CAR_Public/090217.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, February 17, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 33

                           Headlines

AMERICAN FAMILY: Judge Grants Substitution in Medical Bills Suit
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Ohio Litigation Over Home Equity Credit
AUSTIN CAPITAL: Spector Roseman Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit
AVANEX CORP: Still Faces Shareholders' Suit Over Bookham Merger
BELL TRANS: Limousine Drivers File FLSA Violations Suit in Nev.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration of FMU Students' Claims Ongoing
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Hardwick" Litigation in California
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Leask" Suit on Student Disclosures
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Stock Buyers' Complaint Resolved as of Jan.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: To Defend "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle "Wexler" Suit Over Merger
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Executed MOU in "Mishket" Suit Over Merger
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Hell" Action Over Indevus Merger
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Inks MOU Settling "Gober" Suit Over Merger
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Reached MOU on "Scroeder" Litigation

HEALTH NET: Reaches $14M Settlement for Calif. Rescission Suits
TREMONT FINANCIAL: Settles Wis. Suit Alleging Violations of WCA
UNION PACIFIC: Still Facing Suits by Rail Transportation Buyers


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Ala. Suit Filing
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
CUSHING MLP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                           *********

AMERICAN FAMILY: Judge Grants Substitution in Medical Bills Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court certified
two chiropractors and three chiropractic clinics to replace the
late Manuel Hernandez as leader of a class-action lawsuit
against American Family Insurance, Steve Korris of The Madison
County Record reports.

The judge issued a ruling on Feb. 3, 2009 in connection to a
purported class-action against American Family, which is
claiming that the company improperly reduced payouts on medical
bills from car crashes.

In a Jan. 2, 2009 response to a Dec. 26, 2008 American Family
Insurance brief that argued, "This is not a class action,"
lawyers Brad Lakin, Esq. and Paul Weiss, Esq. have explained why
the suit has been led for five years by a dead man.  However,
the answer as to why it must be prolonged as a class-action suit
is a secret, according to the The Madison County Record report
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2009).

The lawsuit was originally filed against the company by Manuel
Hernandez in 2000, who claims that the insurer improperly
reduced a payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto
accident (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 16, 2008).

In 2002, Judge Daniel Stack, as associate judge, certified Mr.
Hernandez as representative of a class in 17 states.  As circuit
judge, Judge Stack trimmed the class to 11 states in 2005.

In 2007, the company discovered that Mr. Hernandez has been dead
since January 2004, and therefore asked the court to dismiss the
case on this basis.

Since Mr. Hernandez's death, the attorneys have been trying to
substitute him with a another class representative.  First it
was his wife, and then later on by a band of out of state
chiropractors.

The Madison County Record reported that American Family lawyer
Anthony Martin, Esq. of St. Louis, opposing a motion to
substitute for the late Manuel Hernandez, wrote, "It ceased
being a class action long ago."  He argued that class counsel
have converted themselves into "the de facto plaintiff."

Though Mr. Hernandez died in 2004, Judge Stack didn't hear about
it from Messrs Lakin and Weiss.  American Family reported his
death to Judge Stack in 2006.

In his December 2008 brief, Mr. Martin wrote, "Either class
counsel knew of Mr. Hernandez's death for over two years and
failed to act, or failed to attempt to contact the sole class
representative for over two years," reports The Madison County
Record.

Mr. Martin argued that because the class received no notice, the
class died with Mr. Hernandez.  He explains, "Notice is required
because absent class members have several constitutional due
process rights which have not been protected in this lawsuit."

He also wrote, "American Family's concern for absent class
members' constitutional due process rights is also a concern for
its own."

Mr. Martin pointed out that the chiropractors and clinics, which
would substitute for Mr. Hernandez knew nothing about the
litigation until Mr. Lakin solicited them, reports The Madison
County Record.

"Those chiropractors responded to the solicitation letters
trolling for substitute class representatives a little more than
one year ago," according to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin argues that the three potential substitutes don't
belong to the class.  In addition, he also questioned the
adequacy of class counsel who sued each other two years ago,
according to The Madison County Record.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Ohio Litigation Over Home Equity Credit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Corp. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit over Cleveland-based AmTrust Bank's decision to cut home
equity lines of credit, NewsNet5.com reports.

The bank suspended credit to countless homeowners, citing a drop
in home values across the area.

The class-action lawsuit against AmTrust is for suspending lines
of credit to countless area homeowners, credit that homeowners
paid an annual fee to get.

NewsNet5.com reported that at the center of the lawsuit is a
critical question: "Can a bank freeze off equity lines of credit
without ever re-appraising your property?"

Don Saunders, a Bedford city councilman, tapped his home equity
line of credit to remodel his kitchen.  But the work came to a
screeching halt almost as soon as it began, after according to
him, "The first three checks that I wrote off the line of
credit... bounced."

Cleveland-based AmTrust Bank sent a letter telling Mr. Saunders
his equity line was suspended because of a decline in home
values across the entire area, reports NewsNet5.com.

However, Mr. Saunders said he's made major improvements to his
house and said his home value has actually gone up.  "I think it
was a dirty trick to pull doing this," Mr. Saunders tells
NewsNet5.com.


AUSTIN CAPITAL: Spector Roseman Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Business Wire 2009 -- 2009-02-13 15:34:02 -- Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. announces that it has filed a
class action against Austin Capital Management Ltd. ("Austin")
for millions of dollars of losses due to improper investments in
securities controlled by Bernard L. Madoff and his company.

     The suit, brought on behalf of the Pension Fund for
Hospital and Health Care Employees - Philadelphia and
Vicinity and a class of similar funds, alleges that Austin
failed to prudently invest the benefit funds' assets, in
violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

     Bernard Madoff was arrested on Dec. 11, 2008, and charged
with running a $50 billion fraud known as a "Ponzi scheme," in
which early investors thought they were receiving returns on
investment, but were in fact being paid with the investment
money of later investors.

     The complaint alleges that Austin was a fiduciary to the
class of benefit funds and owed them the duty to manage
investments with the highest care.  Instead, the complaint
alleges, Austin failed to conduct an adequate due diligence
prior to recommending and investing monies in Madoff-related
funds on behalf of its clients.

     Specifically, Austin failed to notice, or completely
disregarded, the numerous "red flags" about the Madoff-related
securities.  These included:

       -- the lack of transparency in the operations of Madoff
          and Madoff Securities, including Madoff's refusal to
          disclose his investment strategy;

       -- the fact that investment returns of Madoff Securities
          were abnormally smooth, with very little volatility,
          including only five months of negative returns in the
          past 12 years;

       -- the inability of other funds, using Madoff's stated
          method, to generate returns in any way comparable;

       -- the fact that Madoff acted as his own prime broker,
          while most hedge funds used large banks as their prime
          brokers;

       -- the fact that monthly account statements sent to
          Madoff investors did not support the returns being
          supposedly earned;

       -- the fact that Madoff's auditors consisted of one
          office in Rockland County, N.Y., with three employees:
          one was 78 years old and lived in Florida, and one was
          a secretary.

     Other investment managers did discover the red flags and
declined to invest in Madoff-related securities.

     The suit seeks to represent all employee benefit plans that
retained Austin as an investment manager and lost money due to
Austin's purchase of Madoff-related securities.

For more information, contact:

          Theodore M. Lieverman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862
          e-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com
          Web site: http://www.srkw-law.com


AVANEX CORP: Still Faces Shareholders' Suit Over Bookham Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avanex Corp. and the individual defendants intend to defend
against the purported class-action complaint filed by two
individuals who purport to be shareholders of the company in the
Superior Court of California, Alameda County Avanex.

On Feb. 3, 2009, the purported class-action complaint was filed
against Avanex and its directors, Bookham, Inc., and Ultraviolet
Acquisition Sub, Inc.

The plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of all
shareholders of Avanex.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in
connection with the contemplated merger of Avanex and Bookham.

The complaint also alleges that Avanex, Bookham, and Ultraviolet
Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the individual defendants'
alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin the merger with
Bookham, monetary damages in an unspecified amount attributable
to the alleged breach of duties, and legal fees and expenses.

If the company failed to prevail in these legal matters or if
these matters were resolved against the company, the operating
results of a particular reporting period could be materially
adversely affected or the merger with Bookham could be halted,
according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Avanex Corp. -- http://www.avanex.com/-- is a global provider
of intelligent, photonic products, including optical components,
modules and subsystems.  The company designs, manufactures and
markets fiber optic-based products, known as photonic
processors.  Avanex Corp. sells products to telecommunications
system integrators and their network carrier customers.  Its
products enable optical communication networks to regenerate,
transmit and manage voice, video and data optical signals
efficiently.  Avanex Corp. primarily markets its products to
telecommunications system integrators.  The Company sells and
markets its products through a combination of direct sales,
distributors and representatives.  As of June 30, 2008, its
direct sales organization consisted of directly employed account
managers in the United States, Europe and Asia, supported by
application engineers and product line managers.


BELL TRANS: Limousine Drivers File FLSA Violations Suit in Nev.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Trans, Nevada's largest limousine company is facing a
purported class-action suit by a group of Las Vegas limousine
drivers who are alleging failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime.

The suit entitled, "Lucas et al v. Bell Trans, Case No.
2:2008cv01792," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada on Dec. 18, 2008 by Anthony Lucas, Gregory
Castello, Lillian Melton, Leavon Smith, and Robert Greene.  It
seeks back wages for the Bell Trans drivers.

The Fair Labor Standards Act exempts cabdrivers from minimum
wage and overtime compensation but not limo drivers, according
to the complaint.  The lawsuit cites a Labor Department opinion
and multiple court cases to argue that limo drivers, who have
chartered or prearranged rides, are entitled to minimum wage and
overtime.

The suit is "Lucas et al v. Bell Trans, Case No. 2:2008cv01792,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
Judge Robert C. Jones, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Thierman Law Firm
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Phone: 775-284-1500
          Fax: 775-703-5027
          e-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net

Representing the defendants are:

          Norman H. Kirshman, Esq. (kirshmanlaw@yahoo.com)
          Norman H. Kirshman PC
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
          Suite 500
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Phone: 702-262-6899
          Fax: 702-597-5503

               - and -

          Mark E. Trafton, Esq.
          1900 Industrial Road
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Phone: 702-382-7060
          Fax: 702-382-4601


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration of FMU Students' Claims Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. faces arbitration of the claims filed
by current and former students in the company's Florida
Metropolitan University (FMU) campuses, now known as Everest
University, in Florida and online.

On March 8, 2004, the company was served with two virtually
identical putative class action complaints entitled, "Travis v.
Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida
Metropolitan University," and "Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University."

On April 15, 2005, the company received another complaint
entitled, "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University,
Inc."

The Alvarez first amended and supplemental complaint named
ninety-nine plaintiffs.  In addition, the court in the Alvarez
case granted the plaintiffs' motion to add an additional seven
plaintiffs to the first amended and supplemental complaint.

The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former
students in the company's FMU.

The plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the fact that it is not
accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools and that FMU credits are not
transferable to other institutions.

The Satz and Travis plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees under common law and Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all
similarly situated people.

The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves
under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the Company on all
counts in an award on the Company's motion to dismiss.  The
arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his agreement with
FMU by filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and is
therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages associated with
compelling the action to arbitration.  The arbitrator also
declared FMU the prevailing party for purposes of the Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The company is continuing to
pursue its remedies against Mr. Satz related to these findings.

Furthermore, the company affirmatively filed arbitration actions
against Ms. Travis and approximately ninety of the Alvarez
plaintiffs seeking damages for their respective breaches of
their obligations to file in arbitration rather than in court,
and seeking declaratory relief regarding their allegations.  The
arbitrator ruled against the company in its affirmative claims
against Ms. Travis.  The company has prevailed on its motions in
court to dismiss the court actions and compel arbitration in
both the Alvarez and Travis matters.

Ms. Travis has filed a motion to certify a class in her
arbitration proceeding on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, and the company has opposed that motion.

The company and the plaintiffs in the Alvarez and Travis matters
have agreed to consolidate those actions before a single
arbitrator, according to to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada.  The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees.  The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology.  Since the
company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses.  The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Hardwick" Litigation in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. intends to defend itself against the
allegations in the putative class action complaint captioned,
"Hardwick, et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc."

On Nov. 14, 2007, the company was served with the putative class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The plaintiff is a former instructor at the Company's
Merrionette Park, Illinois campus.

Her complaint seeks certification of a class composed of all
campus instructors nationwide, alleging wage and hour violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as a class of Illinois
instructors alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act and Illinois' Eight-Hour Work Day Act.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees, according to to the company's Feb.
6, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada.  The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees.  The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology.  Since the
company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses.  The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Leask" Suit on Student Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action complaint entitled, "Leask v. Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., and Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al.," remains
pending in the Santa Clara, California Superior Court.

The company was notified that on Dec. 31, 2007, the putative
class-action complaint was filed in the Santa Clara, California
Superior Court.

The plaintiffs are a former medical assisting student from the
Company's Everest College (formerly Bryman College) campus in
San Jose and her mother.

The complaint alleges violations of the California Education
Code and of California's Business and Professions Code Section
17200 related to allegedly missing or inadequate student
disclosures and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and an unspecified amount of damages.

According to to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the complaint seeks to certify a class
composed of all medical assisting students in California over
the last four years.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada.  The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees.  The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology.  Since the
company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses.  The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Stock Buyers' Complaint Resolved as of Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated amended complaint by certain alleged purchasers
of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s common stock against the company
and certain of its former executive officers has been resolved
as of January 2009.

From July 8, 2004 through Aug. 31, 2004, various putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by certain alleged purchasers of
the company's common stock against the Company and certain of
its former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis Beal, Paul
St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

On Nov. 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases
were consolidated into one action.  A first consolidated amended
complaint was filed in February 2005.  The consolidated case is
purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares
of the Company's common stock during a specified class period
from August 27, 2003 through July 30, 2004.

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the plaintiffs to
purchase the company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St.
Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
and costs, as well as other relief.

On April 24, 2006, the U.S. District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's third consolidated amended
complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiff appealed the dismissal
to the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On July 25,
2008, the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the District
Court's dismissal.  The plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing or a rehearing en
banc.  On Jan. 12, 2009, that petition was denied.  The
plaintiffs have informed the Company that they will not seek a
review by the U.S. Supreme Court, so the Ninth Circuit denial
resolves the matter, according to to the company's Feb. 6, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada.  The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees.  The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology.  Since the
company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses.  The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: To Defend "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. intends to defend itself against the
allegations in a putative class-action demand in arbitration,
according to to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On May 28, 2008, the putative class-action demand in arbitration
captioned, "Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc.," was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.

The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC students from the
Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland campuses.

The arbitration demand alleges violations of California's
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud
and intentional deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment/restitution, all related to
alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding the HVAC
program at these two campuses.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the past four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89
schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario,
Canada.  The company offers a range of diploma programs and
associate's, bachelors and master's degrees.  The training
programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical,
trades, business and information technology.  Since the
company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has
opened 32 branch campuses.  The company offers online education
to two categories of students, including those attending online
classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional
classroom and online courses.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle "Wexler" Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the purported stockholder class-action lawsuit
styled, "Wexler v. Indevus Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0166,"
executed a Memorandum of Understanding last Feb. 4, 2009,
according to Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc.'s Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
Feb. 5, 2009.

On Jan. 5, 2009, the company, BTB Purchaser Inc. ("Merger Sub"),
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo, and Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., ("Indevus") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(as amended on Jan. 7, 2009, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant
to which Endo will acquire Indevus.

On Jan. 13, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus filed a
complaint seeking certification of a class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, docketed as
"Wexler v. Indevus Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0166," against
Endo, Indevus and each of Indevus' directors.

The Wexler Action purports to be brought individually and on
behalf of all public stockholders of Indevus.

The Wexler Action alleges that Indevus' director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Indevus' stockholders in
connection with the Offer and the Merger and that each of the
defendants aided and abetted such alleged breach of Indevus'
director defendants' fiduciary duties.

Based on these allegations, the Wexler Action seeks, among other
relief, declaring the action to be a class action, declaring
that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the
defendants' fiduciary duties and is therefore unlawful and
unenforceable, injunctive relief enjoining the Offer and the
Merger, directing the individual defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best
interests of Indevus' stockholders, rescinding, to the extent
already implemented, the Offer and the Merger or any of the
terms thereof, awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of
the Wexler Action including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees and granting such other and further relief as the court
deems just and proper.

On Feb. 4, 2009, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, setting forth the terms and conditions for
settlement of the action.  The parties agreed that, after arm's
length discussions between and among the parties, Indevus will
provide additional supplemental disclosures to its Schedule 14D-
9 and that the Company Termination Fee, as defined in the Merger
Agreement, will be reduced by 10% (from $20,000,000 to
$18,000,000).  In exchange, following confirmatory discovery,
the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation
of settlement and, upon court approval in the Gober Action of
that stipulation, the Plaintiffs will dismiss each of the other
actions with prejudice, and the Defendants will be released from
any claims arising out of the Proposed Transaction.  The
Defendants have agreed not to oppose any fee application by
Plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $700,000 in the
aggregate.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. -- http://www.endo.com/-- is
a specialty pharmaceutical company in pain management.  The
company is engaged in the research, development, sales and
marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products
primarily to treat and manage pain.  Its portfolio of branded
products includes Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, and Frova.  The
company concentrates on generics that have one or more barriers
to market entry, such as complex formulation, regulatory or
legal challenges or difficulty in raw material sourcing.  Its
branded products pipeline includes three products in Phase III
clinical trials, three products in Phase II clinical trials and
one product in Phase I trials.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Executed MOU in "Mishket" Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the purported stockholder class-action lawsuit
styled, "Mishket v. Cooper, et al., C.A. No. 4299," executed a
Memorandum of Understanding last Feb. 4, 2009, according to Endo
Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc.'s Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Feb. 5, 2009.

On Jan. 5, 2009, the company, BTB Purchaser Inc. ("Merger Sub"),
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo, and Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., ("Indevus") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(as amended on Jan. 7, 2009, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant
to which Endo will acquire Indevus.

On Jan. 20, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus filed a
complaint seeking certification of a class action lawsuit in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, docketed as "Mishket
v. Cooper, et al., C.A. No. 4299," against Endo, Merger Sub and
each of Indevus' directors as defendants and Indevus as a
nominal defendant.

The Mishket Action purports to be brought individually and on
behalf of all public stockholders of Indevus.

The Mishket Action alleges that Indevus' director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Indevus' stockholders in
connection with the Offer and that each of the defendants aided
and abetted such alleged breach of Indevus' director defendants'
fiduciary duties.

Based on these allegations, the Mishket Action seeks, among
other relief, declaring the action to be a class action,
injunctive relief enjoining preliminarily and permanently the
Offer, rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Offer
or any of the terms thereof or awarding rescissory damages,
directing that the defendants account to plaintiff and other
members of the purported class for all damages caused by them
and account for all profits and any special benefits obtained as
a result of breaches of their fiduciary duties to the purported
stockholder and other members of the purported class, awarding
plaintiff the costs of the Mishket Action including a reasonable
allowance for the expenses of plaintiffs' attorneys and experts
and granting plaintiff and other members of the purported class
such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

On Feb. 4, 2009, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, setting forth the terms and conditions for
settlement of the action.  The parties agreed that, after arm's
length discussions between and among the parties, Indevus will
provide additional supplemental disclosures to its Schedule 14D-
9 and that the Company Termination Fee, as defined in the Merger
Agreement, will be reduced by 10% (from $20,000,000 to
$18,000,000).  In exchange, following confirmatory discovery,
the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation
of settlement and, upon court approval in the Gober Action of
that stipulation, the Plaintiffs will dismiss each of the other
actions with prejudice, and the Defendants will be released from
any claims arising out of the Proposed Transaction.  The
Defendants have agreed not to oppose any fee application by
Plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $700,000 in the
aggregate.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. -- http://www.endo.com/-- is
a specialty pharmaceutical company in pain management.  The
company is engaged in the research, development, sales and
marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products
primarily to treat and manage pain.  Its portfolio of branded
products includes Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, and Frova.  The
company concentrates on generics that have one or more barriers
to market entry, such as complex formulation, regulatory or
legal challenges or difficulty in raw material sourcing.  Its
branded products pipeline includes three products in Phase III
clinical trials, three products in Phase II clinical trials and
one product in Phase I trials.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Hell" Action Over Indevus Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. faces a purported stockholder
class-action lawsuit styled, "Hell v. Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
et al., C.A. No. 4327."

On Jan. 5, 2009, the company, BTB Purchaser Inc. ("Merger Sub"),
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo, and Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., ("Indevus") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(as amended on Jan. 7, 2009, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant
to which Endo will acquire Indevus.

On Jan. 30, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus filed a
complaint seeking certification of a class-action lawsuit in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, docketed as "Hell v.
Indevus Pharmaceuticals, et al., C.A. No. 4327" (the "Hell
Action") against Endo, Merger Sub, Indevus and each of Indevus'
directors.

The Hell Action purports to be brought individually and on
behalf of all public stockholders of Indevus.

The Hell Action alleges that Indevus' director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Indevus' stockholders in
connection with the Offer and that Endo and Merger Sub aided and
abetted such alleged breach by the Indevus director defendants.

The Hell Action also alleges that the Indevus Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation Statement fails to disclose material information
about the Offer, that the defendant directors did not protect
against purported conflicts of interest and that the terms of
the Merger Agreement prevent stockholders of Indevus from
receiving appropriate consideration for their Indevus shares.

According to Endo's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated Feb. 5, 2009, based on these
allegations, the Hell Action seeks, among other relief,
declaring the action to be a class action on, enjoining,
preliminarily and permanently, the Offer, rescinding the Offer
or granting damages to the extent the Offer has been
consummated, directing that the defendants account for all
damages, profits and special benefits obtained as a result of
their purportedly unlawful conduct, awarding plaintiff the costs
and disbursements of the Hell Action including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees and granting such other and further
relief as the court deems just and proper.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. -- http://www.endo.com-- is
a specialty pharmaceutical company in pain management.  The
company is engaged in the research, development, sales and
marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products
primarily to treat and manage pain.  Its portfolio of branded
products includes Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, and Frova.  The
company concentrates on generics that have one or more barriers
to market entry, such as complex formulation, regulatory or
legal challenges or difficulty in raw material sourcing.  Its
branded products pipeline includes three products in Phase III
clinical trials, three products in Phase II clinical trials and
one product in Phase I trials.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Inks MOU Settling "Gober" Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the purported stockholder class action lawsuit
styled, "Gober v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al., C.A. No. 4276,
executed a Memorandum of Understanding on Feb. 4, 2009,
according to Endo's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated Feb. 5, 2009.

On Jan. 5, 2009, the company, BTB Purchaser Inc. ("Merger Sub"),
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo, and Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., ("Indevus") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(as amended on Jan. 7, 2009, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant
to which Endo will acquire Indevus.

On Jan. 9, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus filed a
complaint seeking certification of a class action lawsuit in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, docketed as "Gober
v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al., C.A. No. 4276 (Del. Ch.)"
against Endo, Merger Sub, Indevus and each of Indevus'
directors.

The Gober Action purports to be brought individually and on
behalf of all public stockholders of Indevus.

The Gober Action alleges that Indevus' director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Indevus' stockholders in
connection with the Offer and that each of the defendants aided
and abetted such alleged breach of Indevus' director defendants'
fiduciary duties.

Based on these allegations, the Gober Action seeks, among other
relief, declaring the action to be a class action, injunctive
relief enjoining preliminarily and permanently the Offer,
rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Offer or any
of the terms thereof or awarding rescissory damages, directing
that the defendants account to plaintiff and other members of
the purported class for all damages caused by them and account
for all profits and any special benefits obtained as a result of
breaches of their fiduciary duties to the purported stockholder
and other members of the purported class, awarding plaintiff the
costs of the Gober Action including a reasonable allowance for
the expenses of plaintiffs' attorneys and experts and granting
plaintiff and other members of the purported class such further
relief as the court deems just and proper.

On Feb. 4, 2009, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, setting forth the terms and conditions for
settlement of the action.  The parties agreed that, after arm's
length discussions between and among the parties, Indevus will
provide additional supplemental disclosures to its Schedule 14D-
9 and that the Company Termination Fee, as defined in the Merger
Agreement, will be reduced by 10% (from $20,000,000 to
$18,000,000).  In exchange, following confirmatory discovery,
the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation
of settlement and, upon court approval in the Gober Action of
that stipulation, the Plaintiffs will dismiss each of the other
actions with prejudice, and the Defendants will be released from
any claims arising out of the Proposed Transaction.  The
Defendants have agreed not to oppose any fee application by
Plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $700,000 in the
aggregate.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. -- http://www.endo.com/-- is
a specialty pharmaceutical company in pain management.  The
company is engaged in the research, development, sales and
marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products
primarily to treat and manage pain.  Its portfolio of branded
products includes Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, and Frova.  The
company concentrates on generics that have one or more barriers
to market entry, such as complex formulation, regulatory or
legal challenges or difficulty in raw material sourcing.  Its
branded products pipeline includes three products in Phase III
clinical trials, three products in Phase II clinical trials and
one product in Phase I trials.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Reached MOU on "Scroeder" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the purported stockholder class-action lawsuit
styled, "Scroeder [sic] v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-
0126," executed a Memorandum of Understanding last Feb. 4, 2009,
according to Endo's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated Feb. 5, 2009.

On Jan. 5, 2009, the company, BTB Purchaser Inc. ("Merger Sub"),
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo, and Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., ("Indevus") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(as amended on Jan. 7, 2009, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant
to which Endo will acquire Indevus.

On Jan. 12, 2009, a purported stockholder of Indevus filed a
complaint seeking certification of a class-action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, docketed as
"Scroeder [sic] v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al., 09-0126"
against Endo, Merger Sub, Indevus and each of Indevus'
directors.

The Schroeder Action purports to be brought individually and on
behalf of all public stockholders of Indevus.

The Schroeder Action alleges that Indevus' director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Indevus' stockholders in
connection with the Offer and that each of the defendants aided
and abetted such alleged breach of Indevus' director defendants'
fiduciary duties.

Based on these allegations, the extent already implemented, the
Offer or any of the terms thereof or awarding rescissory
damages, directing that the defendants account to plaintiff and
other members of the purported class for all damages caused by
them and account for all profits and any special benefits
obtained as a result of breaches of their fiduciary duties to
the purported stockholder and other members of the purported
class, awarding plaintiff the costs of the Mishket Action
including a reasonable allowance for the expenses of plaintiffs'
attorneys and experts and granting plaintiff and other members
of the purported class such further relief as the court deems
just and proper.

On Feb. 4, 2009, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, setting forth the terms and conditions for
settlement of the action.  The parties agreed that, after arm's
length discussions between and among the parties, Indevus will
provide additional supplemental disclosures to its Schedule 14D-
9 and that the Company Termination Fee, as defined in the Merger
Agreement, will be reduced by 10% (from $20,000,000 to
$18,000,000).  In exchange, following confirmatory discovery,
the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation
of settlement and, upon court approval in the Gober Action of
that stipulation, the Plaintiffs will dismiss each of the other
actions with prejudice, and the Defendants will be released from
any claims arising out of the Proposed Transaction.  The
Defendants have agreed not to oppose any fee application by
Plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $700,000 in the
aggregate.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. -- http://www.endo.com/-- is
a specialty pharmaceutical company in pain management.  The
company is engaged in the research, development, sales and
marketing of branded and generic pharmaceutical products
primarily to treat and manage pain.  Its portfolio of branded
products includes Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, and Frova.  The
company concentrates on generics that have one or more barriers
to market entry, such as complex formulation, regulatory or
legal challenges or difficulty in raw material sourcing.  Its
branded products pipeline includes three products in Phase III
clinical trials, three products in Phase II clinical trials and
one product in Phase I trials.


HEALTH NET: Reaches $14M Settlement for Calif. Rescission Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. settled two purported class-action lawsuits in
which certain members allege that the company unlawfully
rescinded their coverage, Lisa Girion of the Los Angeles Times
reports.

The company has agreed to pay as much as $14 million to settle a
pair of lawsuits brought on behalf of 800 former policyholders
whose coverage was dropped after they submitted substantial
medical bills, according to the Los Angeles Times report.

In general, the lawsuits seek to recover the cost of medical
services that were not paid for as a result of the rescission,
and in some cases also seeks damages for emotional distress,
attorney fees, and punitive damages (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 30, 2008).

Under the deal, which won preliminary court approval on Feb. 11,
2009, individuals whose health insurance policies were canceled
since 2004 are eligible for payments of up to $218,000.  The
average payment is expected to be $7,836, reports the Los
Angeles Times.

The settlement would resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by
Claremont lawyer William Shernoff, Esq., as well as a suit filed
by Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, Esq., according to
the Los Angeles Times.

Los Angeles Times reported that in addition to the payments to
customers, the settlement requires Health Net to pay a fine of
$2 million to the city attorney and to contribute $500,000 to
charities.  Mr. Shernoff's firm will earn $2.1 million.


TREMONT FINANCIAL: Settles Wis. Suit Alleging Violations of WCA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tremont Financial LLC has reached a settlement for a purported
class-action suit in Wisconsin that accuses it of violating the
state's consumer laws, The Business Journal of Milwaukee
reports.

Under the settlement, the payday loan company will cease issuing
loans to Wisconsin residents and pay $60,000.  Tremont reached
the settlement with the Consumer Law Litigation Clinic at the
University of Wisconsin Law School and the Wisconsin Department
of Justice.

The Business Journal of Milwaukee reported that the class-action
complaint was filed by the Consumer Law Litigation Clinic, which
alleged that Tremont Financial's loan contracts violated certain
provisions of the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA).

The settlement calls for Tremont Financial to pay $60,000 and
release any of its Wisconsin consumers from any outstanding
debt.  Each individual class member will also receive $329.81
from the settlement fund.  Tremont will also cease lending to
Wisconsin residents, reports The Business Journal of Milwaukee.

Judge Sarah O'Brien of the Dane County Circuit Court gave final
approval of the settlement and entered the judgment against
Tremont Financial, according to The Business Journal of
Milwaukee.


UNION PACIFIC: Still Facing Suits by Rail Transportation Buyers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corp. continues to face consolidated amended
class-action complaints filed by direct and indirect purchasers
of rail transportation, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Twenty small rail shippers filed virtually identical antitrust
lawsuits in various federal district courts against the company
and four other Class I railroads in the U.S.  The original
plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District
Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007, and the additional
plaintiffs filed claims in district courts in various states,
including Florida, Illinois, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and the
District of Columbia.  These suits allege that the named
railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel
surcharges for certain rail traffic.

The company received additional complaints following the initial
claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 30.

In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the suits involve plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and seek to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges.  These
complaints have added allegations under state antitrust and
consumer protection laws.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred
to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in D.C. For
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Subsequently, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaints against Union Pacific's subsidiary, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, and three other Class I railroads.

One additional shipper filed a separate anti-trust suit during
2008.  Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice.

On Oct. 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with
respect to the defendant railroads' motions to dismiss.  In a
ruling delivered on Nov. 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the
motion with respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, and,
therefore, that case will proceed to discovery.

On Dec. 31, 2008, Judge Friedman ruled that the allegations of
the indirect purchasers based upon state antitrust, consumer
protection and unjust enrichment laws must be dismissed.  He
also ruled, however, that the plaintiffs can proceed with their
claim for injunctive relief under the federal antitrust laws,
which is identical to a claim by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs.

Union Pacific Corp. -- http://www.up.com/-- is engaged in the
transportation business.  The company's operating company, Union
Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR), links 23 states in the western
two-thirds of the United States.  Union Pacific Railroad
Company's business mix includes agricultural products,
automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and
intermodal.  UPRR has 32,205 route miles, linking Pacific Coast
and Gulf Coast ports with the Midwest and eastern United States
gateways and providing several corridors to Mexican gateways.
The freight traffic consists of bulk, manifest and premium
business.  Bulk traffic consists of coal, grain, rock, or soda
ash in unit trains.  Manifest traffic is individual carload or
less than train-load business, including commodities, such as
lumber, steel, paper and food.  The transportation of finished
vehicles and intermodal containers is part of the premium
business.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Ala. Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     February 13, 2009: 12:21 PM ET -- Marketwire -- Law Offices
of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a securities class
action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (NYSE: CNB) securities between December
2, 2008 through January 27, 2009, inclusive (the Class Period).

     The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

     The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net)
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-886-1900


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Feb 13, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama against Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
("Colonial" or the "Company") (NYSE:CNB), on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the securities of Colonial
between December 2, 2008 and January 27, 2009.

     The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
executive officers violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain public
statements made during that period by Colonial about the
Company's participation in the Troubled Asset Relief Program
("TARP"), and that the Company had received TARP approval for an
injection of $550 million, were materially false and misleading
because the statements failed to disclose or indicate that
before Colonial could receive the $550 million in TARP funding
the Company would have to raise an additional $300 million of
outside capital.

     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


CUSHING MLP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Fri., 13 Feb 2009 18:28:51 GMT -- NEW YORK -- (Business
Wire) On February 10, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the shares of Cushing MLP Total Return
Fund (the "Fund") [NYSE:SRV] between September 1, 2008 and
December 19, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Swank
Energy Income Advisors, LP ("Swank Advisors"), Swank Capital,
LLC, Jerry V. Swank, Mark W. Fordyce, CPA, Brian R. Bruce,
Ronald P. Trout, and Edward N. McMillan, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 78(i)(b), 78(t) and 78t-1(a), and breach of
fiduciary duty claims under Section 36(b) of the ICA, 15 U.S.C.
80a-35(b) (the "Class").

The case name is styled, "Bachow v. Swank Energy Income
Advisors, LP, et al."

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants grossly and falsely overstated Fund's net asset value
("NAV") by including the full value of a $49.1 million deferred
tax asset in the Fund's stated NAV, without establishing an
appropriate valuation reserve against the risk that the Fund
could or would never utilize or recognize the deferred tax
asset.

     The Complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants also concealed the fact that the deferred tax asset
was the Fund's largest asset and accounted for more than one-
half of the Fund's stated NAV.

     On December 19, 2008, Defendants caused the Fund to
announce that it had established a $49.1 million valuation
reserve against the deferred tax asset, essentially reducing the
value of the deferred tax asset to zero and reducing the Fund's
stated NAV by $49.1 million.

     When Defendants caused the Fund to write down the deferred
tax asset to zero on December 19, 2008, and reduced the Fund's
stated NAV accordingly, the market price at which the Fund's
shares traded plummeted by nearly 50 percent, dropping from
$7.40 immediately before the announcement to just $3.81 after
it, causing Fund shareholders to lose tens of millions of
dollars.

     In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and
manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said
defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied,
to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of the
Fund's shares. Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class
known the truth, they would not have purchased said shares, or
would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were
paid.

For more details, contact:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 13, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level
3" or the "Company")(Nasdaq:LVLT), between February 8, 2007 and
October 23, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Level 3 and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Level 3 engages in the communications business in North America
and Europe.  The Company's network and Internet services include
transport services, high speed Internet protocol services,
dedicated Internet access, virtual private network services,
colocation services and dark fiber services.  Between December
2005 and January 2007, Level 3 also acquired several companies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

       -- the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

    On October 23, 2007, Level 3 shocked the market when it
revealed that the Company was having extensive difficulties
integrating the systems and customer-service processes of the
numerous companies it had acquired, and these difficulties were
causing an increase in service activation times.  Moreover,
Level 3 revised downward the Company's previously issued
guidance for fourth quarter 2007 and full year 2008.  On this
news, shares of Level 3 declined $1.04 per share, or
approximately 24%, to close on October 23, 2007 at $3.28 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact:

          Francisco Loya (floya@kmllp.com)
          Steven Cohn, Esq.
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 888-529-4787
          Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/


OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:49:33 GMT -- SAN DIEGO -- (Business
Wire) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Coughlin
Stoia) (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/oppenheimerchampion/)today
announced that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf all persons or entities who purchased or held shares of
the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund ("Champion Fund" or the
"Fund") (NASDAQ:OPCHX; NASDAQ:OCHBX; NASDAQ:OCHCX; NASDAQ:OCHNX;
NASDAQ:OCHYX) offered by OppenheimerFunds, Inc.
("OppenheimerFunds") between January 26, 2007 and December 9,
2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including in connection
with its January 26, 2007 and January 25, 2008 offerings (the
"Offerings").

     The complaint charges the Champion Fund, OppenheimerFunds
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Investment Company Act of 1940.  The Champion Fund is an
open-ended fixed income mutual fund launched and managed by
OppenheimerFunds.

     The complaint alleges that due to defendants' positive, but
false, statements, investors purchased and/or continued to hold
shares in the Fund.  The Champion Fund was a typical high-yield
bond fund until late 2006 when, unbeknownst to investors, the
Fund altered its investment style and began to significantly
increase its risk in the hopes of seeking higher returns,
including by dramatically increasing its use of derivative
instruments, purchasing highly unstable mortgage-related and
corporate bonds and significantly increasing its leverage
exposure.  Defendants concealed that the Champion Fund had
increased its exposure with these excessively risky bets in the
hopes of higher returns, such that investors remained unaware of
these additional risk exposures.

     Beginning in July 2008, the Champion Fund's shares declined
in tandem with other high-yield fund shares as the credit crunch
exposed the poor underlying fundamentals of the financial
sector's mortgage risk management and problems with structured
finance vehicles.  As a result of these concerns, the Fund's
shares began to slide.  Then, beginning in mid-September 2008
with the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and American
International Group, Inc. and continuing through December 2008,
the Fund began to acknowledge the serious deterioration in its
portfolio.  As a result of these disclosures, the price of the
Fund's shares collapsed.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statements/Prospectuses or were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period were as follows:

       -- the Fund was no longer adhering to its objective to
          not take on any undue risk, but in an effort to
          achieve greater yields was pursuing riskier
          instruments;

       -- the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent defendants from taking on excessive risk;

       -- the extent of the Fund's liquidity risk due to the
          illiquid nature of a large portion of the Fund's
          portfolios was omitted;

       -- the extent of the Fund's risk exposure to derivatives
          and other high risk instruments was concealed; and

       -- the extent of the Fund's leverage exposure was
          misstated.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or held shares of the Champion Fund
between January 26, 2007 and December 9, 2008, including in
connection with its January 26, 2007 and January 25, 2008
offerings (the "Class").

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

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  * * *