CAR_Public/090218.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, February 18, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 34

                           Headlines

ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Suits by Auto Filter Purchasers
BILL HEARD: Still Faces WARN Act Violations Lawsuit in Alabama
BURGER KING: Faces Suit Alleging Breach of Accessibility Laws
EXELON CORP: Assessing Impact of Savings Plan Claim on Finances
EXELON CORP: Expects Argument on Ex-Employee's Appeal in 2009

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Decision on Motorola's Appeal Pending
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Delaware Litigation Over Debt Plan
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Cardholder Data Breach
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Cardholder Data Breach
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Wash. Suit Over Downgrade Rights in Vista

NEWS CORP: Continues to Defend LeBoyer's Claims in "Brown" Suit
NEWS CORP: No Hearing Set for Certification Bid in "Brown" Suit
NEWS CORP: Shareholder Appellants' Review Bid Pending in Calif.
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Mo. Judge Allows 401(k) Lawsuit to Proceed
SP AUSNET: Faces Suit Alleging Faulty Power Line Caused Bushfire

STATION CASINOS: Faces Suit in Nev. Over Debt Restructuring Plan
TFS FIN'L: Appeal to Reversed Ruling in "Greenspan" Suit Pending
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Lawsuit Over Live Nation Deal
WMG ACQUISITION: Defending Appeal on Junked Pricing Suit in N.Y.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Donaldson Guin Files Securities Suit in Ala.


                           *********

ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Suits by Auto Filter Purchasers
-------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. still faces claims raised in several
purported class-actions filed on behalf of purchasers of
filters, 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. 28, 2008.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including a prior
subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix
prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket
automotive filters.

This suit is a purported class-action on behalf of direct
purchasers of filters from the defendants.

Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of
indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other
plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States
and Canada.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- is a
global supplier of a range of integrated systems, modules and
components serving commercial truck, light vehicle, trailer and
specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and certain
aftermarkets.  ArvinMeritor serves a range of OEM customers
worldwide, including truck OEMs, light vehicle OEMs, trailer
producers and specialty vehicle manufacturers, and certain
aftermarkets.  The company operated 82 manufacturing facilities
in 22 countries worldwide as of Sept. 30, 2008, including
facilities operated by joint ventures, in which it has
interests.  Sales from continuing operations outside North
America accounted for approximately 59% of total sales from
continuing operations in fiscal 2008.


BILL HEARD: Still Faces WARN Act Violations Lawsuit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. continues to face a purported
class-action lawsuit in Alabama alleging violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, WHNT-
TV reports.

As reported in the Oct. 10, 2008 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, auto dealer giant Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc.,
allegedly violated federal labor law when thousands of employees
throughout the nation were terminated just before the company
sought bankruptcy protection on Sept. 28, according to lawyers
for a former company worker who sued in Alabama federal
bankruptcy court.

Named as defendants in the case are:

     -- Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc.,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Company,
     -- Tom Jumper Chevrolet, Inc.,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc. - Huntsville,
     -- Landmark Chevrolet, Ltd.,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd.,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation Nashville,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation - Orlando,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Inc. - Union City,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet at Town Center, LLC,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc. - Collierville,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc. - Scottsdale,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc. - Plant City,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation - Las Vegas,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation - N.W. Las Vegas,
     -- Twentieth Century Land Corp.,
     -- Enterprise Aviation, Inc.,
     -- Century Land Corporation,
     -- Century Land Company - Tennessee,
     -- Bill Heard Management, LLC,
     -- Landmark Vehicle Mgt., LLC,
     -- Georgia Service Group, LLC, and
     -- Columbus Transportation, LLC.

According to the Complaint, Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc., and
about two dozen affiliated companies, were required by the WARN
Act to give at least 60 days advance written notice of the
employee terminations and continue paying certain wages, salary,
and benefits during the notice period in accordance with federal
law.

Former Bill Heard employee Edward Kratzel, who worked at a Bill
Heard facility in Las Vegas until Sept. 24, 2008, filed suit in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court District in Decatur, Alabama.

The suit seeks WARN Act-required wages, salary, commissions,
bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and
401(k) contributions, and other benefits that would have been
paid or covered during the notice period, and attorneys' fees
and litigation-related costs.

The workers' legal team has sought to have the lawsuit certified
as a class action that includes all persons who were terminated
without cause at Bill Heard-owned facilities in Georgia,
Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas on or
about Sept. 24, 2008.

The companies, which sold the Chevrolet, Cadillac and Saab
brands, are headquartered in Columbus, Georgia and included the
largest Chevrolet dealership in the nation.

Attorney Jack A. Raisner, Esq., of Outten & Golden LLP, stated,
"We allege that the Bill Heard employees are entitled to the
protections of the WARN Act. Employers bound by the WARN Act and
other labor laws cannot be allowed to compound the difficulties
of abruptly laid-off employees.  It's time for 'Mr. Big Volume,'
as Mr. Heard called himself, to ensure that his employees
survive this transition in accordance with the law."

Mr. Kratzel stated, "Employees of the Bill Heard companies
around the nation should have been given more time to prepare
for the closing of company facilities.  Because of the WARN Act,
we hope that this lawsuit will prevent employers like Bill Heard
from avoiding their obligations to the workers who helped him
generate billions of dollars of revenue through the years."

The suit is "Edward Kratzel on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 08-80154-JAC," filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
District for the Northern District of Alabama.

Representing Mr. Katzel are:

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-245-1000
          Fax: 212-977-4005

               - and -

          Mark P. Williams, Esq.
          Norman, Wood, Kendrick & Turner
          Financial Center, Suite 1600
          505-20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203


BURGER KING: Faces Suit Alleging Breach of Accessibility Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings, Inc. intends to defend against all claims
in the class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the California Disabled Persons
Act ("CDPA") and the Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act").

On Sept. 10, 2008, the company and Burger King Corp. ("BKC")
were named as the defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in
California federal district court.

The complaint alleges that all Burger King (R) restaurants in
California leased by BKC and operated by franchisees violate
accessibility requirements of the ADA as well as the CDPA and
the Unruh Act.

The plaintiff, on behalf of the class, seeks injunctive relief
under the ADA, minimum statutory damages per offense of $4,000
under the Unruh Act and $1,000 per incident under the CDPA, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs, 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.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast
food hamburger restaurant.  As of June 30, 2008, the company
owned or franchised a total of 11,565 restaurants in 71
countries and United States territories, of which 1,360
restaurants were company restaurants and 10,205 were owned by
its franchisees.  The company's restaurants feature flame-
broiled hamburgers, chicken and other specialty sandwiches,
french fries, soft drinks and other food items.  The company
generated revenues from three sources: retail sales at company
restaurants, franchise revenues, and property income from
restaurants that it lease or sublease to franchisees.  It
operates in three business segments: United States and Canada;
Europe, Middle East and Africa and Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and
Latin America.  In July 2008, the Company announced the
acquisition of 72 BURGER KING restaurants in Iowa and Nebraska,
from franchisee, Simmonds Restaurant Management.


EXELON CORP: Assessing Impact of Savings Plan Claim on Finances
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. is assessing the potential impact of the savings
plan claim on its operations and financial results and
condition, according to its Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Sept. 11, 2006, five individuals claiming to be participants
in the Exelon Corporation Employee Savings Plan, Plan #003
(Savings Plan), filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint names as defendants Exelon, its Director of
Employee Benefit Plans and Programs, the Employee Savings Plan
Investment Committee, the Compensation and the Risk Oversight
Committees of Exelon's Board of Directors and members of those
committees.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA by, among other things, permitting fees and
expenses to be incurred by the Savings Plan that allegedly were
unreasonable and for purposes other than to benefit the Savings
Plan and participants, and failing to disclose purported
"revenue sharing" arrangements among the Savings Plan's service
providers.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable and monetary relief
on behalf of the Savings Plan and participants, including
alleged investment losses.

On Feb. 21, 2007, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim for investment losses.

On June 27, 2007, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On June 28, 2007, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to stay proceedings in this action pending the outcome of
the appeal to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
another case not involving Exelon.  In that case, an appeal is
pending before the Seventh Circuit from the June 20, 2007
decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, which dismissed with prejudice substantially similar
claims.

Exelon Corp. -- http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- is a utility
services holding company.  It operates through its principal
subsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company
(PECO).  Generation's business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities, its wholesale energy
marketing operations and its competitive retail sales
operations.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail and wholesale sale of electricity
and the provision of distribution and transmission services to
retail customers in northern Illinois, including Chicago.
PECO's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and
regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of
transmission and distribution services to retail customers in
southeastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, as well as
the purchase and regulated retail sale of natural gas to retail
customers in the Pennsylvania counties.


EXELON CORP: Expects Argument on Ex-Employee's Appeal in 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. anticipates that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit will hear argument on the appeal filed by a
former employee of Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) in 2009,
according to its Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

On July 11, 2006, a former employee of ComEd filed a purported
class-action lawsuit against the Exelon Corporation Cash Balance
Pension Plan (Plan) in the Federal District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the Plan, which covers certain
management employees of Exelon's subsidiaries, calculated lump
sum distributions in a manner that does not comply with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The plaintiff seeks compensatory relief from the Plan on behalf
of participants who received lump sum distributions since 2001
and injunctive relief with respect to future lump sum
distributions.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit in
its entirety.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the District Court amended its order, in part,
to allow the plaintiff to file an administrative claim with the
Plan with respect to the calculation of the portion of his lump
sum benefit accrued under the Plan's prior traditional formula.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of the District
Court's dismissal of his claims.

In addition, on Jan. 6, 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint in
the District Court challenging the Plan's denial of his
administrative claim.

Exelon Corp. -- http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- is a utility
services holding company.  It operates through its principal
subsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company
(PECO).  Generation's business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities, its wholesale energy
marketing operations and its competitive retail sales
operations.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail and wholesale sale of electricity
and the provision of distribution and transmission services to
retail customers in northern Illinois, including Chicago.
PECO's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and
regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of
transmission and distribution services to retail customers in
southeastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, as well as
the purchase and regulated retail sale of natural gas to retail
customers in the Pennsylvania counties.


FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Decision on Motorola's Appeal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision on
Motorola Inc.'s interlocutory appeal in the purported class-
action suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," remains
pending, according to Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s Feb. 6,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

A purported class-action suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et
al.," was filed against Motorola and various of its directors,
officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly
permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase
or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of
Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to
disclose vendor financing to Telsim in connection with the sale
of telecommunications equipment by Motorola.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the
Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held
shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the
present," and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004.  Plaintiff
filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005.  On March 19,
2007, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

Three new purported lead plaintiffs intervened in the case, and
filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000
through Dec. 31, 2002.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Illinois District Court granted the
motion for class certification but narrowed the requested scope
of the class.

Motorola has sought leave to appeal in the appellate court and
reconsideration in the Illinois District Court of certain
aspects of the class certification order.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Illinois District Court modified the scope
of the class, granted summary judgment dismissing two of the
individually-named defendants in light of the narrowed class,
and ruled that the judgment as to the original named plaintiff,
Howell, would be immediately appealable.

The class as certified includes all Plan participants for whose
individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of
Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001
with certain exclusions.

On Feb. 15, 2008, Motorola and its codefendants filed motions
for summary judgment on all claims asserted by the class.  Those
motions are currently pending before the District Court.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit agreed to hear Motorola's interlocutory appeal of the
District Court's order certifying the class. This hearing
occurred on Oct. 23, 2008.

As a result of the terms of its separation from Motorola, it is
possible that Freescale could be held responsible to Motorola
for a portion of any judgment or settlement in this matter.  The
company continues to assess the merits of this action as well as
the potential effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows, according to its latest
regulatory filing.

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. -- http://www.freescale.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
semiconductor products that are based on its core capabilities
in embedded processing.  The Company's product portfolio are
Microcontroller Solutions; Networking and Multimedia; Cellular
Products, and Radio Frequency, Analog and Sensors.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Delaware Litigation Over Debt Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit
in Delaware by two bondholders who claim a recent debt deal
benefited some big corporate bondholders, Steve Green of The Las
Vegas Sun reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 9, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware by S. Blake Murchison and Willis
Shaw.

Named as defendants in the case are:

       -- Harrah's Entertainment Inc.,
       -- Harrah's Operating Company Inc.,
       -- Charles L. Atwood,
       -- Jeffrey Benjamin,
       -- David Bonderman,
       -- Anthony Civale,
       -- Jonathan Coslet,
       -- Kelvin Davis,
       -- Jeanne P. Jackson,
       -- Gary W. Loveman,
       -- Karl Peterson,
       -- Eric Press,
       -- Marc Rowman,
       -- Lynn C. Swann, and
       -- Christopher J. Williams.

The two bondholders claim that the recent debt-exchange deal
engineered by Harrah's benefited some big corporate bondholders
while placing other classes of bondholders in jeopardy, should
Harrah's default on its debt or file for bankruptcy protection,
reports The Las Vegas Sun.

Harrah's is "on the verge of bankruptcy, debt default and other
events of insolvency," the lawsuit charges.

According to the suit, a copy of which was obtained by The Las
Vegas Sun, "In an effort to ensure that only a limited class of
individuals and entities reap the rewards of their debt
investments in Harrah's to the detriment of other investors,
defendants have completed bond tender offers that benefit those
select individuals and entities to the exclusion of all others.
Without any lawful justification for cherry-picking among its
investors, defendants' bond tender offers have allowed those
elite individuals and entities to obtain newly-issued bonds that
will take priority over and otherwise subordinate previously-
issued bonds of the exact same category."

It charges, "Plaintiffs' bond holdings have been subordinated to
the newly-issued bonds and, as a result, have been likely
rendered worthless as the specter of Harrah's insolvency
approaches," according to The Las Vegas Sun report.

The suit is "Murchison et al v. Harrah's Entertainment Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:09-cv-00020-SLR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq. (jrosenthal@rmgglaw.com)
          Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.
          Mellon Bank Center, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          919 Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Phone: (302) 656-4433

Representing the defendants is:

          Kelly E. Farnan, Esq. (farnan@rlf.com)
          Richards, Layton & Finger, PA
          One Rodney Square
          920 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 651-7705


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Cardholder Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action suit in New Jersey over a recently disclosed data breach
at the company, Linda McGlasson of BankInfoSecurity.com reports.

The law firm of Berger & Montague filed the class-action suit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey over
Heartland's failure to safeguard cardholder data when the
company's computer systems were hacked and cardholder data was
stolen, reports BankInfoSecurity.com.

The law firm alleges that Heartland's security measures and
intrusion detection systems were inadequate.  "Because of
Heartland's inadequate data security, cardholders have had their
card information compromised, have been exposed to the risk of
fraud, have spent and will spend time to monitor their accounts
and dispute fraudulent charges, and have suffered other economic
damages," the law firm says in its statement regarding the suit,
according to the BankInfoSecurity.com report.

Computerworld previously reported that the Princeton, New
Jersey-based processor of payment card transactions, disclosed
on Jan. 27, 2009 that its systems had been broken into by
unknown intruders sometime last year.  The company claimed that
the intrusion -- which some are calling the biggest ever - was
discovered only earlier this month (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
30, 2009).

Visa and MasterCard alerted Heartland of suspicious transaction
activity, triggering Heartland to conduct its own forensic
investigation, during which the intrusion was discovered,
reports Computerworld.

According to the company, the intruders planted sophisticated
sniffer software in its network and stolen data as cards were
being processed.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Cardholder Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action suit in New Jersey over a recently disclosed data breach
at the company.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in February 2009 against
Heartland by Sheller P.C. of Philadelphia, PA over Heartland's
failure to safeguard cardholder data when the company's computer
systems were hacked and cardholder data was stolen, reports
BankInfoSecurity.com.

The law firm alleges that Heartland's security measures and
intrusion detection systems were inadequate, according to the
BankInfoSecurity.com report.

Computerworld previously reported that the Princeton, New
Jersey-based processor of payment card transactions, disclosed
on Jan. 27, 2009 that its systems had been broken into by
unknown intruders sometime last year.  The company claimed that
the intrusion -- which some are calling the biggest ever - was
discovered only earlier this month (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
30, 2009).

Visa and MasterCard alerted Heartland of suspicious transaction
activity, triggering Heartland to conduct its own forensic
investigation, during which the intrusion was discovered,
reports Computerworld.

According to the company, the intruders planted sophisticated
sniffer software in its network and stolen data as cards were
being processed.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Wash. Suit Over Downgrade Rights in Vista
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit in
Washington for alleged anticompetitive behavior over the
downgrade rights option that the company allows OEMs to offer
with new Windows Vista PCs, Kevin McLaughlin of Computer
Reseller News.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on Feb. 11, 2009 by Los Angeles County
resident Emma Alvarado.  It was brought on behalf of all U.S.
residents who bought a Vista PC and paid to downgrade it to XP
and is seeking treble damages for the financial impact of
Microsoft's actions.

Downgrade rights allow customers who buy new PCs with Vista
Business or Vista Ultimate to revert back to XP Professional,
according to the Computer Reseller News report.

Ms. Alvarado, is seeking class-action status for the suit,
claims that Microsoft acted illegally by forcing customers to
buy new Vista PCs in order to get XP.  She also claims that
Microsoft has abused its market position to try to cash in on
the popularity of XP.

John Oram of IT Examiner reported Ms. Alvarado is specifically
claiming that Microsoft has violated the Washington State Unfair
Business Practices Act, as well as the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, because Microsoft's practices have forced the
general public to pay "supra-competitive prices" for XP.

Another of Alvardo's claims in the suit is: "Microsoft has used
its power to coerce OEMs, internet access providers (IAPs) and
others into agreeing to restrictive and anti-competitive
licensing terms for its Windows XP operating system in order to
stifle competition in the market.  Microsoft did so in order to
maintain, protect, and extend its market power in operating
systems software into the next generation of personal computing,
to lessen competition, to promote Vista and to enhance its
monopoly position," according to the IT Examiner report.

The suit is "Alvarado v. Microsoft Corporation et al., Case No.
2:09-cv-00189-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Toby James Marshall, Esq. (tmarshall@tmdlegal.com)
          TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC
          3600 Fremont Ave. N.
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Phone: 206-816-6603


NEWS CORP: Continues to Defend LeBoyer's Claims in "Brown" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
News Corp. continues to defend Plaintiff LeBoyer's claims as
consolidated with the "Brown v. Brewer" class-action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

In November 2005, plaintiff in a derivative action captioned,
"LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al.," pending against various former
Intermix directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California filed a First Amended Class
and Derivative Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").

The original derivative action was filed in May 2003 and arose
out of Intermix's restatement of quarterly financial results for
its fiscal year ended March 31, 2003.

A substantially similar derivative action filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court was dismissed based on inability of the
plaintiffs to adequately plead demand futility.

The plaintiff LeBoyer's November 2005 Amended Complaint added
various allegations and purported class claims arising out of
the transaction whereby Intermix was to be acquired by Fox
Interactive Media ("FIM"), which are substantially similar to
those asserted in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation.

The Amended Complaint also added as defendants the individuals
and entities named in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation
that were not already defendants in the matter.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the court dismissed the fourth through seventh
claims for relief, which related to the 2003 restatement,
finding that the plaintiff is precluded from relitigating demand
futility.  At the same time, the court asked for further
briefing regarding plaintiffs' standing to assert derivative
claims based on the FIM Transaction, including for alleged
violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, the effect of
the state judge's dismissal of the claims in the Greenspan case
and the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation on the remaining
direct class action claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty
and other common law claims leading up to the FIM Transaction.

The parties filed the requested additional briefing in which the
defendants requested that the court stay the direct LeBoyer
claims pending the resolution of any appeal in the Greenspan
case and the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation.

By order dated May 22, 2007, the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the derivative claims arising out of the FIM
Transaction, and denied the defendants' request to stay the two
remaining direct claims.

The court subsequently consolidated this case with the "Brown v.
Brewer" action also pending before the court.  On July 11, 2007,
plaintiffs filed the consolidated first amended complaint under
the Brown case title, 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.

News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified
entertainment company with operations in eight industry
segments, including Filmed Entertainment, Television, Cable
Network Programming, Direct Broadcast Satellite Television,
Magazines and Inserts, Newspapers and Information Services, Book
Publishing and Other.  The activities of News Corporation are
conducted principally in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and the Pacific Basin.
Through its subsidiaries, it is engaged in the operation of
broadcast television stations, and the development, production
and distribution of network and television programming.  The
company engages in the direct broadcast satellite business
through its subsidiary, SKY Italia.  It also owns interests in
BSkyB and Premiere, which are engaged in the direct broadcast
satellite business.


NEWS CORP: No Hearing Set for Certification Bid in "Brown" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No hearing has been set on the class certification motion filed
by the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuit,
captioned, "Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al."

On June 14, 2006, a purported class-action lawsuit, captioned,
"Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al.," was filed against
certain former Intermix directors and officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The plaintiff asserted claims for alleged violations of Section
14a of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, as well as control
person liability under Section 20a.

The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants disseminated false
and misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions:

   (1) on Dec. 30, 2003, in connection with the shareholder vote
       on Jan. 29, 2004, on the election of directors and
       ratification of financing transactions with certain
       entities of VantagePoint, and

   (2) on Aug. 25, 2005, in connection with the shareholder vote
       on the transaction whereby Intermix was to be acquired by
       Fox Interactive Media ("FIM").

The complaint named as defendants certain VantagePoint related
entities, the former general counsel and the members of the
Intermix Board who were incumbent on the dates of the respective
proxy statements.

Intermix was not named as a defendant, but has certain indemnity
obligations to the former officer and director defendants in
connection with these claims and allegations.

On Aug. 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain
investment banks (the "Investment Banks") as defendants.
Intermix has certain indemnity obligations to the Investment
Banks as well.

Plaintiff amended his complaint again on Sept. 27, 2006, which
defendants moved to dismiss.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred to Judge George H.
King, the judge assigned to the LeBoyer action, on the grounds
that it raises substantially related questions of law and fact
as LeBoyer, and would entail substantial duplication of labor if
heard by different judges.

On June 11, 2007, Judge King ordered the Brown case be
consolidated with the LeBoyer action, ordered plaintiffs'
counsel to file a consolidated first amended complaint, and
further ordered the parties to file a joint brief on defendants'
contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated first amended
complaint.

On July 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed the consolidated first
amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.

By order dated Jan. 17, 2008, Judge King granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the 2003 proxy claims (concerning VantagePoint
transactions) and the 2005 proxy claims (concerning the FIM
Transaction), as well as a claim against the VantagePoint
entities alleging unjust enrichment.  The court found it
unnecessary to rule on dismissal of the remaining claims, which
are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction, because the dismissal
disposed of those claims.

On Feb. 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated Second Amended
Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 28, 2008.
By order dated July 15, 2008, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The 2003 claims
and the Investment Banks were dismissed with prejudice.  The
Section 14a and Section 20a, as well as the breach of fiduciary
duty claims related to the FIM Transaction, remain against the
officer and director defendants and the VantagePoint defendants.

On Oct. 6, 2008, defendants filed a partial motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal of the Section 14a, Section 20 and
state law disclosure claims.  On Nov. 10, 2008, Judge King
denied the motion without prejudice.

On Nov. 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification to which defendants filed their opposition on
Jan. 14, 2009.  Plaintiff's reply brief is due Feb. 13, 2009.
No hearing has been set on this motion.  The judge indicated in
his scheduling order that he would be taking the matter under
submission unless he gave further notice.  Discovery is
proceeding.  No trial date has been set yet, 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.

News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified
entertainment company with operations in eight industry
segments, including Filmed Entertainment, Television, Cable
Network Programming, Direct Broadcast Satellite Television,
Magazines and Inserts, Newspapers and Information Services, Book
Publishing and Other.  The activities of News Corporation are
conducted principally in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and the Pacific Basin.
Through its subsidiaries, it is engaged in the operation of
broadcast television stations, and the development, production
and distribution of network and television programming.  The
company engages in the direct broadcast satellite business
through its subsidiary, SKY Italia.  It also owns interests in
BSkyB and Premiere, which are engaged in the direct broadcast
satellite business.


NEWS CORP: Shareholder Appellants' Review Bid Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The petition for review filed by the shareholder appellants in
the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation is pending with the
California Supreme Court, according to News Corp.'s Feb. 5, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Aug. 26 and Aug. 30, 2005, two purported class action
lawsuits captioned, respectively, "Ron Sheppard v. Richard
Rosenblatt et. al., and John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc.
et al.," were filed in the California Superior Court, County of
Los Angeles.

Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then incumbent
members of the Intermix Board, including Mr. Rosenblatt,
Intermix's former Chief Executive Officer, and certain entities
affiliated with VantagePoint Venture Partners ("VantagePoint"),
a former major Intermix stockholder.

The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction whereby
Intermix was to be acquired by Fox Interactive Media ("FIM")
(the "FIM Transaction") and approving the related merger
agreement, the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Intermix stockholders by, among other things, engaging
in self-dealing and failing to obtain the highest price
reasonably available for Intermix and its stockholders.

The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement
resulted from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored
the terms of the merger to advance their own interests.

The FIM Transaction was consummated on Sept. 30, 2005.

The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated and, on Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed (the "Intermix Media Shareholder
Litigation").

The plaintiffs in the consolidated action sought various forms
of declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and costs.

On March 20, 2006, the court ordered that substantially
identical claims asserted in a separate state action filed by
Brad Greenspan, captioned, "Greenspan v. Intermix Media, Inc.,
et al.," be severed and related to the Intermix Media
Shareholder Litigation.

The defendants filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all claims
in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation and the severed
Greenspan claims.  On Oct. 6, 2006, the court sustained the
demurrers without leave to amend.

On Dec. 13, 2006, the court dismissed the complaints and entered
judgment for the defendants.  Greenspan and plaintiffs in the
Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation filed notices of appeal.

The Court of Appeal heard arguments on the fully briefed appeal
on Oct. 23, 2008.  On Nov. 11, 2008, the Court of Appeal issued
an unpublished opinion affirming Judge Kuhl's dismissal on all
counts.  On Dec. 19, 2008, shareholder appellants filed a
Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court.

After the lower court sustained the demurrers in the Intermix
Media Shareholder Litigation, co-counsel for certain of
plaintiffs moved for an award of attorney's fees and costs under
a common law substantial benefit theory.  On Oct. 4, 2007, the
court granted the motion and denied defendants' application to
tax costs.  After defendants filed a notice of appeal, the
matter was resolved.

News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified
entertainment company with operations in eight industry
segments, including Filmed Entertainment, Television, Cable
Network Programming, Direct Broadcast Satellite Television,
Magazines and Inserts, Newspapers and Information Services, Book
Publishing and Other.  The activities of News Corporation are
conducted principally in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Continental Europe, Australia, Asia and the Pacific Basin.
Through its subsidiaries, it is engaged in the operation of
broadcast television stations, and the development, production
and distribution of network and television programming.  The
company engages in the direct broadcast satellite business
through its subsidiary, SKY Italia.  It also owns interests in
BSkyB and Premiere, which are engaged in the direct broadcast
satellite business.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Mo. Judge Allows 401(k) Lawsuit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri ruled that lawyers for a former
employee can proceed with a class-action suit against NovaStar
Financial, Inc., David Martin of Pitch Weekly reports.

On Dec. 31, 2006, workers who participated in NovaStar's 401(k)
plan held $6.4 million in company stock.  A year later, as home
prices fell and NovaStar and other subprime mortgage lenders
were stuck with a lot of worthless paper, the investment could
practically fit in a coin dispenser, according to the Pitch
Weekly report.

Jennifer Jones, a former employee of the Kansas City-based
company, sued NovaStar in 2008, claiming that company management
offered an "imprudent" investment by allowing workers to invest
their retirement in NovaStar stock.  NovaStar was mismanaged,
the suit says, and company officials "issued misleading
communications" about the health of the organization, Pitch
Weekly reports.

Pitch Weekly reported that Ms. Jones was luckier than some.  She
unloaded her NovaStar for $31.61 a share.  The share price
ultimately fell 99 percent.

NovaStar's attorneys tried to argue that Ms. Jones lacked
standing, in part because she didn't get hammered the way other
stockholders did, according to Pitch Weekly.

However, Judge Laughrey rejected this argument.  In her ruling,
Judge Laughrey said that Ms. Jones had adequately shown that she
had suffered injury -- she bought NovaStar at $36.41 -- for the
lawsuit to proceed, reports Pitch Weekly.


SP AUSNET: Faces Suit Alleging Faulty Power Line Caused Bushfire
----------------------------------------------------------------
SP AusNet, the Australian power distributor majority owned by
Singapore Power Ltd., is the subject of a class-action lawsuit,
alleging it allowed faulty power lines to catch fire, damaging
property, Angela Macdonald-Smith of Bloomberg News reports.

The action, received on Feb. 16, 2009 by the Supreme Court of
Victoria, was filed by Slidders Lawyers on behalf of landowners
and occupiers of land who suffered losses in bushfires in
central and northeastern Victoria state this month, according to
a copy of the document e-mailed to Bloomberg News by the court.

Melbourne-based SP AusNet told Bloomberg News in an e-mail that
it believes the claim "is premature and inappropriate" given the
establishment of a Royal Commission to examine all aspects of
the bushfires.  The company will "vigorously defend the claim,"
it said.


STATION CASINOS: Faces Suit in Nev. Over Debt Restructuring Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc., along with several others, is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit challenging the company's debt
restructuring plan, Fox5 KVVU reports.

The suit was filed by bondholder S. Blake Murchison on Feb. 12,
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  It
alleges that the debt-reduction plan would harm him and other
bondholders.

Mr. Murchison's attorneys, G. Mark Albright, Esq., and Martin
Muckleroy, Esq., are seeking class-action status for the suit.

Others named as defendants in the suit include:

       -- Fertitta Colony Partners, LLC,
       -- Fertitta Partners, LLC,
       -- Colony Capital, LLC,
       -- Frank J. Fertitta, III,
       -- Lorenzo J. Fertitta,
       -- Thomas J. Barrack, Jr.,
       -- Jonathan H. Grunzweig,
       -- James E. Nave, D.V.M.,
       -- Thomas M. Friel,
       -- Scott M. Nielson, and
       -- Kevin L. Kelley.

Earlier this month, the casino operator announced that it plans
to swap high-cost debt for low-cost debt and a $244 million
capital infusion.  It plans to have the transaction approved
through a prepackaged bankruptcy filing, according to the Fox5
KVVU report.

The suit is "Murchison v. Station Casinos, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:09-cv-00293-KJD-GWF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Kent J. Dawson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark Albright, Esq. (gma@albrightstoddard.com)
          Martin A. Muckleroy, Esq.
          (mmuckleroy@albrightstoddard.com)
          Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright
          801 South Rancho Drive
          Suite D-4
          Las Vegas, NV 89106
          Phone: (702) 384-7111
          Fax: (702) 384-0605

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 Palmetto Park Rd, Ste 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000


TFS FIN'L: Appeal to Reversed Ruling in "Greenspan" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
TFS Financial Corp.'s appeal from the decision of the Eighth
District Court of Appeals in the putative class-action lawsuit
captioned, "Gary A. Greenspan v. Third Federal Savings & Loan,"
is pending with the Supreme Court of Ohio.

On June 13, 2006, Dr. Gary Greenspan filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the company's Third Federal Savings and
Loan Association of Cleveland, captioned, "Gary A. Greenspan v.
Third Federal Savings & Loan, Case No. CV 06 593882," in the
Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of Ohio residents in
connection with mortgage loans that the company provided to the
plaintiff and the putative class members.

The plaintiff alleges that the company impermissibly charged a
"document preparation fee" that included the cost of preparing
legal documents in connection with the mortgages.

The plaintiff further alleges that the company should disgorge
the document preparation fee because the document preparation
constituted the practice of law and was performed by company
employees who are not licensed to practice law in Ohio.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class of individuals who were
charged such a fee "anytime after June 13, 2001."

The company answered the plaintiff's complaint and moved for
judgment on the pleadings.  The trial court granted the
company's motion and dismissed the action.  The plaintiff
appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.

On June 25, 2008, the appellate court reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint as to claims arising
before Sept. 15, 2004, the date that the relevant statute was
amended to expressly give the Ohio Supreme Court exclusive
jurisdiction over claims for the unauthorized practice of law.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the company appealed the decision of the Eighth
District Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio which
then accepted the appeal on Dec. 3, 2008.  The record was filed
with the Ohio Supreme Court on Jan. 2, 2009, 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.

In addition, on Aug. 8, 2008, the company filed a Complaint in
Mandamus with the Ohio Supreme Court, which then dismissed the
mandamus action on Dec. 3, 2008.

TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- is a
federally chartered stock holding company, conducts its
activities through its wholly owned subsidiaries.  The line of
business of the Company is retail consumer banking, mortgage
lending, deposit gathering and other financial services.  Third
Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, MHC (Third
Federal Savings, MHC), and its federally chartered mutual
holding company parent owns 71.82% of the outstanding shares of
common stock of the company.  The company's operating
subsidiaries include Third Federal Savings and Loan Association
of Cleveland and Third Capital, Inc.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Lawsuit Over Live Nation Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. shareholders have filed a
class-action lawsuit claiming the Hollywood company sold itself
too cheaply to Live Nation, Inc., Alexa Hyland of Los Angeles
Business Journal Staff reports.

On Feb. 10, 2009, Ticketmaster, the world,s largest ticket
broker, announced a merger with Beverly Hills' Live Nation, the
world's largest concert promoter, to form Live Nation
Entertainment.

The suit was filed on Feb. 13, 2009 in Los Angeles Superior
Court.  It alleges that Ticketmaster executives exploited the
temporary downturn in the company's share price, off almost 40
percent in the last three months, and secured benefits for
themselves outside of the deal to the detriment of
Ticketmaster's public shareholders.

The $2.5 billion all-stock deal calls for Ticketmaster
shareholders to receive 1.38 shares of Live Nation Entertainment
stock for every share of Ticketmaster they own.

Ticketmaster shareholders are asking a Los Angeles state court
judge to block the deal, which is pending regulatory review by
the Justice Department's antitrust division.


WMG ACQUISITION: Defending Appeal on Junked Pricing Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WMG Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Warner Music Group Corp.,
intends to continue to defend against a consolidated class-
action suit over the pricing of digital music downloads,
including the appeal, according to its Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Originally, more than 30 putative class actions concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads have been filed.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the
caption, "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:2006-md-01780."

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release
of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing
of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.  It seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory, and treble damages.

All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007.  The Court
heard an argument on this motion on March 25, 2008.

On Oct. 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including the company.

On Nov. 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the
order of the District Court to the Circuit Court for the Second
Circuit.

The suit is "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:06-md-01780-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Loretta A. Preska,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com)
          Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          2901 N. Central, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-274-1100
          Fax: 602-274-1199

          Monique Alonso, Esq.
          Gross & Belsky LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Ste 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-544-0200
          Fax: 415-544-0201

               - and -

          Brian Joseph Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com)
          Law Office of Brian Barry
          1801 Ave. of The Stars, Suite 307
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-788-0831

Representing the defendant is:

          Chet Alan Kronenberg, Esq. (ckronenberg@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310-407-7557


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Donaldson Guin Files Securities Suit in Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Feb. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Donaldson & Guin,
LLC (http://www.donaldsonguin.com)has filed a class action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
against Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. ("CNB" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CNB) and certain of its officers alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of anyone who
purchased the common stock of CNB between December 2, 2008 and
January 27, 2009 (the "Class").

     The Complaint alleges that on December 2, 2008, CNB
represented that it would receive $550 million from the U.S.
Treasury Department in connection with the Troubled Asset Relief
Program ("TARP").  The Complaint further alleges that on January
27, 2009, the Company announced an $825 million loss in the
fourth quarter of 2008 and for the first time disclosed that the
$550 million it was to receive from TARP was contingent upon
CNB's ability to raise an additional $300 million in capital
from outside investors (a condition CNB had not yet met).  In
response to this news, it is alleged that the Company's stock
price dropped from $1.58 per share on January 27, 2009, to $0.85
per share on January 28, 2009, a drop of $0.73 per share, or
approximately 46%, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     The Complaint alleges that the Company's December 2, 2008
press release was materially false and misleading because it
failed to disclose that the $550 million that the Company was to
receive from TARP was contingent upon the Company's raising $300
million on its own.

For more details, contact:

        David J. Guin
        Tammy M. Stokes (tammys@dglawfirm.com)
        DONALDSON & GUIN, LLC
        505 20th Street North; Suite 1000
        Birmingham, AL 35203
        Phone: (205) 226-2282
        Fax: (205) 226-2357
        Website: http://www.donaldsonguin.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  * * *