CAR_Public/090224.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, February 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 38

                           Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Bid to Junk Buyout Suit Granted on Feb. 6
BIOVAIL CORP: N.J. Judge Dismisses Suit V. Hedge Funds, Analysts
DEL WEBB: Faces Nev. Homeowners' Suit Over Faulty Construction
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Market-Timing Suit Pending
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Unit Faces 2 Market-Timing Suits in Canada

HEALTHWAYS INC: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
HEALTHWAYS INC: Discovery in ERISA Breach Suit to Start March 26
LEGG MASON: Continues to Faces Claims in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
LEWIS HOMES: Faces Homeowners' Lawsuit Over Construction Defects
NORTH HUDSON: N.J. Federal Court Bars Hiring of Firefighters

ORION ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Consolidated Lawsuit
SOLERA HOLDINGS: Suit Over "Total Loss Estimation" Still Pending
STAPLES INC: Workers Win $2.5M Jury Verdict in FLSA Litigation
TENNESSEE STATE: Student Files Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
UNIVERSITY OF B.C.: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Spoiled Sperm

WAL-MART STORES: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit in Arkansas
WILLIAM LYON: Faces Homeowners' Lawsuit Over Faulty Construction


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
BANK OF AMERICA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
INTREPID POTASH: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
INTREPID POTASH: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing

INTREPID POTASH: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
INTREPID POTASH: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Suit Filing
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Barroway Topaz Announces Lawsuit Filing
ROYAL BANK: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing

UBS AG: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Bid to Junk Buyout Suit Granted on Feb. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated lawsuit over the attempted buyout of the company by
founder Darwin Deason and Cerberus Capital Management LP was
granted by the Delaware Chancery Court on Feb. 6, 2009.

Initially, several lawsuits were filed.  In general, the suits
allege claims related to breach of fiduciary duty, and are
seeking class action status (Class Action Reporter, May 5,
2008).

The plaintiffs in each case purport to be ACS stockholders
bringing a class action on behalf of all of the company's public
stockholders.

Each plaintiff alleges that the proposal presented to the
company by Mr. Deason and Cerberus on March 20, 2007, to acquire
the company's outstanding stock is unfair to shareholders
because the consideration offered in the proposal is alleged to
be inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair process.

According to a report by the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13,
2008, six cases were filed before the Delaware Chancery Court:

    1. "Momentum Partners v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett,
       Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston
       Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Dennis McCuistion,
       Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus
       Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2814-VCL,"
       filed on March 20, 2007.

    2. "Mark Levy v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, John
       Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J.
       Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated
       Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
       Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2816-VCL," filed on
       March 21, 2007.

    3. "St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
       Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
       A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
       Robert B. Holland, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.,
       Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Affiliated Computer
       Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2821-VCL," filed on
       March 22, 2007.

    4. "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
       System v. Darwin Deason, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A.
       Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
       Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
       and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
       No. 2839-VCL," filed on March 26, 2007.

    5. "Edward R. Koller v. Darwin Deason, Frank A. Rossi, J.
       Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated
       Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
       Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2908-VCL," filed on
       April 20, 2007.

    6. "Suzanne Sweeney Living Trust v. Darwin Deason, Lynn
       R. Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
       A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
       Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
       and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
       No. 2915-VCL," filed on April 24, 2007.

On May 4, 2007, the six Delaware buy-out cases were consolidated
into one before the Delaware Chancery Court under the caption
"In Re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 2821-VCL."

Subsequently, on Oct. 30, 2007, Cerberus withdrew its offer to
acquire ACS.

On Nov. 2, 2007, a consolidated amended class action suit and
derivative complaint was filed by the plaintiffs, adding
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties related to the events
surrounding the resignation of the outside directors.

The plaintiffs seek equitable relief and recovery of unspecified
monetary damages sustained by the company.

On April 8, 2008, a Verified Consolidated Second Amended Class
and Derivative Action Complaint was filed alleging class and
derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty against all
individual defendants and class and derivative for aiding and
abetting against Cerberus and Citigroup.

On May 23, 2008, all defendants, including ACS, filed their
respective motions to dismiss. All briefing on the motions to
dismiss is complete.

All briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete and the
hearing on the motions occurred on Oct. 22, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the judge in the case granted ACS's Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed each of plaintiffs' counts with prejudice.
The plaintiffs may appeal this decision, 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.

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com/--
provides business process outsourcing and information technology
services to commercial and government clients.


BIOVAIL CORP: N.J. Judge Dismisses Suit V. Hedge Funds, Analysts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed a securities class-action suit
brought by sellers of Biovail Corp. stock against several
analysts and hedge funds, including Banc of America Securities
and SAC Capital, for allegedly driving down Biovail's stock
price, Andrew Longstreth of Am Law Litigation Daily reports.

In a ruling issued on Feb. 19, 2009, the federal judge dismissed
the case and sanctioned two lawyers for the plaintiffs and the
lead plaintiff himself for copying the claims of a another
lawsuit alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO), including claims relying on
documents under a protective order, and not conducting a
sufficient investigation into their allegations.

Judge Chesler found that lead counsel William Federman of
Federman Sherwood and liaison counsel Evan Smith of Brodsky &
Smith knew that the complaint was based on documents that had
been placed under protective order, according to Am Law
Litigation Daily.

In a harshly worded opinion, Judge Chesler said the New Jersey
shareholder action was a "choreographed strategy by Biovail and
its attorneys" and described the plaintiffs lawyers as "ready
and willing tools of Biovail [who] ignored their professional
and ethical obligations and aided Biovail for their own
benefit," the Am Law Litigation Daily reported.

Mr. Federman told Am Law Litigation Daily he disagrees with the
order and is considering an appeal.  "[Judge Chesler] ignores
the majority of precedents, which allow you to rely on
information that is publicly disseminated," said Mr. Federman.
"We had nothing to do with those documents becoming public.  We
just used them.

Brad Butwin of O'Melveny & Myers, who filed the motion for
sanctions for defendant Banc of America Securities and one of
its former analysts, called Judge Chesler's opinion "well-
reasoned."  Separately, defendant SAC Capital said in a
statement that it was "gratified," adding, "The court's opinion
underscores these claims were a cynical attempt to manipulate
the legal process in order to divert attention from the
company's own improper conduct," reports Am Law Litigation
Daily.


DEL WEBB: Faces Nev. Homeowners' Suit Over Faulty Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Del Webb and its Coventry Homes of Nevada subsidiary are facing
a purported class-action suit that was filed by two homeowners
of property in The Huntington development over construction
defects, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The suit says the plaintiffs' properties in the Silverado
development, which has 242 homes, also have problems with roofs
and have leaking windows, dirt coming through windows, cracks in
drywall, cracks and stains in stucco and water and insects
intruding through foundation slabs.

The plaintiffs, Edith and Loren Johnston are also represented by
the Las Vegas law firm Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage P.C.  Their
suit says Del Webb has asserted that the homes have no defects
and that any repairs it performed were successful in solving
problems.  The homeowners disagree and claim the alleged defects
have not been corrected, reports The Las Vegas Sun.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the cost of repairs and
the alleged loss of market value the homes have sustained,
according to The Las Vegas Sun report.

For more details, contact:

          Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage P.C.
          2881 Business Park Court, Suite 210
          Las Vegas, NV 89128
          Phone: (800) 253-9741 or (702) 631-8014
          Fax: (702) 631-8024
          Web site: http://www.ssllplaw.com/


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Market-Timing Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class-action complaint in the consolidated market timing
or late trading class-action suit filed against the company and
certain of the Franklin Templeton mutual funds, current and
former officers, employees, and directors remains under
submission with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The defendants have been named in multiple lawsuits in different
federal courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, and
Florida.  Generally, the cases alleged violations of various
federal securities and state laws.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and late trading
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by the
company's subsidiaries, allegedly resulting in market timing
activity.

The lawsuits are styled as class-action suits, or derivative
actions on behalf of either the named funds or the company.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, monetary
damages, restitution, removal of fund trustees, directors,
advisers, administrators, and distributors, rescission of
management contracts and 12b-1 plans, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The majority of these lawsuits duplicate, in whole or in part,
the allegations asserted in an administrative complaint and in
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's findings regarding
market timing in the SEC Order.

To date, more than 400 similar lawsuits against at least 19
different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal
district courts throughout the country.

Because the cases involve common questions of fact, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the creation of a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland entitled "In re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."

The Judicial Panel then transferred similar cases from different
districts to the MDL for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

As of Dec. 20, 2006, these market timing lawsuits are pending
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, and in some
instances, name certain officers, directors and Funds.

The suits that have been transferred to the MDL include:

       * "Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-770 GPM," filed on Nov. 19, 2003, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois;

       * "Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 03-859 MJR," filed on Dec. 16, 2003, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
         and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2004;

       * "Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ," filed on Feb. 6, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;

       * "Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04
         0583 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in the U.S. District
         Court for the Northern District of California;

       * "Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * "Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. 8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida;

       * "Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;

       * "Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

       * "McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         C 04 0628 PJH," filed on Feb. 13, 2004, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * "Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC," filed on Feb. 17, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * "Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330," filed on Feb. 18, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York;

       * "D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund,
         et al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC," filed on March 3, 2004,
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * "Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0901 JL," filed on March 5, 2004, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * "Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL," filed on March 5, 2004 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

       * "Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
         No. C 04 0984 EMC," filed on March 10, 2004, in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California; and

       * "Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489," filed
         on March 30, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints
on Sept. 29, 2004.  On Feb. 25, 2005, the defendants, including
the company, certain of its subsidiaries and the named Funds and
individual defendants, filed motions to dismiss those amended
complaints.

On June 26, 2008, the court issued its order granting in part
and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class-action complaint.  In its order, the
court dismissed certain claims, while allowing others to remain,
and dismissed all class action claims against the named Funds.
Pursuant to stipulation, the court also dismissed all claims
against certain individual defendants, including the independent
directors to the named Funds, and a former company executive.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated fund derivative
action remains under submission with the court, 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 "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No.
1:04-md-15862-AMD," pending before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, Judge Andre M. Davis, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          H. Adam Prussin, Esq. (haprussin@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross, LLP
          100 Park Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 1-212-661-1100
          Fax: 1-212-661-8665

Representing the company is:

          Meredith Nelson Landy, Esq. (mlandy@omm.com)
          O'Melveny and Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Rd.
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 1-650-473-2671
          Fax: 1-650-473-2601


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Unit Faces 2 Market-Timing Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc.'s subsidiary, Franklin Templeton
Investments Corp. ("FTIC"), faces two market-timing class action
lawsuits in Canada.

FTIC, the investment manager of Franklin Templeton's Canadian
mutual funds, is named along with several other non-Franklin
affiliated investment manager defendants in two market-timing
lawsuits in Canada that are styled as class actions.

The lawsuits contain allegations similar or identical to
allegations asserted by the Ontario Securities Commission in its
March 3, 2005 order concerning market-timing activities by three
institutional investors in certain Canadian mutual funds managed
by FTIC between February 1999 and February 2003, as previously
reported.

The lawsuits seek, among other relief, monetary damages,
punitive damages, an order barring any increase in management
fees for a period of two years following judgment, and/or
attorneys' fees and costs.

The lawsuits are:

   (i) Huneault v. AGF Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06-
       000256-046, filed on Oct. 25, 2004, in the Superior Court
       for the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; and

  (ii) Fischer, et al. v. IG Investment Management Ltd., et al.
       Case No. 06-CV-307599CP, filed on March 9, 2006, in the
       Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The plaintiffs in the Fischer lawsuit served defendants with a
motion for authorization to institute a class action in July
2007.  Defendants filed their evidence in opposition to that
motion on Sept. 29, 2008, 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.

Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com/--
is an investment management company.  Through its wholly owned
direct and indirect subsidiaries, Franklin Resources provides
investment management and fund administration services to open-
end and closed-end investment companies, institutional accounts,
high-net-worth families, individuals and separate accounts in
the U.S. and internationally.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint filed on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased Healthways, Inc.
stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008, remains pending.

Beginning on June 5, 2008, the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and/or directors were named as
defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the two
related cases, appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel, and granted lead plaintiff leave to file a consolidated
amended complaint.

The amended complaint, filed on Sept. 22, 2008, alleges that the
Company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control
persons" of Healthways.

The amended complaint further alleges that certain of the
individual defendants also violated Section 20A of the Act based
on their stock sales.

The plaintiff purports to bring these claims for unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
Healthways stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008.

In support of these claims, plaintiff alleges generally that,
during the proposed class period, the Company made misleading
statements and omitted material information regarding:

   -- the purported loss or restructuring of certain contracts
      with customers,

   -- the Company's participation in the Medicare Health Support
      pilot program for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
      Services, and

   -- the Company's guidance for fiscal year 2008.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Nov. 12, 2008.

Discovery has not yet commenced in the consolidated case, and no
trial date has been set, 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.

Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides
specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people
maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce
overall healthcare costs.  The company delivers its programs to
customers, which include health plans, governments, employers,
and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and Guam.  Its programs focus on prevention,
education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change
and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven
standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Discovery in ERISA Breach Suit to Start March 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery will commence by March 26, 2009, in a purported class-
action lawsuit against Healthways, Inc. and certain of its
directors and officers alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

On July 31, 2008, the purported class-action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against Healthways and certain of its directors and officers
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties to participants in the
Company's 401(k) plan.

The central allegation is that Company stock was an imprudent
investment option for the 401(k) plan.  The named defendants
are: the Company, Board of Directors, certain officers, and
members of the Investment Committee charged with administering
the 401(k) plan.

The complaint was amended on Sept. 29, 2008.  The amended
complaint alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by failing
to remove the Company stock fund from the 401(k) plan when it
allegedly became an imprudent investment, by failing to disclose
adequately the risks and results of the Medicare Health Support
(MHS) pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and by failing
to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to permit
the plan to hold Company stock.  It further alleges that the
Company and its directors should have been more closely
monitoring the Investment Committee and other plan fiduciaries.

The amended complaint seeks damages in an undisclosed amount and
other equitable relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 29, 2008.

On Jan. 28, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss.

Under the schedule that currently exists, discovery in this case
will commence by March 26, 2009, and a trial date of April 27,
2010 has been set, 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.

Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides
specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people
maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce
overall healthcare costs.  The company delivers its programs to
customers, which include health plans, governments, employers,
and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and Guam.  Its programs focus on prevention,
education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change
and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven
standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care.


LEGG MASON: Continues to Faces Claims in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legg Mason, Inc. still faces claims in a purported consolidated
securities fraud class-action suit filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933
still under appeal.

The company, and two of its officers are named as defendants in
a consolidated legal action that was initially filed on Oct. 16,
2006.

The action alleges that the defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933
by making misleading statements to the public and omitting
certain material facts with respect to the acquisition of the
CAM business in public statements and in a prospectus used in a
secondary stock offering in order to artificially inflate the
price of Legg Mason common stock.

The action seeks certification of a class of shareholders who
purchased Legg Mason common stock either between Feb. 1, 2006,
and Oct. 10, 2006, or in a secondary public offering on or about
March 9, 2006, and seeks unspecified damages.

Legg Mason and the other two defendants in the action have filed
a motion to dismiss the case (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18,
2008).

On March 17, 2008, the court granted Legg Mason's motion to
dismiss this action.  However, the plaintiffs subsequently filed
a notice of appeal of that dismissal and have appealed only the
dismissal of the claims under the Securities Act.  The dismissal
of the claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of the proposed
class of purchases of stock between Feb. 1, 2006 and Oct. 10,
2006 was not appealed and is now final, 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 "Garber v. Legg Mason Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2006-
cv-09436," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Denny Chin presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          e-mail: malba@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: (516) 741-4977
          e-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

Representing the defendants are:

         James N. Benedict, Esq.
         Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
         1 Chase Manhattan Plaza
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: (212) 530-5000
         Fax: (212) 822-5696
         e-mail: jbenedict@milbank.com

              - and -

         Mark Holland, Esq.
         Clifford Chance US, LLP
         31 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212)-878-8432
         Web site: (212)-878-8375
         e-mail: mark.holland@cliffordchance.com


LEWIS HOMES: Faces Homeowners' Lawsuit Over Construction Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Homes of Nevada and KB Home Nevada face a purported class-
action lawsuit by homeowners who are alleging that their
properties need to be repaired because of construction defects,
Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The suit was filed this month in Clark County District Court by
17 homeowners alleging defects in their homes in the Napa Hills
by Lewis Homes and Sonoma Hills by Lewis Homes development near
the Las Vegas Beltway and Far Hills Avenue in Summerlin

The Las Vegas Sun reported that the plaintiffs, represented by
attorneys with the Las Vegas law firm Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage
P.C., are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit involving
the development they say consists of 439 homes.

The litigation alleges that Lewis Homes/KB Home have maintained
there are no defects, but nevertheless have performed some
repairs that the defendants say have not been adequate to solve
the problems.  The homeowners claim to have problems with roofs,
water and dirt entering through windows, bugs and water entering
through their foundations and cracked stucco and drywall,
reports The Las Vegas Sun.

The suit seeks unspecified damages to cover repairs and for an
alleged decline in the value of the homes, according to The Las
Vegas Sun report.

For more details, contact:

          Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage P.C.
          2881 Business Park Court, Suite 210
          Las Vegas, NV 89128
          Phone: (800) 253-9741 or (702) 631-8014
          Fax: (702) 631-8024
          Web site: http://www.ssllplaw.com/


NORTH HUDSON: N.J. Federal Court Bars Hiring of Firefighters
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
temporarily barred the North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue
service from hiring firefighters as part of a class-action
lawsuit filed by black applicants.

Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise's decision temporarily bars the
agency from hiring firefighters until it widens its residency
requirements to include Hudson, Essex and Union counties.

                        Case Background

Peter J. Sampson and Eric Hsu of NorthJersey.com previously
reported that The National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) filed a purported racial discrimination
class-action suit against North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue
(Class Action Reporter, April 19, 2007).

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on April 10, 2007.  Identified as plaintiffs in
the case are:

      -- NAACP;
      -- Newark Branch, NAACP;
      -- New Jersey State Conference, NAACP;
      -- Katrina Hall;
      -- Keith Reeves;
      -- Lamara Wapples; and
      -- Altarik White.

Generally, the suit alleges that the regional fire department,
which is serving North Bergen and four other Hudson County
municipalities, hasn't hired a single black firefighter since it
was created nearly nine years ago.

It contends that that department's preference for recruiting and
hiring employees who are residents of North Bergen, Union City,
Weehawken, West New York, and Guttenberg discriminates against
African-Americans.

The suit pointed out that the five towns, which merged their
departments in 1998, had a combined population of about 195,000
residents at the time of the 2000 census with less than 5
percent of which is African-American.

According to the suit, the department is passing up qualified
candidates simply because they don't live in the towns.

Four of the plaintiffs, namely, Ms. Hall, Mr. Reeves, Ms.
Wapples, and Mr. White, passed the state's firefighter exam and
applied for entry-level positions with the department.

However, according to the suit, because of the residency
preference, the four individuals and other outsiders from
predominately black municipalities such as Newark, East Orange,
Irvington, Jersey City and Orange are denied opportunities.  The
suit pointed out that one black firefighter in 300-member
department was hired by North Bergen before the merger.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction barring North Hudson
Regional from discriminating against black candidates on the
basis of race and directing it to implement a vigorous
recruitment program designed to attract qualified minorities in
proportion to the labor market.

The suit is "The National Association For The Advancement Of
Colored People (NAACP) et al. v. North Hudson Regional Fire &
Rescue, Case No. 2:07-cv-01683-DRD-ES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Dickinson R. Debevoise.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David H. Ben-Asher, Esq.
          Rabner, Allcorn, Baumgartner & Ben-Asher
          52 Upper Montclair Plaza,
          Montclair, NJ 07043
          Phone: 973-744-4000
          Web site: http://www.rabnerallcorn.com


ORION ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Consolidated Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's
review and decision on Orion Energy Systems, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint remains pending.

In February and March 2008, three class-action suits were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, several of its officers, all members of the
board of directors, and certain underwriters relating to its
December 2007 Initial Public Offering.

The plaintiffs claim to represent those persons who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock from Dec. 18, 2007 through
Feb. 6, 2008.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
made misstatements and failed to disclose material information
in the Company's registration statement and prospectus.

The claims allege various claims under the U.S. Securities Act
of 1933, as amended.

The complaints seek, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified damages, fees, and such other relief as the court
may deem just and proper.

On Aug. 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 15, 2008, the Company and the other defendants filed a
brief in support of the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008).

On Nov. 13, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a brief in opposition
to the motion to dismiss.  On Dec. 15, 2008, the company and the
other director and officer defendants, filed a reply brief in
support of their motion to dismiss.  Having been fully briefed,
the motion to dismiss is awaiting the court's review and
decision, 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.

Orion Energy Systems, Inc. -- http://www.oriones.com designs,
manufactures, markets and implements energy management systems
consisting primarily of energy efficient lighting systems,
controls and related services.  The Company's energy management
systems deliver energy savings and efficiency gains to its
commercial and industrial customers without compromising their
quantity or quality of light.  Orion has sold and installed its
HIF fixtures in over 3,655 facilities across North America,
representing over 587 million square feet of commercial and
industrial building space, including for 91 Fortune 500
companies, such as Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., General Electric
Co., Kraft Foods Inc., Newell Rubbermaid Inc., OfficeMax, Inc.,
and SYSCO Corp.


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Suit Over "Total Loss Estimation" Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit in connection with total loss
estimation remains pending against Solera Holdings, Inc.,
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 alleges that the company colluded with its insurance
company customers to cause the estimates of vehicle fair market
value generated by the company's total loss estimation products
to be unfairly low (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2008).

Solera Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.solerainc.com/-- is a
global provider of software and services to the automobile
insurance claims processing industry.  The Company's customers
include more than 900 automobile insurance companies; 33,000
collision repair facilities; 7,000 independent assessors, and
3,000 automotive recyclers.  Solera Holdings, Inc. helps its
customers estimate the costs to repair damaged vehicles;
determine pre-collision fair market values for vehicles damaged
beyond repair; automate steps of the claims process; outsource
steps of the claims process that insurance companies have
historically performed internally, and improve their ability to
monitor and manage their businesses through data reporting and
analysis.  Its software and services are organized into five
general categories: estimating and workflow software; salvage
and recycling software; business intelligence and consulting
services; shared services, and other.


STAPLES INC: Workers Win $2.5M Jury Verdict in FLSA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Fri., Feb. 20, 2009 - NEWARK, N.J. - A Newark federal court
jury awarded almost $2.5 million against Staples Inc. (NASDAQ:
SPLS) to 343 plaintiffs in a case brought under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

     Following a six-week trial, the jury unanimously determined
that Staples, Inc. had failed to comply with the law in
classifying the employees as exempt under the Act and failing to
pay them overtime.  The jury also found that Staples had acted
willfully in violating the law.  Staples' liability could be
increased as the Court will next month be hearing applications
for the imposition of liquidated damages in an amount equal to
the jury verdict and for attorneys' costs and fees.

     "This is the first of several collective and class action
lawsuits against Staples for misclassification of store managers
that are now pending in the federal courts," said Seth Lesser of
Klafter Olsen & Lesser, one of the plaintiffs' two trial
counsel. "We hope to be able to now move those other cases to
trial on behalf of the rest of Staples managers."

     Michael Galpern of the Locks Law Firm LLP, the lead trial
counsel, added, "We had faith in the jury's ability to discern
the truth and recognize that these hard-working employees were
entitled to compensation."

     "Our Staples case is one of the first FLSA
misclassification suits to be brought before a jury," said Gary
E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P., one of the attorneys for
the plaintiffs.  "Staples maintained throughout, and continues
to hold the view, that it pays its employees properly. The
jury's decision has definitively proven the company wrong."

     Plaintiffs were represented by Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP
of White Plains, New York and Washington, D.C.; the Locks Law
Firm LLC of New York, New York, Cherry Hill, New Jersey and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P of
Washington, D.C.

     Plaintiffs were also represented by Jeff Gottlieb, Esq.,
and Berger & Associates.

For further information, please contact Seth R. Lesser of
Klafter Olsen & Lesser, 914-997-5656, seth@klafterolsen.com or
Michael Galpern of Locks Law Firm LLP at 856-663-8200,
mgalpern@lockslaw.com.

For more details, contact:

          Seth R. Lesser
          Klafter Olsen & Lesser
          Phone: 914-997-5656
          e-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Michael Galpern
          Locks Law Firm LLP
          856-663-8200
          e-mail: mgalpern@lockslaw.com


TENNESSEE STATE: Student Files Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee State University faces a purported class-action
lawsuit that was filed by a student from Guam on grounds of
racial discrimination, Michael Cass and Janell Ross of The
Tennessean reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee by Angela Cela, a Pacific
Islander, who claims that she was denied a financial grant
because she is not black.

The suit is captioned, "Cela v. Tennessee State University et
al., 3:2009-cv-00173," and names as defendants the Tennessee
State University, Iris Johnson-Arnold, Tina Smith and Harold R.
Mitchell.

Ms. Cela accuses the historically black Nashville school and
three faculty members of violating her civil rights.  According
to her, TSU refused to give Cela, a financial grant available to
graduate students in speech pathology and audiology because she
isn't black.

Ms. Cela's suit seeks to create a class-action.  Attorney Hal
Hardin, Esq., one of Ms. Cela's lawyers, told The Tennessean he
wouldn't know how many students had been discriminated against
until he could see the university's data, but he was aware of
"several."

According to the suit, Ms. Cela sought a grant in March 2007 to
help her enroll in graduate school at TSU the following August.
But she didn't receive any information on her request before
classes started.

In February 2008, Harold Mitchell, head of the department of
speech and audiology, told Ms. Cela she didn't qualify for the
grant because she wasn't black, the complaint says.  Ms. Cela
told Mitchell that Pacific Islanders were represented even less
than African-Americans in the field of speech pathology, reports
The Tennessean.

"Ms. Cela stated that she was advised by several of her
professors that this entire situation could have been avoided
had she announced that she was not white," the suit says.

"Then and there Dr. Mitchell stated: 'Well, what do you expect?
You are at an historically black university. You have to know
the backdrop and understand our professors' point of view when
they converse with white students.'"

Dr. Mitchell's department offered Cela a grant retroactively,
but she had already found other funding, according to The
Tennessean.


UNIVERSITY OF B.C.: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Spoiled Sperm
--------------------------------------------------------------
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler has dismissed an
application to certify a class-action lawsuit involving sperm
samples that may have been ruined when an electrical failure
shut down the freezer used to store them, Canwest News Service
reports.

In a judgment released on Feb. 20, 2009, Justice Butler
concluded, "A trial of the common issues would accomplish very
little."  He further points out, "At the conclusion of the
common-issue trial, there would still have to be a process to
consider the exclusion-clause issues for each claimant."

Howard Lam had applied as the representative plaintiff, seeking
certification of a class-action lawsuit against the University
of B.C. and other defendants, according to Canwest News Service.


WAL-MART STORES: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit in Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. reached a $17.5 million settlement for a
purported class-action lawsuit that accuses it of discriminating
against African Americans in recruiting and hiring truck
drivers, Bloomberg News reports.

The suit is captioned, "Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-00171-WRW," and was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas back in 2004 by
Daryal T. Nelson of Coldwater, Miss., who alleged that Wal-Mart
rejects and discourages black applicants for truck-driving jobs
at the chain's distribution centers in Arkansas, Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia (Class
Action Reporter, June 21, 2007).

The suit had a document from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission attached to it, saying that it found "reasonable
cause" to believe that Mr. Nelson, a 22-year veteran of driving
trucks, was discriminated against.  The EEOC said Wal-Mart hired
some white drivers with more serious driving violations and less
experience than black applicants.

In May 16, 2007, the suit was granted class-action status by
Judge William R. Wilson Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (Class Action Reporter, May 18,
2007).

The class involved in the suit includes all black people in the
continental U.S. who applied as over-the-road truckers at Wal-
Mart since Sept. 22, 2001, but who were not hired.  It also
includes all black people in the continental U.S. during that
period who were discouraged from applying as drivers because of
Wal-Mart's practices.

In January 2008, Wal-Mart's motions to dismiss the case or
decertify the class were denied, according to Bloomberg News.

The suit is "Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-00171-WRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          (hbates@cauleybowman.com)
          Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, LLP
          Post Office Box 25438
          Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
          Phone: (501) 312-8500

               - and -

          Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Esq.
         (tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com)
          Welch and Kitchens, LLC
          Post Office Box 3685
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3685
          Phone: (501) 978-3030

Representing defendants are:

          Richard H. Deane, Esq. (rhdeane@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day - Atlanta
          1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 581-8502

          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq. (lcdinardo@jonesday.com)
          Michael J. Gray, Esq. (mjgray@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day - Chicago
          77 West Wacker
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 269-4306 or (312) 269-4096


               - and -

          Philip E. Kaplan, Esq. (pkaplan@kbmlaw.net)
          Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey & Haralson, P.A.
          Metro Centre Mall
          415 Main Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3801
          Phone: (501) 372-0400


WILLIAM LYON: Faces Homeowners' Lawsuit Over Faulty Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Lyon Homes is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
by two owners of homes in the area of Pebble Road and Maryland
Parkway in Silverado, alleging problems with their roofs, eaves,
stucco, concrete flatwork; heating, ventilation and air
conditioning systems; and drywall, Steve Green of The Las Vegas
Sun reports.

The suit, filed by attorneys with the firm Angius & Terry LLP,
alleges the builder's attempts to correct the alleged
deficiencies failed to do so, according to The Las Vegas Sun
report.

The Las Vegas Sun reported that the properties named in the
complaint are owned by James Larocca on Labine Street and
Constance Larocca on Newcombe Street.  Their suit seeks damages
to cover the cost of repairs and the alleged loss of value the
homes have sustained.

For more details, contact:

          Angius & Terry LLP
          1120 N. Town Center Drive
          Suite 260
          Las Vegas, NV 89144
          Phone: (702) 990-2017
          Fax: (702) 990-2018
          e-mail: info@angius-terry.com
          Web site: http://www.angius-terry.com/nv-locations.htm


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Feb. 20, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of American Express Company ("American
Express" or the "Company"), between March 1, 2007 and November
12, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges American Express and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.

     American Express is currently the world's largest issuer of
charge cards and credit cards as measured by purchase volume.
It engages in the communications business in North America and
Europe.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements, among other things, misled investors by falsely
representing American Express's exposure to the riskiest credit
card holders and failed to disclose the Company's increasing
reliance on riskier credit card programs.

     On November 10, 2008, the Company won Federal Reserve
System approval to convert to a bank holding company, making it
eligible for government help under the Troubled Assets Relief
Program ("TARP").  The new American Express bank could qualify
for up to $3.5 billion of the Treasury Department's money-a
capital infusion required to save the Company from its riskier
endeavors.  As a result of the Company's shift to risky card
issuances, American Express stock has plunged approximately 65%
since March 2007.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     February 20, 2009 07:20 PM Eastern Time -- SAN DIEGO --
(BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
("Coughlin Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/bofa/)announced
that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Bank of
America Corporation ("BofA") (NYSE:BAC) between July 21, 2008
and January 20, 2009 (the "Class Period") and who were damaged
thereby, including all persons who acquired BofA common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration
statement and prospectuses (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with BofA's October 7, 2008
secondary common stock offering (the "Offering"), and further,
including persons who owned BofA stock on October 10, 2008 and
were entitled to vote on BofA's merger with Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch"), pursuant
to a false and misleading proxy statement (the "Merger Proxy").

     The complaint charges BofA, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Offering with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of
1933.

     BofA is a financial holding company that provides a range
of banking and nonbanking financial services and products in the
United States and internationally.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding both the Company's and Merrill Lynch's business and
financial results.  Defendants concealed BofA's and Merrill
Lynch's failures to properly value their mortgage-related assets
and BofA's failure to engage in proper due diligence in
determining the fairness of its proposed deal with Merrill
Lynch. As a result of defendants' false statements, BofA's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $38.13 per share on October 1, 2008, and then
retaining value in the $22-$25 per share range even as the stock
market collapsed in early October 2008.  It was at this time
that BofA sold 455 million shares of its common stock at $22 per
share in the Offering, which raised some $10 billion.

     Then, on January 16, 2009, BofA announced its first
quarterly loss in 17 years. BofA announced a $1.8 billion loss
for the fourth quarter of 2008 and slashed its dividend from
$0.32 to a penny a quarter.  In addition to its own losses, BofA
reported that Merrill Lynch's preliminary results for the fourth
quarter of 2008 indicated a net loss of $15.3 billion.  BofA
further confirmed that it would receive an additional $20
billion in assistance from the U.S. Government.  Between January
15 and 20, 2009, BofA's stock lost a dramatic 50% of its value,
declining from $10.20 per share on January 14, 2009 to close at
$5.10 per share on January 20, 2009.

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

       -- both the Company and Merrill Lynch failed to
          adequately reserve for mortgage-related exposure,
          causing their balance sheets and financial results to
          be artificially inflated;

       -- the Company and its advisors had failed to engage in
          proper due diligence in assessing the fairness of the
          deal with Merrill Lynch;

       -- the Company's acquisition of Merrill Lynch would have
          disastrous results on the Company's capital position
          and overall operations;

       -- Merrill Lynch had not substantially decreased its risk
          exposure to troubled mortgage-related assets;

       -- the significant deterioration of Merrill Lynch's
          financial position, including its substantial fourth
          quarter 2008 loss, were sufficient to trigger
          termination of the merger;

       -- the Company had to approach the U.S. Government for
          additional funding and financial guarantees in
          December 2008 in order to complete its acquisition of
          Merrill Lynch; and

       -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to
          withstand the significant deterioration in the
          subprime market and, as a result, BofA would be forced
          to seek government funding in order to raise
          significant amounts of additional capital.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BofA
during the Class Period and who were damaged thereby, including
all persons who acquired BofA common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection
with the Offering and/or who owned BofA stock on October 10,
2008 and were entitled to vote on BofA's merger with Merrill
Lynch pursuant to the Merger Proxy (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/bofa/


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The
Shuman Law Firm announced that it has filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama on behalf of a proposed class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
("Colonial" or the "Company") (NYSE:CNB) between January 23,
2008 through January 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Colonial and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Colonial operates as the holding company for Colonial Bank,
National Association, which provides commercial banking, wealth
management services, mortgage banking, and insurance services in
Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Nevada and Texas.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results, and
concealed the Company's failure to properly account for its
troubled loan portfolio and goodwill.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Colonial's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $16.06 per share in February 2008.

     On January 27, 2009, after the market closed, the Company
announced its fourth quarter and full year 2008 financial
results, including a net loss of $825 million for the quarter
due, in substantial part, to a $575 million goodwill impairment
charge, a $415 million charge to write off troubled assets and
an increase to its loan loss reserve.  Colonial further
disclosed that its receipt of funds from the U.S. Treasury's
Capital Purchase Program was conditioned upon the Company
raising an additional $300 million in equity.  On this news,
Colonial's stock dropped from $1.58 per share on January 27,
2009 to $0.85 per share on January 28, 2009, a one-day decline
of over 46% on unusually large volume.

For more information, contact:

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


INTREPID POTASH: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD -- 02/20/09 -- Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid Potash" or the "Company")
(NYSE: IPI) pursuant to the Company's initial public offering on
April 21, 2008 though February 11, 2009.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Company's failure to
disclose during the Class Period that in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering the educational credentials of the Company's President
and Chief Operating Officer were affirmatively misrepresented.

     According to the complaint, on February 11, 2009, after the
Company revealed that the Company's President and COO had
misrepresented his educational credentials and was resigning,
the value of Intrepid Potash's stock declined significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


INTREPID POTASH: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, Feb. 21, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Dyer & Berens LLP
(www.DyerBerens.com) announced that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired of the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid
Potash" or the "Company") (NYSE:IPI) pursuant to the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") on April 21, 2008 through
February 11, 2009 (the "Class").

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of their false statements in
the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus regarding
the educational credentials of the Company's President and COO.

     According to the complaint, on February 11, 2009, after the
Company revealed that its President and COO had misrepresented
his educational credentials and was resigning, the price of
Intrepid Potash's securities declined significantly.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


INTREPID POTASH: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, GA, Feb 20, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) --
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado against Intrepid Potash, Inc.
("Intrepid" or the "Company") and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of purchasers of Intrepid securities who
purchased pursuant or traceable to the April 21, 2008 Initial
Public Offering (the "IPO").

     The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act
of 1933 by issuing false and misleading statements to the public
in its Registration Statement and Prospectus.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
Registration Statement contained material misrepresentations
concerning the educational background of its President and Chief
Operating Officer who subsequently resigned from the Company
following the disclosure.

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


INTREPID POTASH: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The
Shuman Law Firm announced that it has filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid" or
the "Company") (NYSE:IPI) pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's Initial Public Offering (the "IPO") on April 21, 2008
(the "Class").

     The Complaint charges Intrepid Potash, as well as a current
and a former executive officer of the Company with violations of
federal securities laws.

     Intrepid Potash engages in the production and marketing of
muriate of potash in the United States.

     The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus and Registration
Statement (collectively the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Company's IPO, contained false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose or indicate the
following:

       -- that 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

       -- that 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
revealed that the Company's President and COO had misrepresented
his educational qualifications in the Registration Statement
issued in connection with Intrepid Potash's IPO.  In response to
this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $1.52 per
share to close at $22.00 per share on February 11, 2009.  This
closing price on Intrepid Potash represented a cumulative loss
of $10.00, approximately 31.25%, of the value of the Company's
shares at the time of its IPO just months earlier.

     After the market closed on February 11, 2009, Intrepid
Potash issued a press release disclosing that the Company's
President and COO was resigning and confirmed that the
statements contained in the Company's Registration Statement
about the educational qualifications of the Company's President
and COO were false and that the "misrepresentation of his
academic credentials was a violation under the Company's Code of
Business Conduct."

For more information, contact:

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


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (www.pomerantzlaw.com) has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado (1:09-cv-00296-MSK), against Level
3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:LVLT) and certain officers of the company for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The class action
was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Company between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007 (the
"Class Period").

     Level 3 engages in the communications business in North
America and Europe.  Its network and internet services include
transport services, high speed internet protocol services,
dedicated internet access, virtual private network services,
collocation services, and dark fiber services.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business and operations.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
          and

       -- that, as a result of the above, the statements made by
          the Defendants during the Class Period lacked a
          reasonable basis.

     As a result of Defendants wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Class Members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Barroway Topaz Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Feb 20, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The
following statement was issued by the law firm of Barroway Topaz
Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP: Notice is hereby given that a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel"
or the "Company") between December 13, 2007 and October 27, 2008
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Rigel and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     Rigel is a clinical-stage drug development company that
discovers and develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of
inflammatory/autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases.
Rigel had been in the process of developing a drug compound
known as R788 (the "Study") for the treatment of Rheumatoid
Arthritis.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

       -- that the R788 Study demonstrated an increase in
          certain patients' blood pressure, a potential
          indicator of an increase in cardiovascular risk, which
          had the potential to cause pharmaceutical companies to
          reconsider licensing the drug;

       -- that patients in the Study taking R788 experienced
          increased liver enzymes compared to those patients
          taking the placebo;

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

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being and future
          business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
          basis when made; and

       -- that the Company's Registration Statement was false
          and misleading at all relevant times.

     On December 13, 2007, the Company issued a press release
which publicized positive results of a clinical trial of R788.
The December 13, 2007 press release was also appended to the
Company's Form 8-K filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission filed that same day.  In response to the
positive news of the results of the Study, the price of Rigel's
stock increased $17.95 per share to close at $25.95 per share on
December 13, 2007, a 224% increase from the previous day's
closing price of $8.00 per share.

     Subsequently, on or about January 31, 2008, the Company
completed its Secondary Public Offering ("SPO").  In connection
with its SPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and
Prospectus (collectively referred to as the "Registration
Statement") with the SEC.  The Registration Statement
incorporated by reference the Company's December 13, 2007 press
release detailing the results of the Study.  The SPO was a
financial success for the Company, as it sold more than 5
million shares of stock to investors at a price of $27 per
share, for gross proceeds of $135 million.

     Thereafter, defendants continued to tout the positive
results of the Phase II clinical trial of R788.  However, on
October 27, 2008 the Company shocked investors when it presented
the full results of the Study at a meeting of the American
College of Rheumatology ("ACR") and on an investor conference
call.  Those results contained adverse information that had been
omitted form the Company's December 13, 2007 press release and
Form 8-K, as well as from the Registration Statement and the
subsequent presentations.  Specifically, the Company disclosed
that certain patients in the clinical trial taking the compound
experienced an increase in blood pressure.  Upon the release of
this news, shares of the Company's stock plummeted $5.57 per
share, or 38 percent, to close on October 28, 2008 at $8.84 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com


ROYAL BANK: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (www.pomerantzlaw.com) is
filing a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors who purchased 6.125% Series R Non-cumulative Dollar
Preference Shares (the "Series R Shares") offered to the public
by The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS") (NYSE:RBS) in
December 2006 and purchased any time thereafter.  The lawsuit
names as defendants RBS, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ("Royal
Bank," a subsidiary of RBS), RBS senior officers and directors,
and underwriters of the Series R Shares.

     RBS is the holding company of one of the world's largest
banking and financial services groups.  Headquartered in
Edinburgh, Scotland, RBS operates in the United Kingdom, the
United States, and internationally through its two principal
subsidiaries, the Royal Bank and NatWest. Both the Royal Bank
and NatWest are major United Kingdom-based clearing banks.

     RBS offered the Series R Shares by means of a prospectus
that contained both material misstatements and omissions.  At
the time of the offering, RBS was suffering from several adverse
factors that were not revealed to prospective investors.

These adversities included:

       -- RBS's extensive portfolio of asset backed securities,
          including collateralized debt obligations, was
          impaired to a much larger extent than RBS had
          disclosed;

       -- RBS failed to properly record losses for these
          impaired assets;

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

       -- RBS's capital base was inadequate to withstand the
          significant deterioration in the subprime market.

     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. This caused the price of the Series R
Shares to decline sharply.

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529


UBS AG: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD -- (eMediaWorld - February 20, 2009) --
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of UBS AG ("UBS") (NYSE: UBS) between
May 4, 2004 and January 26, 2009.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that its strategy to
attract "Net New Money," touted by the Company as a primary
indicator of the Company's performance and future prospects, was
accomplished through a fraudulent scheme to help ultra high net
worth U.S. investors evade federal taxes by secreting billions
of dollars of their funds in "undeclared" Swiss bank accounts.

     According to the complaint, when the scheme was finally
uncovered by U.S. authorities and UBS began disclosing the true
nature of its Swiss banking business, the value of UBS's stock
declined significantly.

    No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *