CAR_Public/090223.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 23, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 37

                           Headlines

ASHLAND INC: Certiorari Bid in Vietnamese Suit Remains Pending
ASHLAND INC: Unit Defends Agent Orange Personal Injuries Suits
COSERV ELECTRIC: Faces Suit in Tex. Over Usage of $54M in Funds
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Canadian Payday Loans Litigation Still Pending
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Elderly Abuse Suit in Calif.

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Faces Suit by Former WTP Customers in Mo.
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: March '09 Trial Set for "Bufil" Certification
FAST CASH: Offers to Settle Wash. Suit Over Voicemails for $2.5M
LITWAR PROCESSING: Faces Suit in W.V. Over Health Risks of PCE
MUELLER WATER: Claims in "Foundry Sand" Disposal Lawsuit Pending

MUL-T-LOCK: Tel Aviv Court OKs NIS 350M Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
SHORETEL INC: Amended Consolidated Complaint Due March 4, 2009
UNION GAS: Settles Ontario Litigation Over "Illegal" Late Fees
VISA INC: Amended Antitrust Complaint Over "Chargeback" Due May
VISA INC: Briefing on MDL-1720 Class Certification Complete

VISA INC: Faces Lawsuit by Kabuki Restaurants in California
WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Home Buyers' Suit in Ill. Over Option ARMs
WAL-MART STORES: S.C Court Approves $49M Settlement in "Carter"
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION: Offers to Settle Colo. Suit Over Royalties


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INTREPID POTASH: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
INTREPID POTASH: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Suit
ROYAL BANK: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
STANFORD INT'L: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

ASHLAND INC: Certiorari Bid in Vietnamese Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the rulings in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by several Vietnamese
against Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, Inc., remains
pending with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Agent Orange is a defoliant that was manufactured by several
companies, including Hercules, at the direction of the U.S.
Government, and used by the U.S. Government in military
operations in both Korea and Vietnam from 1965 to 1970.

In January 2004, Hercules was sued in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York by The Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent
Orange/Dioxin and several individuals who claim to represent
between two and four million Vietnamese who allege that Agent
Orange used by the United States during the Vietnam War caused
them or their families to sustain personal injuries.

That complaint alleges violations of international law and war
crimes, as well as violations of the common law for products
liability, negligence and international torts.

On motion of the defendants, the District Court dismissed this
lawsuit and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal and denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en
banc.

The plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the rulings of the
trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 11, 2008).

No further updates regarding the actions were disclosed by the
company in its Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Ashland Inc. -- http://www.ashland.com/-- is a diversified,
global chemical company, engaged in the manufacture of
chemicals, distribution of chemicals and plastics, and provision
of automotive lubricants, car-care products and quick-lube
services.  It operates in four segments: Ashland Performance
Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water
Technologies. Ashland Performance Materials is a manufacturer
and supplier of specialty chemicals and customized services to
the building and construction, transportation, metal casting,
marine, and packaging and converting markets.  Ashland
Distribution distributes chemicals, plastics and composite raw
materials. Valvoline is a marketer of packaged automotive
lubricants, chemicals, appearance products, antifreeze and
filters. Ashland Water Technologies supplies chemical and non-
chemical water treatment solutions for industrial, municipal and
commercial facilities.  On Nov. 13, 2008, Ashland completed the
acquisition of Hercules, Inc.


ASHLAND INC: Unit Defends Agent Orange Personal Injuries Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland, Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, Inc., continues to defend
lawsuits for various personal injuries brought by exposure to
Agent Orange.

Agent Orange is a defoliant that was manufactured by several
companies, including Hercules, at the direction of the U.S.
Government, and used by the U.S. Government in military
operations in both Korea and Vietnam from 1965 to 1970.

In 1984, as part of a class-action settlement, Hercules and
other defendants settled the claims of persons who were in the
U.S., New Zealand and Australian Armed Forces who alleged injury
due to exposure to Agent Orange.

Following that settlement, all claims for alleged injuries due
to exposure to Agent Orange by persons who had served in the
Armed Forces of those countries were treated as covered by that
class action settlement.

On June 9, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a case
captioned "Dow Chemical Company, et al. v. Daniel Raymond
Stephenson, et al." where plaintiffs Stephenson and Isaacson (in
separate but consolidated cases) alleged that they were injured
from exposure to Agent Orange and that such injury did not
manifest until after exhaustion of the settlement fund created
through the 1984 class action settlement.

As a result of that decision, the claims of persons who allege
injuries due to exposure to Agent Orange and whose injuries
first manifest themselves after exhaustion of the settlement
fund created through the 1984 class action settlement may no
longer be barred by the 1984 class action settlement and such
persons may now be able to pursue claims against Hercules and
the other former manufacturers of Agent Orange.

Hercules is a defendant in approximately 31 lawsuits, including
two purported class actions, where plaintiffs allege that
exposure to Agent Orange caused them to sustain various personal
injuries.

On Feb. 9, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued a series of rulings, which held that
plaintiffs' claims against the defendant manufacturers of Agent
Orange that were brought in the state courts are properly
removable to federal court under the "federal officer removal
statute" and that such claims are subject to dismissal by
application of the "government contractor defense."  The
District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims in all of the
lawsuits that were before it at that time.

The plaintiffs appealed those dismissals to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's dismissal of these actions and also denied
the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc.

On Oct. 6, 2008, Plaintiffs in these actions filed Petitions for
Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of
the rulings of the trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 11, 2008).

No further updates regarding the actions were disclosed by the
company in its Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Ashland Inc. -- http://www.ashland.com/-- is a diversified,
global chemical company, engaged in the manufacture of
chemicals, distribution of chemicals and plastics, and provision
of automotive lubricants, car-care products and quick-lube
services.  It operates in four segments: Ashland Performance
Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water
Technologies. Ashland Performance Materials is a manufacturer
and supplier of specialty chemicals and customized services to
the building and construction, transportation, metal casting,
marine, and packaging and converting markets.  Ashland
Distribution distributes chemicals, plastics and composite raw
materials. Valvoline is a marketer of packaged automotive
lubricants, chemicals, appearance products, antifreeze and
filters. Ashland Water Technologies supplies chemical and non-
chemical water treatment solutions for industrial, municipal and
commercial facilities.  On Nov. 13, 2008, Ashland completed the
acquisition of Hercules, Inc.


COSERV ELECTRIC: Faces Suit in Tex. Over Usage of $54M in Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
     DENTON, Texas, Feb. 19, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Members of
Denton County Electric Cooperative, doing business as CoServ
Electric, filed suit against their co-op.

     The lawsuit alleges that through improper accounting
practices, the co-op has wrongfully taken $54 million of the
members' money for its own use.  The suit also alleges that
controlling directors of the cooperative's board have subverted
democratic control of the co-op, conducted their operations in a
culture of secrecy, and placed the members' funds at risk in
for-profit business endeavors.  The allegations in the lawsuit
are based upon information provided by Mark Glover, a director
of the cooperative.

     One of the members suing the cooperative is Janice Brady,
who ran for a director position to replace board chairman Jerry
Cobb in 2008 and lost by a narrow margin.  In particular, Ms.
Brady alleges that CoServ has unlawfully provided member lists
and daily vote tallies to its incumbent directors while denying
the same information to challengers, and that as a result board
elections are effectively rigged.

     CoServ is the second largest electric cooperative in Texas,
ranking second only to Pedernales Electric Cooperative ("PEC")
near Austin, which was sued by its members in 2007 over similar
allegations of mismanagement, waste and a lack of transparency
in its affairs.  Because of the problems encountered at PEC,
Senator Troy Fraser (Rep. -- Horseshoe Bay) has recently
introduced a bill in the Texas Legislature to require open
meetings and records at the state's electric cooperatives.

     CoServ consumer advocate Diania Hanson and other concerned
members have established a web site at
http://www.CoServWatchDogs.Org,where additional information can
be found about the suit and the allegations.

     The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by the
Lawrence Firm PLLC of Austin, TX, Kirby McInerney LLP of New
York, NY and Dripping Spring, TX, Wood Thacker & Weatherly, P.C.
of Denton, Texas, and Mitchell & DeClerck PLLC of Enid,
Oklahoma.

For more details, contact:

          David Kovel, Esq.
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          Phone: 212.371.6600

               - and -

          Paul Lawrence, Esq.
          Lawrence Firm PLLC
          Phone: 512-330-0074


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Canadian Payday Loans Litigation Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. and its Canadian subsidiary, Dollar
Financial Group, Inc. ("OPCO"), continue to face several
purported class action lawsuits in Canada filed by customers who
were allegedly subjected to usurious charges in payday loan
transactions, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

                        Smith Litigation

On Aug. 19, 2003, a former Dollar Financial customer in Ontario,
Canada, Margaret Smith, commenced a lawsuit against the Canadian
subsidiary on behalf of a purported class of Ontario borrowers
who, Smith claims, were subjected to usurious charges in payday-
loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law
proscribing usury, seeks restitution and damages, including
punitive damages, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting
further alleged usurious charges.

The Canadian subsidiary's motion to stay the action on grounds
of arbitrability was denied.  DFG's motion to stay the action
for lack of jurisdiction was denied and the appeal was
dismissed.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted on
Jan. 5, 2007, and leave to appeal from the decision was denied.

In July 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada released two decisions
regarding arbitrability in the class action context.  As a
result, the company's Canadian subsidiary has brought a new
application to stay the action and to decertify it.

The plaintiff has responded by bringing a cross-motion for
summary judgment on selected issues.

Both the application and the cross-motion were dismissed in June
2008.  Money Mart brought an appeal in respect of the
application; the appeal was heard on Oct. 17, 2008 and was
dismissed.

On Dec. 23, 2008, the Company and Money Mart filed an
application for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada
in respect of the dismissal.  The application is under
consideration by the Court.  The trial is scheduled to commence
at the end of April 2009.

                     Mortillaro Litigation

On Oct. 21, 2003, another former customer, Kenneth D.
Mortillaro, commenced a similar action against the Canadian
subsidiary, but this action has since been stayed on consent
because it is a duplicate action.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the
Mortillaro action are substantially the same as those in the
Smith action.

                        Young Litigation

On Nov. 6, 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
purported class action suit in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who obtained
short-term loans from the Canadian subsidiary in Alberta,
alleging, among other things, that the charge to borrowers in
connection with such loans is usurious.

The action seeks restitution and damages, including punitive
damages.

On Dec. 9, 2005, the Canadian subsidiary settled this action,
subject to court approval.

On March 3, 2006, just prior to the date scheduled for final
court approval of the settlement, the plaintiff's lawyers
advised that they would not proceed with the settlement and
indicated their intention to join a purported national class
action.  No steps have been taken in the action since March
2006.

Subsequently, the Canadian subsidiary commenced an action
against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer for breach of
contract.  That action has not proceeded past the pleadings
stage.

                       Day Litigation

On or about March 5, 2007, a former customer, H. Craig Day,
commenced an action against the Canadian subsidiary and several
of DFC's franchisees in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta,
Canada on behalf of a putative class of consumers who obtained
short-term loans from the Canadian subsidiary in Alberta.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Day
action are substantially the same as those in the Young action
but relate to a claim period that commences before and ends
after the claim period in the Young action and excludes the
claim period described in that action.

                    MacKinnon Litigation

On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced
an action against the Canadian subsidiary and 26 other Canadian
lenders on behalf of a purported class of British Columbia
residents who, MacKinnon claims, were overcharged in payday-loan
transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and
unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and
damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount.

Following initial denial, MacKinnon obtained an order permitting
him to re-apply for class certification which was appealed.  The
Court of Appeal granted MacKinnon the right to apply to the
original judge to have her amend her order denying
certification.

On June 14, 2006, the original judge granted the request and the
Canadian subsidiary's request for leave to appeal the order was
dismissed.

The certification motion in this action proceeded in conjunction
with the certification motion in the Parsons action described
below.

                      Parsons Litigation

On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for MacKinnon commenced
a proposed class action suit against the Canadian subsidiary on
behalf of another former customer, Louise Parsons.

Class certification was granted on March 14, 2007.  An appeal
from this certification decision is pending.  The action is
presently in the discovery phase and a trial, while not yet
scheduled, is expected in 2008.

Class certification was granted on March 14, 2007.  An appeal
from this certification decision was to be argued on Feb. 8,
2008.

As a result of recently released decisions of the Supreme Court
of Canada regarding the interplay between arbitration clauses
and class actions, Money Mart raised the issue of its
arbitration clauses as a ground for appeal.

The Court of Appeal responded by adjourning the appeal and
remanding the matter to the motions judge to hear argument on
Money Mart's motion for a stay.  That motion was argued on April
28 and 29, 2008.

The judge has reserved her decision regarding the motion.

The action is presently in the discovery phase and a trial,
while not yet scheduled, is expected in 2009.

In December 2007, the plaintiffs delivered a motion in which
they were seeking to add the company as a defendant to this
action.

In March 2008, an order was granted adding the company as a
defendant in the action.

A motion to certify the action against the company is scheduled
to proceed on July 14, 2008.  The company intends to oppose the
motion vigorously.

                        Other Lawsuits

Similar purported class actions have been commenced against the
Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland.

The company is named as a defendant in the actions commenced in
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.  The claims in these additional
actions are substantially similar to those of the Ontario
actions (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2008).

On July 14, 2008, the plaintiffs' motion to certify the action
against OPCO and OPCO's motion for a stay of the action were
argued.  On July 25, 2008, the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
action against OPCO was granted and OPCO's motion to stay the
action was dismissed.  OPCO appealed the certification decision
and obtained leave to appeal the dismissal of its motion for a
stay.  These appeals were heard together with the Money Mart
appeals in January 2009.  The court has reserved its decisions
in all of these appeals.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- Dollar
Financial Corp. is an international financial services company
serving under-banked consumers.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Elderly Abuse Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. and its 'We the People Forms and Services
Centers USA' business continue to face a class-action complaint
filed on Sept. 19, 2007, with the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda accusing them of
financial elder abuse, fraud, and unauthorized practice of law.

Named plaintiff Jacqueline Fitzgibbons brings the action on
behalf of all persons over the age of 65 at the time of
purchase, who paid for and received any document preparation
service involving living trusts, wills, probate matters,
quitclaim deeds and advance health care directives and powers of
attorney from a franchise office of WTP-USA (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008).

Ms. Fitzgibbons wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the WTP defendants were engaged in the
         unauthorized and illegal practice of law without a
         license within the state of California;

     (b) whether the WTP defendants fraudulently induced
         plaintiffs to pay money to an illegal and wrongful
         business that was in violation of state law;

     (c) whether the WTP defendants were engaged in an illegal
         running and capping business for the attorney
         defendants, prohibited by Business and Professions Code
         Sections 11651 and 1652;

     (d) whether the attorney defendants were in violation of
         Rule of Professional Conduct 1-300 stating that a
         member shall not aid any person or entity in the
         unauthorized practice of law, which constitutes an
         unfair and wrongful Business Practice under Civil Code
         Sections 17200 and 17500;

     (e) whether the attorney defendants, were in violation of
         Rule of Professional Conduct 1-310 prohibiting the
         forming of a partnership with a person who is not a
         lawyer when the activities of the partnership consist
         of the practice of law, which constitutes an unfair and
         wrongful business practice under Civil Code Sections
         17200 and 17500;

     (f) whether the attorney defendants were in violation of
         Rule of Professional Conduct 1-320 stating that
         neither a member nor a law firm shall directly or
         indirectly share legal fees with a person who is not a
         lawyer, which constitutes an unfair and wrongful
         business practice under Civil Code sections 172500 and
         17500; and

     (g) whether the WTP defendants and the attorney deefndants
         were in a conspiracy to commit the illegal and wrongful
         acts alleged by creating a franchise system based on
         the unauthorized and illegal practice of law, and/or
         partnerships with attorneys.

The action is brought as a representative action under
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et. Seq.
and California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500, et
seq. and a class action pursuant to Section 382 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

The lawsuit seeks to redress the defendants' unlawful and
deceptive business practices in the preparation of living trust
documents and provision of other services related to the
preparation of these documents.  Specifically, it seeks to
redress defendants' pattern and practice of practicing law
without a license and assisting the unauthorized practice of the
law.  It also seeks recovery of the remedies permitted by
California law under the causes of action alleged.

The plaintiff prays that:

     -- the court enter an order certifying the suit as a class
        action;

     -- the court enter an order requiring the defendants to
        immediately cease acts that constitute unlawful, unfair
        or fraudulent business practices as alleged, and
        enjoining them from continuing to engage in any such
        acts or practices in the future;

     -- the court direct the defendants to disgorge and
        restitute any and all money, including any profits
        obtained as a result of deceptive, unlawful and
        misleading acts and practices, including their
        misrepresentations, misleading statements and acts of
        concealment;

     -- the plaintiffs be compensated individually, as well as
        the general public, for any actual damages, with
        interest, incurred as a result of said unlawful,
        fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices;

     -- the plaintiffs be awarded general and punitive damages
        according to law and proof;

     -- the plaintiffs be awarded special damages according to
        law and proof;

     -- the plaintiffs be paid the costs of suit;

     -- the court allow attorneys' fees pursuant to California
        Welfare Institutions Code Section 15657.5, as well as
        pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
        1029.8;

     -- the defendants return to the plaintiffs all funds
        acquired by means of any act or practice declared by the
        court to be unlawful or fraudulent, or to constitute
        unfair business practices;

     -- the plaintiffs be awarded statutory damages and treble
        damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345;
        and

     -- the plaintiffs be awarded pre-judgment interest
        according to law (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2008).

The complaint has been amended several times to add new parties
and additional claims.  The Court granted, in part, the
company's motion to dismiss certain claims alleged by the
plaintiffs.  In January 2009, an individual named Robert Blau
replaced Fitzgibbons as lead plaintiff, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Jacqueline Fitzgibbons et al. v. Dollar Financial
Corp., et al., Case No. RG07347097," filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq. (rsa@arnslaw.com)
          Morgan C. Smith, Esq. (mcs@arnslaw.com)
          Jonathat E. Davis, Esq. (jed@arnslaw.com)
          The Arns Law Firm
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-495-7800
          Fax: 415-495-7888

               - and -

          Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
          Stebner and Associates
          870 market Street, Suite 1212
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: 415-362-9800
          Fax: 415-362-9801
          e-mail: info@stebnerassociates.com


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Faces Suit by Former WTP Customers in Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. and its 'We the People Forms and Services
Centers USA' business faces a lawsuit filed by former customers
in St. Louis County, Missouri, according to the company's Feb.
9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In August 2008, a group of six former We The People customers
commenced a lawsuit in St. Louis County, Missouri, against the
company, its subsidiary, We The People USA, Inc. and WTP
franchisees offering services to Missouri consumers.

The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class of over
1,000 consumers that, from 2002 to the present, defendants
violated Missouri law by engaging in:

   (i) an unauthorized law business,

  (ii) the unauthorized practice of law, and

(iii) unlawful merchandising practices in the sale of its legal
       documents.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, prohibition of
the defendants' unlawful business practices, and damages on
behalf of the class in the form of disgorgement of all monies
and profits obtained from unlawful business practices,
attorney's fees, statutory and treble damages pursuant to
various Missouri consumer protection codes.

In November 2008, the original six plaintiffs were dismissed by
plaintiffs' counsel and the complaint was amended to include two
new plaintiffs who allege similar claims and seek class
certification.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is an
international financial services company serving under-banked
consumers.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: March '09 Trial Set for "Bufil" Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider the certification of a class in a labor-
related class-action suit filed against Dollar Financial Corp.
in California has been scheduled for March 2009.

Caren Bufil filed the suit on Sept. 11, 2006, seeking class
certification of the action against the company for failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage
statements and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practices under California law.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other
relief.

The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
arguing that the Bufil case is duplicative of a recently settled
case and should be dismissed.

The plaintiff filed her motion for class certification.  The
company's motion was granted, while Ms. Bufil's motion was
denied.

Ms. Bufil has appealed both rulings.  On April 17, 2008, the
Court of Appeal issued its decision, and reversed the trial
court's dismissal order (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2008).

The company filed a petition for review of that decision with
the California Supreme Court, but on July 30, 2008 the Court
denied the petition.  Accordingly, the case has been remitted to
the trial court and a hearing to consider the certification of
the class has been scheduled for March 2009, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is an
international financial services company serving under-banked
consumers.


FAST CASH: Offers to Settle Wash. Suit Over Voicemails for $2.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fast Cash Loans, a Federal Way, Washington-based payday loan
company owned by Pacific Financial Holding, offered to settle
for $2.5 million a purported class-action suit by thousands of
clients who allege defamation and abusive collection practices,
Owen Lei of KING 5 News reports.

In general the suit is for harassment and for false claims about
being fraud investigators.  In particular the suit revolves
around voicemails sent by company to the customers.

KING 5 News reported that some of these voicemails were arrogant
in nature.  One such message sent to a local woman said, "I
think maybe you thought that we were giving away free money down
there at Loanex.  We'll you're wrong."

Another message sent to the woman's sister said, "I believe
we've had checks from both you guys. It must be a whole family
affair thing to go into [the] Sprague [Avenue location] and rip
us off."

"We're going to wake you up a little bit and give you a little
dose of reality, the real world, [of] what happens to people who
don't pay their bills and write bad checks and think they're
going to walk away from it. So, we're going to make you an
example," said another message obtained by  KING 5 News.

Another message also states, "So, I tell you what. You have
until Friday the 13th, maybe that'll be a lucky day for you, but
if it's not paid in full at the Sprague [Ave.] store by Friday
the 13th, then your account will be in the legal department, and
all I have to do is get permission to have you served at work."

Michael Kinkley, Esq. plaintiff's attorney tells KING 5 News, "I
guess everybody's reaction when they listen to them is outrage,
when you listen to someone being so... arrogant, I believe is
the word, about their abuse."  He adds, "Pure and simply, it's a
debt trap."


LITWAR PROCESSING: Faces Suit in W.V. Over Health Risks of PCE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Litwar Processing Company, LLC is facing a purported class-
action suit in West Virginia in connection to the dangers of the
carcinogen, perchloroethylene, commonly referred to as "PCE" or
"PERC."

PCE, a harmful solvent routinely used in coal prep labs, is
known to cause serious neurological injuries to those who
breathe excessive amounts of its vapor on a daily basis.  The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found that
dry cleaning workers exposed to PCE on a daily basis risked
serious health problems.  For this reason, that industry has
improved the control of perchloroethylene in recent years, and
modern dry cleaning equipment involves much lower exposures.

Weitz & Luxenberg is now using its expertise in environmental
law to help those in West Virginia whose health has been
compromised by PCE, taking on a class-action lawsuit entitled,
"Katy Addair, Administratrix of the Estate of Gary Addair, et
al., v. Litwar Processing Company, LLC, et al. Civil Action No.
04-C-252."

For more details, contact:

          Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.
          Phone: 1-800-476-6070
          e-mail: clientrelations@weitzlux.com
          Web site: http://www.weitzlux.com/


MUELLER WATER: Claims in "Foundry Sand" Disposal Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s U.S. Pipe subsidiary continues to
face claims of nuisance, wantonness, and negligence in a
purported civil class-action lawsuit in relation to the disposal
of toxic "foundry sand," according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit was originally filed on April 8, 2005, in the Circuit
Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, and removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the
Class Action Fairness Act.

The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the U.S. District Court on Dec. 15, 2006.

The case was filed against U.S. Pipe and other foundries in the
Anniston, Alabama area alleging state law tort claims
(negligence, failure to warn, wantonness, nuisance, trespass and
outrage) arising from creation and disposal of "foundry sand"
alleged to contain harmful levels of polychlorinated biphenyls
and other toxins, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and
zinc.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for real and personal
property damage and for other unspecified personal injury.

On June 4, 2007, a motion to dismiss the case was granted to
U.S. Pipe and certain co-defendants as to the claims for
negligence, failure to warn, nuisance, trespass, and outrage.
The remainder of the complaint was dismissed with leave to file
an amended complaint.

On July 6, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's
former 10th Street facility and no longer alleges personal
injury claims.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 27, 2007.
U.S. Pipe and the other defendants have again moved to dismiss
the third amended complaint.

On Sept. 24, 2008, the court issued an order on the motion,
dismissing the claims for trespass and permitting the plaintiffs
to move forward with their claims of nuisance, wantonness, and
negligence (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 11, 2008).

Atlanta, Georgia-based Mueller Water Products, Inc. --
http://www.muellerwaterproducts.com/-- is a manufacturer of a
range of water infrastructure and flow control products for use
in water distribution networks and treatment facilities.  It
acts as a distributor, especially in Canada, for products that
are manufactured by other companies.  Its product portfolio
includes engineered valves, hydrants, pipe fittings and ductile
iron pipe, which are used by municipalities, as well as the
commercial and residential construction, oil and gas, heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and fire protection
industries.  It manages its business Mueller Water operates
through three business segments: Mueller Co, U.S. Pipe and
Anvil.  Through Mueller Co., it sells its hydrants and valves
and other water and wastewater infrastructure and gas
distribution products.  Through U.S. Pipe, it sells ductile iron
pipe and related products.  Through Anvil, it sells its pipe
fittings and couplings, pipe hangers, pipe nipples and related
products.


MUL-T-LOCK: Tel Aviv Court OKs NIS 350M Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Tel Aviv District Court has given the go-ahead for a NIS 350
million class-action suit against Mul-T-Lock, Hila Raz of
Ha'aretz.

The 2006 petition argued that Mul-T-Lock had misled clients by
advertising that its Interactive-brand keys could be copied only
with a personal smart card, even though this was not the case.

Ha'aretz reported that Mul-T-Lock argued that locksmiths who
duplicate the keys with a special machine as required cannot do
so without the card.  The company though did not argue that the
keys could not be duplicated without the smart card on other
kinds of machines.

According to Mul-T-Lock, its advertisements claim the key's
unique qualities ensure regulated duplication, but admitted to
the court that there is no way to completely prevent unwanted
duplication of its key.

The judge, Dr. Amiram Benyamini, said it appears that Mul-T-Lock
had misled its clients regarding the protection its product
offers, according to Ha'aretz.


SHORETEL INC: Amended Consolidated Complaint Due March 4, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the consolidated class-action suit captioned,
"In Re ShoreTel, Inc. Securities Litigation," have until March
4, 2009, to file an amended complaint, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Jan. 16, 2008, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned "Watkins v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al.," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against ShoreTel, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

On Jan. 29, 2008, a second purported stockholder class-action
complaint, captioned, "Kelley v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al.," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the same defendants.

Both complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock pursuant to its initial
public offering on July 3, 2007.  Both complaints purport to
allege claims for violations of the federal securities laws and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief (Class
Action Reporter, June 23, 2008).

The lawsuits were consolidated, and a consolidated amended class
action complaint, captioned In Re ShoreTel, Inc. Securities
Litigation, was filed on June 27, 2008.  The consolidated
complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock pursuant to the initial
public offering on July 3, 2007 and purports to allege claims
for violations of the federal securities laws.  The consolidated
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Court issued an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint but granted the
Plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

ShoreTel, Inc. -- http://www.shoretel.com/-- is a provider of
Internet protocol telecommunications systems for enterprises.
The Company's systems are based on its distributed software
architecture and switch-based hardware platform, which enable
multi-site enterprises to be served by a single
telecommunications system.  ShoreTel's solution consists of
ShoreGear switches, ShorePhone IP telephones and ShoreWare
software applications.  It provides its systems to enterprises
across all industries, including to small, medium and large
companies, and public institutions.  Its enterprise customers
include multi-site Fortune 500 companies.  As of June 30, 2007,
ShoreTel had sold its IP telecommunications systems to over
5,000 enterprise customers, including CNET Networks, Robert Half
International, SEGA, Wedbush Morgan Securities, and the City of
Oakland, California.


UNION GAS: Settles Ontario Litigation Over "Illegal" Late Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Gas Ltd., an Ontario utility, settled a class-action suit
over illegal late fees, Shannon Kari of the National Post
reports.

Under the agreement, which was recently approved and found to be
"prudent" and "reasonable" by Superior Court Justice Peter
Cumming, Union Gas is required to pay CDN$9.2-million.

The National Post reported that Union Gas, a subsidiary of
Houston-based Spectra Energy Co., has specifically agreed to pay
CDN$2.75-million to the class-action attorneys.  Nearly CDN$5.5-
million goes into a "winter warmth" fund and the rest is covered
by taxes, expenses and costs related to class-action lawsuits.

The settlement was reached to "reduce the expense of further
litigation and not an admission of wrongdoing," according to
Andrea Stass, a spokeswoman for Union Gas.  "It is our view that
these costs are recoverable," Ms. Stass said.  She stressed that
late fees were designed to reduce costs for all customers.


VISA INC: Amended Antitrust Complaint Over "Chargeback" Due May
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint in a purported class-action suit entitled,
"Robert Smith v. VISA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-03660-CAS-
CT," must be filed no later than May 1, 2009, if the plaintiff
chooses to refile.

Robert Smith, individually and doing business as Hill Country
Custom Cycles, filed a putative class-action suit against Visa,
Inc., several banks, and a processor in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on June 4, 2008.

The plaintiff alleges that, due to fluctuations in currency
conversion rates, a transaction disputed by a cardholder and
ultimately charged back to a merchant by its acquiring bank (a
"chargeback") may result in a debit to a merchant's account in
excess of the original transaction amount.

The lawsuit asserts claims under federal and state antitrust law
and a variety of common law claims, including fraud and breach
of contract (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2008).

On Dec. 22, 2008, the court issued an order dismissing without
prejudice the case against Visa.

Pursuant to the Court's Jan. 26, 2009 order, the plaintiff must
file an Amended Complaint no later than May 1, 2009 if it
chooses to refile, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Robert Smith v. VISA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08-
cv-03660-CAS-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. (gmb@cglaw.com)
          Casey Gerry Reed and Schenk
          110 Laurel St.
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-238-1811
          Fax: 619-544-9232

               - and -

          Hunter Thomas Hillin, Esq. (hhillin@muellerlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Mueller
          404 West 7th Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: 512-478-1473

Representing the defendants are:

          Lawrence P. Ebiner, Esq. (larry.ebiner@hro.com)
          Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5826
          Phone: 213-572-4300
          Fax: 213-572-4400

               - and -

          Douglas B. Adler, Esq. (dadler@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
          300 S. Grand Avenue Ste 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-687-5000

  
VISA INC: Briefing on MDL-1720 Class Certification Complete
-----------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on class certification in the matter, "In re Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
MDL-1720, 1:05-md-01720-JG-CLP," which names subsidiaries of
Visa, Inc., as defendants, is complete, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

                       Georgia Litigation

On May 6, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a
merchant, Animal Land, Inc., against Visa U.S.A. with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging
that Visa U.S.A.'s no-surcharge rule violates Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2008).

The plaintiff alleges that under the no-surcharge rule,
merchants are not permitted to pass along to cardholders a
discrete surcharge to account for the fees that the merchant
pays in connection with Visa-branded payment card transactions.
The plaintiff alleges that this rule causes the fees paid by
merchants to be supracompetitive.

The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount,
attorneys fees and injunctive relief.

The Animal Land case has been transferred to the multidistrict
litigation proceedings and is included in the First Amended
Class Action Complaint discussed below.

                     Connecticut Litigation

On June 22, 2005, a purported class-action suit was filed by a
group of merchants with the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard, Visa U.S.A., Visa International, and a
number of Visa U.S.A., and Visa International member financial
institutions alleging, among other things, that Visas and
MasterCards purported setting of interchange fees violates
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In addition, the complaint alleges Visas and MasterCards
purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also
constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

                        Other Litigation

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been
approximately 48 similar complaints, all but 10 of which were
styled as class actions, filed on behalf of merchants against
Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard, and in some cases, certain Visa
U.S.A. and Visa International member financial institutions, in
U.S. federal courts.

Visa International was named as a defendant in more than 30 of
these complaints.

                    Multidistrict Litigation

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of
pre-trial proceedings (Multidistrict Litigation 1720).

On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint.  Taken together, the
claims in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the 10
complaints brought on behalf of individual merchants are
generally brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

In addition, some of these complaints contain certain state
unfair competition law claims.

These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages
in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints
allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the
tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys fees and
injunctive relief.

Visa U.S.A., and Visa International answered the First
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint and the individual
merchant complaints on June 9, 2006.

On July 10, 2007, pursuant to a joint request by the parties,
the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for
completion of fact discovery to June 30, 2008 and expert
discovery to Feb. 20, 2009, and for filing all summary judgment
and other pretrial motions by March 27, 2009.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation to the District Court recommending that the
District Court grant the defendants motion to dismiss the class
plaintiffs claims for damages incurred prior to Jan. 1, 2004.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the Magistrate Judge granted putative class
plaintiffs request to brief the issue of whether the Report and
Recommendation would affect the claims of non-party members of
the putative class that opted out of the "In re Visa
Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation."

Following the submissions, the Magistrate Judge declined
plaintiffs request to advise on that issue.

Putative class plaintiffs filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation on Nov. 14, 2007, and defendants filed their
responses to those objections on Dec. 13, 2007.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the court adopted the Magistrate Judges Report
and Recommendation without modification, dismissing the class
plaintiffs claims for damages incurred prior to Jan. 1, 2004.

As part of the Retrospective Responsibility Plan, Visa, Inc.
entered into a judgment sharing agreement with Visa U.S.A., Visa
International, and certain member financial institutions of Visa
U.S.A. on July 1, 2007.

On May 8, 2008, putative class plaintiffs served on defendants a
motion seeking to certify a class of merchants.  Once briefing
on the class certification issue is complete, all briefs will be
filed with the court.

On May 23, 2008, putative class plaintiffs filed a pre-motion
letter seeking leave of court to file a Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint.

Among other things, this complaint would:

       -- add new claims for damages and injunctive relief
          against Visa and the bank defendants regarding
          interchange fees for Visa online/PIN debit cards;

       -- add new claims for damages and injunctive relief
          against Visa and the bank defendants since the time of
          Visa's Initial Public Offering regarding interchange
          fees for Visa's credit, offline debit, and online/PIN
          debit cards;

       -- eliminate claims for damages relating to the so-called
          "no-surcharge" rule and "anti-steering" rule; and

       -- eliminate claims for damages based on the alleged tie
          of network processing services and payment guarantee
          services to the payment card system services.

All defendants, but one bank defendant, have agreed not to
oppose putative class plaintiffs' request.

The court entered a revised case management schedule on Aug. 6,
2008, setting deadlines for class certification briefing, expert
discovery and dispositive motions and extending fact discovery
to Nov. 21, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2008).

Pursuant to the court's previous order, putative class
plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint on Jan. 29, 2009, which also added Visa Inc. as a
defendant.

In addition, putative class plaintiffs filed a Second
Supplemental Class Action Complaint against Visa Inc. and
several financial institutions challenging Visa's reorganization
and Initial Public Offering under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.  In the Supplemental
Complaint, putative class plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, including an
order that the Initial Public Offering be unwound.

On Jan. 29, 2009, putative class plaintiffs served on defendants
a reply in support of their motion seeking to certify a class of
merchants.  Briefing on class certification is now complete, and
all briefs were filed with the court on Jan. 29, 2009, according
to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

Visa, Inc. -- http://www.corporate.visa.com/-- is a retail
electronic payments network.  The company facilitates global
commerce through the transfer of value and information among
financial institutions, merchants, consumers, businesses and
government entities.  Its primary customers are financial
institutions, for which it provides processing services and
payment product platforms, including platforms for consumer
credit, debit, prepaid and commercial payments.  The company has
three business operations: transaction processing services,
product platforms and payments network management.  In October
2007, the company completed the series of transactions, in which
Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Visa Canada and Inovant became
direct or indirect subsidiaries of Visa Inc. Visa Europe did not
become a subsidiary of Visa Inc., but rather remained owned and
governed by its European member financial institutions and
entered into a set of contractual arrangements with the company
in connection with the reorganization.


VISA INC: Faces Lawsuit by Kabuki Restaurants in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc. faces a putative class action lawsuit filed by Kabuki
Restaurants, Inc., on Jan. 5, 2009, in California Superior
Court.

The plaintiff alleges that Visa's practice of imposing fines on
acquiring banks for their merchants' failure to abide by certain
Visa rules, including fines related to the Cardholder
Information Security Program (CISP) and Account Data Compromise
Recovery (ADCR) process, violates California state law,
including Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.

No further details regarding the case were disclosed by the
company in its Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

Visa, Inc. -- http://www.corporate.visa.com/-- is a retail
electronic payments network.  The company facilitates global
commerce through the transfer of value and information among
financial institutions, merchants, consumers, businesses and
government entities.  Its primary customers are financial
institutions, for which it provides processing services and
payment product platforms, including platforms for consumer
credit, debit, prepaid and commercial payments.  The company has
three business operations: transaction processing services,
product platforms and payments network management.  In October
2007, the company completed the series of transactions, in which
Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Visa Canada and Inovant became
direct or indirect subsidiaries of Visa Inc. Visa Europe did not
become a subsidiary of Visa Inc., but rather remained owned and
governed by its European member financial institutions and
entered into a set of contractual arrangements with the company
in connection with the reorganization.


WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Home Buyers' Suit in Ill. Over Option ARMs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp., World Savings Bank, FSB, Golden West Financial
Corp. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging
Illinois home buyers were forced into negative amortization
after the banks deceived them when they issued option adjustable
rate mortgages, Kelly Holleran of the Madison County Record
reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on Feb 17, 2009 by Michael and Jayme
Brunkhorst.

The plaintiffs claim that the lenders and brokers that sold them
an option ARM mortgage on Aug. 18, 2005, touted the minimum
payment and downplayed or failed to disclose the negative
amortization that could result from making such payments,
according to the Madison County Record.

In option ARM mortgages, borrowers can choose to make mortgage
payments one of four ways - to make a minimum payment amount, an
interest-only payment, a payment based on a 30-year amortization
or a payment based on a 15-year amortization, the Madison County
Record reports.

The Brunkhorsts chose to pay the minimum monthly payment,
believing it would pay both principal and interest due on the
loan.

The suit claims that up to 80 percent of borrowers, like the
Brunkhorsts, make only the minimum payment each month.  However,
the minimum payment does not pay off any of the principal
balance and only pays a portion of the interest that accrues on
a monthly basis.  The unpaid interest is added to the balance of
the mortgage, resulting in negative amortization, reports the
Madison County Record.

The Madison County Record reported that once that negative
balance reaches 125 percent of the original loan, the mortgage
is reset and the homeowners are forced to pay a much higher
monthly payment than what they had been previously making.

As a result, borrowers are also forced to pay a greater interest
rate on the original principal than what was originally set
forth in the loan, according to the complaint, a copy of which
was obtained by the Madison County Record

According to the suit, "Option ARM loans have been called 'the
riskiest and most complicated home loan product ever created'
and have been termed a 'neutron bomb' that will kill all the
people but leave the houses standing' by an economist at the
Ford Foundation."

However, when the Brunkhorsts entered into the pick-a-payment
loans, they were not informed of the various risks, including
negative amortization and the fact that the minimum payment did
not represent the full cost of the loan, they claim.

The suit states, "Defendants, through the standardized loan
contracts they created and supplied to Plaintiffs, stated that
negative amortization was only a mere possibility,"  It also
states, "Defendants also failed to inform the Plaintiffs and the
Class Members that when the principal balance increased to a
certain level they could no longer select the minimum payment
option."

Lenders frequently try to push the ARM loans on borrowers
because the loans are profitable to companies, the Brunkhorsts
claim.

The suit states, "Under generally accepted accounting principles
the entire interest payment due could be booked as income even
when only the minimum payment was made."  It adds, "This
accounting practice enabled lendors to use Option ARM loans as a
means to generate phantom profits, thereby boosting their stock
price."

Because the Brunkhorsts and other class plaintiffs decided to
use the Option ARM loans, they are forced to incur additional
interest charges that have resulted from negative amortization,
they claim.

In addition, they faced an increased chance of losing their
homes through foreclosure and have limited ability to make
future house payments or obtain alternative home loan financing,
according to the complaint.

The Brunkhorsts and the putative class are seeking unspecified
declaratory relief, compensatory damages, rescission,
restitutionary disgorgement of all profits the banks obtained,
plus costs, interest, attorneys' fees and other relief the court
deems just.  They are also asking the court grant equitable
relief to restructure their loans through rate buy downs,
principal reduction and conversion into conventional fixed rate
loans, reports the Madison County Record

The suit is "Brunkhorst et al v. World Savings Bank, FSB et al.,
Case No. 3:09-cv-00127-GPM-PMF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge G. Patrick
Murphy, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Evan D. Buxner, Esq. (buxner@walther-glenn.com)
          Walther Glenn Law Associates
          Generally Admitted
          1034 South Brentwood Boulevard
          Suite 1300
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Phone: 314-725-9595


WAL-MART STORES: S.C Court Approves $49M Settlement in "Carter"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Colleton County, South Carolina
gave preliminary approval a $49 million settlement in the
purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Carter v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.," The Times and Democrat reports.

The plaintiffs allege that class members worked off the clock
and were not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with
South Carolina law, and seek monetary damages in an unspecified
amount, plus statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees (Class Action Reporter Oct. 16, 2008).

State Sen. Brad Hutto says he's pleased with a Colleton County
judge's approval of a $49 million settlement for his clients in
their class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart.

The statewide settlement ends more than six years of litigation
over Wal-Mart's employment and labor practices, according to The
Times and Democrat.

State Sen. Brad Hutto, an attorney with Orangeburg's Williams &
Williams law firm, which respresented the plaintiffs in the
case, said in a release, "We are pleased with the preliminary
approval of the settlement by the Court.  We hope that Wal-
Mart's industry-leading compliance model will set an example for
the retail industry," reports The Times and Democrat.

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.


WILLIAMS PRODUCTION: Offers to Settle Colo. Suit Over Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Production RMT is offering about $5 million in back
royalty payments as part of a proposed partial settlement of a
purported class-action suit by mineral rights owners, John
Gardner of Citizen Telegram reports.

The Daily Sentinel previously reported that Grand Junction
attorney Nate Keever, Esq. filed a class-action suit in Garfield
County District Court against Williams Production, in an attempt
to recover unpaid royalties from the company (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006).

Named plaintiffs in the suit -- Sid Lindauer, his wife, Ruth,
and his brother, Ivo -- said they decided to act after two other
Garfield County mineral owners, the late Bill Clough and Joan
Savage, won millions of dollars from Williams over underpaid
royalties.  Diamond Minerals LLC is also listed as a plaintiff
in the suit.

Mr. Lindauer said they resisted leasing to Williams for some
time, but when faced with the prospect of the company "pooling"
the family mineral rights with others and getting their gas from
adjacent property, they relented.

Citizen Telegram reported that the plaintiffs filed the action
on Sept. 20, 2006, against Williams alleging that Williams was
underpaying royalties and had failed to refund amounts withheld
from royalty payments for ad valorem taxes in Garfield County in
excess of the tax that Williams actually paid to the county on
behalf of such royalty owners, reads a statement on the Fleeson,
Gooing, Coulson & Kitch LLC website, the law firm handling the
class-action portion of the case.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Nate Keever, Esq., Williams
withheld money, like a real estate ESCROW account, to pay taxes
on the royalty payments for the owners.  However, the suit
alleges Williams did not refund any leftover funds.  The suit
also alleges that Williams underpaid owners for other
hydrocarbons extracted, Mr. Keever tells Citizen Telegram.

Traditionally, production companies pay 12.5 percent of the
profits from a well to the mineral rights owners, reports
Citizen Telegram.

According to a preliminary payment schedule provided by
Williams, a total allocation of $5,222,085 are to be disbursed
to more than 1,000 mineral rights owners in Garfield County with
payments ranging from as low as $0.03 to upward of $402,000 for
individual mineral rights owners or groups, Citizen Telegram
reported.

The amounts are gross payments before reductions for attorney's
fees, expenses and administrative expenses, but include interest
up to May 19, 2009, the anticipated date of distribution, the
document reads.

A fairness hearing is set for March 20, 2009 in Garfield County
District Court in Glenwood Springs at which time any objections
from the plaintiffs would be heard, according to the Citizen
Telegram report.

For more details, contact:

          Nate Keever, Esq.
          Dufford Waldeck Milburn & Krohn LLP
          744 Horizon Court, Suite 300
          Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
          Phone: (970) 241-5500
          Fax: (970) 243-7738
          Web site: http://www.dwmk.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INTREPID POTASH: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     February 19, 2009: 12:28 PM ET -- Marketwire -- Federman &
Sherwood Announces on February 17, 2009, a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado against Intrepid Potash, Inc. (NYSE: IPI).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 11, 12(A)(2) and 15 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market.  The class
definition is for those purchasers of IPI securities pursuant to
and/or traceable to the Company's April 21, 2008 Initial Public
Offering ("IPO").

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


INTREPID POTASH: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     February 19, 2009: 06:41 PM ET -- Marketwire -- The law
firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities
fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has
been filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc. (NYSE: IPI)
("Intrepid Potash" or the "Company") pursuant to the Company's
Initial Public Offering (the "IPO") on April 21, 2008 through
February 11, 2009 (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Intrepid Potash, and certain of
its officers and directors, violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, the Prospectus and Registration Statement
(collectively the "Registration Statement") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Company's IPO, contained false statements and failed to disclose
the following:

       -- the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer
          ("COO") had not received a B.A. degree from the
          University of Colorado or a M.S. degree from Loyola
          Marymount University, as represented in the
          Registration Statement; and

       -- the Company's President and COO had misrepresented his
          academic credentials in violation of the Company's
          Code of Business Conduct.

     On February 11, 2009 the Fraud Discovery Institute issued a
report revealing that the Company's President and COO had
affirmatively lied and misrepresented his educational
qualifications in the Registration Statement issued in
connection with Intrepid Potash's IPO.  On this news, the
Company's stock declined $1.52 per share to close at $22.00 per
share on February 11, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     February 19, 2009: 04:02 PM ET -- Marketwire -- Holzer
Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or held shares of the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund
("Champion Fund" or the "Fund") (NASDAQ: OPCHX) (NASDAQ: OCHBX)
(NASDAQ: OCHCX) (NASDAQ: OCHNX) (NASDAQ: OCHYX) offered by
OppenheimerFunds, Inc. ("OppenheimerFunds") between January 26,
2007 and December 9, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
including in connection with its January 26, 2007 and January
25, 2008 offerings (the "Offerings").

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

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

For more details, contact:

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


ROYAL BANK: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J., Feb 19, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via
COMTEX) -- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group PLC ("RBS") American Depository Shares ("ADS")
pursuant to and/or traceable to a false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
RBS's June 2007 initial public offering of Non-cumulative Dollar
Preference Shares, Series S (the "Offering").

     RBS, certain of its officers and directors, and the
investment banks which underwrote the Offering are charged with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
consummated the Offering pursuant to a false and misleading
Registration Statement which omitted numerous facts, including:

       -- that the defendants' portfolio of debt securities were
          impaired to a much larger extent than RBS had
          disclosed;

       -- defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

       -- RBS's internal controls were inadequate to prevent RBS
          from improperly reporting its debt securities;

       -- RBS's participation in the acquisition of ABN AMRO
          would have disastrous results on RBS's capital
          position and overall operations; and

       -- RBS's capital base was not sufficient to withstand the
          significant deterioration in the subprime market and,
          as a result, RBS would be forced to raise amounts of
          additional capital.

     RBS ultimately announced huge multi-billion pound
impairment charges associated with its exposure to debt
securities, including mortgage-related securities tied to the
U.S. real estate markets, causing the price of RBS's ADS issued
in the Offering to substantially decline.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of herself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired RBS Series S ADS pursuant and/or traceable
to the Registration Statement for the Offering.

For more information, contact:

          Charles Germershausen, Esq.
          (cgermershausen@gardylaw.com)
          Kelly A. Noto, Esq. (knoto@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/


STANFORD INT'L: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     February 19, 2009 08:41 PM Eastern Time -- SAN DIEGO --
(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
("Coughlin Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/sib/)announced
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of Stanford International Bank Ltd. ("SIB")
certificates of deposit ("CDs") or shares in SIB's Stanford
Allocation Strategy proprietary mutual fund wrap program ("SAS")
between February 19, 2004 and February 17, 2009 (the "Class
Period").

     The complaint charges SIB, its affiliated investment
advisors and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  SIB is a
private international bank domiciled in St. John's, Antigua,
West Indies.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, SIB and
its affiliated investment advisors, Stanford Group Company
("SGC") and Stanford Capital Management, LLC ("SCM"),
fraudulently peddled CDs that promised rates of return far above
those available from other banks. Defendants claimed that these
superior returns were possible because SIB invested its deposits
rather than loaning them.  To ensure that depositors could
redeem their CDs, defendants assured them that SIB's investments
were liquid and diversified.  In fact, nearly 80% of SIB's
investments were concentrated in just two high-risk, illiquid
categories: private equity and real estate.  Now that the real
estate and private equity markets are in free fall, many of
those who purchased SIB's CDs have recently been informed that
they cannot redeem them.

     The complaint also alleges that defendants misled investors
in SIB's SAS program. Specifically, defendants picked a handful
of mutual funds that had performed extremely well in 1999-2004
and claimed the returns of those high-performing funds as the
historical returns of the SAS program.  Defendants also inflated
the claimed returns of the SAS program in 2006 and 2007.
Investors, misled by defendants' claims of historic returns,
have fared very poorly in the SAS program.

     In addition, according to the complaint, when investors
became concerned that SIB might have invested in Bernard
Madoff's $50 billion Ponzi scheme, SIB sent them each a letter
unequivocally stating that "Stanford International Bank did not
have any exposure to the Madoff Fund."  Just two days before
this letter was sent, an SIB analyst informed all three of the
individual defendants, including R. Allen Stanford ("Stanford"),
that SIB had invested in Meridian, a New York-based hedge fund
that used Tremont Partners as its asset manager.  Tremont, in
turn, had invested a portion of Meridian's and SIB's money
with Madoff.

     On February 16, 2009, the SEC filed a complaint against
SIB, SGC, and SCM, as well as against defendants Stanford, James
M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt, accusing them of
participating in a "massive, ongoing fraud."  According to press
reports, the FBI has also begun an investigation.  Since then,
there has been a "run" on SIB, with investors flying to Antigua
from all over the world to try to recover their money.  In the
meantime, authorities were forced to conduct a manhunt for
defendant Stanford before he was finally tracked down in
Virginia.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of SIB CDs or shares in the SAS program during the
Class Period (the "Class").

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

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  * * *