CAR_Public/090219.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 35

                           Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Court Mediation on Florida DPPA Lawsuit Ongoing
DEVRY INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Daghlian" Appeal
GT SOLAR: Amended Consolidated "Braun" Complaint Pending in N.H.
GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Securities Suit Remanded to N.H. State Court
HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending

HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending
HILLENBRAND INC: July 2009 Trial Set for "Clayton" Suit v. Unit
HILLENBRAND INC: No Ruling Yet on "Pioneer Valley" Certification
HILLENBRAND INC: Ruling on FCA Class Certification Bid Pending
INTEGRATED DEVICE: To Seek Extension of SRAM Claims Tolling Deal

INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Faces Merged Lawsuit Over Vishay Offer
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Securities Fraud Suit Set for Mediation
PLEASANT CARE: Calif. Bankruptcy Court Finalizes Suit Settlement
PROPERTY I.D.: Calif. Court Give Final OK to $39.3M Settlement
RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Mo. Court Hears Motions in Odors Suit

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Reaches Settlement in W.V. Consumer Lawsuit
SEQUATCHIE MOUNTAIN: Faces $13.5M Consumer Fraud Suit in Tenn.
TYSON FOODS: Kansas Court Certifies Class in Workers' Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Court Rules Larger Panel to Review "Dukes" Case


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Suit Filing


                           *********

ACXIOM CORP: Court Mediation on Florida DPPA Lawsuit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation in a purported class-action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
Acxiom Corp. and several other information providers, alleging
violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, is being
conducted under the purview of the Court.

The suit, "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct,
Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," was originally filed with the
state court, but was later removed to federal court in May 2003.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used
driver's license data in violation of the federal Drivers
Privacy Protection Act.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and
attorneys' fees.  To date, a class has not been certified.

Acxiom has made an informal offer to settle the case and has
accrued $4.0 million for the offer of settlement and possible
expenses associated with the notice and claims administration
process.

The parties have agreed to stay the proceedings while mediation
is conducted under the purview of the Court (Class Action
Reporter, June 4, 2008).

No further updates were reported by the company in its Feb. 6,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data
Direct, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Jose
E. Martinez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. (ta@aronovitzlaw.com)
         Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
         150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Phone: 305-372-2772
         Fax: 305-375-0243

         Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
         3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200
         Tallahassee, FL 32308
         Phone: 850-325-2680
         Fax: 850-325-2681

         Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq.
         (lgoodman@devinegoodman.com)
         Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-8200
         Fax: 305-374-8208

              - and -

         James Kellogg Green, Esq. (jameskgreen@bellsouth.net)
         222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Phone: 561-659-2029
         Fax: 561-655-1357


DEVRY INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Daghlian" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Inc. and DeVry University Inc. await a ruling on their
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California's decisions in the
suit, "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW."

Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University
campus, filed a lawsuit over the defendants' alleged violations
of state education laws.  Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the
putative class action suit in the California state district
court for the County of Los Angeles.  The case was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Mr. Daghlian alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to
students did not comply with California state statutes including
a California Education Code requirement to provide a specified
statement to prospective students concerning the transferability
of credits.

On June 11, 2007, the District Court issued an order certifying
a class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business & Professions Code, section 17200 (UCL), comprised of
students who enrolled and paid tuition at a California DeVry
school in the four years prior to the date when the suit was
filed.

In October 2007, at DeVry's request, the Court entered a Summary
Judgment and dismissed all of Mr. Daghlian's class claims under
the UCL, on the grounds that the statutory provisions of the
California Education Code underlying Mr. Daghlian's claims
unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state regionally
accredited universities, in violation of the Dormant Commerce
Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

The Court also entered judgment in DeVry's favor on Mr.
Daghlian's individual claim under the California Education Code.
Mr. DeVry had contended that the California Education Code
compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.

In addition, the Court vacated the existing trial schedule and
granted DeVry leave to file a second motion for summary judgment
directed to Mr. Daghlian's remaining individual claims under the
UCL and False Advertising Law.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DeVry filed a motion to dismiss the appeal 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.

The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Margaret M.
Morrow, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. (jlspielberg@jlslp.com)
         Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-392-8801

Representing the defendants is:

         Van T. Lam, Esq.
         Reed Smith
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
         Phone: 213-457-8000


GT SOLAR: Amended Consolidated "Braun" Complaint Pending in N.H.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The amended consolidated complaint in the federal class-action
suit captioned, "Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc.,
et al.," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire, 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. 27, 2008.

Beginning on Aug. 1, 2008, seven putative securities class-
action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire, against the company, certain of
its officers and directors, certain underwriters of the
company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering and others,
including certain investors in the company.

On Oct. 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the
federal class actions into a single action captioned, "Braun et
al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al."

The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel in the consolidated matter on Oct. 29, 2008.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on
Dec. 22, 2008.  The defendants are scheduled to respond to the
amended consolidated complaint on or before Feb. 5, 2009.

The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the
Securities Act.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in
certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and
Prospectus for the company's July 24, 2008 initial public
offering, and other public statements, regarding the company's
business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the company's
customers, JYT Corporation, one of the company's competitors,
and certain of the company's products, including its DSS
furnaces.

Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks
class certification, unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other
relief as the Court should deem just and proper.

The suit is "Braun et al v. GT Solar International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00312-JL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, Judge Joseph N.
Laplante, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Cole, Esq. (ccole@sheehan.com)
          Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
          1000 Elm St.
          P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03105-3701
          Phone: 603-668-0300

               - and -

          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq. (mblauner@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St, 13th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-439-3939

Representing the defendants are:

          W. Daniel Deane, Esq. (ddeane@nixonpeabody.com)
          Nixon Peabody LLP
          900 Elm St, 14th Flr
          Manchester, NH 03101-2031
          Phone: 603-628-4047

               - and -

          William H. Paine, Esq. (william.paine@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-526-6000


GT SOLAR: "Hamel" Securities Suit Remanded to N.H. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative securities class-action suit captioned, "Hamel v.
GT Solar International, Inc., et al.," is ongoing in the New
Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for Hillsborough
County, Southern District.

On Sept. 18, 2008, a putative securities class-action suit was
filed in New Hampshire State Court, under the caption, "Hamel v.
GT Solar International, Inc., et al.," against the company,
certain of its officers and directors and certain underwriters
of the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering.

The Company removed the state class action to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire on Oct. 22, 2008.

The state class-action suit was consolidated with the federal
class actions on Nov. 25, 2008.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the federal Court granted the plantiff's motion
to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State Court.

The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under various
sections of the Securities Act.

The state class-action complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in
certain SEC filings, including the registration statement for
the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other
public statements, regarding the company's business relationship
with LDK Solar, Ltd., one of the company's customers, JYT
Corporation, one of the company's competitors, and certain of
the company's products, including its DSS furnaces.

Among other relief, the state class action complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
State Court should deem just and proper, 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. 27, 2008.

GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://www.gtsolar.com/-- is
provider of manufacturing equipment and turnkey manufacturing
solutions to the photovoltaic (PV) industry.  The company's
products and solutions are used for production of solar grade
polysilicon, manufacturing of multicrystalline silicon wafers,
production of solar cells and assembly of complete modules.  GT
Solar International, Inc. provides facility and process design
and integration know-how with its equipment.  The company offers
its products and services to PV product manufacturers on a
worldwide basis, and a substantial percentage of its sales are
to customers outside the United States.  Effective Jan. 1, 2006,
GT Solar Holdings, LLC acquired the Company.


HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remains
pending.

                         Kim Litigation

On Oct. 1, 2007, a purported class-action suit was filed by
Cheolan Kim against the company and certain of its officers,
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007,
and Sept. 24, 2007.

The original complaint purported to allege claims for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's financial condition
and business prospects.  It also contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the company's merger agreement
with Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Goldman, Sachs &
Co. was entered, there would not have been a merger deal, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the
company's common stock therefore would not have been
artificially inflated during the class period.

The plaintiffs alleged that, following the reports that the
proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of the
company's common stock declined causing the plaintiff class
significant losses.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which extends the class period through Jan. 11, 2008.  It
contends that, in addition to the violations alleged in the
original complaint, the company also violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by purportedly knowingly failing to
disclose "significant problems" relating to its personal
navigation device "sales forecasts, production, pricing, and
inventory" prior to Jan. 14, 2008.

The amended complaint claims that when "Defendants revealed for
the first time on Jan. 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the Company's
share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

                     Boca Raton Litigation

On Nov. 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan
filed a purported class-action suit against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking compensatory damages and costs on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
between April 26, 2007, and Sept. 24, 2007.

The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially
identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and
like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint
alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

                         Consolidation

On Feb. 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim
action with the matter, "Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al.,"
and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as
"In re Harman International Industries Inc. Securities
Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR)."  That same
day, the Court ordered the administrative closing of Boca Raton
Litigation.

Also on that same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public
Retirement System as lead plaintiff and approved the law firm
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C., to serve as Lead
Counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of "Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al." with "In re
Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation."

On May 2, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class-
action complaint.  The consolidated complaint, which extends the
class period through Feb. 5, 2008, contends that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by issuing false and misleading
disclosures regarding the company's financial condition in
fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2008.

In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclosure material
adverse facts about MyGIG radios, PNDs and the company's capital
expenditures.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that when the company's
true financial condition became known to the market, the price
of the company's stock declined significantly, causing losses to
the plaintiff class (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2008).

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed defendants'
motion to dismiss on Sept. 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply
in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 2, 2008.
The motion is now fully briefed, 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

The suit is "In re Harman International Industries Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-01757-RWR," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Richard
W. Roberts, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. (dsommers@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq. (tfcullen@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: 202-879-3939

  
HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the matter, "Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
02212-RWR," which alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, remains pending.

On Dec. 7, 2007, Patrick Russell filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of ERISA in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  The plaintiff is seeking, on
behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman
International Industries Inc. Retirement Savings Plan,
compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as
injunctive relief, constructive trust, restitution, and other
monetary relief.

The complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007, to the present,
the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of
ERISA, by causing the Plan to invest in company stock
notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a
prudent investment for the Participants' retirement savings."

The suit further claims that, during the Class Period, the
defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, and failed to
provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan
participants, adverse facts regarding the company and its
businesses and prospects.

The plaintiff also contends that the defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty.

As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the complaint
asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial losses,
resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the
Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of the case with "In re Harman
International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation" (Class
Action Reporter, June 19, 2008).

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
Aug. 5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed defendants' motion
to dismiss on Sept. 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in
further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 20, 2008.
The motion is now fully briefed, 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.

The suit is "Russell v. Harman International Industries,
Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02212-RWR," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Richard
W. Roberts presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John Bucher Isbister, Esq. (jisbister@tydingslaw.com)
          Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1062
          Phone: 410-752-9714
          Fax: 410-727-5460

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq. (tfcullen@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: 202-879-3939


HILLENBRAND INC: July 2009 Trial Set for "Clayton" Suit v. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in the putative class-action suit styled, "Garry
Clayton v. Batesville Casket Company, Inc." is set to commence
during the week of July 13, 2009, according to Hillenbrand,
Inc.'s Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Aug. 17, 2007, a lawsuit styled, "Vertie Staples v.
Batesville Casket Company, Inc.," was filed against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

As amended, the case is a putative class action on behalf of the
plaintiff and all others who purchased a Monoseal(R),
Monogard(R) or gasketed caskets manufactured by Batesville from
a licensed funeral home located in Arkansas from Jan. 1, 1989 to
Aug. 31, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the warranties on which the claims
are predicated date from 1989 to 2002.

The plaintiff claims that Monoseal(R), Monogard(R) or gasketed
caskets were marketed as completely resistant to the entrance of
air and water when they allegedly were not completely resistant.

The plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and for fraud, constructive fraud
and breach of express and implied warranties.

On Jan. 9, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
added another putative class plaintiff, restated the pending
claims, and added a claim for unjust enrichment.

The claims of the original plaintiff were subsequently dismissed
by the Court and the case is now styled, "Garry Clayton v.
Batesville Casket Company, Inc."

In order to establish federal jurisdiction over the claims under
the Class Action Fairness Act, the plaintiff alleges that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5.0 million.
      
The action is still in the class certification stage.

Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.hillenbrandinc.com/-- is the
parent holding company of its wholly owned subsidiary,
Batesville Services, Inc. (Batesville Casket).  Through
Batesville Casket, the company is engaged in the North American
death care industry where it manufactures, distributes and sells
funeral service products to funeral directors who operate
funeral homes.  The company's products consist primarily of
burial and cremation caskets, but also include containers and
urns, selection room display fixturing for funeral homes, and
other personalization and memorialization products and services,
including creating and hosting websites for funeral homes.  It
primarily manufactures and distributes products in the United
States.  It also had two manufacturing facilities in Mexico and
distribution facilities in Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, the
United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa.


HILLENBRAND INC: No Ruling Yet on "Pioneer Valley" Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
yet to rule on the motion for class certification in Pioneer
Valley Casket Co.'s lawsuit against Hillenbrand, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Batesville Casket Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom
Holdings, Inc.
      
On July 8, 2005, Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket
store and Internet retailer, filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Batesville, Hill-Rom, Service Corporation
International ("SCI"), Alderwoods Group, Inc. ("Alderwoods"),
and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. ("Stewart") in California District
Court on behalf of the class of "independent casket
distributors," alleging violations of state and federal
antitrust law and state unfair and deceptive practices laws
based on essentially the same factual allegations as in the
consumer cases.

Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent casket
distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy
to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for
caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods,
Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the
alleged market for caskets.
      
The Pioneer Valley complaint was also transferred to the
Southern District of Texas but was not consolidated with the FCA
Action.

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

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

On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended Pioneer Valley complaint.
     
The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs are seeking certification of a
class of all independent casket distributors in the United
States who are or were in business at any time from July 8, 2001
to the present, excluding those that: (1) are affiliated in any
way with any funeral home; (2) manufacture caskets; or (3) are
defendants in the current action, their directors, officers,
agents, employees, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates.
      
A class certification hearing in the Pioneer Valley Action was
held in early December 2006.  While the decision was pending on
the class certification motion, the Court stayed the case
pending resolution of class certification.  On Nov. 24, 2008,
the Magistrate Judge who conducted the class certification
hearings recommended that the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification in both cases be denied.  The plaintiffs have
filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation with
the District Judge.  If the District Judge accepts the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denies class
certification, plaintiffs may petition the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit for leave to appeal.  It is anticipated
that new deadlines, including a trial date, will not be set
until sometime after the Court has ruled on the motions for
class certification.
      
Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any such
damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and
costs, and injunctive relief. The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs
filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages of
approximately $99.2 million before trebling on behalf of the
purported class of independent casket resellers they seek to
represent.  Because Batesville continues to adhere to its long-
standing policy of selling Batesville(R) caskets only to
licensed funeral homes, a policy that it continues to believe is
appropriate and lawful, if the case goes to trial the plaintiffs
are likely to claim additional alleged damages for periods
between their reports and the time of trial.

In antitrust actions such as the Pioneer Valley Action, the
plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against any or all
of the co-defendants, who have no statutory contribution rights
against each other.  The company and Hill-Rom have entered into
a judgment sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any
potential liabilities associated with this litigation between
Hillenbrand and Hill-Rom, 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.

Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.hillenbrandinc.com/-- is the
parent holding company of its wholly owned subsidiary,
Batesville Services, Inc. (Batesville Casket).  Through
Batesville Casket, the company is engaged in the North American
death care industry where it manufactures, distributes and sells
funeral service products to funeral directors who operate
funeral homes.  The company's products consist primarily of
burial and cremation caskets, but also include containers and
urns, selection room display fixturing for funeral homes, and
other personalization and memorialization products and services,
including creating and hosting websites for funeral homes.  It
primarily manufactures and distributes products in the United
States.  It also had two manufacturing facilities in Mexico and
distribution facilities in Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, the
United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa.


HILLENBRAND INC: Ruling on FCA Class Certification Bid Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas'
ruling on the motion for class certification in Funeral
Consumers Alliance, Inc.'s lawsuit against Hillenbrand, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Batesville Casket Company, Inc. and Hill-Rom
Holdings, Inc., remains pending.

On May 2, 2005, a non-profit entity called Funeral Consumers
Alliance, Inc. ("FCA") and several individual consumers filed a
purported class-action antitrust lawsuit ("FCA Action") against
three national funeral home businesses, Service Corporation
International ("SCI"), Alderwoods Group, Inc. ("Alderwoods"),
and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. ("Stewart"), together with Hill-
om Holdings, Inc. and the company's subsidiary Batesville Casket
Company, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

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

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

The FCA Action alleged that two of Batesville's competitors,
York Group, Inc. and Aurora Casket Company, are co-conspirators,
but did not name them as defendants.

The FCA Action also alleged that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and
other unnamed co-conspirators conspired to monopolize the
alleged market for the sale of caskets in the United States.
      
After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class-
action lawsuits on behalf of consumers were filed based on
essentially the same factual allegations and alleging violations
of federal antitrust law and/or related state law claims.  All
of these actions have either been dismissed or consolidated with
the FCA Action.
      
Batesville, Hill-Rom and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more
convenient forum.  In response, the court in California
permitted the plaintiffs to replead the complaint and later
granted defendants' motion to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston,
Texas).
      
On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
containing substantially the same basic allegations as the
original FCA complaint.  On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended FCA complaint.
       
The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that
includes all United States consumers who purchased Batesville
caskets from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time
during the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of
limitations.

A class certification hearing in the FCA Action was held in
early December 2006.  While the decision was pending on the
class certification motions, the Court stayed the case pending
resolution of class certification.  On Nov. 24, 2008, the
Magistrate Judge who conducted the class certification hearings
recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
be denied.  The plaintiffs have filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation with the District Judge.  If
the District Judge accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
and denies class certification, plaintiffs may petition the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to appeal.  It
is anticipated that new deadlines, including a trial date, will
not be set until sometime after the Court has ruled on the
motion for class certification.
      
Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any such
damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and
costs, and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs filed a report
indicating that they are seeking damages ranging from
approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion
before trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers
they seek to represent.  Because Batesville continues to adhere
to its long-standing policy of selling Batesville(R) caskets
only to licensed funeral homes, a policy that it continues to
believe is appropriate and lawful, if the case goes to trial the
plaintiffs are likely to claim additional alleged damages for
periods between their reports and the time of trial.

In antitrust actions such as the FCA Action, the plaintiffs may
elect to enforce any judgment against any or all of the co-
defendants, who have no statutory contribution rights against
each other.  The company and Hill-Rom have entered into a
judgment sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any
potential liabilities associated with this litigation between
Hillenbrand and Hill-Rom, 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.

Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.hillenbrandinc.com/-- is the
parent holding company of its wholly owned subsidiary,
Batesville Services, Inc. (Batesville Casket).  Through
Batesville Casket, the company is engaged in the North American
death care industry where it manufactures, distributes and sells
funeral service products to funeral directors who operate
funeral homes.  The company's products consist primarily of
burial and cremation caskets, but also include containers and
urns, selection room display fixturing for funeral homes, and
other personalization and memorialization products and services,
including creating and hosting websites for funeral homes.  It
primarily manufactures and distributes products in the United
States.  It also had two manufacturing facilities in Mexico and
distribution facilities in Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, the
United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa.


INTEGRATED DEVICE: To Seek Extension of SRAM Claims Tolling Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. intends to pursue a further
extension of the tolling agreement regarding potential claims by
the indirect and direct purchaser plaintiffs against the
company.

On Oct. 24, 2006, the Company was served with a civil antitrust
complaint filed by Reclaim Center, Inc., as plaintiffs in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and 37 other entities on behalf of a
purported class of indirect purchasers of Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) products.

The Complaint alleges that the Company and other defendants
conspired to raise the prices of SRAM, in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and several
other states' antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer
protection statutes.

Shortly thereafter, a number of other plaintiffs filed similar
complaints.  Given the similarity of the complaints, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases
to a single judge in the Northern District of California and
consolidated the cases for pretrial proceedings in February
2007.  The consolidated cases are captioned, "In re Static
Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation." (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007).

In August 2007, direct purchasers of SRAM and indirect
purchasers of SRAM filed separate Consolidated Amended
Complaints.  The company was not named as a defendant in either
complaint.

Pursuant to tolling agreements with the indirect and direct
purchaser plaintiffs, the statute of limitations was tolled
until Jan. 10, 2009 as to potential claims against the company.
The company intends to pursue a further extension of the tolling
agreement, according to its Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Integrated Device Technology, Inc. -- http://www.idt.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
semiconductor solutions for the advanced communications and
computing industries.  The company operates in three business
segments: Networking, Timing and Memory Interface, and Standard
Products and Other.  The Networking segment includes network
search engines (NSEs), switching solutions, integrated
communications processors, flow-control management (FCM)
devices, first-in/first out (FIFOs), and multi-ports.  The
Timing and Memory Interface segment includes clock management,
dual in-line memory modules (DIMM) support and other timing
solution products.  The Standard Products and Other segment
include high-speed static random access memory (SRAM), military
applications, digital logic products, telecommunications and
video products.  On July 31, 2006, the company acquired the PC
Audio business from SigmaTel, Inc.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Faces Merged Lawsuit Over Vishay Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Rectifier Corp. faces a consolidated amended
purported class-action complaint filed after the company's
disclosure that Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., had made an
unsolicited, non-binding proposal to acquire all outstanding
shares of the company for $21.22 per share in cash.

On Aug. 15, 2008, the first purported class-action complaint,
captioned "Hui Zhao v. International Rectifier Corp., No.
BC396461," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.

The complaint names as defendants the company and all current
directors and alleges that the Vishay proposal is unfair and
that acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach of
fiduciary duty.  It seeks to enjoin the defendants from agreeing
to the Vishay proposal or, alternatively, to rescind a merger
with Vishay if it were ultimately consummated, as well as an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 19, 2008, a substantially similar complaint, captioned
"United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local
Union No. 8 v. International Rectifier Corp., No. BC396490," was
filed in the same court.

This complaint names the same defendants and alleges that the
Vishay proposal is unfair and that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
acquisition by failing to properly value the Company and by
failing to maximize its value through steps such as the
solicitation of alternate offers.  The action likewise seeks to
enjoin defendants from agreeing to the Vishay proposal and a
declaration that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, as
well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 9, 2008).

According to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities an Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2008, five other substantively identical complaints
seeking the same relief were filed in the same court and, on
Oct. 3, 2008, were consolidated under the caption of the lead
case.

On Oct. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint purporting to allege claims for breach of fiduciary
duty on behalf of a putative class of investors based on the
theory that the board breached its fiduciary duty by rejecting
the Vishay proposal.

International Rectifier Corp. -- http://www.irf.com/-- designs,
manufactures and markets power management semiconductors.  Its
products include power metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect
transistors (MOSFETs), high-voltage analog and mixed signal
integrated circuits, low-voltage analog and mixed signal
integrated circuits, digital integrated circuits, radiation-
resistant (RAD-Hard) power MOSFETs, insulated gate bipolar
transistors, high reliability DC-DC converters, PowerStage
modules, and DC-DC converter type applications.  The company's
semiconductors are found in a variety of applications, such as
automotive applications, networking, industrial motors, display,
consumer electronics, servers, personal computers, game
stations, household appliances, aerospace and defense, and
telecommunications.  IR operates in seven segments: Enterprise
Power (EP), Power Management Devices (PMD), PS, Energy-Saving
Products (ESP), Aerospace and Defense (A&D), Intellectual
Property (IP) and Transition Services (TS).


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Securities Fraud Suit Set for Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
International Rectifier Corp. has been referred by the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California for
mediation.

Following the company's disclosure on April 9, 2007, that its
Audit Committee was conducting an internal investigation into
certain revenue recognition matters, a series of putative class-
action lawsuits was filed against International Rectifier Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Edward R. Koller filed the first complaint on April 17, 2007, on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of IR stock from Oct.
27, 2005, through April 9, 2007.

The complaint named as defendants IR and certain of its present
and former officers and directors and alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act based upon
revenue recognition errors at the company's Japan subsidiary.

On July 22, 2007, the court consolidated all of the securities
actions under the caption, "In re International Rectifier
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx)
C.D. Cal.)," and appointed Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund
and General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, as co-lead
plaintiffs.

The Co-Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
Jan. 14, 2008, which purported to extend the Original Class
Period by nearly two years, from July 31, 2003, to Aug. 29,
2007, and added claims based upon the company's disclosures that
certain former officers improperly allocated operating expenses
as restructuring charges, improperly assigned tax liability from
higher to lower tax jurisdictions and improperly accounted for
tax benefits associated with the granting of stock options.

The lawsuit also named as defendants several of the company's
former officers, but did not name any of its past or present
directors except Eric Lidow and Alex Lidow, who were officers as
well.

The company filed a motion to dismiss these claims on March 6,
2008, on the grounds that Co-Plaintiffs failed to plead scienter
as to IR; failed to plead scienter as to the company; failed to
plead loss causation as to certain of those disclosures; failed
to plead an underlying violation of Section 10(b), which is a
predicate for a claim under Section 20(a); and improperly
expanded the class period without adequate notice.  The Co-
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to this motion.

On May 23, 2008, the Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, on the ground
that the Co-Plaintiffs failed to plead detailed facts sufficient
to give rise to a strong inference of defendants' scienter.  The
court has permitted Co-Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
on or before Oct. 17, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9,
2008).

On Oct. 17, 2008, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("SACC").  The SACC purports
to extend the class period from July 31, 2003 to Feb. 11, 2008,
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of matters recently disclosed
by the company in connection with the restatement of certain
prior period financial statements, and names as defendants the
company and certain of its former officers and directors.  The
SACC does not name as defendants any of the Company's current
officers or directors.  The SACC seeks unspecified damages from
all defendants.

On Nov. 10, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the SACC
on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to plead with
particularity facts raising a strong inference that the
individuals who spoke on the company's behalf during the
putative class period knew, or were reckless in not knowing,
that the company's financial statements were inaccurate. Similar
motions to dismiss were filed that same day on behalf of the
individual defendants.  The company also filed an alternative
motion to strike allegations purporting to extend the putative
class period to a date earlier than April 29, 2005 or to a date
later than May 11, 2007 on the grounds that plaintiffs had
failed to plead loss causation as to disclosures issued during
that time period.

On Dec. 31, 2008, the District Court issued an order granting
the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for control
person liability and granting, in its entirety, defendant Robert
Grant's motion to dismiss.  These dismissals were with
prejudice.  The District Court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the securities fraud count and denied in their entirety
motions to dismiss brought by defendants Alex Lidow, McGee and
Eric Lidow.

On Jan. 7, 2009, the Court issued orders referring the matter
for mediation, setting Sept. 1, 2009 as the last day for a
settlement conference and Jan. 12, 2010 as the first day of
trial, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities an Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re International Rectifier Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Judge John F. Walter, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq. (jbai@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          425 California Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-433-3200

               - and -

          Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-785-0800

Representing the defendants are:

          Jacob I. Kiani, Esq. (jkiani@sheppardmullin.com)
          Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Phone: 213-620-1780

               - and -

          Jason DeBretteville, Esq.
          (debrettevillej@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
          1870 Embarcadero Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303-3308
          Phone: 650-461-5682


PLEASANT CARE: Calif. Bankruptcy Court Finalizes Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Feb. 17, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Morris
Polich & Purdy LLP represented a class of several hundred former
employees of the now defunct Pleasant Care nursing home chain,
after their health insurance coverage was retroactively
terminated and earned vacation pay withheld.

     In February 2007, the Pleasant Care companies filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  During the reorganization, the Pleasant
Care facilities remained open, and their employees continued to
work under the belief that they were still covered by Pleasant
Care's self-funded health insurance plan.  After a couple of
months, however, Pleasant Care stopped funding the plan, and the
employees were billed directly for medical services they thought
were covered. Some had bills of more than $10,000, and the
bankruptcy court set a bar date for all administrative claims
that was due to expire before many of the workers received their
bills.  Morris Polich & Purdy took the case only 11 days before
the bar date.  Considering that the defendants were already in
bankruptcy, "it was a big risk," says David Vendler, a partner
with the firm.  However, Vendler states, "the workers badly
needed help, or a real injustice was going to be done."

     Because the case was in bankruptcy court, Morris Polich &
Purdy partnered with Richard Baum, a bankruptcy attorney in Los
Angeles.  "The first thing to do was to extend the bar date and
get a notice to the class that they could understand," Baum
stated.  Bankruptcy Judge Ellen Carroll agreed that the bar date
had to be moved back, and, in what Baum says may be a first, the
new notice of administrative claim bar date was rewritten in
plain English, then translated into Tagalog, as many of the
affected workers were from the Philippines.

     The bankruptcy court initially declined to allow the
claimants to be treated as a class.  After this ruling, Vendler
and Baum decided that filing a separate action in the District
Court was their best alternative.  After several rounds of
procedural wrangling over venue, which plaintiffs eventually
won, the defendants agreed to settle the claims on a class
basis, and this settlement was finally approved by the
bankruptcy court.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
employees will receive approximately 65% of their claims, a
greater percentage than all of the other administrative
claimants.

     Vendler is particularly proud of the result.  "Very few
firms in Los Angeles would take a class action case on
contingency against a set of defendants already in bankruptcy
court," Vendler states, "but this was a case where we simply
could not stand idly by and watch people face potential
bankruptcy, just because they committed the crime of going to
work every day."  Ultimately, the defendants did the right thing
in settling the case.

For more details, contact:

          David Vendler, Esq.
          Morris Polich & Purdy LLP
          Phone: (213) 417-5100
          Web site: http://www.mpplaw.com/


PROPERTY I.D.: Calif. Court Give Final OK to $39.3M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave final approval to a $39.3 million settlement in a class-
action lawsuit that alleged real estate brokers received
kickbacks for referring clients to Property I.D. Corp., a
company that produces natural hazard disclosure reports, Matt
Carter of Inman News reports.

The original complaint, captioned, "Berger v. Property ID Corp.,
et al., Case No. 05-5373," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on July 25, 2005,
alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 5, 2009).

The suit, as amended later, was filed by Mark Berger against
Cendant, Century 21, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Company, and related entities, among other defendants, who are
parties to joint venture agreements with Property I.D. Corp.,
which markets and sells natural hazard disclosure reports in the
State of California.

The complaint names additional defendants, including certain
Realogy subsidiaries and several Prudential Real Estate
companies, which also had joint venture relationships with
Property I.D.

The complaint, as amended to date, alleges, among other things,
violations of RESPA, which restricts direct or indirect payments
from real estate settlement service providers for the referral
of business to other providers, and further alleged unlawful
business practices under the California Business and Professions
Code.  Mr. Berger alleges that the joint ventures are sham
arrangements that unlawfully receive payments or referral fees
in exchange for business.

The defendants have responded that they do not consider natural
hazard disclosure reports to be settlement services and
accordingly, the provision of such services is not within the
purview of RESPA.

In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class, which request was granted by the Court on April 28, 2008.
Classes were certified against the Realogy defendants and the
Pickford defendants, but not against the Silver Oak defendants
or the RE/MAX defendants as the plaintiffs had no class
representative for those joint ventures.

Mediation was held on Aug. 14, 2007, Oct. 23-24, 2007, April 4,
2008, and May 9, 2008.

At the mediation hearing on May 9, 2008, the company and the
plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the matter as it
relates to claims against the company and its subsidiaries.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company
anticipates, based on its current assumptions, that the
aggregate amount it will pay in the settlement (including
attorneys' fees and costs of claims administration) will be $4
million (the amount of the company's reserve at March 31, 2008).

The settlement is subject to execution of a written settlement
agreement, court certification of a class and court approval.
By order dated May 21, 2008, the Court stayed the case and
directed that a motion to approve the settlement be filed by
July 21, 2008.

By Order dated July 24, 2008, the Court extended the deadline to
file a motion to approve the settlement to Aug. 4, 2008.  The
motion for preliminary approval was filed on Aug. 4, 2008 (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

On Aug. 28, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement of this action as it relates to claims against the
company and its subsidiaries.  The settlement provides for the
reimbursement of the amounts paid to purchase a Property I.D.
natural hazard disclosure report where the consumer was
represented by an agent of a Realogy broker or franchisee in the
transaction.  Under the terms of the settlement, the company
paid $4 million in September 2008 to fund attorneys' fees and
costs of claims administration.

The company anticipates, based on its current assumptions
including the expected redemption rate by class members, that it
will have no further payment obligation under the settlement as
insurance proceeds are anticipated to fund the balance of
obligations under the settlement agreement.

Mailed notice has been issued to the class and publicized notice
will occur by Oct. 29, 2008.  A fairness hearing is scheduled
for Jan. 26, 2009, at which the court will decide whether to
grant final approval of the settlement.

The suit is "Mark Berger v. Property ID Corp. et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-05373-GHK-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge George H. King, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Caryn Becker, Esq. (cbecker@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
         Embarcadero Ctr W, 275 Battery St, 30th Fl
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000

              - and -

         Jenna Whitman, Esq. (jwhitman@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-956-1000

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael C. Baum, Esq. (mbaum@rpab.com)
         Resch Polster Alpert & Berger
         9200 Sunset Boulevard, 9th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90069
         Phone: 310-277-8300


RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Mo. Court Hears Motions in Odors Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jasper County Circuit Court at Joplin recently heard motions
in a purported class-action suit against Renewable Environmental
Solutions, which is alleging that odors from its Carthage,
Missouri plant are a nuisance and that the company has been
negligent, Susan Redden of the Joplin Globe reports.

John Hacker of The Carthage Press previously reported that the
RES plant takes waste turkey parts and other agricultural waste
and turns it into a fuel oil using what it calls a thermal
conversion process (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2008).

The plant has been cited by the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources several times since it opened in April 2003, and was
forced to shut down for a time by the state in 2005, according
to The Carthage Press.

The suit was filed with the Jasper County Circuit Court by
Cynthia Sundy on June 5, 2007.  Ms. Sundy -- represented by Ron
Jones, Esq. of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles
-- seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney
fees (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2007).

Ms. Sundy the odor from RES "has injured area residents and
property owners by diminishing their right to enjoy their
property and diminished their property values."

She asked that that the case be declared as a class action, and
that the class include about half the city of Carthage.  The
filing noted that there are potentially 6,375 people in 2,406
households in the area affected by the odor from RES.

According to The Carthage Press, in July 2007, the Jasper County
Circuit Court granted an RES motion to send the case to federal
court, but in October 2007, the federal court sent the case back
to Jasper County at the request of Ms. Sundy's attorneys.

The Carthage Press reports that RES filed a motion to dismiss
the case in November 2007, but no decision on that motion was
listed in the court records on the Internet.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Rhon Jones, Esq.
          Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Phone: (334) 269-2343 or (800) 898-2034
          Fax: (334) 954-7555
          e-mail: rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Reaches Settlement in W.V. Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc., settled a class-action lawsuit that accused
the company of violating West Virginia consumer protection law,
the Huntington Herald Dispatch reports.

A federal judge approved the settlement earlier this month and
more than 61,000 customers have been notified, according to the
Huntington Herald Dispatch report.

The lawsuit alleged that Rent-A-Center's prices exceeded those
permitted by West Virginia law.  The suit was filed by Jimmy and
Michelle Hardwick of Huntingotn and Yvette Spencer Parks of
Charleston, according to a release from attorneys in the case,
reports the Huntington Herald Dispatch.

Under the settlement, Rent-A-Center will refund a percentage of
the amounts paid by eligible customers who submit paperwork to a
third-party administrator.

The Huntington Herald Dispatch reported that Rent-A-Center also
agreed to reduce the number of payments needed to obtain
ownership for all active rental agreements in the state as of
Sept. 8, 2009.


SEQUATCHIE MOUNTAIN: Faces $13.5M Consumer Fraud Suit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sequatchie Mountain, LLC, one of the developers of Sequatchie
Pointe, a Marion County mountain top project, faces a purported
$13.5 million class-action lawsuit in Tennessee that were filed
by clients who say they were misled when they purchased property
in the development, Brett King of the Jasper Journal reports.

Others defendants in the case include Joe J. Detweiler, J.J.
Detweiler Enterprises, Inc., Bradley L. Watson, Dan Graber, and
John Barrack, according to the Jasper Journal.

Jasper attorney Bill Killian, Esq., along with Chattanooga
attorney Valerie Epstein, Esq., filed the class-action suit in
Marion County Chancery Court on Jan. 28, 2009.

Mr. Killian told the Jasper Journal that the class-action suit
represents about six to eight people from Florida and
Mississippi who bought property in the development.  He
explains, "They put $20,000 on a down payment and they show up
and for closing and they couldn't close."

According to the lawsuit, "The Plaintiffs entered into various
purchase agreements, installment land contracts, land contrives,
contracts for the purchase of land, deed and other transactions
with the Defendants, for the purchase of certain real estate in
Marion County."

"After entering into the contracts, the Plaintiffs learned, at
varying times and through various means that Sequatchie Pointe
was not, in fact, a development under county and state law as
required," states the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by
the Jasper Journal.

The suit further states, "This 'development' did not have the
required final approval of the Marion County Planning
Commission, the Marion County Road Superintendent, the Marion
County Health Department, and other regulatory agencies."

"Furthermore, the 'development' does not now, nor did it ever,
have water service.  In fact, a contract for the provision of
water to this development has been executed by the owners of
said development, but no action has been taken by them to
fulfill their obligations under the contracts," according to the
suit.

The Jasper Journal reported that the suit also alleges the
defendants target elderly who were not from the area.  It
states, "The Defendants wrongfully targeted out of state elderly
persons.  Specifically holding home 'parties' in Land O' Lakes,
Fla. and offering a 'mini vacation' as an incentive.  Defendants
failed to mention that no water, no roads and no final approval
had been granted to the 'development' in violation of the
Tennessee Elder Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 13-3-101 et
seq."

The lawsuit goes on the say the lots were overpriced, pointing
out, "The fraudulent misrepresentation of the price of the lots
purchased by the Plaintiffs caused the Plaintiffs to grossly
overpay for said lots, based upon the actual fair market value
of lots, not in an approved development."

Finally, the suit states, "The Plaintiffs possess no other
legitimate or feasible way to secure their losses, other than a
lien lis pendens on the Defendants' real property, currently
owned by the Defendants in the 'development,'" reports the
Jasper Journal.


TYSON FOODS: Kansas Court Certifies Class in Workers' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for District of Kansas granted class-
action status to a lawsuit, which claims that thousands of
Kansas meatpacking workers were denied overtime and other
compensation by Tyson Foods, Inc., Dan Margolies of The Kansas
City Star reports.

In a ruling issued on Feb. 12, 2009, Judge John Lungstrum
granted the workers' request for class certification, setting
the stage for a possible trial involving millions of dollars in
alleged back pay, according to The Kansas City Star report.

The Kansas City Star reported that Judge Lungstrum's decision
had two components.  He conditionally certified the federal
claims as a so-called collective action, which is similar to a
class-action except that the potential plaintiffs not named in
the lawsuit are asked whether they want to opt into the lawsuit.
And he certified the state law claims as a class-action.

On May 15, 2006, a lawsuit, "Adelina Garcia, et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.  About 262 current
and former hourly employees of Tyson Food's beef slaughter
facility in Holcomb (Finney County), Kansas filed the suit
seeking class-action status (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22,
2007).

The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated employees, claiming defendants
failed to pay employees for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and
Kansas law.

Three plaintiffs also have asserted claims under state law for
breach of contract, quantum meruit and violation of the Kansas
Wage Payment Act, K.S.A. Section 44-312.

They seek to act as class representatives for a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all
current and former hourly employees who worked at the plant in
the preceding five years who were allegedly not paid for all
time worked.

In particular, the suit alleges employees should be paid for the
time it takes to change into protective work uniforms and safety
equipment worn by employees, and walking to and from the
changing area, work areas and break areas.

The plaintiffs are seeking back wages, liquidated damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Approximately 700 persons have filed consents to join the case
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2006).


WAL-MART STORES: Court Rules Larger Panel to Review "Dukes" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
recently ruled that a larger panel of judges will reconsider
whether a gender discrimination case against Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. should be certified as a class-action suit, Steve Painter
of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports.

With recent decision the case now will go before a panel likely
consisting of the chief judge and 10 others picked at random
from the 27-member court, according to the Arkansas Democrat
Gazette.

                        Case Background

The purported class-action suit, captioned, "Dukes v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.," was commenced in June 2001 and was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  It
was brought on behalf of all past and present female employees
in all of the company's retail stores and warehouse clubs in the
U.S.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments.  It seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be
subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female associates.

The company believes that the district court's ruling is
incorrect.

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's petition for discretionary review
of the ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of
Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's
certification order.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the
decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court.  On
Dec. 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of
February 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion.   As a result,
Wal-Mart's Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.

Wal-Mart filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8,
2008.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     February 17, 2009: 07:13 PM ET Marketwire -- Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of Rigel Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (NASDAQ: RIGL) ("Rigel" or the "Fund") between December 13,
2007 and October 27, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges that Rigel and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.  On
December 13, 2007, defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements about a clinical trial (the "Study") of a
new drug, R788, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.  The
Study involved 189 patients in the U.S. and Mexico.  In response
to the announcement of the summary result of the study, Rigel's
common stock price more than tripled in one day, from $8 per
share to $25.95.  Then, on October 27, 2008, Rigel presented the
full results of the Study at a meeting of the American College
of Rheumatology and on an investor conference call.  Those
results contained adverse information omitted from the Company's
December 13, 2007 statements.  The disclosure of the Study's
results caused Rigel's stock price to plunge 38% in a single day
from $14.41 to $8.84.

     The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
the following:

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

       -- R788 caused an increase in average blood pressure
          which could signal an increase in cardiovascular risk,
          the mechanism that caused the increase was not well
          understood and the increase in blood pressure could be
          a stumbling block for some pharmaceuticals companies
          that were considering licensing the drug; and

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

     No Class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Phone: 212-697-6484


                            *********

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  * * *