CAR_Public/090211.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 29

                           Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Reaches Settlement in Georgia Suit Over Loans
ALACER CORP: Faces Litigation in Ill. Over "Emergen-C" Product
BROADCOM CORP: Amended Securities Fraud Suit Ongoing in Calif.
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid for Approval of Settlement Due Feb. 27
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Faces Indiana Suit Over Retirement Account

FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Still Faces Environmental Contamination Suit
INDEVUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Redux Product Liability Cases Pending
J.P. MORGAN: N.Y. Firm Files Suit Over Credit Card Policy Change
PANTRY INC: April 6 Hearing for Final Approval of "Barton" Deal
PANTRY INC: "Hot Fuel" Lawsuits Pending in Kansas District Court

RALPHS GROCERY: Calif. Federal Court Certifies Class in "Sung"
STAR GAS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
STARBUCKS CORP: Appealing $100M Judgment in "Jou Chau" Lawsuit
STARBUCKS CORP: Still Faces Employment-Related Lawsuit in Calif.
STATE FARM: Judge Gives Go-Ahead to Suit Over Hail Damage Claims

TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit in Canada Over Pricing
TYCO ELECTRONICS: Consolidated ERISA Suit in N.H. Still Pending
TYCO ELECTRONICS: Settlement with Mass. Commonwealth Pending
WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Klafter Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Dyer & Berens Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing
SATYAM COMPUTER: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

ADVANCE AMERICA: Reaches Settlement in Georgia Suit Over Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SPARTANBURG, S.C., Feb. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. (NYSE: AEA) announced that
it has settled a class-action lawsuit in Georgia that resolves
all claims against the Company in connection with originating,
marketing, or servicing any loan in that state.

     The settlement, which does not involve any finding of
wrongdoing, requires final approval from the State Court of Cobb
County, Georgia. The Company had previously suspended operations
in Georgia during 2004.

     If approved, the settlement will require the Company to
make a minimum payment of approximately $2.0 million from which
(1) a settlement pool will be established to pay claims; and (2)
attorney fees and other costs related to the litigation and
settlement administration will be paid.  The value of individual
claims will vary between $30 and $90.  If claims made plus costs
exceed $2.0 million, then the Company will be required to pay
additional funds into the settlement pool up to an aggregate cap
of $3.7 million.  If claims made plus applicable costs are less
than the minimum payment, the court will distribute the balance
of the minimum payment to a charitable organization of the
court's choosing.  If claims made plus costs are greater than
the cap, then claims will be prorated so as not to exceed the
cap.  The Company has reserved approximately $2.0 million for
this settlement, which will result in a charge against earnings
in the fourth quarter of 2008.

     Commenting on the settlement, the Company's Vice President
of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, Tom Newell, said, "Advance
America possesses a strong culture of legal and regulatory
compliance and the Company will continue to aggressively defend
its products and services against these types of claims.
However, a settlement like this one makes good business sense
and brings value to our stakeholders by assuring certainty of
outcome and eliminating continuing legal costs in a geographic
market where we no longer conduct business. We are pleased to
have reached a favorable result."

Founded in 1997, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
(NYSE: AEA) -- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is the
country's leading provider of cash advance services, with
approximately 2,800 centers and 79 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The Company
is a founding member of the Community Financial Services
Association of America (CFSA), whose mission is to promote laws
that provide substantive consumer protections and to encourage
responsible industry practices.


ALACER CORP: Faces Litigation in Ill. Over "Emergen-C" Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alacer Corp. faces a purported class-action suit in St. Clair
County Circuit Court over allegations that it engaged in unfair
and deceptive practices when marketing its "Emergen-C" product,
Kelly Holleran of The St. Clair Record reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 2, 2009 by Nicholas J. Gianino under
case number 09-L-0058.  It alleges that Alacer misled the public
into believing Emergen-C boosts the immune system and decreases
the likelihood of getting sick.

Paul M. Weiss, Esq., George K. Lang, Esq., and Eric C. Brunick,
Esq., of Freed and Weiss in Chicago, Richard J. Burke, Esq., of
St. Louis and Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq., and Brian T. Kreisler,
Esq., of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson in Belleville
represent the plaintiff and the putative class.

The suit states, "Alacer's representations of the medical
efficacy of 'Emergen-C' are false."  It adds, "'Emergen-C' does
not boost the immune system, it offers no protection against
germs, it provides no health protection or support and has no
effect on getting or remaining sick."

Mr. Gianino claims Alacer's "unfair and deceptive" practices
have caused him and the class to incur damages because they paid
for a product devoid of any medical efficacy.

He is asking that the case be certified as a class-action and
that the court award him and the class damages, attorneys' fees,
costs of the suit and other relief the court deems just.


BROADCOM CORP: Amended Securities Fraud Suit Ongoing in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
on Feb. 2, 2009, denied the motions that sought for the
dismissal of the amended complaint in the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Broadcom Corp.

From August through October 2006, several plaintiffs filed these
purported shareholder class-action complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Broadcom and certain of its current or former officers and
directors (Class Action Reporter, May 10, 2007):

      -- "Bakshi v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 06-5036 R (CWx),"

      -- "Mills v. Samueli, et al., Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC
         R(CWx)," and

      -- "Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v.
         Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R
         (CWx)."

The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that Broadcom
improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or
misleading disclosures concerning, among other things,
Broadcom's business and financial condition.

The plaintiffs also allege that Broadcom failed to account for
and pay taxes on stock options properly, that the individual
defendants sold Broadcom stock while in possession of material
nonpublic information, and that the defendants' conduct caused
artificial inflation in Broadcom's stock price and damages to
the putative plaintiff class.

They assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

In November 2006, the Court consolidated the Options Class
Actions and appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as
lead class plaintiff.

In October 2007, the federal appeals court resolved a dispute
regarding the appointment of lead class counsel.

In March 2008, the district judge entered a revised order
appointing lead class counsel.  The lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint in late April 2008,
naming additional defendants that include certain current
officers and directors of Broadcom as well as Ernst & Young LLP,
the company's former independent registered public accounting
firm.

In October 2008, the district judge granted defendants' motions
to dismiss with leave to amend.

Also in October, 2008 the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  In November 2008, defendants filed motions to
dismiss.  On Feb. 2, 2009, these motions were denied except with
respect to E&Y and the current Chairman of the Audit Committee,
which were granted with leave to amend, and with respect to the
former Chief Executive Officer, which is still being considered,
according to the company's Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Sonam Bakshi v. Henry Samueli et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-05036-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Manuel L. Real, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12400 Wilshire
          Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Crawford, Esq.
          Heins Mills & Olson
          3550 IDS Ctr., 80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-338-4605
          Fax: 612-338-4692

Representing the defendants are:

          Gordon A. Greenberg, Esq.
          McDermott Will & Emery
          2049 Century Park E, 34th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
          Phone: 310-277-4110
          Fax: 310-277-4730

               - and -

          Stephen S. Hasegawa, Esq. (shasegawa@irell.com)
          Irell & Manella
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
          Phone: 310-277-1010


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid for Approval of Settlement Due Feb. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
ordered plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class-
action suit filed against Exide Technologies, Inc. to file their
motion for preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement on or
before Feb. 27, 2009.

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former
stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately
filed purported class action complaints against the company and
certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations
of certain federal securities laws.

The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004, and May 17, 2005.

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20 (a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and
misleading public statements made during this period by the
company and its officers.  The complaints did not specify an
amount of damages sought.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva
Partners and Jarman cases under the caption "Aviva Partners v.
Exide Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC)."

On March 24, 2006, Judge Cooper appointed as co-lead plaintiffs:

     * the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
       Fund, and

     * Lakeway Capital Management.

The judge also appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as co-lead
counsel for the putative class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint in which they reiterated their original claims
but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who purchased
the company's stock between May 5, 2004, and May 17, 2005.

On June 22, 2006, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints.  The court has
granted this request but permitted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint, which they did.

The defendants again moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but
this time, the Court denied this request.

Discovery in the lawsuit is proceeding and is expected to
continue throughout the remainder of 2008.  No trial date has
been set in this matter.

On Jan. 8, 2009, the Company and Plaintiffs' Court-appointed
representatives (the "Lead Plaintiffs") reached an agreement in
principle to settle this litigation (the "Proposed Settlement").
Any payment under the Proposed Settlement would be made by the
Company's insurers and would have no material impact on the
Company's financial statements or results of operations.

The Proposed Settlement is subject to execution of a definitive
agreement between the Company and Lead Plaintiffs and approval
by Lead Plaintiffs' Board of Trustees.  The Proposed Settlement
is also subject to Court approval, and the Court has ordered
Plaintiffs to file their motion for preliminary approval of the
Proposed Settlement on or before Feb. 27, 2009.  Assuming
preliminary Court approval is obtained, notice to members of the
class would be issued, and the company anticipates that a final
approval hearing would take place in the latter half of calendar
2009.  Upon final approval of the Proposed Settlement by the
Court this litigation will be dismissed in its entirety, with
prejudice.  Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement the
company and the former officers continue to deny the allegations
in Plaintiffs' complaints, according to its Feb. 4, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Mary L. Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq. (procco@lawssb.com)
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: 973-775-8997

Representing the defendants is:

         Edward T. Kole, Esq. (ekole@wilentz.com)
         Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs.
         90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 - Box 10
         Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
         Phone: 732-636-8000


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Faces Indiana Suit Over Retirement Account
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Bank is facing a purported class-action suit
claiming that the bank broke a promise to pay 8 percent on the
couple's retirement account, Lauren Daley of The Indiana Gazette
reports.

The litigation was filed by Patrick and Barbara McGrogan, of
Greensburg, Indiana, alleging that the bank engaged in deceptive
trade practices, breached fiduciary duties and breached
agreements in which it promised to pay members the guaranteed
minimum 8 percent on their accounts.

According to the McGrogans, they opened two IRA Market Rate
Savings accounts in 1983 and 1984 with the bank, which
guaranteed a minimum 8 percent return, reports The Indiana
Gazette.

The suit states that at some point in 2008, First Commonwealth
reneged on its obligations when it sent a letter to customers,
saying it was withdrawing as account custodians, closing the
accounts and sending the money to the depositors, less a 10
percent withholding fee for the IRS and other taxes.  The bank
then offered an IRA account with a 3.5 percent annual percentage
yield and to act as custodian.

The Indiana Gazette reported that under the provisions of the
account, as stated in the lawsuit, the custodian may resign upon
60 days' notice to the depositor and then transfer the assets of
the account as the depositor requests.  If the depositor does
not appoint a new custodian within 60 days after the notice of
resignation, the custodian may appoint one to hold the account's
assets.

However, letters to the McGrogans and other account holders did
not advise them of their rights, according to their attorney,
who says it violated the Unfair Trade and Business Practices
Act, according to The Indiana Gazette.

The suit further contends that even if the bank, as custodian,
had the right to resign, it still had a fiduciary obligation to
protect the McGrogans' rights to the underlying investment and
to act in their best interest.

According to Frank G. Salpietro, Esq., the Pittsburgh-based
attorney representing the McGrogans, "The bank asked the
customers to stick with them during the good times and maybe
give up a little bit in bad times.  Now times aren't so good.
They are not sticking with their customers."  He tells The
Indiana Gazette, "The bank violated the trust of the customer
and reneged on the terms of the contract they themselves created
to benefit the bank and to the detriment of customers and in
breach of fiduciary responsibility."

The way the accounts are supposed to work, he said, is that the
IRAs were tax-deferred until the McGrogans reached at least 59
when they could withdraw from it.

Patrick McGrogan, 55, told The Indiana Gazette that if the money
were allowed to remain in the accounts until maturity, they
would be worth between $2 million and $3 million.

Mr. McGrogan said, "So what they have taken away is what I
consider my nest egg for retirement."  He added, "It would have
put me and my wife in a reasonable position for life.  (The
bank) did it without a legal recourse. ... I just think they
figured out they can roll over a bunch of people who are their
customers for a long period of time with no recourse or no
remorse."

As a result of the breach, the lawsuit states that those
affected suffered lost interest by the bank's refusal to pay the
8 percent; additional taxes, expenses and penalties caused by
the bank's closure of the accounts; and lost interest from the
failure to accept properly tendered rollover contributions,
reports The Indiana Gazette.

Mr. Salpietro told The Indiana Gazette, "They promised to
guarantee a minimum of 8 percent. The bank should do that and
honor its promise, particularly when they led customers, when
they opened the accounts, to believe they'd be able to have that
steady rate of growth and steady rate of interest when they
retire.  At the minimum, honor the contract. But because of the
actions we think they've taken to the McGrogans and others,
there are damages. ... It is our position the bank needs to make
up that difference."

The lawsuit claims that up to 50 other First Commonwealth
customers have the same accounts, but Mr. McGrogan and his
attorney believe there could be up to 300, according to The
Indiana Gazette report.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Still Faces Environmental Contamination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. and its subsidiary, Phelps
Dodge Corp., continue to face a purported class-action suit that
was filed by residents of Blackwell, Oklahoma over a defunct
smelter operation that they believe is the cause of
environmental contamination in the area.

Blackwell is a town of 7,000 located in north-central Oklahoma.
The community is contaminated with 58 million pounds of lead,
arsenic, and other toxins left behind by the Blackwell Zinc
Smelter, at one time the largest smelter of its type in the
world.  As successor-in-interest to the company that owned the
smelter, Freeport-McMoRan is legally responsible for any related
contamination (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2008).

The suit, "Coffey, et al. and Others Similarly Situated v.
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., Phelps Dodge Corporation,
et al., Case No. CJ-2008-68," demands that the defendants
thoroughly and completely clean all property contaminated by the
smelter waste and provide for a medical-monitoring program open
to all Blackwell residents.  The law firm of Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP is one of several attorneys representing the
Blackwell residents.

The suit was was filed in early 2008 at Kay County, Oklahoma on
behalf of 4 residents of Blackwell, Oklahoma.  It was later
removed at the defendants' request to a federal court in
Oklahoma City.

Brenda Craig of Lawyers and Settlements reported that right now,
the class-action suit is mired in legal wrangling over where the
case should be heard -- yet another delay in the community's
long, protracted battle to get its town cleaned up after decades
of being an Oklahoma environmental issue.  The company wants the
case moved out of the Western District of Oklahoma, but Keith
Langston of Nix, Patterson & Roach says, "We think it is a local
controversy and should be decided by local citizens in the
county where the controversy occurred."

For more details, contact:

          Nix, Patterson & Roach, L.L.P
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Phone: 903-645-7333
          Fax: 903-645-4415


INDEVUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Redux Product Liability Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reports that as of Feb. 4, 2009,
there have been no judgments against the company, nor has it
paid any amounts in settlement of any of the Redux-related
product liability claims.

On Sept. 15, 1997, the company announced a market withdrawal of
its first prescription product, the weight loss medication Redux
(dexfenfluramine hydrochloride capsules) C-IV, which had been
launched by Wyeth (formerly American Home Products Corporation),
the company's licensee, in June 1996.

The withdrawal of Redux was based on a preliminary analysis by
the U.S. Foof and Drugs Administration of potential abnormal
echocardiogram findings associated with certain patients taking
Redux or the combination of fenfluramine with phentermine.

After the withdrawal of Redux, the company was named, together
with other pharmaceutical companies, as a defendant in several
thousand product liability legal actions, some of which
purported to be class-action lawsuits, in federal and state
courts relating to the use of Redux and other weight loss drugs.

No further updates regarding the cases where disclosed in the
company's Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.indevus.com-- is a
pharmaceutical company engaged in the acquisition, development
and commercialization of products to treat conditions in urology
and endocrinology.  The Company's products include SANCTURA and
SANCTURA XR for overactive bladder (OAB), which it co-promotes
with its partner Allergan, Inc. (Allergan), VANTAS for advanced
prostate cancer, SUPPRELIN LA for central precocious puberty
(CPP), and DELATESTRYL for the treatment of hypogonadism.
Indevus's core urology and endocrinology portfolio contains
multiple compounds in development in addition to its approved
products.  Its most advanced compounds are NEBIDO for male
hypogonadism, VALSTAR for bladder cancer, PRO 2000 for the
prevention of infection by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
and other sexually-transmitted diseases, the octreotide implant
for acromegaly and a biodegradable ureteral stent used in
association with the treatment of kidney stones.


J.P. MORGAN: N.Y. Firm Files Suit Over Credit Card Policy Change
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York law firm of Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart
LLP, said it filed a class-action lawsuit against J.P. Morgan &
Chase for monthly service fees attached to some low-interest
credit cards, United Press International reports.

Affected customers calling Chase said they were offered a $10
monthly fee and a higher minimum payment schedule -- jumping
minimum payments from 2 percent to 5 percent of their balances
-- or a higher interest rate, USA Today reported on Feb. 9,
2009.

Chase spokeswoman Stephanie Jacobson told UPI that the new
policy affected credit card holders with promotional rates who
have kept large balances for more than two years, making little
progress reducing their balances.  The change, affected about
400,000 accounts, she adds.

According to the law firm, it filed suit for "customers who have
been charged a monthly service fee on balance transfers to their
Chase credit cards that have low fixed APRs for the life of the
loan."

For more details, contact:

          Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, New York 10004
          Phone: 212.847.8315
          Fax: 646.964.9645
          Web site: http://www.gslawny.com/


PANTRY INC: April 6 Hearing for Final Approval of "Barton" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina will hold an April 6, 2009 hearing to determine whether
to grant final approval of the settlement reached in the
purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Barton, et al. v. The
Pantry, Inc."

The suit asserted claims, on behalf of the company's present and
former North Carolina employees, for unpaid wages under the
North Carolina Wage and Hour laws.  The suit was filed in the
Superior Court for Forsyth County, State of North Carolina in
June 2004.

The named plaintiffs in the suit are Constance Barton, Kimberly
Clark, Wesley Clark, Tracie Hunt, Eleanor Walters, Karen
Meredith, Gilbert Breeden, LaCentia Thompson, and Mathesia
Peterson, and others similarly situated.

The suit sought an injunction against any unlawful practices,
damages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On Aug. 17, 2004, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  On July 18,
2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting
certain additional claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act on behalf of present and former store employees in the
southeastern U.S.  It added one additional plaintiff, Chester
Charneski.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the
Superior Court for Forsyth County, which request is presently
pending before the federal district court.

The company, on Aug. 23, 2005, filed a motion to dismiss parts
of the amended complaint.  In May 2006, the court granted in
part and denied in part the company's motion, with the result
that the court will now determine if the case may proceed as a
class action under state law and a collective action under
federal law and if so, who among the company's present or former
employees will be members of the classes.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to file a second
amended complaint, asserting state law claims for alleged unpaid
wages in all 11 states in which the company does business.  The
company opposed the filing of a seconded amended complaint.

On March 26, 2007, the company reached a proposed settlement in
principle with the class counsel.  The proposed settlement will
establish a settlement fund of $1,000,000 from which payments
will be made to settlement class members and the class counsel.

Additionally, the proposed settlement provides for the company
to bear all costs of sending notices, processing and preparing
payments and other administrative costs of the settlement.

No other payments will be made to class members or class
counsel.  The proposed settlement is subject to court approvals.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.  On April 6, 2009, the court will hold
a hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the
settlement.

The company incurred a one-time charge in the second quarter of
fiscal 2007 of $1.25 million for the proposed settlement and
associated costs, according to its Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 25, 2008.

The suit is "Barton, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc., Case No. 1:04-
cv-00748-NCT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, Judge N.C. Tilley, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert M. Elliot, Esq. (rmelliot@epmlaw.com)
         J. Griffin Morgan, Esq. (jgmorgan@epmlaw.com)
         Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A.
         426 Old Salem Road
         Winston-Salem, NC 27101
         Phone: 336-724-2828
         Fax: 336-714-4499

              - and -

         Charles Joseph, Esq.
         Joseph & Herzfeld, LLP
         757 Third Ave., 25th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-688-5640

Representing the company is:

         Kimberly Jo Korando, Esq. (kkorando@smithlaw.com)
         Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan
         P.O. Box 2611
         Raleigh, NC 27602-2611
         Phone: 919-821-6671
         Fax: 919-821-6800


PANTRY INC: "Hot Fuel" Lawsuits Pending in Kansas District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., and other defendants continue to face several
purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas, over motor fuel that was greater
than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class-action suits
have been filed before the federal courts across the country
against numerous players in the petroleum industry.  Major
petroleum companies and significant retailers in the industry
have been named as defendants in these lawsuits.

To date, Pantry Inc. had been named as a defendant in seven
cases in:

       1. Florida -- "Cozza, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
          et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-80156-DMM," filed on
          Feb. 16, 2007;

       2. Delaware -- "Becker, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum
          Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-00136,"
          filed on March 7, 2007;

       3. North Carolina -- "Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie
          Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-
          00091-FL," filed on Match 7, 2007;

       4. Alabama -- "Snable, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
          Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC," filed
          on March 27, 2007;

       5. Georgia -- "Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
          Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM," filed on June 5,
          2007;

       6. Tennessee -- "Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac
          Petroleum, Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169," filed on
          July 13, 2007; and

       7. South Carolina -- "Korleski v. BP Corporation
          North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-
          MDL," filed on Sept. 24, 2007.

Pursuant to an order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-
District Litigation, all of the cases against the numerous
companies in the petroleum industry, including the seven in
which Pantry Inc. was named, have been or will be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas where the
cases will be consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the
defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the
amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted
gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.

These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the
defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their
retail motor fuel dispensing devices.

In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which
the company is named, the plaintiffs also have alleged that
because the defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature
adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from
consumers in non-temperature adjusted gallons, the defendants
receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than they paid on
the same gallon of fuel.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery
of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.

The cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs and prejudgment interest.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss all cases for
failure to state a claim, which motions were heard by the court
on Jan. 11, 2008.  The court denied the motions by order dated
Feb. 21, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 25, 2008.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


RALPHS GROCERY: Calif. Federal Court Certifies Class in "Sung"
--------------------------------------------------------------
     February 09, 2009: 12:49 PM ET -- Marketwire -- The law
offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC and Berger & Montague, P.C.
announce that on October 6, 2008, Judge Christina Snyder of the
Central District of California certified a class action lawsuit
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and California
State discrimination laws.

     The case is "Sung Park, et al. v. Ralphs Grocery Company,
CV 08-2021 CAS (RCx)."  The Class consists of all individuals
with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for
mobility who, during a time period to be determined by the
Court, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis
of disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of all
corporate owned Ralphs Grocery Company stores in California
excluding the 23 locations presently the subject of litigation
in "Pereira v. Ralphs, CV-07-841 PA (FFMx)."

     The Court named Brodsky & Smith, LLC and Berger & Montague,
P.C. class counsel.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and
statutory damages under federal and state law.  Ralphs, a
division of The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR), operates 260 supermarket
locations throughout California.

     Ralphs sought permission to appeal the District Court's
class certification decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, arguing among other things, that the District Court's
certification "ruling created a death knell for Ralphs" and that
plaintiffs "could ask for damages as high as $600,000,000."  On
January 23, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied Ralphs' petition to
appeal and the class action remains certified for trial in the
Central District of California.

For more details, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          Doug Risen
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-875-3000


STAR GAS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The decision on the December 2008 oral arguments hearing in
connection with the plaintiffs' appeals regarding certain
rulings previously entered in a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit against Star Gas Partners, L.P., remains
pending.

On Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class action complaint on behalf
of a purported class of unitholders was filed against Star Gas
and its various subsidiaries and officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut.  The suit is
"Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3:04-cv-01766-
IBA."

Subsequently, 16 additional class-action complaints, alleging
the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same
district court.  The class actions were consolidated into one
consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the
applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thus, in July 2006, the Court sided with the defendants and
dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.

On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and requested to have the court's judgment of
dismissal altered and reopened.  They also sought leave to file
a second consolidated amended complaint.

On Oct. 20, 2006, the defendants filed their memorandum of law
in opposition to the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.

On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.

However, on April 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery
of their legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA.  This motion was
opposed by the plaintiffs.

On April 20, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Court in connection
with the district court's decisions dismissing the amended
complaint and denying the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.

Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, the class
plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against:

        -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc.,
        -- Paul Biddelman,
        -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.,
        -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.,
        -- UBS Investment Bank, and
        -- Audrey Sevin.

On July 6, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed their brief on
appeal.  The Star Gas Defendants' opposition brief was due on
Aug. 21, 2007, and the class plaintiffs' reply brief was due on
Sept. 11, 2007.

In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant
to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA.

Oral argument was held in December 2008, and a decision is
awaited, according to the company's Feb. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. (andres@stlouislaw.com)
          Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.
          7733 Forsyth, Suite 700
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-862-6800
          Fax: 314-862-1606

               - and -

          David L. Belt, Esq. (dbelt@jacobslaw.com)
          Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C.
          350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606
          New Haven, CT 06503-0606
          Phone: 203-772-3100
          Fax: 203-772-1691

Representing the defendants are:

          Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq. (tjgallagher@dbh.com)
          Day, Berry & Howard
          One Canterbury Green
          Stamford, CT 06901-2047
          Phone: 203-977-7300
          Fax: 203-977-7301

               - and -

          Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq. (eandrews@tylercooper.com)
          Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
          205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936
          New Haven, CT 06509-1910
          Phone: 203-784-8200
          Fax: 203-777-1181


STARBUCKS CORP: Appealing $100M Judgment in "Jou Chau" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Corp.'s initial appellate brief to a San Diego
Superior Court ruling that ordered the company to compensate
California baristas for tips they shared with shift supervisors
is pending.

On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed
the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California
Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips.

More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors
direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the
company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under
California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and
their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons
for other employees.

It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate
the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips
distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under
California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay
wages due.  The plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 30, 2006, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of
all persons employed as baristas in the state of California
since Oct. 8, 2000.

In March 2007, notice of action was sent to approximately
120,000 potential members of the class.  Trial is currently set
for February 2008.

At the February 2008 trial for the class action, "Jou Chau v.
Starbucks Coffee Co.," Judge Cowett ordered Starbucks to pay its
California baristas more than $100 million in back tips the
coffee retailer paid to shift supervisors (Class Action
Reporter, March 25, 2008).

The judge said baristas were entitled to $86 million plus
interest in back tips.  She added that Starbucks' practice was a
violation of a state law.

However, Chief executive Howard Schultz said that the ruling was
unfair and said that the media grossly mischaracterized the
company s standard practice of shift supervisors to share in
tips left for baristas.

Mr. Schultz vowed that the company would appeal the ruling and
defend itself against two similar lawsuits filed this week in
Minnesota and Massachusetts (Class Action Reporter, April 1,
2008).

On March 20, 2008, the court ordered the company to pay
approximately $87 million in restitution, plus interest.

On Dec. 8, 2008, the company filed its initial appellate brief
with the California Court of Appeals, according to its Feb. 4,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Starbucks said there is no money to be refunded or returned from
Starbucks.

Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, various complementary food items, coffee-
related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas
and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-operated
retail stores.


STARBUCKS CORP: Still Faces Employment-Related Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Corp. continues to face an employment- related lawsuit
that is on appeal with the California Court of Appeals.

On June 30, 2005, three individuals -- Erik Lords, Hon Yeung,
and Donald Brown -- filed the lawsuit with the Orange County
Superior Court in California.  The plaintiffs allege that the
company violated the California Labor Code section 432.8 by
asking job applicants to disclose at the time of application
convictions for marijuana related offenses more than two years
old.  They also seek attorneys' fees and costs.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiffs representing a class of
all persons who have applied for employment with Starbucks
Coffee Co. in California since June 23, 2004, who cannot claim
damages in excess of $200.

On Nov. 15, 2007, the court denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.  Starbucks has appealed the denial of its
motion for summary judgment and the California Court of Appeals
has agreed to hear the appeal.

The California Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Dec. 10,
2008, instructing the trial judge to enter summary judgment
against plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have appealed the appellate
court's decision to the California Supreme Court.

The Company believes its employment application complies with
California law, according to its Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, a variety of complementary food items,
coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium
teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-
operated retail stores.


STATE FARM: Judge Gives Go-Ahead to Suit Over Hail Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Indianapolis gave the go-ahead for a class-
action lawsuit to be brought against State Farm Insurance over
the company's handling of thousands of claims for hail damage
from a 2006 storm, Rafael Sanchez of Call 6 reports.

Call 6 has been following the investigation since the April 14,
2006 storm, after which thousands of people said they had
difficulty getting their roofs repaired.

A spokesman for State Farm had previously said that the company
received 49,200 claims and that it had paid out more than $265
million to Hoosiers whose property had sustained damage.

An investigation by state insurance regulators is still ongoing
regarding State Farm's handling of claims following the storm,
according to the Call 6 report.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit in Canada Over Pricing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     TORONTO, Feb. 9 /PRNewswire/ - A $500 million Class Action
was commenced against Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.,
Ticketmaster Canada Ltd., TNOW Entertainment Group, Inc., and
Premium Inventory, Inc. (the "Defendants") claiming the
Defendants conspired to divert tickets to popular events away
from Ticketmaster's lower priced portal available to the general
public (http://www.ticketmaster.ca),in favor of its ticket
brokering website http://www.ticketsnow.com,in which the same
tickets were sold at premium prices.  The lawsuit contends that
the practice of selling tickets in the secondary market for
amounts that exceed their face price contravene Ontario's anti-
scalping legislation.

     The lawsuit also alleges that the fees and surcharges
levied to the general public by Ticketmaster also violate the
Ontario legislation.

     The lawsuit was initiated by a plaintiff who purchased two
concert tickets for $533.65 including service charges, but
excluding shipping costs.  The same tickets would have cost him
$133.00 on Ticketmaster's website, had they been available.
Ticketmaster's website directed him to the higher priced tickets
on the TicketsNow website.

     "Customers have voiced concerns over the fact that tickets
for the most popular events can ostensibly sell out in minutes,
only to become immediately available in the secondary market at
much higher prices," said Luciana Brasil of Branch McMaster, one
of the lawyers representing the Plaintiff.

     "It is reasonable to expect consumers to be curious about
the process by which tickets are sold to them," said Jay
Strosberg of Sutts Strosberg LLP, one of the lawyers
representing the plaintiff.  "The mere fact that Ticketmaster
has a financial interest in both retail and premium ticket sales
leads to an obvious question about the process by which those
tickets are sold to members of the public and how it works."

     The class action is commenced on behalf of all persons who
purchased tickets for an event in Ontario from Ticketmaster or
through TicketsNow.com from and after February 9, 2007.

For more details visit http://www.ticketmasterclassaction.com.


TYCO ELECTRONICS: Consolidated ERISA Suit in N.H. Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class-action lawsuit brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Tyco Electronics
Limited remains in litigation.

Tyco and certain of its current and former employees, officers
and directors, have been named as defendants in eight class
actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire and the six remaining actions were
transferred to that Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

All eight actions have been consolidated in the District Court
in New Hampshire, according to the company's Feb. 3, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2008.

The consolidated complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of
the company's Retirement Savings and Investment Plans and the
participants therein and alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by negligently
misrepresenting and negligently failing to disclose material
information concerning, among other things, the following:

     -- related-party transactions and executive compensation;

     -- the company's mergers and acquisitions and the
        accounting therefore, as well as allegedly undisclosed
        acquisitions; and

     -- misstatements of its financial results.

The complaint also asserts that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by allowing the Plans to invest in the
company's shares when it was not a prudent investment.

The complaints seek recovery of alleged plan losses arising from
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all Participants in the Plans for whose
individual accounts the Plans purchased and/or held shares of
Tyco Stock Fund at any time from Aug. 12, 1998 to July 25,
2002."

Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/--
is a global provider of engineered electronic components,
network solutions, wireless systems and undersea
telecommunication systems.  The company designs, manufactures,
and markets products for customers in industries from
automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to
telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics.  Its
products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites
in over 25 countries.  The company is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Tyco International Limited.


TYCO ELECTRONICS: Settlement with Mass. Commonwealth Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco Electronics Limited's agreement in principle with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment
Management Board remains subject to the terms of the Separation
and Distribution Agreement.

In June 2007, the company agreed to settle 32 purported
securities class-action lawsuits arising from actions alleged to
have been taken by prior management, for $2.975 billion and the
settlement became final in February 2008.

On Dec. 2, 2008, the company reached an agreement in principle
with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Management Board, an entity that was not included in
the June 2007 securities class-action settlement, to settle all
of its claims in respect of the subject matter of the class-
action settlement for a payment of $11 million.

The settlement is subject to the terms of the Separation and
Distribution Agreement, which results in the company being
responsible for approximately $3 million out of the aggregate
settlement amount.

In connection with the 2007 spin-offs of Tyco's Healthcare and
Electronics businesses, the company entered into a liability
sharing agreement regarding certain legal actions that were
pending against Tyco prior to the Separation, according to the
company's Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2008.

Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/--
is a global provider of engineered electronic components,
network solutions, wireless systems and undersea
telecommunication systems.  The company designs, manufactures,
and markets products for customers in industries from
automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to
telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics.  Its
products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites
in over 25 countries.  The company is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Tyco International Limited.


WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined
---------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of damages and attorney's fees in "Gary Hosking v.
New World Mortgage, Inc. and New World Capital Holdings, Inc.,
Case No. 2007cv02200," has yet to be determined by the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of New York, according to
Willing Holding, Inc.'s Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-12G filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 21, 2008, a default judgment against the company's
subsidiary, New World, was entered in the Eastern District of
New York in Gary Hosking's case for failure to appear in a class
action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, allegedly
unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, and damages owed
to certain loan officers formerly employed by New World.

Willing Holding, Inc. was organized in 2005, as a technology
company with a focus on the telecommunications industry.  Since
inception, the company has conducted various consulting and
other startup activities in the telecommunications sector but
have not yet generated any revenues and only incurred minimal
expenses relating to those activities.  With the acquisition of
its wholly-owned subsidiary, New World, in April 2008, a
significant portion of the company's operations has consisted of
providing mortgage and e-commerce products and services through
its Telemarketing Group and sales organization.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Klafter Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     February 09, 2009: 10:04 PM ET Marketwire -- Klafter
Olsen & Lesser LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against
Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CNB) and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities Colonial from December 2,
2008 through January 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     Defendant Colonial is a bank holding company whose primary
business is commercial and consumer banking.

     The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the
federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements contained in a press release and a related
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning
the Company's participation in the Troubled Asset Relief Program
("TARP").

     Specifically, during the trading day on December 2, 2008,
Colonial issued a press release announcing that it had received
TARP funding approval for an injection of $550 million.

     The press release also detailed the purported terms of the
TARP funding with the United States Treasury Department
including that the government would received preferred stock as
well as warrants to purchase Colonial common stock.

     In response to that announcement Colonial's stock price
surged over 50 percent from its $2 per share close on December
1, 2008 to close at $3.08 per share on December 2, 2008.

     However, the Defendants did not disclose that Colonial
would be required to raise additional outside capital of $300
million before it could receive the $550 million in TARP
funding.  Defendants belatedly disclosed that material fact
after the markets closed on January 27, 2009.  In response to
that announcement, Colonial's stock price plunged from its close
of $1.58 on January 27, 2009 to $0.85 the next trading -- a 46%
drop -- on extraordinary volume exceeding 26 million shares.

For more details, contact:

          Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP
          1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
          Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone:202 261 3553
          Fax: 202 261 3533
          Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Dyer & Berens Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, Feb. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Denver-based Dyer
& Berens LLP (www.DyerBerens.com) announced that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of investors of Level 3
Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT)
who purchased the Company's common stock between February 8,
2007, and October 23, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
complaint charges Level 3 and certain of its senior officers
with violations of the federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements to the market
about the Company's business, operations and earnings prospects.

For example, defendants failed to disclose that:

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

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

     As a result of defendants' false statements, Level 3 stock
traded at artificially inflated prices and Company insiders
collectively realized more than $3.5 million in proceeds from
the sale of their personally-held Level 3 stock.

     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.  The Company reported that
its core communications services revenue was negatively impacted
by provisioning issues.  On this news, Level 3's stock price
dropped to close at $3.18 per share on October 24, 2007, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of purchasers
of Level 3 common stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Feb. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel") (Nasdaq:RIGL) between December
13, 2007 and October 27, 2008 (the "Class Period"), including
all persons who acquired the common stock of Rigel pursuant and/
or traceable to a false and misleading Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February
2008 secondary offering.  The class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     February 09, 2009: 06:39 PM ET -- Marketwire -- The law
firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities
fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: RIGL) ("Rigel" or the "Company") between December 13,
2007 and October 27, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Also
included are those who acquired Rigel in the Company's February
2008 Secondary Offering.

     The Complaint charges that Rigel and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements about a clinical trial (the "Study") of a
new drug, R788, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.  The
Study involved 189 patients in the U.S. and Mexico.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
failed to disclose the following:

       -- patients in Mexico had higher response rates in both
          the placebo and treated arms than the U.S. Patients,
          which may have contributed disproportionately to the
          overall reported benefit observed at the higher doses;

       -- R788 caused an increase in average blood pressure
          which could signal an increase in cardiovascular risk,
          and the mechanism that caused the increase was not
          well understood; and

       -- patients in the Study taking R788 experienced
          increased liver enzymes compared to patients taking
          the placebo.

For more details, contact:

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


SATYAM COMPUTER: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The law firm of
Harwood Feffer LLP announces that it filed a new class action
lawsuit on February 9, 2009 on behalf of purchasers of the
American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of Satyam Computer Services
Ltd. ("Satyam" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAY) during the period
January 6, 2004 through January 6, 2009 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint alleges that the Company and its two top
executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading financial
statements.

     On January 7, 2009, the Company's Chairman B. Ramalinga
Raju sent a letter to the Satyam Board of Directors and the
Securities & Exchange Board of India admitting a "multi-year"
fraud in which Satyam's financial accounts and disclosures were
systematically falsified.

     According to the letter, Raju admitted to having inflated
the amount of cash on the Company's balance sheet by nearly $1
billion, incurring liability of $253 million on funds arranged
by him personally, and overstating Satyam's September 2008
quarterly revenues by 76% and profits by 97%.

     The Complaint also alleges that Satyam's auditors
PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd., PricewaterhouseCooopers
International Limited, and PricewaterhouseCoopers were active
participants in the Company's fraud.  As a result of this
disclosure trading in the ADSs was halted, with an estimated
indication of a loss being approximately 90% of its value.

For more information, contact:

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq. (rharwood@hfesq.com)
          Harwood Feffer LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10022
          Phone: 877-935-7400
          Website: http://www.hfesq.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  * * *