Florida, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Maryland, South Carolina and North
Carolina actions, according to the company's Jan. 27, 2009 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry. The Company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MCKESSON CORP: Civil Litigation by Panama City, Florida Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by the City of Panama City, Florida
on behalf of itself and a class of Florida state and local
governmental entities, against McKesson Corp. remains pending.

On Aug. 18, 2008, the class action was filed alleging violations
of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), federal and state antitrust laws and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages and treble damages, as well
as injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of
suit, all in unspecified amounts.

The action is entitled City of Panama City, Florida v. McKesson
Corporation, et al., (Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-11423-PBS).

The action is based on factual allegations substantially
identical to those asserted in the civil action styled New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First
DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation, (Civil Action No. 1:05-
CV-11148-PBS).

No updates regarding the lawsuit were disclosed by the company
in its Jan. 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry. The Company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MCKESSON CORP: Connecticut State's Suit Still Pending in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit, captioned, "State of Connecticut v.
McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-10900-PBS,"
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

On May 28, 2008, an action was filed by the State of Connecticut
against the Company, again as the sole defendant, alleging
violations of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Sherman Act and the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The plaintiffs seek damages, treble damages, restitution,
interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified amounts.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the District Court entered an order staying
the class-action suit.

The action is based on factual allegations substantially
identical to those asserted in the civil action styled, "New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First
DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:05-
CV-11148-PBS."

No updates regarding the lawsuit were disclosed by the company
in its Jan. 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry. The Company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MCKESSON CORP: Oklahoma's RICO, OCPA Violations Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The action styled, "State of Oklahoma v. McKesson Corporation et
al., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-11745-PBS," was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on Jan. 9, 2009.

The action was filed on Oct. 15, 2008, by the State of Oklahoma
on behalf of itself and a class of Oklahoma state and local
governmental entities, agencies and subdivisions against
McKesson Corp. and First DataBank, Inc.

The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, alleging violations of civil Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act (OCPA) and civil conspiracy to violate
the OCPA.

The plaintiffs seek damages, treble damages and civil penalties,
as well as injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts.

According to the company's Jan. 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the action is based on factual allegations
substantially identical to those asserted in the civil action
styled New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al., v.
First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation, (Civil Action No.
1:05-CV-11148-PBS).

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry. The Company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MCKESSON CORP: Proposed Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
Jan. 23, 2009, granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement in the New England Carpenters I civil action against
McKesson Corp.

The civil action pending against the company in the U.S.
District Court, District of Massachusetts is styled, "New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First
DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation, (Civil Action No. 1:05-
CV-11148-PBS)."

On Aug. 7, 2008, the court issued its order denying plaintiffs
motion to certify a class made up of uninsured consumers who
paid "usual and customary" prices for prescription drugs from
Aug. 1, 2001 through the present, although the court did so
"without prejudice" to the plaintiffs renewing their motion at a
future date based on new facts developed in ongoing discovery.

Expert discovery is ongoing, and in connection with those
proceedings plaintiffs have produced a report which claims total
damages through March 15, 2005, for the third party payor class
and the consumer percentage co-pay class of US$5.6 billion,
inclusive of prejudgment interest.

As a subset of this total, the plaintiffs' report claims damages
for the respective certified class periods scheduled for trial
of US$3.7 billion for the third party payor class, and US$150
million for the consumer percentage co-pay class, both amounts
inclusive of prejudgment interest.

The certified third party payor and percentage co-pay consumer
class claims are based on alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

On Nov. 21, 2008, the company announced in a filing on Form 8-K
that an agreement had been entered into to settle all private
party claims relating to First DataBank Inc.'s published drug
reimbursement benchmarks, commonly referred to as Average
Wholesale Price.  The settled private party claims include the
action filed against the company in the New England Carpenters I
civil action, including the class of uninsured consumers who
paid usual and customary prices for prescription drugs.

That settlement, which is subject to preliminary and final
approval by the U.S. District Court, provides for a release by
all class members of the Company as to all matters alleged, or
which could have been alleged, in these private party actions.
The consideration for the settlement is $350 million, payable
into a settlement escrow in installments following preliminary
and final approvals of the settlement.  As a result, during the
third quarter of 2009, the company recorded a $350 million pre-
tax charge for its AWP-related private party actions.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement but has not yet set a hearing date regarding
final approval of the settlement, according to the company's
Jan. 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry. The Company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MCKESSON CORP: San Francisco Health Plan's Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit tagged, "San Francisco Health Plan et al
v. McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:08-CA-10843-PBS,"
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

On May 20, 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed by the San
Francisco Health Plan, on behalf of itself and a purported class
of political subdivisions in the State of California and by the
San Francisco City Attorney on behalf of the "People of the
State of California" in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against the company as the sole defendant.

The action alleges violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the California Cartwright Act,
California False Claims Act and California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The plaintiffs seek damages, treble damages, civil penalties,
restitution, interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified
amounts.

On July 3, 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the San
Francisco action adding a claim for tortious interference.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the District Court entered an order staying
the class-action suit.

The action is based on factual allegations substantially
identical to those asserted in the civil action styled, "New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First
DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:05-
CV-11148-PBS."

No updates regarding the lawsuit were disclosed by the company
in its Jan. 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry. The Company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MEDICAL INFORMATION: Ruling on Motions in "Hubert" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on the class certification and summary judgment
motions in a lawsuit filed against Medical Information
Technology, Inc.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Michael Hubert, a former Meditech employee,
filed a complaint against the Medical Information Technology
Profit Sharing Plan; A. Neil Pappalardo, its Trustee and company
director; and five other company directors -- Lawrence A.
Polimeno, Roland L. Driscoll, Edward B. Roberts, Morton E.
Ruderman and L.P. Dan Valente.

The complaint is purportedly brought on the plaintiff's own
behalf and on behalf of a purported class consisting of "all
participants in the [Plan] who have received any distribution
since Jan. 1, 1998 and who did not receive the fair value of
their benefits."  It alleges that:

      -- the Trustee and Directors are fiduciaries of the
         Plan in valuing Meditech's common stock for purposes of
         redemption and payment of a participant's benefits
         under the Plan;

      -- the Directors, in connection with an annual
         contribution of the company's common stock to the Plan,
         have undervalued the company's common stock and have
         not paid retiring or terminating participants in the
         Plan the fair value of their interests in the Plan;

      -- Meditech's founders and controlling shareholders,
         including some of the Directors, have been buyers of
         Meditech common stock and have benefited from the low
         price established by Mr. Pappalardo and approved
         without adequate care by the other Directors;

      -- Mr. Pappalardo is not independent and that neither
         he nor the other Directors have relied upon an
         independent appraiser;

      -- by failing to fairly value the benefits due each
         employee participating in the Plan upon his or her
         termination, all of the defendants violated their
         fiduciary duties to the participants of the Plan and
         that as a result, the Plaintiff and members of the
         purported class are due benefits from the Plan; and

      -- the Directors violated fiduciary duties to the
         participants of the Plan in violation of the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, a judgment
against the defendants, a permanent injunction ordering the Plan
to consult an outside appraiser in valuing the plan's assets,
removal of Mr. Pappalardo as the Plan Trustee, and damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 20, 2006, the judge dismissed the breach of fiduciary
duty claims brought against the individual defendants.

The remaining claim is an ERISA benefits claim against the plan,
the plan's trustee, and the company.  The judge did not rule on
the plaintiff's request for the complaint to be a class action.

In March 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for the
complaint to be certified as a class action.  Subsequently, the
plaintiff requested reconsideration of the decision, which was
also denied.

The plaintiff then sought permission to appeal the decision in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  In July 2007
this was also denied.  Discovery was closed on Nov. 27, 2007.

In March 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification, which the defendants have opposed.  In April
2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which
the plaintiffs have also opposed.

A hearing on the class certification and summary judgment
motions took place on June 17, 2008.  The result is still
pending, according to the company's Jan. 30, 2009 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Hubert v. Medical Information Technology Profit
Sharing Plan, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-10269-RWZ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya
W. Zobel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael A. Collora, Esq. (mcollora@dwyercollora.com)
          Dwyer & Collora, LLP
          Federal Reserve Bldg., 600 Atlantic Ave., 12th Floor,
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: 617-371-1002
          Fax: 617-371-1037

Representing the defendants is:

          Kevin P. Martin, Esq. (Kmartin@goodwinprocter.com)
          Goodwin Proctor, LLP
          Phone: 617-570-1000
          Fax: 617-523-1231


NOBU RESTAURANT: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Tips With Waiters, Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actor Robert De Niro's Nobu restaurant chain will settle a
lawsuit over tips with waiters and staff at three of his New
York establishments for $2.5 million, Christine Kearney of
Reuters reports.

Reuters reported that the settlement comes after two waiters
sued in 2007 on behalf of hundreds of workers at three of the
exclusive Japanese restaurants.  The workers claimed that they
were forced to share tips with management and the chain failed
to pay overtime.

Nobu, which Mr. De Niro partly owns with chef Nobu Matsuhisa and
others, opened in New York's Tribeca area in 1994.  It has since
expanded to 16 places around the globe.

Court papers filed on Jan. 29, 2009 stated that the settlement
covers Nobu, Nobu 57 and Nobu Next Door, all in New York.  It
also stated that current employees and ex-employees who worked
there between August 2001 and August 2008 will receive an
average of $3,300 each.

A hearing to approve the Nobu settlement is set for Feb. 6,
2009, according to the Reuters report.


PARKER-HANNIFIN: Certification Bid in Price-Fixing Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motions for class certification in an amended consolidated
class-action suit accusing Parker-Hannifin Corp. and Parker ITR
SLR of "conspiring to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices
of Marine Hose," remains pending.

Marine Hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transport oil
between ships, terminals, buoys and tanks (Class Action
Reporter, May 14, 2008).

Initially, four purported class-action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida:

       -- "Shipyard Supply LLC v. Bridgestone Corporation, et
          al.," filed May 17, 2007;

       -- "Expro Gulf Limited v. Bridgestone Corporation, et
          al.," filed June 6, 2007;

       -- "Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Trelleborg
          Industrie S.A., et al.," filed June 25, 2007;

       -- "Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Caleca, et al.,
          filed July 12, 2007; and

One suit -- "Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Bridgestone Corporation, et
al." -- was filed in the Southern District of New York on July
27, 2007.

The company is named as a defendant in one case and it filed an
answer in that matter.  Parker ITR filed a motion to dismiss
each of the four cases in which it is a defendant.  However,
these dismissal motions were denied as moot after all five cases
were consolidated in the Southern District of Florida as 08-MDL-
1888.

On March 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action complaint that alleges that the defendants, for a period
of approximately 21 years, conspired with competitors in
unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and
customers for marine oil and gas hose in the U.S.

On Sept. 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint that alleges that the defendants, for a
period of approximately 21 years, conspired with competitors in
unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and
customers for marine oil and gas hose in the United States.

The plaintiffs generally seek treble damages, a permanent
injunction, attorneys' fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

Currently pending before the court are motions to approve the
settlement agreement between the Company, Parker ITR and the
plaintiffs and to grant plaintiffs motion for class
certification, according to its Jan. 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company has a reserve of $16.1 million
for known and potential civil damages.

Parker-Hannifin Corp. -- http://www.parker.com/-- is a full-
line diversified manufacturer of motion control products,
including fluid power systems, electromechanical controls and
related components.  In addition to motion control products, the
Company also is a producer of fluid purification, fluid and fuel
control, process instrumentation, air conditioning,
refrigeration, electromagnetic shielding and thermal management
products and systems.  Its manufacturing, service, distribution
and administrative facilities are located in 35 states and in 42
foreign countries.  Its motion control technology is used in the
products of its three principal business segments: Industrial,
Aerospace, and Climate & Industrial Controls.  The products are
sold as original and replacement equipment through product and
distribution centers worldwide.  Parker products are supplied to
over 427,000 customers in manufacturing, transportation and
processing industry.


PFIZER INC: Face Securities Fraud Litigation Over Celebrex Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. faces a securities fraud class-action suit that is
accusing a company it acquired in 2003 of making materially
false statements about a clinical study of blockbuster anti-
inflammatory drug Celebrex, Law360 reports.

According to the Law360 report, the shareholders alleged that
Pharmacia Corp., which merged with Pfizer in 2003, made
misstatements and omissions about the painkiller drug, Celebrex.

The plaintiffs specifically alleged that defendants were aware
of medical studies that showed increased risk of cardiovascular
problems, including heart attacks or strokes, among persons who
took Celebrex.


SOURCECORP INC: Seeks Preliminary OK for $3M Deal in Texas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit brought by shareholders
of SourceCorp Inc. over losses stemming from an alleged illegal
accounting scheme is asking the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas to grant preliminary approval of a $3
million settlement with the only remaining defendant, Law360
reports.

In motion filed on Jan. 29, 2009, counsel for the plaintiffs
asked the court to give the green light for the settlement,
according to Law360.


TYSON FOODS: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Suit Over Soggy Chicken
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. tentatively settled a purported class-action
suit in Madison County Circuit Court that accuses it of reaping
unjust profit by selling soggy chickens, Steve Korris of St.
Clair Record reports.

Stephen Tillery, Esq., attorney for the plaintiffs, and Tyson
Foods notified Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn
on Jan. 27, 2009 that they reached agreement.

The St. Clair Record reported that Judge Mendelsohn then set a
Feb. 5, 2009 hearing on a joint motion for preliminary approval.

Timothy Rogers sued Tyson in 2001, claiming it purposely soaked
chickens in water to add weight.  The suit claimed that
customers paid the same price per pound for the extra water as
they paid for the bird itself, according to the St. Clair Record
reports.


WELLS FARGO: Hagens Berman Files Ariz. Lawsuit Over Appraisals
--------------------------------------------------------------
     PHOENIX, Feb. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Two homeowners in Phoenix
recently filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) and its
appraisal subsidiary Rels Valuation, claiming the mortgage giant
illegally rigged the appraisal process and referred appraisal
business to its subsidiary in a scheme to boost profits at the
expense of homeowners.

     The lawsuit, filed under the Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Practices Act (RICO), the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and state law, claims that Wells Fargo
requires homeowners to use Rels Valuation for appraisals.  In
return, Rels Valuation gives Wells Fargo visibility into and
control over the appraisal process.

     The suit claims Rels Valuation subcontracts the work to
independent appraisers, demanding large price concessions then
charges homeowners more than double the actual cost of the
appraisal.

     Tapping the market power from the thousands of loans made
by Wells Fargo, the suit alleges Rels Valuation requires
appraisers to agree to a fee well below market, but it does not
pass any savings along to consumers. Instead, borrowers receive
an inflated bill from Rels Valuation with no disclosure to the
homeowner that the bulk of the fee is simply a markup - a fee
for no services rendered, the suit claims.

     The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, seeks
to represent all homeowners who purchased or refinanced their
home through Wells Fargo and Rels Valuation, and asks the court
to award plaintiffs damages.

     "We believe Wells Fargo and Rels Valuation are operating
this scheme on a national level," said Rob Carey, partner at
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.  "With home lending operations
across the country, tens if not hundreds of thousands of
homeowners may be affected."

     The lawsuit alleges defendants netted more than one hundred
million dollars in phony and unearned fees through the appraisal
fee scheme.

     The lawsuit claims the practices may affect upwards of
hundreds of thousands of home loan customers.  Multiply that by
an inflated fee of $200 per transaction and over the course of a
year Wells Fargo sees an additional $20 million or more for no
work completed, the lawsuit alleges.

     "Homeowners are feeling the crunch of the housing market
nationwide and inflated charging schemes put homeowners at a
huge disadvantage with the sole intention of inflating profits
for the banks and lenders," said Carey.  "Not only is it
illegal, but it's unethical to prey on customers through the
foggy channels and requirements within the home loan process."

     The plaintiffs, Grant and Lanie Gomez of Arizona,
refinanced their home in March 2007.  Wells Fargo required them
to use Rels Valuation for their home appraisal.  In the
company's good faith estimate, Wells Fargo disclosed its
relationship with Rels Valuation and estimated appraisal charges
would range from $50 to $650.

     The complaint states the Gomez's received an appraisal fee
of $495 from Rels Valuation. The suit alleges Rels Valuation
does not appraise properties and instead hired a third party to
complete the work for $200 or less.

     Rels Valuation only hires appraisers who accept $250 or
less on an appraisal, the suit alleges, they then submit a bill
to Wells Fargo for an amount that exceeds $350.

     The lawsuit cites violations of federal law under RICO and
RESPA.  Other counts include unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty and violation of California unfair competition
law.

For more details, contact:

          Rob Carey (Rob@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (602) 840-5900


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BEACON ASSOCIATES: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 02, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against defendants Beacon Associates Management Corp. ("Beacon
Associates"), Joel Danziger, Esq. ("Danziger"), Harris Markhoff,
Esq. ("Markhoff"), Ivy Asset Management Corp. ("Ivy Asset
Management"), the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation ("BONY"),
Friedberg Smith & Co., P.C. ("Friedberg Smith") and John Does 1-
100 (collectively, the "Defendants"), on behalf of all persons,
other than Defendants, who invested in Beacon Associates LLC I
(the "Fund") from August 9, 2004 until the present (the "Class
Period"), and derivatively on behalf of the nominal defendant,
Beacon Associates LLC I, to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and common
law claims, including breach of fiduciary duties.

     The case name is styled, "Cacoulidis v. Beacon Associates
Management Corp., et al., 09 civ. 00777."

     The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period,
unbeknownst to investors, Defendant Beacon Associates, the
Managing Member of the Fund, concentrated more than half of the
Fund's investment capital with entities managed by Bernard
Madoff ("Madoff") or Madoff-related entities.

     Investors who entrusted their savings to Beacon Associates
suffered millions in damages as a result of Madoff's fraudulent
scheme.

     This Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to perform
the necessary due diligence that they were being compensated to
perform as investment advisors, managers and fiduciaries, and
proximately caused millions of dollars in losses.  Defendants
either knew or should have known that the Fund's assets were
employed as part of a massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by
Madoff. Defendants ignored numerous red flags, including the
abnormally high and stable positive investment results
reportedly achieved by Madoff regardless of market conditions;
inconsistencies between Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities,
LLC's ("BMIS") publicly available financial information
concerning its assets and the purported amounts that Madoff
managed for clients; and the fact that BMIS was audited by a
small, obscure accounting firm.

     Additionally, Defendants Beacon Associates, Danziger and
Markhoff issued an Offering Memorandum that was false and
misleading because it falsely stated that the Fund's assets
would be invested in a number of investment vehicles, including
a "Large Cap Strategy adopted by Beacon Associates itself, when
in reality, unbeknownst to investors, the vast majority of the
assets in the Fund were invested in Madoff-controlled entities.

     The Offering Memorandum also falsely stated that Beacon
Associates would monitor the Fund's performance as well as the
performance of each third party manager of the Fund's assets, to
ensure that they adhered to their stated investment objectives.

     Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Beacon Associates,
Danziger, Markhoff, and Ivy Asset Management, with no or
inadequate due diligence or oversight, abdicated their
responsibilities and entrusted the Fund's assets to Madoff-run
investment vehicles. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant
Friedberg Smith failed to conduct a proper audit of the Fund's
financial statements. Finally, Plaintiffs allege aiding and
abetting claims against Ivy Asset Management and BONY.

     Plaintiffs have alleged claims on behalf of the Class for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5, as well as common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence and mismanagement,
unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting claims.  Plaintiffs
are also suing derivatively on behalf of the Fund for breach of
fiduciary duty, gross negligence and mismanagement, unjust
enrichment, and aiding and abetting.

For more details, contact:

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


TRIAD GUARANTY: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Feb 2, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Triad Guaranty Inc. ("Triad") between October 26, 2006 and
November 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Triad's business, financial performance and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Triad
securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.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  * * *