CAR_Public/090216.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 32

                           Headlines

DHL EXPRESS: Still Faces Jet Fuel Surcharges Suit in New York
GLASS MANUFACTURERS: Pa. Court Junks Motion in Antitrust Lawsuit
HOME SOLUTIONS: March 23 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Deal
HOME SOLUTIONS: "Melms" Suit Settlement Still Pending Approval
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Certification of Pioneer Valley Class Pending

HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on FCA Class Certification Bid
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Transfers Funds for Payment of Claimants
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuit by Securities Purchasers in Md.
JDS UNIPHASE: Agreement in Consolidated ERISA Action Reached
JDS UNIPHASE: Parties Agree to Dismiss Central States' Action

JONES SODA: Wash. Court Dismisses Wash. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MASCO CORP: Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in Price-Fixing Case
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Lawsuits by Alcaldo and Howes in Texas
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Consolidated Litigation Over Unpaid Wages

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Gold Kist Faces "Benbow" Suit in South Carolina
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Officers Face Lawsuits by Plan Participants
PLEXUS CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: "Baumkel" Suit Still in Preliminary Stages


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Brower Piven Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Shuman Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing


                           *********

DHL EXPRESS: Still Faces Jet Fuel Surcharges Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
DHL Express (USA), Inc., DHL Worldwide Express, Inc. and DHL
Holdings (USA), Inc. continue to face a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York, alleging that DHL charges jet fuel surcharges on
packages it carries by ground, Michael Beebe of The Buffalo News
reports.

Filed in October 2008 by James P. Ball, whose family owns Buick,
Pontiac, GMC and Cadillac dealerships on Southwestern Boulevard
in Orchard Park, the class-action lawsuit claims that DHL
overbilled thousands of its customers by tens of millions of
dollars since at least 2003.  The suit was brought on behalf of
the Jim Ball dealerships and all others who might have been
overcharged, according to The Buffalo News report.

Specifically, the suit claims that DHL charged customers a jet
fuel surcharge of at least 29 percent for express deliveries
even when the company shipped parcels by truck, reports The
Buffalo News.

The breach of contract case is brought as a nationwide class
action to recover damages from DHL, a package delivery company
that has been improperly charging the plaintiff and the members
of the class jet fuel surcharges for package deliveries that DHL
transports solely by ground transportation.  It seeks to hold
DHL to the terms of its own bargain with plaintiff and the
members of the class (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2008).

The action is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all
individuals and entities who have, at any time from 2003 to the
date of any class certification order, paid DHL a jet fuel
surcharge for package deliveries within the United States that
DHL transported solely by ground transportation.

The plaintiffs demand judgment against DHL as follows:

     a) For damages, in an amount to be determined at trial,
        plus interest;

     b) For attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and

     c) For award of such other and further relief as this Court
        deems just and proper.

The Buffalo News reported that on Feb. 10, 2009, attorney Daniel
C. Oliverio, Esq., who filed the suit with fellow Hodgson Russ
attorney Joseph V. Sedita, Esq. on behalf of Mr. Ball, filed a
motion asking Judge John T. Curtin to find DHL liable for
damages in the suit.

The suit is "Jim Ball Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc., et al. v. DHL
Express (USA), Inc., et al., Case Number: 1:2008cv00761," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York,
Hon. John T. Curtin, presiding.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joseph V. Sedita, Esq.
          Daniel C. Oliverio, Esq.
          140 Pearl Street, Suite 100
          Buffalo, New York 14202
          Telephone: (716) 856-4000


GLASS MANUFACTURERS: Pa. Court Junks Motion in Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
denied several glass manufacturers' motion to dismiss a class-
action antitrust suit filed against them alleging that they
agreed to raise and fix prices "through a combination of
collusive energy surcharges and price increases," glassBYTEs
reports.

The glass manufacturers included in the suit are:

       -- AGC America Inc.,
       -- AGC Flat Glass North America Inc.,
       -- Guardian Industries Corp.,
       -- Pilkington North America Inc.,
       -- Pilkington Holding Inc., and
       -- PPG Industries.

According to court documents, the manufacturers involved argued
that the complaint should be dismissed "because the various
allegations therein are insufficient under the pleading standard
to infer the existence of an agreement or conspiracy to
restrain trade," reports glassBYTEs.

Specifically, the defendants argue in their dismissal motion
that:

       -- they did not make any sort of agreement, that the
          allegations of parallel energy surcharges are
          "insufficient";

       -- the allegations of parallel price increases by some
          defendants are insufficient; that the allegations of
          participation in trade associations are insufficient;

       -- the allegations of defendants' profitability are
          insufficient;

       -- the allegations of miscellaneous suspicious statements
          are insufficient; and

       -- the allegations regarding "European misconduct" are
          insufficient.

In addition, PPG specifically argues that it should be removed
from the case, as it was not named in the 2007 EU report.

However, glassBYTEs reported that the presiding judge pointed
out that the complaint alleges that "there was a history of
inability to raise and maintain prices" prior to the period
covered by the complaint, July 1, 2002, through December 2006.
He also notes that the complaint alleges that there was a
history of varying surcharges by region up until June 2002, but
afterwards this variation ceased.

The judge writes, "Rather, the CAC [Consolidated Amended
Complaint] alleges an agreement that existed for over thirty
months beginning in June 2002, by raising prices by identical
percentages and charging energy surcharges in virtual lockstep
while providing customers with identical charts and
justifications for the same, until February of 2005, when the
European Commission launched raids upon the European
construction flat glass market.  Thereafter, the Defendants did
not engage in lockstep parallel conduct.  Thus, contrary to
Defendants' position, this is not a case where Plaintiffs rely
solely on the decision of the European Commission to assert a
domestic conspiracy or a solely parallel conduct case.
Therefore, dismissal of the CAC is not warranted based on
Defendants' EC allegation arguments and arguments of parallel
conduct," according to the glassBYTEs report.

The judge also notes that while membership in trade associations
does not necessarily suggest conspiracy, that "the meeting dates
provide the Defendants with notice of specific time frames and
manner of the alleged agreement."

Finally, as to PPG's request to be removed from the case, the
judge writes, "It is of no moment that PPG did not participate
in the European conspiracy.  The CAC is not simply asserting a
theory of 'since it happened there, it happened here.'  To the
contrary, the CAC sets forth sufficient allegations, when read
in toto, to set forth a claim," glassBYTEs reported.

Named plaintiffs in the case include:

       -- Colonial Glass Solutions,
       -- Burhans Glass,
       -- John Draper (of Draper's Auto Glass),
       -- Perilstein Glass Corp.,
       -- Diversified Glass Services,
       -- Gilkey Window Co.,
       -- Maran-Wurzell Glass & Mirror,
       -- E & G Auto Parts Inc.,
       -- Superior Glass Inc.,
       -- Frank's Glass Inc.,
       -- Greenwood Glass Co.,
       -- Public Supply Co.,
       -- Raymond's Glass Inc.,
       -- Bailes Granite & Marble,
       -- Thermo Twin Industries Inc.,
       -- Sellmore Industries Inc.,
       -- Interstate Building Materials,
       -- Wally's Glass Service Inc.,
       -- Head West Inc.,
       -- D & S Glass Services Inc.,
       -- G&C Auto Body Inc.,
       -- Girard Glass Corp.,
       -- Fast Glass Service,
       -- Century Bathworks Inc., and
       -- No Job Too Small Inc.

glassBYTEs reported that initially several similar lawsuits were
filed in late 2007 and early 2008, after the European Union (EU)
levied fines on several glass manufacturers for alleged price-
fixing practices.  In June 2008, approximately 20 of these suits
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

A status conference regarding the case is scheduled for March 9,
2009.  Chief District judge Donetta Ambrose is presiding over
the case, according to glassBYTEs.


HOME SOLUTIONS: March 23 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A March 23, 2009 hearing has been set for the settlement of the
consolidated shareholder class action captioned, "Home Solutions
of America Investor Group v. Fradella, Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-
1096," according to Home Solutions of America, Inc.'s Form 8-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
Feb. 5, 2009.

On Sept. 22, 2008, the company entered into a Confidential
Settlement Agreement with its lenders under its Revolving Credit
Facility, Term Loan and Letter of Credit Facility.  The
Settlement Agreement, which supersedes the Forbearance Agreement
entered into Feb. 6, 2008, as amended, between the company and
its lenders, effectively settled all outstanding obligations
between the company and its lenders.

The company reached an agreement to settle the consolidated
shareholder class action captioned, "Home Solutions of America
Investor Group v. Fradella, Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-1096,"
filed on June 20, 2006.

The 2006 Class Action Settlement and the Derivative Action
Settlement are subject to approval by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, which has set a hearing for
March 23, 2009 to determine whether the 2006 Class Action
Settlement should be approved.

Under the terms of the 2006 Class Action Settlement, the company
agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle all claims brought by a
certified class of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Home Solution during the period between April 11, 2006, and
March 5, 2007, inclusive.  If all required payments are made and
the 2006 Class Action Settlement is approved by the District
Court, all claims asserted by 2006 Settlement Class will be
dismissed with prejudice, and a portion of the $3.5 million
settlement amount will be used to pay the attorneys' fees of
counsel for the plaintiffs.

Home Solutions of America, Inc. -- http://www.hsoacorp.com/--
is a provider of restoration, construction and interior services
to commercial and residential areas that are prone to flooding,
hurricanes, tornados, fires or other naturally occurring and
repetitive weather related emergencies, and/or experiencing
commercial or residential development.  The company operates
through two segments: restoration and construction services, and
interior services.


HOME SOLUTIONS: "Melms" Suit Settlement Still Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class-action suit captioned,
"Melms v. Home Solutions of America et al., Civil Action No.
3L07-CV-1961," remains subject to approval by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The company reached an agreement to settle a purported class
action captioned, "Melms v. Home Solutions of America et al.,
Civil Action No. 3L07-CV-1961," filed on Feb. 15, 2008, and
amended on May 29, 2008.

The company cannot predict whether the Court will grant approval
of the settlement, according to the company's Form 8-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Feb. 5,
2009.

Under the terms of the Melms Settlement, the company agreed to
pay $5.1 million to settle all claims brought by a class of all
persons who purchased common stock of Home Solutions from May
10, 2007 through Feb. 15, 2008.

Home Solutions of America, Inc. -- http://www.hsoacorp.com/--
is a provider of restoration, construction and interior services
to commercial and residential areas that are prone to flooding,
hurricanes, tornados, fires or other naturally occurring and
repetitive weather related emergencies, and/or experiencing
commercial or residential development.  The company operates
through two segments: restoration and construction services, and
interior services.


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Certification of Pioneer Valley Class Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
not yet ruled on the motion for class certification in Pioneer
Valley Casket Co.'s lawsuit against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., and
its former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary.

On July 8, 2005, Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket
store and Internet retailer, also filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Batesville, the Company, Service Corporation
International, Alderwoods Group, Inc. and Stewart Enterprises,
Inc. in California District Court on behalf of the class of
"independent casket distributors," alleging violations of state
and federal antitrust law and state unfair and deceptive
practices laws based on essentially the same factual allegations
as in the consumer cases.

Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent casket
distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy
to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for
caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods,
Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the
alleged market for caskets.

The Pioneer Valley complaint was also transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston,
Texas), but was not consolidated with the action filed by
Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., although the scheduling orders
for both cases are identical.

On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed an amended complaint
adding three new plaintiffs, each of whom purports to be a
current or former "independent casket distributor."

Like Pioneer Valley's original complaint, the amended complaint
alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, but it has dropped
the causes of actions for alleged price fixing, conspiracy to
monopolize, and violations of state antitrust law and state
unfair and deceptive practices laws.

On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied the December 2005
motions to dismiss the amended Pioneer Valley complaint.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all independent
casket distributors in the United States who are presently in
business or were in business any time from July 8, 2001, to the
present, including the following subclasses of independent
casket distributors who:

      -- paid a surcharge in order to obtain a Batesville casket
         from an entity other than Batesville; and

      -- were engaged in business as of Dec. 4, 2006.

Excluded from the class are independent casket distributors
that:

      -- are affiliated in any way with any funeral home;

      -- manufacture caskets;

      -- are Defendants, including all directors, officers,
         agents, and employees of such; or

      -- are parents, subsidiaries and/or affiliates of
         Defendants.

Class certification hearing was held in early December 2006.
Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification
motion was completed in March 2007.

On Nov. 24, 2008, a Magistrate Judge in the Court recommended
that the motion for class certification be denied.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
the case, including the previously set February 2008 trial date.
On Aug. 25, 2008, the court canceled a previously scheduled
Sept. 8, 2008 docket call and stayed the case pending resolution
of class certification.

The plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any
such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs filed a report
indicating that they are seeking damages of approximately $99.2
million before trebling.

The plaintiffs in each case have filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations with the U.S. District Judge.
If the District Judge accepts the Magistrate Judge's
recommendations and denies class certification, plaintiffs may
petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for
leave to appeal.  It is anticipated that new deadlines,
including a possible trial date, will not be set until sometime
after the District Court has ruled on the motions for class
certification, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.hill-rom.com formerly
Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., is the manufacturer and provider
of medical technologies and related services for the health care
industry, including patient support systems, non-invasive
therapeutic products for a variety of acute and chronic medical
conditions, medical equipment rentals and health information
technology solutions.  Hill-Rom's product and service offerings
are used by healthcare providers across the healthcare continuum
in hospitals, extended care facilities and home care settings.
On March 31, 2008, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. completed the spin-
off of its funeral services business operating under the
Batesville Casket name.


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on FCA Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
not yet ruled on the motion for class certification in Funeral
Consumers Alliance, Inc.'s lawsuit against Hill-Rom Holdings,
Inc., and its former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary,
according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On May 2, 2005, a non-profit entity called FCA and several
individual consumers filed a purported antitrust class-action
lawsuit against three national funeral home businesses, Service
Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. together with the Company, and Batesville,
which is now wholly-owned by Hillenbrand, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

This lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to suppress competition in an
alleged market for the sale of caskets through a group boycott
of so-called "independent casket discounters," that is, third-
party casket sellers unaffiliated with licensed funeral homes; a
campaign of disparagement against these independent casket
discounters; and concerted efforts to restrict casket price
competition and to coordinate and fix casket pricing, all in
violation of federal antitrust law and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that Batesville's
maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to,
its long-standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed
funeral homes were the product of a conspiracy among Batesville,
the other defendants and others to exclude "independent casket
discounters" and that this alleged conspiracy, combined with
other alleged matters, suppressed competition in the alleged
market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher than
competitive prices for caskets.

The FCA Action alleged that two of Batesville's competitors,
York Group, Inc. and Aurora Casket Company, are co-conspirators
but did not name them as defendants.  The FCA Action also
alleged that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co-
conspirators conspired to monopolize the alleged market for the
sale of caskets in the United States.

After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class
action lawsuits on behalf of consumers were filed based on
essentially the same factual allegations and alleging violations
of federal antitrust law and/or related state law claims.

Batesville, the Company and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more
convenient forum.  In response, the court in California
permitted the plaintiffs to replead the complaint and later
granted defendants' motion to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston,
Texas).

On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
consolidating all but one of the other purported consumer class
actions.  The amended FCA complaint contains substantially the
same basic allegations as the original FCA complaint.  The only
other then remaining purported consumer class action, "Fancher
v. SCI et al.," was subsequently dismissed voluntarily by the
plaintiff after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On Oct. 26, 2006, however, a new purported class-action suit was
filed by the estates of Dale Van Coley and Joye Katherine Coley,
Candace D. Robinson, Personal Representative, consumer
plaintiffs, against Batesville and the Company in the Western
District of Oklahoma alleging violation of the antitrust laws in
fourteen states based on allegations that Batesville engaged in
conduct designed to foreclose competition and gain a monopoly
position in the market.  This lawsuit was largely based on
similar factual allegations to the FCA Action.  Batesville and
the Company had this case transferred to the Southern District
of Texas in order to coordinate this action with the FCA Action
and filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On Sept. 17, 2007,
the Court granted Batesville's and the Company's motion to
dismiss and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice.

The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that
includes all United States consumers who purchased Batesville
caskets from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time
during the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of
limitations. On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court denied the defendants'
November 2005 motions to dismiss the amended FCA complaint.

Class certification hearing was held in early December 2006.
Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification
motion was completed in March 2007, though briefing on certain
supplemental evidence related to class certification also
occurred in September 2007 and October 2007.

On Nov. 24, 2008, a Magistrate Judge in the Court recommended
that the motion for class certification be denied.  The
plaintiffs have 10 court days to file objections to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations with the U.S. District Judge.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
the case, including the previously set February 2008 trial date.
On Aug. 25, 2008, the court canceled a previously scheduled
Sept. 8, 2008 docket call and stayed the case pending resolution
of class certification.

The plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any
such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs filed a report
indicating that they are seeking damages ranging from
approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion
before trebling.

Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.hill-rom.com formerly
Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., is the manufacturer and provider
of medical technologies and related services for the health care
industry, including patient support systems, non-invasive
therapeutic products for a variety of acute and chronic medical
conditions, medical equipment rentals and health information
technology solutions.  Hill-Rom's product and service offerings
are used by healthcare providers across the healthcare continuum
in hospitals, extended care facilities and home care settings.
On March 31, 2008, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. completed the spin-
off of its funeral services business operating under the
Batesville Casket name.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Transfers Funds for Payment of Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hutchinson Technology Inc., in the first quarter of 2009,
transferred the necessary funds to the settlement administrator
for payment to the claimants in a purported class-action suit
alleging violations of labor law by the company.

Originally, Hutchinson Technology was named as defendant in a
complaint brought before the district court in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, by two current and three former employees and served
on the company on Aug. 28, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13,
2007).

The complaint asserts claims based on the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, several statutes and regulations dealing with
topics related to wages and breaks, and common law theories.  It
also alleges that the company fails to pay its production
workers for the time they spend changing into and out of
protective clothing and that the company does not provide
employees the breaks allegedly required by Minnesota law or
promised by company policy.

The complaint seeks pay for the allegedly unpaid time, an equal
amount of liquidated damages, other damages, penalties,
attorneys fees and interest.

The company has subsequently reached a tentative settlement with
the plaintiffs.  By order dated April 24, 2008, the District
Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and set a
final approval hearing for Sept. 11, 2008.

By order dated Sept. 24, 2008, the District Court approved the
settlement agreement.  During the first quarter of 2008, the
company recorded a litigation charge of $2,494,000, which was
reduced in the company's fourth quarter of 2008 to $2,003,000,
related to the settlement of this class-action lawsuit.  In the
first quarter of 2009, the company transferred the necessary
funds to the settlement administrator for payment to the
claimants, according to its Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Hutchinson Technology Inc. -- http://www.htch.com/-- operates
in two segments: the Disk Drive Components Division and the
BioMeasurement Division.  The Disk Drive Components Division is
a supplier of suspension assemblies for disk drives.  Suspension
assemblies are precise electro-mechanical components that hold a
disk drive's recording head at microscopic distances above the
drive's disks.  The BioMeasurement Division is filling an
information gap in the monitoring of trauma patients with the
introduction of the InSpectra StO2 Tissue Oxygenation Monitor.
Launched in October 2006, the device gives hospital trauma teams
the ability to non-invasively and continuously measure tissue
oxygen saturation (St02) and monitor it during resuscitation.


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuit by Securities Purchasers in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integral Systems, Inc. and the individual defendants face a
purported securities class-action complaint filed in Maryland
federal court.

On Dec. 15, 2008, shortly after the company announced its
preliminary financial results for the quarter and fiscal year
ended Sept. 30, 2008, a purported securities class action
complaint was filed in Maryland federal court against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.

The complaint alleges that between April 28, 2008 and Dec. 10,
2008, certain statements made by the company concerning its
financial condition were false or misleading because those
statements failed to disclose that the company was improperly
recognizing revenue; that the company's financial statements
accordingly were not prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally
accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP), were misstated, and
were materially false and misleading; and that the company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

The complaint seeks to assert claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and requests
certification of a class of persons who purchased the company's
common stock between the dates mentioned.

No specific damage amount is alleged in the complaint.

To date, no proceedings have taken place in the lawsuit other
than the filing of the complaint, according to the company's
Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2008.

Integral Systems, Inc. -- http://www.integ.com/-- provides
solutions for satellite command and control, integration and
test, data processing, signals analysis, and flight simulation.
The Company designs, develops, and integrates solutions, and
provide services related to satellite ground systems and other
communications and networking equipment.  It operates in three
segments: Government Systems, Commercial Systems and Space
Communications Systems.  Government Systems provides ground
systems products and services to the U.S. Federal Government.
Commercial Systems provides ground systems products and services
to commercial enterprises and international organizations.  The
segment consists of three wholly owned subsidiaries, SAT
Corporation (SAT), Newpoint Technologies, Inc. (Newpoint), and
Integral Systems Europe S.A.S. (ISI Europe).


JDS UNIPHASE: Agreement in Consolidated ERISA Action Reached
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated action entitled, "In re JDS
Uniphase Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. C-03-4743 WWS
(MEJ)," have reached an agreement in principle to resolve all
claims, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 27, 2008.

The consolidated action is pending in the District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, certain of
its former and current officers and directors, and certain other
current and former JDSU employees on behalf of a purported class
of participants in the 401(k) Plans of the Company and Optical
Coating Laboratory, Inc. and the Plans themselves.

On Oct. 31, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by breaching their fiduciary
duties to the Plans and the Plans' participants.  The amended
complaint alleges a purported class period from Feb. 4, 2000, to
the present and seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
restitution, a constructive trust, and other equitable remedies.
Certain individual Defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the
amended complaint was granted with prejudice on June 15, 2006.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30, 2006.
Defendants answered the complaint on July 6, 2006, and JDSU
asserted counterclaims for breach of contract.  The Court
dismissed those counterclaims on Sept. 11, 2006.

On Dec. 15, 2006, defendants moved for summary judgment on the
ground that the named plaintiffs lacked standing.  On the same
day, plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On April 24, 2007, the Court denied defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiff Douglas Pettit, deferred ruling
on the motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Eric Carey,
and deferred ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Both sides have taken discovery.

Following the verdict for defendants in "In re JDS Uniphase
Corporation Securities Litigation," the court in the ERISA
action vacated all existing deadlines, set a schedule for
briefing a summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel
issues, and stayed discovery pending resolution of that motion.

By Order dated April 17, 2008, the Court modified the briefing
schedule for JDSU's summary judgment motion and ordered the
parties to engage in mediation. Defendants moved for summary
judgment on collateral estoppel issues on May 2, 2008.  The
parties participated in mediation on Oct. 10, 2008, and reached
an agreement in principle to resolve all claims.

JDS Uniphase Corp. -- http://www.jdsu.com/-- is a provider of
communications test and measurement solutions and optical
products for telecommunications service providers, cable
operators, and network equipment manufacturers.  In addition,
the Company's optical coatings are used in visual display and
decorative product differentiation applications.  It has four
segments: Optical Communications, which accounted for
approximately 34% of net revenue, during the fiscal year ended
June 28, 2008 (fiscal 2008); Communications Test and
Measurement, which accounted for approximately 46% of net
revenue in fiscal 2008; Advanced Optical Technologies, which
accounted for approximately 14% of net revenue in fiscal 2008,
and Commercial Lasers, which accounted for approximately 6% of
net revenue in fiscal 2008.


JDS UNIPHASE: Parties Agree to Dismiss Central States' Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the action, "Central States Southeast and
Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. 07-0584
CW," filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with
prejudice in November 2008.

On Jan. 29, 2007, a securities action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and several of the
company's former officers and directors.

The action, "Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas
Pension Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. 07-0584 CW," was based
on allegations similar to those made in "In re JDS Uniphase
Corporation Securities Litigation," a securities class action
that tried to a jury verdict in favor of defendants on all
claims in November 2007.

The Central States complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Central States complaint sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a pension fund that purportedly purchased Company
securities between Oct. 28, 1999, and July 26, 2001, and elected
to opt-out of participation in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation
Securities Litigation."

On Feb. 14, 2007, the Central States action was deemed related
to "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation" and
was assigned to Judge Claudia Wilken.  Pursuant to the Court's
order, the parties participated in mediation on Aug. 7, 2008,
and reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims on
confidential terms.

On Nov. 20, 2008, the parties filed a joint stipulation
dismissing the action with prejudice, according to the company's
Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008.

JDS Uniphase Corp. -- http://www.jdsu.com/-- is a provider of
communications test and measurement solutions and optical
products for telecommunications service providers, cable
operators, and network equipment manufacturers.  In addition,
the Company's optical coatings are used in visual display and
decorative product differentiation applications.  It has four
segments: Optical Communications, which accounted for
approximately 34% of net revenue, during the fiscal year ended
June 28, 2008 (fiscal 2008); Communications Test and
Measurement, which accounted for approximately 46% of net
revenue in fiscal 2008; Advanced Optical Technologies, which
accounted for approximately 14% of net revenue in fiscal 2008,
and Commercial Lasers, which accounted for approximately 6% of
net revenue in fiscal 2008.


JONES SODA: Wash. Court Dismisses Wash. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit
filed against Jones Soda Co., Law360 reports.

Initially, on Sept. 4, 2007, a putative class-action complaint
was filed against the company, its chief executive officer, and
its chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 2, 2009).

The case is entitled, "Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-1366-RSL," and purports to be brought on behalf
of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during
the period from March 9, 2007, to Aug. 2, 2007.

Six substantially similar complaints were subsequently filed in
the same court, some of which allege claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period
from Nov. 1, 2006, to Aug. 2, 2007.  Some of the subsequently
filed complaints also added as defendants certain directors and
another officer of the company.

The additional complaints generally allege violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, false and
misleading statements and omissions about the company's
financial results and business prospects.  They seek unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, all seven lawsuits were consolidated as a
single action entitled "In re Jones Soda Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL."  The Court appointed
Robert Burrell as lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities
case.

On May 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint, which purports to allege claims on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period Jan. 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the
company and Peter van Stolk, its former CEO, former Chairman of
the Board, and current director.

The First Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges
violations of federal securities laws based on, among other
things, false and misleading statements and omissions about the
company's agreements with retailers, allocation of resources,
and business prospects.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on July 7, 2008.  The motion is scheduled to be fully briefed
and submitted for consideration in early October 2008.

The suit is "In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

          David A.P. Brower, Esq. (brower@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          488 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-501-9000

               - and -

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. (cacantor@comcast.net)
          627 208th Ave Se
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          Phone: 425-868-7813
          Fax: 425-868-7870

Representing the defendants is:

          Barry M. Kaplan (bkaplan@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-883-2500
          Fax: 206-883-2699


MASCO CORP: Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in Price-Fixing Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie E. Carnes of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia denied a motion that sought for the
dismissal of a purported class-action suit against Masco Corp.
in connection with insulation installation, the Detroit Free
Press reports.

With the ruling, the company, one of the largest U.S. insulation
contractors, must face a trial against almost 400 smaller rivals
accusing it of conspiring to fix prices, reports the Detroit
Free Press.

The contractors sued Masco in 2004, claiming it conspired with
manufacturers to set artificially high insulation costs "to the
detriment of competing independent contractors," Judge Carnes
said in her order, a copy of which was obtained by the Detroit
Free Press.

Steven Rosenwasser, Esq., a lawyer for the plaintiffs, estimates
the contractors are owed several hundred million dollars.  Masco
argued that class status was unjustified, according to the
order.  Judge Carnes said the company argued in court that
prices are determined on a regional and individualized
negotiation basis.  "The court is not persuaded," Judge Carnes
said of Masco's arguments, according to the Detroit Free Press.

The Detroit Free Press reported that allowing the contractors to
sue as a group can give them more leverage to force a settlement
with Masco rather than go to trial.


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss consolidated purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit that was filed against Maxim Integrated
Products, Inc. in California federal court is pending.

On Feb. 6, 2008, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Maxim and its former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to
the grants of stock options.  It seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during the period from
April 29, 2003 to Jan. 17, 2008, unspecified damages, interest
and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
disbursements.

Following stipulations of the parties, a First Consolidated
Class Complaint was filed on Dec. 16, 2008, the Court entered a
schedule for Defendants' responses to the Complaint.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on Jan. 30, 2009,
according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 27, 2008.

The suit is "In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:08-cv-00832-JW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (MChitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Promenade II, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

Representing the defendants are:

          Thad Alan Davis, Esq. (thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com)
          Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-443-3000

               - and -

          David Michael Friedman, Esq. (david.friedman@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          505 Montgomery Street
          Suite 2000
          San Francisco, Ca 94111-2562
          Phone: (415) 391-0600
          Fax: (415) 395-8095


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Lawsuits by Alcaldo and Howes in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. faces purported class-action suits filed
by Ronald Alcaldo and Chad Howes in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.

Alcado Lawsuit

On Oct. 29, 2008, Ronald Alcaldo filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division,
styled Ronald Alcaldo, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, et al,
against the company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo"
Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A.
Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by allegedly
failing to disclose that "(a) the company's hedges to protect it
from adverse changes in costs were not working and in fact were
harming the company's results more than helping; (b) the
company's inability to continue to use illegal workers would
adversely affect its margins; (c) the company's financial
results were continuing to deteriorate rather than improve, such
that the company's capital structure was threatened; (d) the
company was in a much worse position than its competitors due to
its inability to raise prices for consumers sufficient to offset
cost increases, whereas it competitors were able to raise prices
to offset higher costs affecting the industry; and (e) the
company had not made sufficient changes to its business to
succeed in the more difficult industry conditions."

Mr. Alcaldo further alleges that he purports to represent a
class of all persons or entities who acquired the common stock
of the company from May 5, 2008 through Sept. 24, 2008.

The complaint seeks unspecified injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and
Brief in Support Thereof, asserting that Mr. Alcaldo failed to
identify any misleading statements, failed to adequately plead
scienter against any Defendants, failed to adequately plead loss
causation, failed to adequately plead controlling person
liability and, as to the omissions that Mr. Alcaldo alleged the
Defendants did not make, the Defendants alleged that the
omissions were, in fact, disclosed.

Howes Lawsuit

On Nov. 13, 2008, Chad Howes filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division,
against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo"
Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A.
Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler.  The allegations in the Howes
complaint are identical to those in the Acaldo complaint, as are
the class allegations and relief sought.  The defendants have
not yet been served with the Howes complaint.

Motions to Consolidate

On Dec. 29, 2008, the Pennsylvania Public Fund Group filed a
Motion to Consolidate the Howes case into the Acaldo case, and
filed a Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff and for Approval
of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead Counsel and Liaison
Counsel.  Also on that date, the Pilgrim's Investor Group (of
which Acaldo is a part) filed a Motion to Consolidate the two
cases and a Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff.  The
Pilgrim's Investor Group has subsequently filed a Notice of Non-
opposition to the Pennsylvania Public Fund Group's Motion for
Appointment of Lead Plaintiff.  Chad Howes did not seek to be
appointed Lead Plaintiff.

Bankruptcy Court Proceeding

On Dec. 1, 2008, the company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy.  The company recently filed a motion in the
Bankruptcy Court to extend the bankruptcy stay to include
individual employees and officers named as defendants in cases
concerning the company.  The Alcaldo case and the Howes case
were included in that motion, which is scheduled to be heard in
the Bankruptcy Court on Feb. 10, 2009.

No discovery has commenced in either the Alcaldo case or the
Howes case, and neither case has been set for trial, according
to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
27, 2008.

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a
chicken company in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico.
The company's prepared chicken products meet the needs of some
of the customers in the food service industry across the United
States.  Under the Pilgrim's Pride brand name, its fresh chicken
retail line is sold in the southeastern, central, southwestern
and western regions of the United States, throughout Puerto
Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico.  In
addition, the company exports commodity chicken products to 80
countries.  During the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2008, (fiscal
2008), Pilgrim's Pride sold 8.4 billion pounds of dressed
chicken.  In December 2008, the company filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Texas.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Consolidated Litigation Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. faces a consolidated amended collective
action for certain wage and hour issues, including unpaid wages
and unpaid overtime wages.

The Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor
conducted an industry-wide investigation to ascertain compliance
with various wage and hour issues, including the compensation of
employees for the time spent on activities such as donning and
doffing clothing and personal protective equipment.

Due, in part, to the government investigation and the recent
U.S. Supreme Court decision in "IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez," employees
have brought claims against the company.

The claims filed against the company as of Feb. 5, 2009, the
date of its Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008,
include:

   -- "Juan Garcia, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, a/k/a
      Wampler Foods, Inc.," filed in Pennsylvania state court on
      Jan. 27, 2006, and subsequently removed to the U.S.
      District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;

   -- "Esperanza Moya, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and
      Maxi Staff, LLC," filed March 23, 2006, in the Eastern
      District of Pennsylvania;

   -- "Barry Antee, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.," filed
      April 20, 2006, in the Eastern District of Texas;

   -- "Stephania Aaron, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,"
      filed Aug. 22, 2006, in the Western District of Arkansas;

   -- "Salvador Aguilar, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,"
      filed Aug. 23, 2006 in the Northern District of Alabama;

   -- "Benford v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed Nov. 2,
      2006, in the Northern District of Alabama;

   -- "Porter v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed Dec. 7,
      2006, in the Eastern District of Tennessee;

   -- "Freida Brown, et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.," filed
      March 14, 2007, in the Middle District of Georgia, Athens
      Division;

   -- "Roy Menser, et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed
      Feb. 28, 2007 in the Western District of Paducah,
      Kentucky;

   -- "Victor Manuel Hernandez v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,"
      filed Jan. 30, 2007, in the Northern District of Georgia,
      Rome Division;

   -- "Angela Allen et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed
      March 27, 2007, in U.S. District Court, Middle District of
      Georgia, Athens Division;

   -- "Daisy Hammond and Felicia Pope v. Pilgrim's Pride
      Corporation," in the Gainesville Division, Northern
      District of Georgia, filed on June 6, 2007;

   -- "Gary Price v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," in the U.S.
      District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
      Atlanta Division, filed on May 21, 2007;

   -- "Kristin Roebuck et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," in
      the U.S. District Court, Athens, Georgia, Middle District,
      filed on May 23, 2007; and

   -- "Elaine Chao v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," in the U.S.
      District Court, Dallas, Texas, Northern District, filed on
      Aug. 6, 2007.

The plaintiffs generally purport to bring a collective action
for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and/or injunctive relief
and generally allege that they are not paid for the time it
takes to either clear security, walk to their respective
workstations, don and doff protective clothing, and/or sanitize
clothing and equipment.

The presiding judge in the consolidated action in El Dorado
issued an initial Case Management order on July 9, 2007.
Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint and
the parties filed a Joint Rule 26(f) Report.  A complete
scheduling order has not been issued, and discovery has not yet
commenced.

On March 13, 2008, the Court issued an opinion and order finding
that plaintiffs and potential class members are similarly
situated and conditionally certifying the class for a collective
action.  On May 14, 2008, the Court issued its order modifying
and approving the court-authorized notice for current and former
employees to opt into the class.  Persons who choose to opt into
the class are to do so within 90 days after the date on which
the first notice was mailed.  The opt-in period is now closed.

As of Oct. 2, 2008, approximately 12,605 plaintiffs have opted
into the class.

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a
chicken company in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico.
The company's prepared chicken products meet the needs of some
of the customers in the food service industry across the United
States.  Under the Pilgrim's Pride brand name, its fresh chicken
retail line is sold in the southeastern, central, southwestern
and western regions of the United States, throughout Puerto
Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico.  In
addition, the company exports commodity chicken products to 80
countries.  During the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2008, (fiscal
2008), Pilgrim's Pride sold 8.4 billion pounds of dressed
chicken.  In December 2008, the company filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Texas.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Gold Kist Faces "Benbow" Suit in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Kist, Inc., now merged into Pilgrim's Pride Corp., faces a
consolidated class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division.

As of Feb. 5, 2009, the date of its Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 27, 2008, these suits have been filed against Gold Kist:

   -- Merrell v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
      the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division,
      filed on Dec. 21, 2006; .

   -- Harris v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
      the Northern District of Georgia, Newnan Division, filed
      on Dec. 21, 2006;

   -- Blanke v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
      the Southern District of Georgia, Waycross Division, filed
      on Dec. 21, 2006;

   -- Clarke v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
      the Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division, filed on
      Dec. 21, 2006;

   -- Atchison v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court
      for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division,
      filed on Oct. 3, 2006;

   -- Carlisle v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court
      for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division,
      filed on Oct. 2, 2006;

   -- Benbow v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
      the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, filed
      on Oct. 2, 2006; and

   -- Bonds v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
      the Northern District of Alabama, Northwestern Division,
      filed on Oct. 2, 2006.

On April 23, 2007, Pilgrim's filed a Motion to Transfer and
Consolidate with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") requesting that all of the pending Gold Kist cases be
consolidated into one case.  Pilgrim's Pride withdrew its Motion
subject to the Plaintiffs' counsel's agreement to consolidate
the seven separate actions into the pending Benbow case by
dismissing those lawsuits and refiling/consolidating them into
the Benbow action.  Motions to Dismiss have been filed in all of
the pending seven cases, and all of these cases have been
formally dismissed.

Under an agreement between the parties, which was approved by
Court-order on June 6, 2007, these cases have been consolidated
with the Benbow case.  On that date, Plaintiffs were authorized
to send notice to individuals regarding the pending lawsuits and
were instructed that individuals had three months to file
consents to opting in as plaintiffs in the consolidated cases.
The opt-in period is now closed.

To date, there are approximately 3,006 named plaintiffs and opt-
in plaintiffs in the consolidated cases.  The company and
Plaintiffs have jointly requested the Court to remove 367 opt-in
plaintiffs because they do not fall within the class definition.
The Court recently ordered that Pilgrim's can depose and serve
written discovery on the named plaintiffs and approximately 10%
of the opt-in class.

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a
chicken company in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico.
The company's prepared chicken products meet the needs of some
of the customers in the food service industry across the United
States.  Under the Pilgrim's Pride brand name, its fresh chicken
retail line is sold in the southeastern, central, southwestern
and western regions of the United States, throughout Puerto
Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico.  In
addition, the company exports commodity chicken products to 80
countries.  During the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2008, (fiscal
2008), Pilgrim's Pride sold 8.4 billion pounds of dressed
chicken.  In December 2008, the company filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Texas.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Officers Face Lawsuits by Plan Participants
------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corp.'s current and former directors and
officers faces lawsuits over the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties to participants and beneficiaries of the Pilgrim's Pride
Stock Investment Plan, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008.

Patterson Case

On Dec. 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie "Ken" Pilgrim,
Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee
N. DeBar, Pilgrim's Pride Compensation Committee and other
unnamed defendants.

The complaint, brought pursuant to section 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132,
alleges that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties
to participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, as administered
through the Retirement Savings Plan, and the To-Ricos, Inc.
Employee Savings and Retirement Plan.

Mr. Patterson alleges that he purports to represent a class of
all persons or entities who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the Plan at any time between May 5, 2008
through the present and whose accounts held company stock or
units in Pilgrim's Pride stock.

The complaint seeks actual damages in the amount of any losses
the Plan suffered, to be allocated among the participants'
individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the
accounts' diminution in value, attorneys' fees, an order for
equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust,
and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties to the Plan participants.

On Jan. 23, 2009, Mr. Patterson filed a motion to consolidate
the subsequently filed, similar Smalls case into this action.

Smalls Case

On Jan. 2, 2009, Denise M. Smalls filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim,
Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee
N. DeBar, Pilgrim's Pride Compensation Committee and other
unnamed defendants.

The complaint and the allegations are similar to those filed in
the Patterson case.

Ms. Smalls alleges that she purports to represent a class of all
persons or entities who were participants in or beneficiaries of
the Plan at any time between May 5, 2008 through the present and
whose accounts held Company stock or units in Pilgrim's Pride
stock.

The complaint seeks actual damages in the amount of any losses
the Plan suffered, to be allocated among the participants'
individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the
accounts' diminution in value, attorneys' fees; an order for
equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust;
and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties to the Plan participants.

Bankruptcy Court Proceeding

The company recently filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to
extend the bankruptcy stay to include individual employees and
officers named as defendants in cases concerning the Company.
The Patterson case and the Smalls case were included in that
motion, which is scheduled to be heard in the Bankruptcy Court
on Feb. 10, 2009.

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a
chicken company in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico.
The company's prepared chicken products meet the needs of some
of the customers in the food service industry across the United
States.  Under the Pilgrim's Pride brand name, its fresh chicken
retail line is sold in the southeastern, central, southwestern
and western regions of the United States, throughout Puerto
Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico.  In
addition, the company exports commodity chicken products to 80
countries.  During the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2008, (fiscal
2008), Pilgrim's Pride sold 8.4 billion pounds of dressed
chicken.  In December 2008, the company filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Texas.


PLEXUS CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
has not yet held a hearing or ruled on the motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against Plexus
Corp., according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Jan. 3, 2009.

Initially, two securities class-action complaints were filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin in June 2007 against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.

On Nov. 7, 2007, the two actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated class-action complaint was filed in February 2008.

Aside from the company, the consolidated complaint names these
individual-defendants:

     1. Dean A. Foate, president, chief executive officer and
        a director of the company;

     2. F. Gordon Bitter, the company's former senior vice
        president and chief financial officer; and

     3. Paul Ehlers, the company's former executive vice
        president and chief operating officer.

The consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and
seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the company's
statements regarding its defense sector business in early
calendar 2006.

On April 15, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class-action
complaint.  The plaintiff is opposing the dismissal.  The
briefing on the defendants' motion has been completed; however,
the Court has not yet held a hearing or ruled on the motion.

The suit is "Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension
Trust, et al. v. Plexus Corp., et al.," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 866-264-3995
          Fax: 414-482-8001
          e-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com

               - and -

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: "Baumkel" Suit Still in Preliminary Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The suit styled, "Mark Baumkel, et al. v. The Scotts Miracle-Gro
Company, et al." is still in the preliminary stages of the
proceedings, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the Company, doing business as Scotts
LawnService(R), was named as a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan relating to certain pesticide products.

In the suit, Mark Baumkel, on behalf of himself and the
purported classes, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, plus
costs and attorneys' fees, for alleged claims involving breach
of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the Michigan
consumer protection act.

The suit is "Mark Baumkel, et al. v. The Scotts Miracle-Gro
Company, et al., Case 2:08-cv-14137-DPH-RSW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Marc L. Newamn, Esq.
          Lauren G. Northrop, Esq.
          The Miller Law Firm PC
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Phone: 248-841-2200


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Brower Piven Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD -- 02/12/09 -- Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CNB) during the period between December 2, 2008 and January 27,
2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that one condition
for its receipt of $550 million in funding from the government
sponsored Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), the Company
would first have to raise $300 million from outside sources.
According to the complaint, on January 27, 2009, after the
Company revealed the previously undisclosed condition, the value
of Colonial's stock declined significantly.

For more details, contact:

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


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Feb. 12, 2009 -- ATLANTA, GA -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama against The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CNB) and certain of its officers and directors
on behalf of purchasers of Colonial common stock who purchased
between December 2, 2008 and January 27, 2009, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

     The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
to the public in its press releases and in its Securities
Exchange Commission filings. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges
the Company misrepresented or failed to fully disclose the terms
upon which it had received preliminary approval from the U.S.
Treasury Department to received $550 million under the Troubled
Asset Relief Program ("TARP").  According to the complaint, the
Company's misrepresentations and/or omissions caused its stock
price to trade at artificially inflated prices in violation of
federal law.

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Shuman Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 12, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The
Shuman Law Firm announced that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of a proposed class
(the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Colonial
BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CNB)
between 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 receive 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, Defendants failed to disclose that as a
prerequisite to receiving $550 million in TARP funding, Colonial
would be required to raise additional outside capital of $300
million.  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 extraordinarily heavy trading volume exceeding 26
million shares.

For more information, contact:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80203
          Phone: 866-974-8626
          Fax: 303-484-4886
          Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD -- 02/12/09 -- Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who acquired
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
RIGL) securities during the period between December 13, 2007 and
October 27, 2008, inclusive (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 (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's February 2008 secondary
offering (the "Offering").

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and of the Securities Act of
1933 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the
Class Period, including in connection with a February 6, 2008
$27 per share $135 million offering of the Company's common
stock, adverse results in clinical trials of its R788 drug for
the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.  According to the
complaint, on October 27, 2008, after the Company revealed the
previously undisclosed adverse results, the value of Rigel's
stock declined significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in these actions.

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

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  * * *