CAR_Public/090209.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 27

                           Headlines

ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Kraft Thrift Plan Participants' Suit in Ill.
ALTRIA GROUP: Seeking Approval of Stockholders' Suit Settlement
BANCO SANTANDER: Faces New York Litigation Over Madoff Scandal
BANCO SANTANDER: Faces Florida Litigation Over Madoff Scandal
CARNIVAL CORP: Suit by Jacobs & Copyright Owners Pending in N.Y.

CHATTEM INC: Dissolves PPA Claims Settlement Trust in Sept. 2008
CHATTEM INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement
CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Derivative Suit Deal Gets Final OK in Oct.
COVIDIEN LTD: No Trial Date Yet for "Sharps Containers" Lawsuit
COVIDIEN LTD: Plaintiffs' Appeals to Calif. Suit Rulings Pending

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Litigation in Canada Over Evolence
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Amended Securities Suit Deal Last Jan. 16
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Oct.
OSHKOSH CORP: Shareholder Seeks Class Certification os Wis. Suit
TUESDAY MORNING: Calif. Court Grants De-Certification Motion

TUESDAY MORNING: Hourly Workers File Suit Over Meal, Rest Period
TUESDAY MORNING: Managerial Employees Abandon Calif. Litigation

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ING GROEP: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing


                           *********

ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Kraft Thrift Plan Participants' Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. faces a purported class-action complaint
filed by four participants in the Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
Thrift Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

The Kraft Thrift Plan is a defined contribution plan.

The plaintiffs filed the class-action complaint on behalf of all
participants and beneficiaries of the Kraft Thrift Plan in July
2008, alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

Named defendants in this action include Altria Corporate
Services, Inc. (now Altria Client Services Inc.) and certain
company committees that allegedly had a relationship to the
Kraft Thrift Plan.

Plaintiffs request, among other remedies, that defendants
restore to the Kraft Thrift Plan all losses improperly incurred.

The Altria Group, Inc. defendants deny any violation of ERISA or
other unlawful conduct, according to the company's Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Jan. 29, 2009.

Under the terms of a Distribution Agreement between Altria
Group, Inc. and Kraft, Altria Client Services Inc. and related
defendants may be entitled to indemnity against any liabilities
incurred in connection with this case.

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: Seeking Approval of Stockholders' Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the purported class-action filed on behalf of a
purported class of UST Inc. stockholders in the Superior Court
in Connecticut are in the process of obtaining court approval
for the settlement of the lawsuit.

In September 2008, plaintiffs filed a purported class-action to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of UST by Altria Group, Inc.,
alleging that UST and/or nine of its directors had violated
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the terms of the
acquisition and that Altria Group, Inc. had aided and abetted in
the alleged violation.

In October 2008, plaintiffs amended the complaint to add
allegations concerning UST's definitive proxy statement and
certain benefits payable to UST's officers in connection with
the transaction.

The amended complaint also added aiding and abetting claims
against UST.

On Dec. 17, 2008, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle this lawsuit and resolve all claims.
The settlement amount was immaterial.  The process for obtaining
court approval is on-going, 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.


BANCO SANTANDER: Faces New York Litigation Over Madoff Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.easybourse.com/bourse-actualite/marches/update-
santander-client-files-2nd-suit-in-us-over-madoff-610926
SEROL Holding Corp., a customer of Spain's Banco Santander SA
(STD) has filed a purported class-action lawsuit against the
bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York over losses incurred from investments in funds managed by
Bernard L. Madoff, Dow Jones reports.

According to the law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, the suit charges Spain's largest bank by market
capitalization with, among other things, making "misleading and
significantly false statements about their due diligence and
supervision" of investments with Mr. Madoff who is the alleged
architect of a $50 billion pyramid scheme.

The law firm stated that SEROL Holding invested $207,000 with
Mr. Madoff through Santander's Geneva-based hedge-fund unit,
Optimal Investment Services, reports the Dow Jones.

In total, Optimal had EUR2.3 billion of clients' money invested
in Mr. Madoff's firm, according to the Dow Jones report.


BANCO SANTANDER: Faces Florida Litigation Over Madoff Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.easybourse.com/bourse-actualite/marches/update-
santander-client-files-2nd-suit-in-us-over-madoff-610926
Spain's Banco Santander SA (STD) faces a purported class-action
lawsuit Florida over losses incurred from investments in funds
managed by Bernard L. Madoff, Dow Jones reports.

On Jan. 27, 2009, two Santander clients filed purported class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida in connection to the investments.  Mr.
Madoff is the alleged architect of a $50 billion pyramid scheme.

Recently, Santander said it would offer compensation for clients
who lost money through Mr. Madoff's firm.  The bank plans to
issue preferred shares with a face value of EUR1.38 billion to
cover their investments in the stricken fund.

However lawyers are working actively to block the offer, which
has received a lukewarm reception from many clients who reacted
to several clauses included in the compensation offer.

A representative for law firms Labaton Sucharow LLP and Hanzman
Gilbert LLP told Dow Jones that the Florida court has scheduled
a Feb. 18, 2009 hearing on an emergency motion by the two
plaintiffs that seeks to restrain Santander's offer.


CARNIVAL CORP: Suit by Jacobs & Copyright Owners Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corp. continues to face a lawsuit filed on behalf of
James Jacobs and a purported class of owners of intellectual
property rights to musical plays and other works performed in
the U.S.

In January 2006, the lawsuit was filed against the company and
its subsidiaries and affiliates, and other unaffiliated cruise
lines in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The plaintiffs claim infringement of copyrights to Broadway, off
Broadway and other plays.

The suit seeks payment of (i) damages, (ii) disgorgement of
alleged profits and (iii) an injunction against future
infringement.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit were provided by the
company in its Jan. 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Nov. 30, 2008.

Carnival Corp. -- http://www.carnivalcorp.com-- is a cruise and
vacation company.  The company has a portfolio of cruise brands
and is a provider of cruises to all vacation destinations.  The
cruise brands of the company includes Carnival Cruise Lines,
Princess Cruises (Princess), Costa Cruises (Costa), Holland
America Line, P&O Cruises, AIDA Cruises (AIDA), Cunard Line
(Cunard), Ibero Cruises (Ibero), Ocean Village, P&O Cruises
Australia and The Yachts of Seabourn (Seabourn).  In addition to
the cruise operations, the company owns Holland America Tours
and Princess Tours, the cruise/tour operators in the State of
Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada.


CHATTEM INC: Dissolves PPA Claims Settlement Trust in Sept. 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. dissolves the settlement trust related to a
national class action settlement of all Dexatrim PPA claims in
September 2008.

The company was named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits
alleging that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of
ingestion of products containing Phenylpropanolamine ("PPA"),
which was an active ingredient in most of the company's Dexatrim
products until November 2000.

The lawsuits filed in federal court were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington before
U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein (In Re
Phenylpropanolamine ("PPA") Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1407).  The remaining lawsuits were filed in state court in
a number of different states.

On April 13, 2004, the company entered into a class action
settlement agreement with representatives of the plaintiffs'
settlement class, which provided for a national class action
settlement of all Dexatrim PPA claims.

On Nov. 12, 2004, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington entered a
final order and judgment certifying the class and granting
approval of the Dexatrim PPA settlement.

The Dexatrim PPA settlement included claims against the company
involving alleged injuries by Dexatrim products containing PPA
in which the alleged injury occurred after Dec. 21, 1998, the
date the company acquired the Dexatrim brand.

A total of 14 claimants with alleged injuries that occurred
after Dec. 21, 1998 elected to opt-out of the class settlement.

Subsequently, the company has settled twelve of the opt-out
claims.  The other two opt-outs have not filed lawsuits against
the company, and it believes the applicable statutes of
limitation have run against their claims.

In accordance with the terms of the class action settlement,
approximately $70,885 was initially funded into a settlement
trust.  The company has resolved all claims in the settlement
and paid all trust expenses.

On June 14, 2006, the company filed a motion to dissolve the
settlement trust.  The court granted this motion on July 14,
2006.  The company dissolved the settlement trust pursuant to a
letter to the trustee dated Sept. 24, 2008, according to the
company's Jan. 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Nov. 30, 2008.

Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- is a marketer and
manufacturer of a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products, toiletries and dietary supplements, in such
categories as medicated skin care products, topical pain care,
oral care, internal OTC, medicated dandruff shampoos, dietary
supplements, and other OTC and toiletry products.  The company's
portfolio of products includes brands, such as Gold Bond,
Cortizone-10 and Balmex (medicated skin care); Icy Hot,
Aspercreme and Capzasin (topical pain care); ACT and Herpecin-L
(oral care); Unisom, Pamprin and Kaopectate (internal OTC);
Selsun Blue (medicated dandruff shampoos); Dexatrim, Garlique
and New Phase (dietary supplements), and Bullfrog, UltraSwim and
Sun-In (other OTC and toiletry products).  Its products are sold
primarily through mass merchandisers, independent and chain drug
stores, drug wholesalers and food stores in the United States,
and in various markets in approximately 80 countries worldwide.


CHATTEM INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement
------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
alleging it pushes its "Garlique" garlic supplement with the
bogus claim that it lowers cholesterol.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
other consumers who purchased, used and ingested the Product.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

    (a) whether the defendant's practices in connection with the
        marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
        the Product were deceptive or unfair in any respect,
        thereby violating California's Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.;

    (b) whether the defendant's practices in connection with the
        marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
        the Product were deceptive or false in any respect,
        thereby violating California's False Advertising Law
        (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.;

    (c) whether the defendant breached implied warranties in its
        sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff
        and class members;

    (d) whether the defendant breached express warranties in its
        sale of the product, thereby causing harm to the
        plaintiff and class members;

    (e) whether defendant's practices in connection with the
        marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
        the Product unjustly enriched defendant at the expense
        of, and to the detriment of, plaintiff and class
        members;

    (f) whether the defendant fraudulently marketed, promoted,
        advertised, labeled and sold the Product;

    (g) whether the defendant breached California's Consumer
        Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civil Code Section 1750 et
        seq., in its sale of the Product, thereby causing harm
        to Plaintiff and Class members;

    (h) whether the defendant's conduct as set forth above
        injured consumers and if so, the extent of the injury.

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and for members of the general public, requests for
relief, jointly and severally, pursuant to each cause of action
set forth in this Complaint as follows:

     1. for an order certifying that the action may be
        maintained as a class action.

     2. for an award of equitable relief as follows:

        (a) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the
            unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices
            and deceptive marketing, promotion labeling and
            advertising described in this Complaint;

        (b) requiring Defendant to make full restitution of all
            monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the
            conduct described in this Complaint;

        (c) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains
            flowing from the conduct described in the
            complaint; and

        (d) requiring Defendant to provide public notice of the
            true nature of the Product.

      3. for actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an
         amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as
         may be provided for by statute upon the filing of a
         Second Amended Complaint should the demanded
         corrections not take place within the thirty-day notice
         period.

      4. for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter
         alia, Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil
         Procedure Section 1021.5.

      5. for actual damages in an amount to be determined at
         trial for the Third, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Causes
         of Action.

      6. for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at
         trial for the Seventh Cause of Action.

      7. for an award of costs and any other relief the Court
         might deem appropriate.

      8. for pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
         awarded.

The company was served with this lawsuit on Dec. 18, 2008,
according to the company's Jan. 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Nov. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Goodell v Chattem, Inc., Case Number:
2:2008at01206," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.

For more information, contact:

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq. (hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com)
          Hewell Law Firm
          105 West "F" Street, Suite 213
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-235-6854
          Fax: 888-298-0177


CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Derivative Suit Deal Gets Final OK in Oct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the consolidated derivative class-action
complaint filed against Chordiant Software, Inc. received final
court approval on Oct. 22, 2008.

On Aug. 1, 2006, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
by Jesse Brown under the caption, "Brown v. Kelly, et al. Case
No. C06-04671 JW (N.D. Cal.)."

On Sept. 13, 2006, a second stockholder derivative complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Louis Suba under the caption, "Suba v. Kelly et
al., Case No. C06-05603 JW (N.D. Cal.)."

Both complaints were brought purportedly on behalf of the
company against certain current and former officers and
directors.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating these
actions and requiring the plaintiffs to file a consolidated
complaint.

The consolidated complaint was filed on Jan. 11, 2007.  The
consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
named officers and directors: (a) breached their fiduciary
duties as they colluded with each other to backdate stock
options, (b) violated section 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder through their alleged actions, and (c) were unjustly
enriched by their receipt and retention of such stock options.

On June 30, 2008, the parties signed a Stipulation of Compromise
and Settlement, which was subject to court approval.  The
Settlement received final court approval on Oct. 22, 2008.

The company's cash contribution toward the Settlement was not
material to the financial statements, according to its Jan. 29,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Chordiant Software, Inc. -- http://www.chordiant.com-- is an
enterprise software company that delivers products and services
designed to improve the customer experience in front-office
processes for global companies primarily in the insurance,
healthcare, telecommunications and financial services markets.
Chordiant provides companies in these markets with solutions
that help them manage their customer interactions.  The
company's enterprise-scale software utilizes predictive
decisioning, analytical modeling, and strategy formulation in
real-time for decision management and execution at the point of
sale (POS).  This capability enables organizations in improving
the accuracy of marketing offers for retention, up-selling,
cross selling and modeling risk scenarios, such as customer
churn and likelihood of default on payments.  Its services
include software applications, business processes, and tools and
services.


COVIDIEN LTD: No Trial Date Yet for "Sharps Containers" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been scheduled for the class-action lawsuit,
"Natchitoches Parish Hospital Service District v. Tyco
International, Ltd., et al.," which names Covidien, Ltd., as a
defendant.

The class-action suit was filed against the Company on Sept. 15,
2005, with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

In the complaint, the putative class representative, on behalf
of itself and others, seeks to recover overcharges it alleges
that it and others paid for sharps containers as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by the Company in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

The parties are in the discovery stage.  The district court held
hearings on the plaintiff's motion for class certification on
April 13, 2007, and on Sept. 18, 2007 (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 15, 2008).

On Aug. 29, 2008, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
denied the company's request for leave to appeal the district
court's granting of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, 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. 26, 2008.

The suit is "Natchitoches Parish Hospital Service District v.
Tyco International, Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-12024-PBS,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel Berger, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-875-3026
          Fax: 215-875-4604
          e-mail: danberger@bm.net

               - and -

          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP
          1501 Broadway, Suite 1416
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-398-0055
          Fax: 212-764-6620
          e-mail: bcebulash@garwingerstein.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Margaret Branick-Abilla, Esq.
          Cooley Godward LLP
          3000 El Camino Real, Five Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Phone: 650-843-5067
          Fax: 650-857-0663
          e-mail: mbranickabilla@cooley.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq.
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: 213-229-7855
          Fax: 213-229-7520
          e-mail: CDusseault@gibsondunn.com


COVIDIEN LTD: Plaintiffs' Appeals to Calif. Suit Rulings Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeals filed by the plaintiffs in the consolidated class-
action suit, "In re: Pulse Oximetry Antitrust litigation," are
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
according to Covidien, Ltd.'s Jan. 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 26, 2008.

Beginning on Aug. 29, 2005, 12 consumer class-action suits have
been filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

In all of the complaints, the putative class representatives, on
behalf of themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges
they allegedly paid for pulse oximetry products as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by the Company in violation of the
federal antitrust laws.

The 12 complaints were subsequently consolidated into a single
proceeding styled, "In re: Pulse Oximetry Antitrust litigation."

By stipulation among the parties, five putative class
representatives dismissed their claims against the company,
leaving seven remaining putative class representatives as
plaintiffs in the consolidated proceeding.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Thus, the plaintiffs are
appealing the ruling (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008).

On March 14, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal the
district court's denial of their motion for class certification.

On July 9, 2008, the district court granted the company's motion
for summary judgment, which resulted in the dismissal of all
claims.  The plaintiffs have appealed both rulings to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Covidien Ltd. -- http://www.covidien.com-- is engaged in the
development, manufacture and sale of healthcare products for use
in clinical and home settings.  The Company operates its
business through five segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceutical
Products, Imaging Solutions, Medical Supplies and Retail
Products.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Litigation in Canada Over Evolence
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=
view&id=1408&Itemid=30
Johnson & Johnson Inc., Janssen-Ortho Inc., Canderm Pharma Inc.,
Anna Maria Duchon, ABC Co. 1 to 3, John Doe 1 to 2 and Jane Doe
are facing a purported class-action suit in Canada over the
dermal filler Evolence, Business in Vancouver reports.

The litigation was filed by Deborah Hoisington and Stefanie
Puls.  According to the endorsement filed in B.C. Supreme Court
on Dec. 9, 2009 by R. Brian Webster of Webster and Associates,
Barristers and Solicitors, the two women suffered permanent or
long-term disfigurement, scarring and other injuries as a result
of injections of Evolence, which allegedly is supposed to smooth
out and soften unwanted facial lines, wrinkles and folds and
restore structure and facial contour in volume-depleted areas,
according to the Evolence website.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and breach of the Sale of
Goods Act, according to the Business in Vancouver report.


MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Amended Securities Suit Deal Last Jan. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
Majesco Entertainment Co., on Jan. 16, 2009, entered into an
amendment to the securities class action settlement agreement,
according to the company's Jan. 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Oct. 31, 2008.

On Sept. 27, 2007, the company entered into settlement
agreements to settle the following litigations pending in the
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey:

   (i) a securities class action brought on behalf of a
       purported class of purchasers of the company's
       securities;

  (ii) a private securities action filed by Trinad Capital
       Master Fund, Ltd.; and

(iii) a second action filed by Trinad, purportedly on behalf of
       the company.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement in the securities
class action, as amended, which is subject to notice to the
shareholder claimants and court approval, the company's
insurance carrier will make a cash payment, the company will
make cash payments of $466,667 in January 2009 and $233,333 in
May 2009, and it will contribute one million shares of its
common stock.  The shares will be distributed to the settlement
claimants if and when the court grants final approval of the
settlement and the settlement becomes effective.

The amended settlement terms reduce the overall costs of the
settlement to the company, in addition to reducing the number of
shares that would have been issued under the original
settlement.

The settlement of the private securities claim in the action
brought by Trinad, on its own behalf, provides that the
company's insurance carrier will make a cash payment to Trinad,
subject to final approval of the class action settlement by the
Court.

The settlement agreement in the action filed by Trinad,
purportedly on behalf of the company, will not result in a
payment to the company.  Plaintiff's attorneys will not receive
any fees in connection with the settlement.  As a result of the
filing of this lawsuit by Trinad, the company has taken actions
which Majesco and Trinad believe will benefit its shareholders
and address some of the issues raised in the lawsuit.  This
settlement is subject to notice to the company's shareholders
and to court approval.

Majesco Entertainment Co. -- www.majescoentertainment.com -- is
a provider of video games for the mass market.  Building on 20
years of operating history, Majesco is focused on developing and
publishing a wide range of casual and family oriented video
games on leading console and portable systems.  Product
highlights include Cooking Mama TM and Cake Mania(R)2 for
Nintendo DS TM and Cooking Mama World Kitchen and Jillian
Michaels' Fitness Ultimatum 2009 for Wii TM Majesco's shares are
traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol: COOL.
Majesco is headquartered in Edison, NJ and has an international
office in Bristol, UK.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Securities Suit Settlement Approved in Oct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on
Oct. 2, 2008, granted final approval of the securities class-
action settlement, according to Monster Worldwide, Inc.'s Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated Jan. 29, 2009.

On July 30, 2008, the company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the class representative and the individual
defendants in the shareholder securities class action that
memorializes the terms pursuant to which the parties intend,
subject to Court approval, to settle the securities class
action.

As full settlement of the claims asserted in the securities
class action, the MOU provides for a payment to the class of
$47.5 million the cost of which to the Company will be
approximately $25.1 million net of its insurance recovery and a
payment by another defendant.

Also recorded in the provision for legal settlements, net in the
second quarter of 2008, was approximately $15.0 million for
estimated expenses relating to the other outstanding litigation
in connection with Monster's historical stock option grant
practices.

Monster Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.monster.com/-- provides a
global online employment solution, Monster.  With a presence in
markets in North America, Europe and Asia, Monster works by
connecting employers with job seekers at all levels and by
providing personalized career advice to consumers globally.
Monster Worldwide delivers targeted audiences to advertisers.
The company operates in three business segments: Monster
Careers-North America, Monster Careers-International, and
Internet Advertising & Fees.


OSHKOSH CORP: Shareholder Seeks Class Certification os Wis. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder of Oshkosh Corp. is seeking  class-
action status for a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Sept. 19, 2008.

The lawsuit is 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 that the Company violated the 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.

Oshkosh Corp. -- http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/-- is a
manufacturer of specialty trucks and truck bodies for defense,
industrial and fire emergency applications.


TUESDAY MORNING: Calif. Court Grants De-Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Morning Corp.'s motion for de-certification of the class
of remaining plaintiffs was granted by the Supreme Court of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles in August 2008,
resulting in the dismissal of the class action claim.

The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling, and some may have
pursued their claims individually.

During 2001 and 2002, the Company was named as a defendant in
three complaints filed by the plaintiffs who sought to certify a
statewide class made up of some of the Company's current and
former employees.

These plaintiffs are claiming compensation for overtime wages,
penalties and interest, in addition to attorney's fees and
costs.

In October 2003, the Company, however, entered into a settlement
agreement with a sub-class of these plaintiffs consisting of
managers-in-training and management trainees which was paid in
November 2005.

Tuesday Morning Corp. -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--
operates discount retail stores that purchase first quality,
brand name merchandise at closeout prices and sell it at prices
significantly below those generally charged by department stores
and specialty and catalog retailers.


TUESDAY MORNING: Hourly Workers File Suit Over Meal, Rest Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit was filed on December 2008 by
hourly, non-exempt employees against Tuesday Morning Corp. in
the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los
Angeles.

The class-action lawsuit alleged claims covering meal and rest
period violations.

This case is still in the initial stages of litigation and
discovery has not yet begun.

Tuesday Morning Corp. -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--
operates discount retail stores that purchase first quality,
brand name merchandise at closeout prices and sell it at prices
significantly below those generally charged by department stores
and specialty and catalog retailers.


TUESDAY MORNING: Managerial Employees Abandon Calif. Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs, composed of managers, managers-in-training and
assistant managers, who filed a purported class-action suit
against Tuesday Morning Corp. have abandoned their class-action
claim on September 2008 and instead elected to pursue their
claims against the company under California's Private Attorney
General Act.

The class-action lawsuit alleged claims concerning meal and rest
periods, and was filed in Orange County, California in 2004.  An
amended complaint was subsequently filed in January 2007.

This matter is set for trial in September, 2009.

A companion lawsuit alleging the same claims was filed on
December 26, 2008 on behalf of twenty additional individual
plaintiffs.

This lawsuit includes a claim under California's Private
Attorney General Act, and is still in the initial stages of
litigation.

Tuesday Morning Corp. -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--
operates discount retail stores that purchase first quality,
brand name merchandise at closeout prices and sell it at prices
significantly below those generally charged by department stores
and specialty and catalog retailers.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ING GROEP: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Business Wire 2009-02-06 00:33:01 -- 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 Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who acquired the 6.375% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital
Securities ("6.375% Securities") and/or the 8.50% ING Perpetual
Hybrid Capital Securities ("8.50% Securities") (NYSE:ISF;
NYSE:IGK) (collectively, the "Securities") of ING Groep N.V.
("ING") pursuant or traceable to a false registration statement
and two prospectuses (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2007
and June 2008 offerings of the Securities, respectively (the
"Offerings").

     The complaint charges ING, certain of its affiliates,
certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters of the
Offerings and its auditor with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.  ING is a global financial services company providing
banking, investment, life insurance and retirement services.

     The complaint alleges that defendants consummated the
Offerings pursuant to the false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectuses.  Specifically, ING sold 41,800,000
6.375% Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of over $1
billion in the June 2007 Offering and 80 million 8.50%
Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of approximately $2.0
billion in the June 2008 Offering.  The Registration
Statement/Prospectuses incorporated ING's financial results for
2005/2006 and 2006/2007.  Then, after the Offerings were
completed, ING announced "2 billion in impairment charges
associated with its exposure to bad loans, mortgage-related
securities and other "pressurized" assets, causing the prices of
the Securities issued in the Offerings to decline.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statement were:

       -- defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage-
          related securities, were impaired to a much larger
          extent than the Company had disclosed;

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

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting the
          value of its assets; and

       -- ING was not as well capitalized as represented, and,
          notwithstanding the billions of dollars raised in the
          Offerings, the Company would have to raise an
          additional "10 billion by selling equity in the
          Company to the Dutch government.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
who acquired the 6.375% Securities and/or the 8.50% Securities
of ING pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the Company's June 2007 and June 2008
Offerings (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/ing/


                            *********

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  * * *