CAR_Public/090205.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 5, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 25

                           Headlines

ALTRIA GROUP: 18 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending at Jan. 22
ALTRIA GROUP: Engle Class Member's Extension Bid Denied in Jan.
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Suit by Smokers Seeking Medical Monitoring
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Continues to Face "Lights" Suit in Israel
ALTRIA GROUP: To Appeal Ruling in "Scott" Smoking & Health Suit

ALTRIA GROUP: Two Smoking & Health Cases Pending in N.Y. & Mass.
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: California Employees File Suit for Paychecks
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging ERISA Violations
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Stock-Drop Suit in N.Y. Over Acquisitions
CA INC: Oral Arguments on Wyly Litigants Appeals Set for March 9

INDEVUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Del. Litigation Over Endo Merger
INTERWOVEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Investor Suit Filing
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Feb. 6 Hearing Set for Demurrer to "Crimi" Suit
KLA-TENCOR Corp: Seeks Nixing of Claim in Del. Derivative Suit
OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Wisconsin

PREMIERE GLOBAL: Settlement of "Gibson" Lawsuit Pending Approval
VERTRUE INC: Faces Deceptive Marketing Suit Over Infomercials
VISTAPRINT LTD: Suits Over Membership Discounts Pending in Texas


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Stull Stull Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
GSI GROUP: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Coughlin Stoia Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Glancy Binkow Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

ALTRIA GROUP: 18 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending at Jan. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen "Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions are pending against
Altria Group, Inc., and its subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc.
(PM USA), in various jurisdictions in the United States.

The plaintiffs in these class actions (some of which have not
been certified as such), allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or RICO
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages.

These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in
certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on
behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands
of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights.

Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the
statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and implied
preemption by the policies and directives of the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC"), non-liability under state statutory
provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal
regulatory directives, and the First Amendment.

As of Jan. 22, 2009, eighteen cases are pending as follows:
Arkansas (2), Delaware (1), Florida (1), Illinois (2), Maine
(1), Massachusetts (1), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), New
Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New Mexico (1), New York (1),
Oregon (1), Tennessee (1), and West Virginia (2).

Other entities have stated that they are considering filing such
actions against Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA, according to the
company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2009.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.  In March 2008, the Company completed the spin-off of
Philip Morris International Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  In
January 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of UST Inc.


ALTRIA GROUP: Engle Class Member's Extension Bid Denied in Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Supreme Court, on Jan. 7, 2009, denied the petition
by the attorneys for a putative former Engle class member to
permit members of the class additional time to file individual
lawsuits, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on Jan. 29, 2009.

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and
health class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict
assessing punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion
against various defendants, including $74 billion against the
company's subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA).

Following entry of judgment, PM USA posted a bond in the amount
of $100 million and appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing
that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle
judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other
participating defendants through the completion of all judicial
review.

In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed
the judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial
court to order the decertification of the class.  Plaintiffs
petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the
punitive damages award be vacated, that the class approved by
the trial court be decertified, and that members of the
decertified class could file individual actions against
defendants within one year of issuance of the mandate.

In February 2008, PM USA paid a total of $2,964,685, which
represents its share of compensatory damages and interest to the
two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme
Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling
that certain jury findings have res judicata effect in
subsequent individual trials timely brought by Engle class
members.  The rehearing motion also asked, among other things,
that legal errors that were raised but not expressly ruled upon
in the Third District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme
Court now be addressed.  Plaintiffs also filed a motion for
rehearing in August 2006 seeking clarification of the
applicability of the statute of limitations to non-members of
the decertified class.

In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise
its July 2006 ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I
findings entitled to res judicata effect by excluding the
finding relating to agreement to misrepresent information, and
added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the
representations of fact made by defendants.  In January 2007,
the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from its revised
opinion.

Defendants then filed a motion with the Florida Third District
Court of Appeal requesting that the court address legal errors
that were previously raised by defendants but have not yet been
addressed either by the Third District Court of Appeal or by the
Florida Supreme Court.  In February 2007, the Third District
Court of Appeal denied defendants' motion.

In May 2007, defendants' motion for a partial stay of the
mandate pending the completion of appellate review was denied by
the Third District Court of Appeal.  In May 2007, defendants
filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court.  In October 2007, the Supreme Court denied defendants'
petition.  In November 2007, the Supreme Court denied
defendants' petition for rehearing from the denial of their
petition for writ of certiorari.

In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class except
for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally
vacated the punitive damage award pursuant to the Florida
Supreme Court's mandate.

In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain defendants,
including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to allocation of
the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond stipulation and will
receive no credit at this time from the $500 million paid by PM
USA against any future punitive damages awards in cases brought
by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified
the limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle.  The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice.

In July 2008, attorneys for a putative former Engle class member
petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to permit members of the
Engle class additional time to file individual lawsuits.  The
Florida Supreme Court denied this petition on Jan. 7, 2009.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.  In March 2008, the Company completed the spin-off of
Philip Morris International Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  In
January 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of UST Inc.


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Suit by Smokers Seeking Medical Monitoring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., and its subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc.
(PM USA), face a purported class action filed on behalf of a
purported class of cigarette smokers who seek medical monitoring
(Peoples).

On Nov. 17, 2008, the purported class action naming PM USA,
Altria Group, and the other major cigarette manufacturers as
defendants was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs allege that the tobacco companies conspired to
convince the National Cancer Institute ("NCI") to not recommend
spiral CT scans to screen for lung cancer and plaintiffs assert
claims based on defendants' purported violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").

The complaint identifies the purported class as all residents of
the State of Georgia who, by virtue of their age and history of
smoking cigarettes, are at increased risk for developing lung
cancer; are fifty years of age or older; have cigarette smoking
histories of 20 pack-years or more; and are covered by an
insurance company, Medicare, Medicaid or a third party medical
payor.

The plaintiffs seek relief in the form of the creation of a fund
for medical monitoring and punitive damages, according to the
company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2009.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.  In March 2008, the Company completed the spin-off of
Philip Morris International Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  In
January 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of UST Inc.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Continues to Face "Lights" Suit in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM
USA), as of Dec. 31, 2008, is a named defendant in a "Lights"
class action in Israel.

In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2008, PM USA is a named defendant in
a health care cost recovery action in Israel.

PM USA is a named defendant in two health care cost recovery
actions in Canada, one of which also names Altria Group, Inc. as
a defendant.

The class action suit alleges that the uses of the terms
"Lights" and "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair
trade practices, common law fraud, or violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

No further detailks regarding the lawsuits were provided by the
company in its Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2009.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.  In March 2008, the Company completed the spin-off of
Philip Morris International Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  In
January 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of UST Inc.


ALTRIA GROUP: To Appeal Ruling in "Scott" Smoking & Health Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the "Scott" class action, including Altria
Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA), have
been granted permission to appeal, according to the company's
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2009.

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the
Scott class action, in which plaintiffs sought creation of a
fund to pay for medical monitoring and smoking cessation
programs, a Louisiana jury returned a verdict in favor of
defendants, including PM USA, in connection with plaintiffs'
medical monitoring claims, but also found that plaintiffs could
benefit from smoking cessation assistance.  The jury also found
that cigarettes as designed are not defective but that the
defendants failed to disclose all they knew about smoking and
diseases and marketed their products to minors.

In May 2004, in the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded
plaintiffs approximately $590 million against all defendants
jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation
program.

In June 2004, the court entered judgment, which awarded
plaintiffs the approximately $590 million jury award plus
prejudgment interest accruing from the date the suit commenced.
PM USA's share of the jury award and prejudgment interest has
not been allocated.  Defendants, including PM USA, appealed.

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the trial court
entered an order setting the amount of the bond at $50 million
for all defendants in accordance with an article of the
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and a Louisiana statute (the
"bond cap law"), fixing the amount of security in civil cases
involving a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement.

In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal issued a ruling
on defendants' appeal that, among other things: affirmed class
certification but limited the scope of the class; struck certain
of the categories of damages included in the judgment, reducing
the amount of the award by approximately $312 million; vacated
the award of prejudgment interest, which totaled approximately
$444 million as of Feb. 15, 2007; and ruled that the only class
members who are eligible to participate in the smoking cessation
program are those who began smoking before, and whose claims
accrued by, Sept. 1, 1988.  As a result, the Louisiana Court of
Appeal remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its
opinion, including further reduction of the amount of the award
based on the size of the new class.

In March 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal rejected
defendants' motion for rehearing and clarification.

In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied plaintiffs'
and defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari.  Following the
Louisiana Supreme Court's denial of defendants' petition for
writ of certiorari, PM USA recorded a provision of $26 million
in connection with the case.

In March 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to execute the
approximately $279 million judgment plus post-judgment interest
or, in the alternative, for an order to the parties to submit
revised damages figures.  Defendants filed a motion to have
judgment entered in favor of defendants based on accrual of all
class member claims after Sept. 1, 1988 or, in the alternative,
for the entry of a case management order.

In April 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied defendants'
motion to stay proceedings and the defendants filed a petition
for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendant's
petition.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to enter judgment in the amount of
approximately $280 million (subsequently changed to
approximately $264 million) and defendants filed a motion to
enter judgment in their favor dismissing the case entirely or,
alternatively, to enter a case management order for a new trial.

In July 2008, the trial court entered an Amended Judgment and
Reasons for Judgment denying both motions, but ordering
defendants to deposit into the registry of the court the sum of
$263,532,762 plus post-judgment interest of $87.7 million (as of
Dec. 31, 2008) while stating, however, that the judgment award
"may be satisfied with something less than a full cash payment
now" and that the court would "favorably consider" returning
unused funds annually to defendants if monies allocated for that
year were not fully expended.

In September 2008, defendants filed an application for writ of
mandamus or supervisory writ to secure the right to appeal with
the Louisiana Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appellate court, on Nov. 17, 2008, granted the defendants'
writ and directed the trial court to enter an order permitting
the appeal and to set the appeal bond in accordance with
Louisiana law.  Plaintiffs' supervisory writ petition to the
Louisiana Supreme Court was denied on Dec. 10, 2008.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the trial court entered an order permitting
the appeal and approving a $50 million bond for all defendants
in accordance with the Louisiana "bond cap law."

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.  In March 2008, the Company completed the spin-off of
Philip Morris International Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  In
January 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of UST Inc.


ALTRIA GROUP: Two Smoking & Health Cases Pending in N.Y. & Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported smoking and health class actions are pending in
New York and Massachusetts against Altria Group, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA), according to the
company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2009.

The purported class actions against PM USA have been brought on
behalf of each state's respective residents who: are age 50 or
older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more;
and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under
investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer.

The lawsuits are:

   (1) Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the U.S. District Court
       for the Eastern District of New York; and

   (2) Donovan, filed in December 2006, in the U.S. District
       Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under
various product-based causes of action and the creation of a
court- supervised program providing members of the purported
class Low Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose
lung cancer.  Neither claim seeks punitive damages.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendant's
motion for summary judgment are pending in Caronia.

Defendants' motions for summary judgment and judgment on the
pleadings and plaintiffs' motion for class certification are
pending in Donovan.

In Donovan, the district court entered an order on Dec. 31,
2008, expressing an intention to certify questions to the
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts regarding the medical
monitoring and statute of limitations issues.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.  In March 2008, the Company completed the spin-off of
Philip Morris International Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  In
January 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of UST Inc.


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: California Employees File Suit for Paychecks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applebee's International, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action suit in California by Ventura County Applebee's employees
who are seeking for their final paychecks after being laid off,
KEY News Ventura County Bureau Chief Tracy Lehr report.

Former employees at restaurant franchises in Ventura, Camarillo,
Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks say they were among the last to
learn that their locations were closing down two weeks ago.

This week, many of the staff received letters saying that
franchise owner John Gantes lacks the money to issue final
paychecks because of the economy, according to the KEY News
report.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Feb. 3, 2009 /PRNewswire/ -- Bank of America
(NYSE: BAC) employees earlier this week filed a class-action
lawsuit against their employer and other 401(k) Plan
fiduciaries, claiming the banking giant misled them and other
shareholders about the impact of its Dec. 5, 2008 acquisition of
Merrill Lynch, a move that the suit claims caused BAC shares to
plunge in value, causing the employees' retirement fund to lose
hundreds of millions of dollars.

     A lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, claims
the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Securities
Act (ERISA) by failing to exercise the skill, care, prudence,
and diligence required in administering employee retirement
plans and assets.

     The suit claims specifically that Bank of America (BoA)
proxy statements, sent to all BoA shareholders including
employees who participated in the company's retirement plan,
significantly overvalued Merrill Lynch's assets and did not
disclose many aspects of the teetering investment-bank's
financial condition.

     Reports indicate BoA CEO Ken Lewis repeatedly assured
employees that all was well with the company -- even on the eve
of the stunning announcements that would send BAC shares
tumbling.

     "The law is clear that the fiduciary's obligation to
protect employees' retirement funds is the highest under the
law," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro.  "It is clear to us that the defendants failed in that
responsibility by a long, long way."

     Late last month, Bank of America stock dropped 50 percent
from $10.20 a share on Jan. 14, 2009 to $5.10 a share on Jan.
20, 2009.  Since September 2008, company stock has seen a total
drop of 80 percent causing hundreds of millions of dollars in
losses to the company's 401(k) plan.

     Amidst the collapse on Jan. 15, 2009, BoA issued a memo to
employee plan participants claiming, "The core of our company,
Bank of America, remains strong.  We are one of the world's
leading financial institutions with broad earnings diversity and
a large growing deposit base."

     In September 2008, Bank of America began talks with Merrill
Lynch regarding an acquisition.  Less than two days after talks
began, BoA announced the acquisition and assured investors,
including plan participants, that the company conducted due
diligence in reviewing risks.

     In November 2008, all shareholders, including employee Plan
participants, received a detailed proxy statement urging
shareholders to vote in favor of the acquisition. According to
the lawsuit, the proxy contained material misstatements and
omissions while significantly overvaluing Merrill Lynch's
assets.

     Leading up to the stock's largest collapse in January,
stockholders and employees learned the company would receive a
$20 billion investment in preferred stock from the federal
government.  Unfortunately, that same day the company announced
fourth quarter losses of $1.79 billion and a shocking $15.31
billion fourth quarter net loss from Merrill Lynch, its recently
acquired asset.

     Under ERISA law, breaching fiduciaries have an obligation
to restore to the plan any losses resulting from their breaches.
The lawsuit claims this responsibility falls on the company, its
CEO and Chairman, Kenneth Lewis, the company's corporate
benefits committee and the company's directors.

     The employee 401(k) plan consists of two components, the
employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) and the profit-sharing
portion. All employees at Bank of America and its subsidiaries
are eligible for enrollment and participation.

     As of December 31, 2007, the plan held about 75 million
shares of BoA common stock, with a market value of $ 3 billion.
According to BoA reports in early 2007, more than 200,000
employees participated in the plan.

     The lawsuit seeks to represents all plan participants from
Sept. 15, 2008 until present whose accounts included investments
in company stock.

For more details, contact:

          Steve Berman (Steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/bacerisa


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Stock-Drop Suit in N.Y. Over Acquisitions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit in
New York alleging that the company's acquisitions of Countrywide
Financial Corp. and Merrill Lynch left BoA exposed to "toxic"
subprime mortgage-related assets, Fred Schneyer of
Planadviser.com reports.

The participant stock-drop suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 29, 2009 by
BoA employee Vernon C. Dailey under the caption, "Dailey v. Bank
of America Corp., S.D.N.Y., No. 1:09-cv-00851-JGK."  It seeks
class-action status and charges that the plan kept company stock
as a 401(k) investment option beyond the point when it was still
prudent to do so.

According to the complaint, throughout the suggested class
period from Jan. 11, 2008, to the present, the plan included
stock as an investment option and the plan held over $3 billion
in BoA stock, which represented nearly 32% of the plan's total
investments as of Dec. 31, 2007, reports Planadviser.com.

Mr. Dailey alleged in his lawsuit that BoA breached its Employee
Retirement Income Security Act on 1974 fiduciary duties by
making misrepresentations about the company's failure to
adequately assess the merits of BoA's acquisition of both
Countrywide and Merrill.

According to the complaint, "[T]he plan's fiduciaries knew or
should have known that, as a result of the acquisition of these
two toxic 'black boxes,' the financial health of BOA was in
serious doubt and that allowing Plan Participants to continue to
invest their retirement savings in BOA stock in the wake of
these acquisitions was imprudent."

Planadviser.com reported that Mr. Dailey also alleged in the
lawsuit that BoA's Countrywide acquisition in January 2008
catapulted BoA from the fifth largest mortgage originator and
sixth largest mortgage to the top of both originating and
servicing lists when the U.S. housing market had begun its
collapse.

In addition, the complaint alleged that BoA only carried out two
days worth of due diligence for its agreement to acquire Merrill
for $50 billion worth of BoA stock.

Shortly after the Merrill acquisition, BoA announced it would be
required to accept money from the federal government's bailout
package in exchange for preferred stock of the company. BoA
claimed the federal bailout was necessary to "backstop future
losses" on $118 billion in "toxic assets" it had acquired
primarily from Merrill's portfolio, reports Planadviser.com.

The defendants breached their fiduciary duties by encouraging
BoA workers to put money into BoA stock and failing to give the
employees accurate information about the "grave risks posed by
BoA's reckless acquisitions of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch,"
the lawsuit alleged, according to the Planadviser.com report.


CA INC: Oral Arguments on Wyly Litigants Appeals Set for March 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeals by Sam Wyly and certain related parties from the
court-approved settlement of stockholder class-action lawsuits
against CA, Inc. that were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York are expected to be scheduled
for oral argument for the week of March 9, 2009, according to
CA, Inc.'s Jan. 30, 2008 Form 10- filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The company, its former Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang, its
former Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar, its former Chief Financial
Officer Ira Zar, and its Vice Chairman and Founder Russell M.
Artzt were defendants in one or more stockholder class-action
lawsuits filed in July 1998, February 2002, and March 2002 in
the Federal Court, alleging, among other things, that a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's Common
Stock during the period from Jan. 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998
were harmed by misleading statements, misrepresentations, and
omissions regarding the Company's future financial performance.

In addition, in May 2003, a class-action lawsuit captioned,
"John A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et
al.," was filed in the Federal Court.

The complaint in this matter, a purported class action on behalf
of the CA Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the
participants in, and beneficiaries of, the CASH Plan for a class
period from March 30, 1998 through May 30, 2003, asserted claims
of breach of fiduciary duty under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The named defendants were the Company, the Company's Board of
Directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative Committee of the
CASH Plan, and certain current or former employees and/or former
directors of the Company: Messrs. Wang, Kumar, Zar, Artzt, Peter
A. Schwartz, and Charles P. McWade; and various unidentified
alleged fiduciaries of the CASH Plan.

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company
securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On Aug. 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of the
class-action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors, alleging misleading
statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the
Company's financial performance, as well as breaches of
fiduciary duty.

As part of the class action settlement, which was approved by
the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company agreed to issue
a total of up to 5.7 million shares of Common Stock to the
stockholders represented in the three class action lawsuits,
including payment of attorneys' fees.

The Company has completed the issuance of the settlement shares
as well as payment of US$3.3 million to the plaintiffs'
attorneys in legal fees and related expenses.

On Dec. 7, 2004, a motion to vacate the Order of Final Judgment
and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in
connection with the settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder
lawsuits was filed by the Wyly Litigants.

The motion sought to reopen the settlement to permit the moving
stockholders to pursue individual claims against certain present
and former officers of the Company.  The motion stated that the
moving stockholders did not seek to file claims against the
Company.

In a memorandum and order dated Aug. 2, 2007, the Federal Court
denied all of the 60(b) Motions and reaffirmed the 2003
settlements.  On Aug. 24, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices
of appeal of the August 2 decision.  On Aug. 16, 2007, the
Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to amend or clarify
the August 2 decision, and the Company joined that motion.  On
Sept. 12 and Oct. 4, 2007, the Federal Court issued opinions
denying the motions to amend or clarify.  On Sept. 18, 2007, the
Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the September 12
decision.  The Company filed notices of cross-appeal of the
September 12 and October 4 decisions on Nov. 2, 2007.

On July 28, 2008, the Wyly Litigants served their opening
briefs. On Sept. 11, 2008, the Company filed its brief in
opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals.  Also on Sept. 11,
2008, current CA director The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato and
former CA directors Richard Grasso, Shirley Strum Kenny, Jay
Lorsch, Roel Pieper, Lewis Ranieri, Walter Schuetze, Willem F.P.
de Vogel and Charles Wang filed briefs in opposition to the Wyly
Litigants' appeals.  On Oct. 9, 2008, the Wyly Litigants filed a
reply brief in support of their appeals in the class actions.

Islandia, N.Y.-based CA, Inc. -- http://www.ca.com/-- provides
tools for managing networks, databases, applications, storage,
security, and other systems.


INDEVUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Del. Litigation Over Endo Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Indevus Pharmaceuticals Inc. is facing proposed shareholder
class-action lawsuit that seeks to block a merger with Endo
Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., claiming Endo's $4.50 a share
offer undervalues the specialty drug company, Law360 reports.

Shareholder Stefen Hell filed the suit on Jan. 30, 2009 in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against Indevus, its directors, Endo
and BTB Purchaser Inc., the Endo subsidiary that made the
tender, according to Law360.


INTERWOVEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Announces Investor Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 3, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Levi & Korsinsky
("L&K") announces the commencement of a shareholder class action
lawsuit for breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of
state law against, inter alia, the board of directors of
Interwoven, Inc. ("Interwoven" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:IWOV)
arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to Autonomy
Corporation plc.

     Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of
Interwoven will receive $16.20 cash for each share of Interwoven
they own.  The transaction is unfair, given that, among other
things, the Company's shares traded above $16 per share as
recently as August 2008 and the Company reported significant
earnings per share improvement and a 90.5% increase in net
income in the most recent quarter as compared to the same
quarter last year.

     Also, the sales process the Company conducted was flawed
given that, in contravention of their fiduciary duties to
maximize shareholder value, the Company's Board failed to
conduct a reasonable sales process, agreed to a post-agreement
"no-solicitation" provision and agreed to a $25 million
termination fee which will ensure no superior offer will ever be
forthcoming.  The proposed acquisition is subject to customary
conditions and regulatory approvals.

For more details, contact:

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


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Feb. 6 Hearing Set for Demurrer to "Crimi" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp.'s demurrer to a purported class-action lawsuit
that was recently remanded back to the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara is scheduled
to be heard on Feb. 6, 2009.

The plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed the putative class-action
complaint on Sept. 4, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Santa Clara against the company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of persons
who held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002, and
Sept. 27, 2006.

The suit alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty
and rescission based on alleged misstatements and omissions in
the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning the company's past stock option grants.
It seeks unspecified damages based upon purported dilution of
the company's stock, injunctive relief, and rescission.

Aside from the company, the defendants named in the suit are:

   -- Edward W. Barnholt,
   -- H. Raymond Bingham,
   -- Robert T. Bond,
   -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr.,
   -- Stephen P. Kaufman,
   -- Kenneth Levy,
   -- Michael E. Marks,
   -- Dean O. Morton,
   -- Kenneth L. Schroeder,
   -- Jon D. Tompkins, and
   -- Richard P. Wallace.

The company filed a motion to stay the case pending the
resolution of other option-related litigation, as well as a
demurrer asking the court to dismiss the case on the ground that
the claims have no merit.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court sustained the company's demurrer and
granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint reasserting his original
claims and adding a claim under section 1507 of the California
Corporations Code on April 1, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the company removed the suit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.   The
Company then filed a motion to dismiss the action in the
Northern District of California, which was granted in part, with
the remaining claims being remanded back to the California
Superior Court on Sept. 12, 2008.

This litigation is at an early stage, and the individual
defendants have not yet been required to respond to the
complaint, according to the company's Jan. 29, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company has filed a demurrer to plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint, which is scheduled to be heard on Feb. 6, 2009.

The suit is "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-02249-
CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. (mweiler@morganlewis.com)
          Attorney at Law
          One Market, Spear Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Phone: 415-442-1000
          Fax: 415-442-1001


KLA-TENCOR Corp: Seeks Nixing of Claim in Del. Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp.'s motion to dismiss a putative class-action
claim brought by a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor
shareholder remains under submission, according to the company's
Jan. 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

As part of a derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Chancery
Court on July 21, 2006, which has been stayed pending a ruling
on the motion to terminate a federal derivative action, a
plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder also asserted
a separate putative class action claim against the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers.

The plaintiff alleges that shareholders incurred damage due to
purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from
historical stock option granting practices.

KLA-Tencor Corporation -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a
supplier of process control and yield management solutions for
the semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.  Its
products are also used in a number of other industries,
including light emitting diode (LED) and data storage
manufacturing, and solar process development and control.  The
Company's portfolio of products, services and software are
designed to help integrated circuit (IC) manufacturers manage
yield throughout the entire fabrication process, from research
and development to final volume production.  In June 2008, KLA-
Tencor completed its acquisition of ICOS Vision Systems
Corporation NV, a supplier of packaging and interconnect
inspection solutions for the semiconductor industry.  Its
offerings are categorized into four groups: Defect Inspection,
Metrology, Product related services and Software.  In October
2008, the Company acquired Microelectronic Inspection Equipment
(MIE) business unit of Vistec Semiconductor Systems.


OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oshkosh Corp. defends several purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, according to the company's Jan. 30, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Sept. 19, 2008, a purported shareholder of Oshkosh Corp.
filed a complaint, seeking certification of a class-action
status, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin docketed as "Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh
Corporation and Robert G. Bohn."

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially inadequate disclosures and material omissions leading
to the company's issuance of revised earnings guidance and
announcement of an impairment charge on June 26, 2008.

Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations were filed.

The suit is "Iron Workers Local No 25 Pension Fund v. Oshkosh
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00797-WEC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge
William E. Callahan, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Guri Ademi, Esq. (gademi@ademilaw.com)
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 E Layton Ave
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 414-482-8000
          Fax: 414-482-8001

               - and -

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


PREMIERE GLOBAL: Settlement of "Gibson" Lawsuit Pending Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class-action suit entitled,
"Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's
Corporation, et al.," is subject to court approval, according to
Premiere Global Services, Inc.'s Jan. 30, 2009 Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On May 18, 2007, Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc. served an
amended complaint on Premiere Global Services, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Xpedite, in the purported class-action suit pending
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The underlying complaint alleges that Quizno's sent unsolicited
fax advertisements on or about Nov. 1, 2005 in violation of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended,
and seeks damages of $1,500 per fax for alleged willful conduct
in sending of the faxes.

On June 26, 2007, the company answered the plaintiff's amended
complaint, including asserting cross-claims against the Quizno's
defendants.  On June 29, 2007, the Quizno's defendants filed
their answer and asserted cross-claims against the company.

On July 31, 2007, the court entered an order in which it granted
certain Quizno's defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the
motion with respect to other Quizno's entities.

On Sept. 7, 2007, plaintiff proceeded to file another amended
complaint against the Quizno's defendants, Growth Partners
(Quizno's consultant), and the company.

On Sept. 21, 2007, the company filed its answer and affirmative
defenses.  Certain Quizno's defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss, which was denied by the Court on Dec. 7, 2007.
Subsequently, the company filed cross-claims against the other
defendants and the Quizno's defendants filed cross-claims
against the company.

The case is in discovery, and no class has yet been certified.
The company has asserted indemnity rights against its customer
Quizno's, a defendant in this case, and insurance coverage
against its insurer.  The company's insurer has agreed to
participate in its defense in connection with the plaintiff's
claims against the company, subject to certain reservations of
rights and the terms of the policy, including policy limits and
deductibles.

On Feb. 12 and Feb. 13, 2008, the parties engaged in mediation.
The parties have reached a global settlement in principle that
should resolve all claims and cross-claims and have filed a
stipulation with the court informing the court and extending the
various deadlines.  The settlement is subject to final
documentation by the parties and approval by the court.  The
company's financial contribution to the settlement will be well
below the limits of its insurance policy.

Premiere Global Services, Inc. -- http://www.premiereglobal.com/
-- is a global provider of communication technologies-based
solutions.  The company's Premiere Global Communications
Operating System (PGiCOS), delivers multiple industry- and
function-specific business applications.  The company hosts its
applications on its enterprise-class platforms, which comprises
server and network operations centers located worldwide.
Premiere Global Services, Inc. offers access to PGiCOS through
its Web portal, PGiConnect.com, which enables customers to use
the Company's applications directly from their desktop or mobile
device.  The company's applied communication technologies are
grouped into five solution sets: Conferencing & Collaboration,
Desktop Document Solutions, Enterprise Document Solutions,
Notifications & Reminders and eMarketing.


VERTRUE INC: Faces Deceptive Marketing Suit Over Infomercials
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vertrue, Inc. is facing a purported class-action suit in Ohio
involving infomercials that was filed by a local couple and the
Cleveland law firm that represents them, Duane Pohlman of
NewsChannel5 reports.

The suit against Vertrue, which used to be known as Memberworks,
claims that some popular infomercials led to unauthorized
charges on the couple's credit card.

Rita Smith told NewsChannel5 that the ads for the high-profile
Billy Blanks workout tapes Tae Bo was irresistible, so she
called and ordered the videos.  She was pleased with the product
but when she and her husband, Preston, began reviewing their
credit card bill, they noticed something strange.

Among the bills for home improvement and health care items, they
discovered charges to Discounts USA.  It turned out they paid
hundreds of dollars for a membership in the discount club when
Mrs. Smith ordered the exercise video, reports NewsChannel5.

Attorney Jack Landskroner, Esq. filed a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of the Smiths and millions of others who he said were
lured in by the products in infomercials and billed for
something they didn't want, according to the NewsChannel5
report.


VISTAPRINT LTD: Suits Over Membership Discounts Pending in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
All outstanding purported class-action lawsuits against
VistaPrint, Ltd., and its subsidiaries in connection with
certain membership discount programs cases have been transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

                        Texas Litigation

On July 29, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against VistaPrint Corp., VistaPrint USA, Inc., Vertrue, Inc.
and Adaptive Marketing, LLC.

Adaptive Marketing, LLC is a Vertrue, Inc. company that provides
subscription-based membership discount programs, including
programs that are offered on the company's VistaPrint.com
website (Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive Marketing, LLC are sometimes
collectively referred to herein as the Vertrue Defendants).

The Texas complaint alleges that the defendants violated, among
other statutes, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices-Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Theft Liability
Act, in connection with certain membership discount programs
offered to VistaPrint customers on the company's VistaPrint.com
website.  It also seeks recovery for unjust enrichment,
conversion, and similar common law claims.

                        Other Litigation

Subsequent to the filing of the Texas complaint, on July 31,
2008, Aug. 25, 2008, Sept. 3, 2008, Sept. 10, 2008 and Sept. 11,
2008, nearly identical purported class-action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S.
District Court for the District of Florida, respectively,
against the same defendants, and in one case VistaPrint Ltd., on
behalf of different plaintiffs.

The complaints in each of these nearly identical lawsuits
include substantially the same purported Federal and common law
claims as the Texas complaint but contain different state law
claims.

                    Massachusetts Litigation

In addition, on Aug. 28, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit
asserting substantially the same Federal and common law claims
as the Texas complaint, but containing a state law claim under
the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, was filed by a
different plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, against VistaPrint Ltd., VistaPrint USA, Inc.
and the Vertrue Defendants.

Among other allegations, the plaintiffs in each action claim
that after ordering products on the company's VistaPrint.com
website they were enrolled in certain membership discount
programs operated by the Vertrue Defendants and that monthly
subscription fees for the programs were subsequently charged
directly to the credit or debit cards they used to make
purchases on VistaPrint.com, in each case purportedly without
their knowledge or authorization.

The plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed to disclose
to them that the credit or debit card information they provided
to make purchases on VistaPrint.com would be disclosed to the
Vertrue Defendants and would be used to pay for monthly
subscriptions for the membership discount programs.

The plaintiffs have requested that the Defendants be enjoined
from engaging in the practices complained of by the plaintiffs.
They also are seeking an unspecified amount of damages,
including statutory and punitive damages, as well as pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs for the purported class.

                      Recent Developments

On Sept. 8, 2008, VistaPrint USA, Inc. filed an Answer to the
Texas Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, and on Sept. 9, 2008, VistaPrint USA,
Incorporated filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Subsequently, on or about September 16, 2008, the plaintiff in
one of the cases pending before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts filed a Motion before the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking the consolidation and
transfer of pretrial proceedings in all of the outstanding cases
to the Massachusetts District Court.

Following that, on or about Sept. 24, 2008 and Sept. 25, 2008,
the Vertrue Defendants and VistaPrint USA, Incorporated and
VistaPrint Limited, respectively, filed motions before the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all of
the outstanding cases, as well as any cases subsequently filed
involving similar facts or claims, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

All of the purported class action lawsuits in which the
Defendants have been served were subsequently stayed pending
resolution of the motions for consolidation and transfer pending
before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

On Dec. 11, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ruled in favor of the motions brought by the Vertrue Defendants,
VistaPrint USA, Incorporated and the company and ordered the
transfer of all of the outstanding cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas for coordinated
pretrial proceedings, according to the company's Jan. 30, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

VistaPrint, Ltd. -- http://www.vistaprint.co.uk-- is an online
provider of coordinated portfolios of customized marketing
products and services to small businesses worldwide.  The
company offers a spectrum of products and services ranging from
business cards, brochures and post cards to apparel, invitations
and announcements, holiday cards, calendars, creative design
services, copywriting services, direct mail services,
promotional gifts, signage and Website design, and hosting
services.  Its Internet-based order processing systems receive
and store individual orders on a daily basis and, organize these
orders for production and delivery to its customers.




                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Stull Stull Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY -- (Marketwire) -- Stull, Stull & Brody
announces that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
arising from the proxy communications and other public
disclosures concerning the acquisition (the "Acquisition") by
Bank of America Corporation ("Bank of America" or the "Company")
(NYSE: BAC) of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch").

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

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

     As alleged in the Complaint, on September 15, 2008, Bank of
America and Merrill Lynch announced that they had entered into
an agreement for Bank of America to acquire Merrill Lynch in an
all-stock transaction valued at approximately $50 billion.

     In order to consummate the transaction -- which required
the approval of Bank of America shareholders -- Bank of America
and Merrill Lynch issued a joint proxy statement dated October
31, 2008 (the "Proxy Statement") to the shareholders of Bank of
America soliciting their approval for and recommending a vote in
favor of the Acquisition.

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

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

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

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

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired BofA common stock during the
Class Period, which is between July 21, 2008 and January 20,
2009.

For more details, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212/490-2022
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.ssbny.com


GSI GROUP: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Feb 3, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces a February 10, 2009,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of GSI Group Inc. ("GSI Group") between April 30,
2008 and December 3, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

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

     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


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Coughlin Stoia Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin
Stoia") today announced that a class action has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
on behalf of purchasers of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level
3" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT) common stock during the
period between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007 (the "Class
Period").

     The complaint charges Level 3 and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Level 3 engages in the communications business in North
America and Europe.  The Company's network and Internet services
include transport services, high speed Internet protocol
services, dedicated Internet access, virtual private network
services, co-location services, and dark fiber services.

     The complaint alleges that the representations contained in
Level 3's press releases, SEC filings, conference calls, and
presentations during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose that:

       -- the Company was experiencing problems integrating its
          numerous acquisitions;

       -- the Company's integration problems caused Level 3 to
          experience severe provisioning problems which were
          negatively impacting revenue growth; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          Level 3's business, operations and earnings prospects.

     On October 23, 2007, Level 3 issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2007,
the period ending September 30, 2007.  For the quarter, the
Company reported consolidated revenue of $1.061 billion.  Level
3 further reported that its core communications services revenue
was negatively impacted by provisioning issues.  In response to
the announcements, the price of Level 3 stock declined from
$4.32 per share to $3.18 per share on October 24, 2007, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

     The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Level 3 common stock during the Class Period (the
"Class").

For more details, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/level3/


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Glancy Binkow Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Feb 3, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the
"Company")(Nasdaq:LVLT), between February 8, 2007 and October
23, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Level 3 and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Level 3 engages in the communications business in North America
and Europe.

     The Company's network and Internet services include
transport services, high speed Internet protocol services,
dedicated Internet access, virtual private network services,
colocation services and dark fiber services.  Between December
2005 and January 2007, Level 3 also acquired several companies.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Level 3's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate that:

       -- the Company's efforts to integrate the numerous
          acquired companies were not going well;

       -- specifically, the Company was experiencing an increase
          in service activation times, which was negatively
          impacting the Company's service installation intervals
          and rate of revenue growth;

       -- the Company was also experiencing challenges in its
          service management processes that were resulting in
          longer response times to resolve customers' network
          service issues;

       -- steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were
          not working, and actually were further complicating
          the issues and making them worse;

       -- as a result of the above, the Company did not have
          adequate provisioning capability to convert its
          increasing sales, or signed orders, into revenue
          generating service;

       -- the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

       -- as a result of the above, the statements made by the
          Company and management during the Class Period lacked
          a reasonable basis.

     On October 23, 2007, Level 3 shocked the market when it
revealed that the Company was having extensive difficulties
integrating the systems and customer-service processes of the
numerous companies it had acquired, and these difficulties were
causing an increase in service activation times.

     Moreover, Level 3 revised downward the Company's previously
issued guidance for fourth quarter 2007 and full year 2008.  On
this news, shares of Level 3 declined $1.04 per share, or
approximately 24%, to close on October 23, 2007 at $3.28 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.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  * * *