CAR_Public/090225.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, February 25, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 39

                           Headlines

BLUEGREEN CORP: Wis. Court Certifies Class in FLSA Litigation
CARDINAL HEALTH: Unable to Predict Recovery from Antitrust Suits
CHASE BANK: Girard Gibbs Files Lawsuits Over Increased Fees, ASC
CHINESE DRYWALL: Leopold~Kuvin, P.A. Files Litigation in Florida
LML PAYMENT: Unit Faces Appeal to Junked DPPA Violations Lawsuit

MOODY'S CORP: N.Y. Court Nixes Claims, Allows Amended Complaint
NBTY INC: False Advertising Suit v. MET-Rx in N.J. Still Stayed
NBTY INC: Suit by Calif. Nutrition Bars Consumers Remain Stayed
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal to ADESF's Right to Sue Pending in Brazil
PHILIP MORRIS: Price-fixing Antitrust Suit in Kans. in Discovery

PHILIP MORRIS: Discovery Ongoing in Canadian Suit Over Cancer
PHILIP MORRIS: "Letourneau" Smoking Addiction Case in Discovery
PHILIP MORRIS: Personal Injury Suit Moved to Sao Paulo Court
PHILIP MORRIS: Smokers' Complaint in Bulgaria Not Yet Served
PHILIP MORRIS: Suits Over "Lights" Cigarettes Pending in Israel

RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Securities Law Violations
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Wash. Over 2008 Data Breach
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Lawsuit Over Inflated Prices
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over "High" Ticket Prices


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Suit Filing
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
INTREPID POTASH: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

BLUEGREEN CORP: Wis. Court Certifies Class in FLSA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     MILWAUKEE, Wis. -- 02/23/09 -- On February 20, 2009, the
Western District Court of Wisconsin conditionally certified a
collective class action of commissions-only sales
representatives who are denied overtime compensation and minimum
wage because their employer Bluegreen Corporation improperly
classifies them as exempt from protection under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

     In its decision, the Court rejected Bluegreen's argument
that the employees' varying work hours defeated conditional
certification.  The Court noted that "it is reasonable to infer
that defendant and its sales directors did not apply FLSA's
minimum wage or overtime rules to its 'commission-only' sales
representatives; 'commission-only' means 'commission-only.'"

Bluegreen also asked the court to limit certification to the
geographical areas where plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs
worked.  The Court declined to do so, holding that "[w]here an
apparent company-wide policy is behind the alleged FLSA
violations, the plaintiff seeking certification for a company-
wide class action should not be required to collect specific
violations for each location or from each state before seeking
authorization to provide notice to employees from all
locations."

According to Matt Morgan, plaintiffs' attorney, "Bluegreen
improperly classifies its commission-only sales representatives,
and in doing so denies them of overtime compensation and minimum
wages they are entitled to under the law.  We now intend to
notify these workers of their rights and to retrieve for them
this long overdue compensation."

     The case is entitled, "Kelly v. BlueGreen Corp., No. 08-cv-
401 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)."  Plaintiffs are represented by
Matt Morgan, Paul Lukas, Don Nichols, and Rebekah Bailey from
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, which has offices in Minneapolis,
Minnesota and San Francisco, California.

For more details, contact:

          Matt Morgan
          Nichols Kaster, PLLP
          Phone: (877) 448-0492 or (612) 256-3243
          Web site: http://www.overtimecases.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Unable to Predict Recovery from Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. is unable at this time to estimate future
recoveries, if any, it will receive as a result of certain
antitrust class actions, according to its Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company recognized income of $0.2 million during the six
months ended Dec. 31, 2007, resulting from settlement of class-
action antitrust claims alleging certain prescription drug
manufacturers took improper actions to delay or prevent generic
drug competition.

The company has not been a named plaintiff in any of these class
actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class
(i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these drug
manufacturers).

The total recovery of such claims through Dec. 31, 2008, was
$151.8 million (net of attorney fees, payments due to other
interested parties and expenses withheld).

Cardinal Health, Inc. -- http://www.cardinal.com/-- is a global
company serving the healthcare industry.  Cardinal Health's
distribution businesses consolidate pharmaceuticals and medical
products from thousands of manufacturers into site-specific
deliveries to retail pharmacies, hospitals, physician offices,
surgery centers and alternate care facilities.  Cardinal Health
is a provider of specialized nuclear pharmaceuticals, delivering
more than 13 million doses each year to hospitals and outpatient
care centers.  Cardinal Health also manufactures medication
infusion and dispensing products, respiratory equipment and
surgical instruments.  On July 8, 2008, the Company announced a
reorganization and the consolidation of its businesses into two
primary segments: the Healthcare Supply Chain Services and
Clinical and Medical Products segments.  On May 12, 2008, the
Company acquired Enturia Inc.  On Aug. 1, 2008, the Company
completed the acquisition of Borschow Hospital & Medical
Supplies, Inc.


CHASE BANK: Girard Gibbs Files Lawsuits Over Increased Fees, ASC
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:17:41 GMT -- SAN FRANCISCO -- (Business
Wire) -- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Chase Bank USA, N.A. after the credit
card issuer more than doubled minimum monthly payments and
imposed an "Account Service Charge" on customers who had
accepted its fixed-rate balance transfer offers.

     The class action complaint alleges that Chase induced
preferred customers to take out sizable balance-transfer loans
by offering 2.99% to 4.99% promotional rates that would remain
fixed for the life of the loan.  It is alleged that after
soliciting these long term loans and charging transaction fees
of up to 3% of the loan amount Chase implemented a "forced
loan modification program" to coerce consumers to surrender the
benefit of their fixed promotional rates.  Chase has recently
notified customers that unless they pay off their entire loan
balance within 30 days or accept a higher annual rate, Chase
will more than double their required minimum monthly payment and
charge a $10 fee for each month that the loan remains
outstanding.

     "At this point, it appears that the people who are subject
to the loan modification program are those who have consistently
made timely loan payments and otherwise met their obligations,"
said Eric Gibbs, a lawyer who represents the plaintiffs.
"Chase's conduct is having a real impact on our clients.  There
is no bailout on their horizon, as they are people who made
prudent decisions with respect to managing their debt and paid
their bills on time.  They are now being penalized for doing
so."

     The number of Chase customers that could be affected by the
class action lawsuit remains unclear, but comments by Chase put
the upper limit at 500,000 people.  Chase has not yet formally
responded to the lawsuit, but has asserted that because of legal
doctrines such as preemption and mandatory individual
arbitration, its conduct is not subject to court scrutiny.

     "The reality is that these legal doctrines preemption and
mandatory individual arbitration strip people of their
fundamental rights and the ability to make sure their agreements
are honored," said Gibbs.  "We are hopeful that in this case,
our clients will get their day in court."


For more information, contact:

          Eric Gibbs
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/chase.asp


CHINESE DRYWALL: Leopold~Kuvin, P.A. Files Litigation in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Leopold~Kuvin, P.A. of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida has filed a purported class-action lawsuit over the
installation of apparently defective Chinese drywall, Mary
Wozniak of The News-Press reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 22, 2009 on behalf of a Martin County
couple who had to move out of their town house due to the
drywall, Gregory Weiss, an attorney for the firm who is handling
the case told The News-Press.

The drywall is said by building experts to have been used
between 2004 and 2007 due to a shortage in building materials in
the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Wilma.  It is suspected of
causing corrosion of metals inside homes, a noxious smell, and
possible long term health problems, according to The News-Press
report.

For more details, contact:

          Leopold~Kuvin, P.A.
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Phone: 561-935-4801 or 888-376-1253
          Fax: 561-515-1401


LML PAYMENT: Unit Faces Appeal to Junked DPPA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of LML Payment Systems, Inc., continues to face the
appeal from the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, alleging violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection
Act.

DPPA regulates the use of personal information such as driver's
license numbers and home addresses contained in motor vehicle
records held by motor vehicle departments, by not having a
permissible use in obtaining the State of Texas' entire database
of names, addresses and other personal information.

In the case, which was originally filed on Jan. 12, 2007, the
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, $2,500 for each
instance in which the defendants obtained, disclosed or used
personal information, and are claiming that because the Texas
database includes the information of approximately 20 million
persons, that the mere act of improperly obtaining that database
constitutes 20 million violations of the statute by each
defendant.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that a provider of
check verification services (such as LML) should not be allowed
to obtain and use Texas' entire driver's license database for
the purpose of enabling merchants to check driver's licenses or
other forms of identification at the point of sale, and that
instead providers of check verification services should only be
allowed to obtain the driver's license numbers of individuals at
the time that such individual presents his or her driver's
license to a merchant (in other words, plaintiffs allege that
when a customer gets to the cashier and presents a driver's
license to the merchant for the purpose of enabling the merchant
to verify such person's identity when such person is using a
credit card or check to purchase goods or services, that this is
the first time at which it would be appropriate for a provider
of check verification services to obtain such driver's license
number from the state of Texas).

During the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008, the complaint was
dismissed with prejudice.

During the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, the plaintiffs
appealed 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.

LML Payment Systems Inc. -- http://www.lmlpayment.com/-- is a
financial payment processor that primarily provides consumer
financial payment processing solutions to retailers and other
clients in the U.S.


MOODY'S CORP: N.Y. Court Nixes Claims, Allows Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed certain claims in a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit against Moody's Corp., but gave plaintiffs
the green light to file a second amended complaint, Law360
reports.

Initially, two purported class-action complaints have been filed
by purported purchasers of the company's securities against the
company and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims
under the federal securities laws (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
30, 2008).

The first was filed by Raphael Nach in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19, 2007.  The
second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Sept. 26, 2007.

Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding,
entitled "In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:07-cv-08375-SWK," in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
securities during the period from Feb. 3, 2006, through Oct. 24,
2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business conduct,
business prospects, business conditions and financial results
relating primarily to MIS's ratings of structured finance
products including RMBS, CDO and constant-proportion debt
obligations.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
connection with the case (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

The suit is "In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:07-cv-08375-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq.
          (fgerkens@glancylaw.com)
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1430 Broadway, Suite 1603
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-382-2221
          Fax: 212-382-3944

          Ira M. Press, Esq. (ipress@kmllp.com)
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          Fax: 212-751-2540

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Hinerfeld, Esq. (bhinerfeld@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants is:

          Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. (nelless@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-558-4976
          Fax: 212-558-3338


NBTY INC: False Advertising Suit v. MET-Rx in N.J. Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit filed in New Jersey against
NBTY, Inc.'s subsidiary, MET-Rx USA, Inc., remains stayed
pending the outcome of a virtually identical putative nationwide
class-action in California.

In March 2004, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in New
Jersey against MET-Rx, claiming that the advertising and
marketing of certain prohormone supplements were false and
misleading and that plaintiff and the putative class of New
Jersey purchasers of these products were entitled to damages and
injunctive relief.

Because these allegations are virtually identical to allegations
made in a putative nationwide class-action previously filed in
California, the company moved to dismiss or stay the New Jersey
action pending the outcome of the California action.  The motion
was granted, and the New Jersey action is stayed at this time,
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.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a vertically integrated
manufacturer, marketer and retailer of a line of nutritional
supplements in the United States and throughout the world.  The
company markets approximately 25,000 products under numerous
brands, including Nature's Bounty, Vitamin World, Pure Protein,
Body Fortress, Puritan's Pride, Holland & Barrett, Rexall, Osteo
Bi-Flex, Flex-A-Min, Knox, Sundown, MET-Rx, WORLDWIDE Sport
Nutrition, American Health, DeTuinen, Le Naturiste, SISU,
Solgar, Physiologics and Ester-C.  The company's vertical
integration includes the purchase of raw materials, formulation
and manufacture of products, which it markets through the four
channels of distribution: Wholesale/United States Nutrition,
North American Retail, European Retail and Direct Response/E-
Commerce.


NBTY INC: Suit by Calif. Nutrition Bars Consumers Remain Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit filed by various California consumers
against NBTY, Inc.'s subsidiary, Rexall Sundown, Inc. and
certain of its subsidiaries remains stayed, 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.

Rexall, and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in the
class-action lawsuit brought in 2002, on behalf of all
California consumers who bought various nutrition bars.

The plaintiffs allege misbranding of nutrition bars and
violations of California unfair competition statutes, misleading
advertising and other similar causes of action.   They seek
restitution, legal fees and injunctive relief.

In December 2007, while Rexall's and the other defendants'
renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending, the
Court again stayed the case for all purposes, pending rulings on
other relevant cases before the California Supreme Court.

The California Supreme Court issued a ruling in those other
cases on Feb. 11, 2008.  The parties to those other cases filed
a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  That
petition was denied on Jan. 12, 2009.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a vertically integrated
manufacturer, marketer and retailer of a line of nutritional
supplements in the United States and throughout the world.  The
company markets approximately 25,000 products under numerous
brands, including Nature's Bounty, Vitamin World, Pure Protein,
Body Fortress, Puritan's Pride, Holland & Barrett, Rexall, Osteo
Bi-Flex, Flex-A-Min, Knox, Sundown, MET-Rx, WORLDWIDE Sport
Nutrition, American Health, DeTuinen, Le Naturiste, SISU,
Solgar, Physiologics and Ester-C.  The company's vertical
integration includes the purchase of raw materials, formulation
and manufacture of products, which it markets through the four
channels of distribution: Wholesale/United States Nutrition,
North American Retail, European Retail and Direct Response/E-
Commerce.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal to ADESF's Right to Sue Pending in Brazil
---------------------------------------------------------------
A constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Court remains
pending in the class-action lawsuit, captioned "The Smoker
Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. And
Philip Morris Marketing, S.A.," which named a subsidiary of
Philip Morris International, Inc., as a defendant.

The complaint was filed in the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of
the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo,
Brazil, on July 25, 1995.

The class-action complaint alleged personal injury in relation
to smoking.  The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking
damages for smokers and former smokers, as well as injunctive
relief.

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff in February
2004.  In April 2004, the trial court issued a decision that
clarified that the amount of "moral damages" is BRL1,000
(approximately $560) per smoker per full year of smoking plus
interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the
ruling.  Actual damages are to be assessed in a second phase of
the case.

The size of the class cannot be currently estimated.  The
defendants appealed the decision to the Sao Paulo Court of
Appeals and the case, including the judgment, is currently
stayed pending appeal.

On Nov. 12, 2008, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals annulled the
ruling finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled
without hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial
court for further proceedings.

In addition, the defendants have filed a constitutional appeal
to the Federal Supreme Court on the basis that the consumer
association did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.  This
appeal is still pending, according to the company's Current
Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated Feb. 9, 2009.

New York, New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Price-fixing Antitrust Suit in Kans. in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit in Kansas, alleging that Philip
Morris USA, Inc., conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation
of antitrust laws is in discovery.

In the antitrust class-action case in Kansas, "Smith v. Philip
Morris Companies, Inc., et al.," District Court of Seward
County, Kansas, filed Feb. 7, 2000, the company and other
members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant cigarette companies
engaged in an international conspiracy to fix wholesale prices
of cigarettes and sought certification of a class comprised of
all persons in Kansas who were indirect purchasers of cigarettes
from the defendants.

The plaintiff claims unspecified economic damages resulting from
the alleged price-fixing, trebling of those damages under the
Kansas price-fixing statute and counsel fees.

The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification and refused to permit the defendants to appeal.

The case is now in the discovery phase, and no trial date has
yet been set, according to the company's Current Report on Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated Feb. 9, 2009.

New York, New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Discovery Ongoing in Canadian Suit Over Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit captioned, "Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac
Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.," which
names Philip Morris International, Inc.'s subsidiary as a
defendant, is in discovery.

In the class-action case filed in November 1998, in the Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, the company's subsidiary and two other
Canadian manufacturers are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages for each member of the class who
suffers from lung, larynx or throat cancer, or emphysema.

The class was certified in 2005.

Discovery is ongoing; no trial date has been set, according to
the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Feb. 9, 2009.

New York, New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Letourneau" Smoking Addiction Case in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit styled, "Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald
Corp.," which names Philip Morris International, Inc.'s
subsidiary as a defendant, is in discovery.

In the class-action case pending in Quebec Superior Court,
Canada, filed in September 1998, the company's subsidiary and
two other Canadian manufacturers are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages for each member of the class who is
deemed "addicted" to smoking.

The class was certified in 2005.

Defendants' motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds
was denied on May 5, 2008.

Discovery is ongoing; no trial date has been set, according to
the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Feb. 9, 2009.

New York, New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Personal Injury Suit Moved to Sao Paulo Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Public Prosecutor
of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda,"
which names a subsidiary of Philip Morris International, Inc.,
as a defendant has been transferred to the Nineteenth Lower
Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of
Sao Paulo, Brazil.

A subsidiary of Philip Morris International, Inc., is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in Brazil, generally alleging
personal injury in relation to smoking, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The class-action lawsuit generally alleging personal injury in
relation to smoking was filed in the Civil Court of the City of
Sao Paolo, Brazil, on Aug. 6, 2007, against a subsidiary of the
company.

The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo,
is seeking:

       -- unspecified damages on behalf of all smokers
          nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives;

       -- unspecified damages on behalf of people exposed to
          environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and
          their relatives; and

       -- reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly
          incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
          by all 27 States, approximately 5,000 Municipalities,
          and the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only.

The company's subsidiary was served with the claim in February
2008, and filed its answer to the complaint on March 10, 2008.

According to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Feb. 9,
2009, on Dec. 12, 2008, the trial court issued a decision
declaring that it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case
to the 19th Civil Court in Sao Paulo where the class action
suit, captioned "The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF)
v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A.," is
pending.

New York, New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Smokers' Complaint in Bulgaria Not Yet Served
------------------------------------------------------------
The subsidiaries of Philip Morris International, Inc., which
were named as defendants in a purported class-action lawsuit in
Bulgaria, entitled, "Yochkolovski v. Sofia BT AD, et al.," have
not yet been served with the complaint.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in the Sofia City Court,
Bulgaria, on March 12, 2008.

The plaintiff brought a collective claim on behalf of a class of
smokers who were allegedly misled by the tar and nicotine yields
printed on cigarette packs and who suffered personal injuries as
a result of increasing their consumption of cigarettes.

The suit seeks damages for economic loss, pain and suffering and
medical treatment as well as withdrawal from the market of all
cigarettes that allegedly do not comply with the tar and
nicotine labeling requirements, until such time as they do
comply.

The court ruled initially that the claim failed to meet certain
formal requirements.  Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeal
reversed the decision and returned the case to the trial court.
The trial court accepted the claim and ordered the plaintiff to
proceed with service.

However, on Sept. 24, 2008, a newly appointed judge issued a
ruling that again dismissed the claim, finding that it was
inadmissible because the plaintiff lacked the capacity to bring
the claim as a class action.  On Oct. 14, 2008, plaintiff filed
an appeal against the dismissal.

On Nov. 10, 2008, the Sofia Appellate Court granted plaintiff's
second appeal, finding that the trial court had not given
plaintiff the opportunity to establish his capacity to bring the
claim, and returned the case to the trial court.

On Dec. 2, 2008, the trial court dismissed the claims related to
youth marketing, because plaintiff is not a member of the class
of youth smokers and thus cannot represent the class.  The court
additionally ordered the plaintiff to make more specific
allegations against each defendant and provide the court with
certain documentation to establish his capacity to bring the
claim.

The company's subsidiaries have not been served with the
complaint, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
Feb. 9, 2009.

New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Suits Over "Lights" Cigarettes Pending in Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Philip Morris International, Inc.,
continue to face purported class-action lawsuits in Israel over
the notion that Lights cigarettes are safer than full flavor
cigarettes, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
Feb. 9, 2009.

                       El-Roy Litigation

The first class-action complaint is entitled "El-Roy, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.," which was filed before the
District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, on Jan. 18, 2004,
against a subsidiary of the company, and and its indemnitees --
PM USA and its former importer, Menache H. Eliachar Ltd.

The suit was brought on behalf of a class of individual
plaintiffs who allege that the use of the term "lights"
constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.  The plaintiffs
claim that the class members were misled by the descriptor
"lights" into believing that Lights cigarettes are safer than
full flavor cigarettes.  The claim seeks recovery of the
purchase price of Lights cigarettes and compensation for
distress for each class member.

Hearings took place in November 2008 regarding whether the case
meets the legal requirements necessary to allow it to proceed as
a class action.  The parties will now file final briefs on class
certification.

                        Navon Litigation

The second class-action proceeding is entitled "Navon, et al. v.
Philip Morris Products USA, et al.," which was filed in the
District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, on Dec. 5, 2004.

Its claims are similar to those in "El-Roy," and thus the case
is currently stayed pending a class certification ruling in "El-
Roy."

                       Numberg Litigation

The third class-action proceeding is entitled "Numberg, et al.
v. Philip Morris Products S.A., et al.," which was filed in the
District Court of Tel Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, on May 19, 2008.

The company's subsidiaries and its indemnitee (the company's
distributor M.H. Eliashar Distribution Ltd.) and other members
of the industry are named as defendants.

The plaintiffs filed a purported class-action lawsuit claiming
that the class members were misled by pack colors, terms such as
"slims" or "super slims" or "blue," and text describing tar and
nicotine yields.  They allege that these pack features misled
consumers to believe that the cigarettes are safer than full
flavor cigarettes.

The plaintiffs seek recovery of the price of the brands at issue
that were purchased from Dec. 31, 2004, to the date of filing of
the claim.  They also seek compensation for mental anguish and
punitive damages.

The company's subsidiary, Philip Morris Ltd. and its indemnitee,
M.H. Eliashar Distribution Ltd., have been served with the
claim.  The company's subsidiary, Philip Morris Products S.A.,
has not yet been served.

New York, New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc. faces a purported class-action
lawsuit alleging various securities law violations.

The company is named in a class-action suit similar to that
filed against a number of brokerage firms alleging various
securities law violations.

No further details regarding the securities suit 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.

Raymond James Financial, Inc. -- http://www.raymondjames.com/--
is a holding company whose subsidiaries are engaged in various
financial services businesses in the United States of America
and Canada.  Its principal subsidiaries include Raymond James &
Associates, Inc. (RJA), Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
(RJFS), Raymond James Ltd. (RJ Ltd.), Eagle Asset Management,
Inc. (Eagle), Heritage Asset Management, Inc. (Heritage) and
Raymond James Bank, FSB (RJBank).  The company has eight
business segments: Private Client Group, Capital Markets, Asset
Management, RJBank, Emerging Markets, Stock Loan/Borrow,
Proprietary Capital and certain corporate activities combined in
the Other segment.


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Wash. Over 2008 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit in
Washington that was filed by an employee who is claiming damages
from an October 2008 data breach, Robert McMillan of IDG News
Service reports.

Laura Krottner was one of 97,000 employees notified late last
year after a Starbucks laptop containing employee names,
addresses and Social Security numbers was stolen on Oct. 29,
2008.  Ms. Krottner's suit accuses the company of fraud and
negligence, according to IDG News Service.

The lawsuit was on Feb, 19, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington under the caption, "Krottner
v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 2:09-cv-00216-RAJ."

The company has offered employees one-year's free credit
monitoring and protection, but Ms. Krottner is asking the court
to extend that to five years.  She is also seeking unspecified
damages and asking that Starbucks be ordered to submit to
periodic security audits of its computer systems.

According to the comaplaint, a copy of which was obtained by IDG
News Service, "Starbucks failed to follow reasonable precautions
to secure its employees' [personally identifiable information],
failed to provide timely notice, and failed to protect employees
from invasion of privacy, fraud, identity theft, and associated
expenses."  It added that Ms. Krottner and the other employees
must now spend "considerable time and money to protect
themselves," from identity theft.

Though the company was unable to immediately comment on the
lawsuit, it did tell IDG News Service that it has seen no fraud
linked to the incident, according to its breach notification
letter.

However, the lawsuit states that lately chatter on some
Starbucks message boards shows that there have been some ID
theft victims as a result of the incident, reports IDG News
Service.

The suit is "Krottner v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 2:09-
cv-00216-RAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Judge Richard A. Jones, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          (gcappio@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave.
          Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          Fax: 206-623-3384


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Lawsuit Over Inflated Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
     TORONTO, Feb. 23 /CNW/ - An additional Class Action lawsuit
was commenced on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 against Ticketmaster
Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster Canada Ltd., TNOW
Entertainment Group, Inc., and Premium Inventory, Inc. (the
"Defendants") in Alberta claiming the Defendants conspired to
divert tickets to popular events away from Ticketmaster's lower
priced portal available to the general public
(http://www.ticketmaster.ca),in favour of its ticket brokering
website http://www.ticketsnow.com,in which the same tickets
were sold at premium prices.

     This lawsuit is brought in conjunction with lawsuits
already commenced in Ontario and Manitoba by Sutts Strosberg LLP
and Branch MacMaster, and contends that the practice of selling
tickets in the secondary market for amounts that exceed their
face price contravenes Section 25 of the Province of Alberta's
Amusements Act which states, "no person shall sell, barter or
exchange a ticket of admission to a place of amusement for a
price or consideration greater than that paid or given for it to
the owner of the place to which it authorizes admission."

     The lawsuit was initiated by a plaintiff who attempted to
purchase tickets for Toby Keith's October 8, 2008 performance at
Rexall Place in Edmonton, Alberta on the first day the tickets
went on sale.  The Plaintiff made several attempts over two days
purchase the tickets through Ticketmaster Canada's website.
After that time, the Plaintiff managed to access the
Ticketmaster Canada website, but she was automatically
redirected to TicketsNow's website.  She purchased one ticket,
and was charged a total of $219.15, including $29.95 for
"delivery" and $25.80 "service charge".  The face price of the
ticket was not disclosed to her before she completed the
transaction.  When she received the ticket, she realized that
the face price was $79.95, resulting in an overcharge of
$139.20.  Later that month, she attempted to locate another
ticket for Toby Keith's performance on Ticketmaster Canada's
website.  To the Plaintiff's surprise, she was able to locate a
ticket for the same performance.  She purchased the ticket for
$97.11, including $0.26 "facility charge", $11.00 "convenience
charge", $1.35 for "TicketFast delivery" and $4.35 "order
processing fee". The face price of the ticket was $79.75.

     "We were inundated with calls from consumers in Alberta who
hoped to participate in the Ontario lawsuit," said Luciana
Brasil of Branch MacMaster, one of the lawyers representing the
Plaintiff. "The legislation in Alberta is similar to that in
Ontario, and we hope that the judiciary will agree with our
allegation that making tickets available in the secondary market
contravenes the legislation in the province", said Clint Docken,
of Docken & Company, who is also representing the Plaintiff.

     The class action is commenced on behalf of all persons who
purchased tickets for an event in Alberts through TicketsNow.com
from and after February 17 , 2007.

For more details visit http://www.ticketmasterclassaction.com.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over "High" Ticket Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
     TORONTO, Feb. 23 /CNW/ - An additional Class Action lawsuit
was commenced on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 against Ticketmaster
Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster Canada Ltd., TNOW
Entertainment Group, Inc., and Premium Inventory, Inc. (the
"Defendants") in Manitoba, claiming the Defendants conspired to
divert tickets to popular events away from Ticketmaster's lower
priced portal available to the general public
(http://www.ticketmaster.ca),in favor of its ticket brokering
website http://www.ticketsnow.com,in which the same tickets
were sold at premium prices.

     The lawsuit is brought in conjunction with similar lawsuits
brought in Ontario and in Alberta by Sutts Strosberg LLP and
Branch MacMaster, and contends that the practice of selling
tickets in the secondary market for amounts that exceed their
face price contravenes Section 60 of the Province of Manitoba's
Amusements Act which states, "no person shall sell, barter or
exchange for any thing any ticket of admission to a place of
amusement for a price or consideration greater than that paid or
given therefor to the owner of the place of amusement to which
it is an admission."

     The lawsuit was initiated by a plaintiff who alleges that
she attempted, with her daughter of minor age, to purchase four
tickets to Carrie Underwood's December 2, 2008 concert at MTS
Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba.  The Plaintiff, and her daughter
had obtained a "pre-sale password" from a local radio station.
They made numerous attempts to purchase the tickets on the
Ticketmaster, but each time were redirected to the TicketsNow
website.  After several unsuccessful attempts, her daughter was
redirected to the TicketsNow website where the words "Row 2,
$193" appeared.  Believing that $193 was reasonable for four
tickets, she completed the transaction using her mother's credit
card. The Plaintiff was charged a total of $917.75 including
"service charges" and a "delivery charge."  She called
TicketsNow in an attempt to have the charge reversed, but her
request was denied.  When she received her credit card
statement, she realized that she was also charged in US
currency, and after conversion to Canadian currency the total
charge was $1010.05, resulting in an overcharge of $195.50 per
ticket. The face value price of each ticket was $57.00.

     "We have heard hundreds of similar stories from consumers
across Canada who allege the process in which tickets are sold
on the Ticketmaster and TicketsNow website contravenes specific
legislation in their province," said Luciana Brasil of Branch
MacMaster, one of the lawyers representing the Plaintiff.

     "The Manitoba legislation exists to govern the process by
which tickets are sold, and we are hopeful the courts will take
a serious look into this issue," said Matthew Maruca, of Wilder
Wilder & Langtry, who is also representing the Plaintiff.

     The class action is commenced on behalf of all persons who
purchased tickets for an event in Manitoba through
TicketsNow.com from and after February 17, 2007.

For more details visit http://www.ticketmasterclassaction.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb 23, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Faruqi
& Faruqi, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama on behalf of all purchasers of The Colonial
BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the "Company") securities between
December 2, 2008 and January 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class
Period".)

     The complaint alleges that Colonial and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's participation in the United States Treasury
Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP").

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on December 2,
2008, the Company announced that the United States Treasury had
approved an application for a $553 million preferred equity
investment through TARP.  In response, shares of the Company's
common stock rallied 50%.

     On January 27, 2009, however, Colonial announced for the
first time that the TARP funding was contingent upon Colonial
raising $300 million in capital on its own. Upon this
revelation, Colonial's stock price collapsed 46% on January 28,
2009, a day that was in fact a very favorable trading day for
other bank stocks.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
Colonial securities between December 2, 2008 through January 27,
2009, excluding defendants and their affiliates.

For more details, contact:

          Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. (Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     February 23, 2009: 07:03 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 Middle
District of Alabama on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of The Colonial BancGroup,
Inc. (NYSE: CNB) between January 23, 2008 and January 27, 2009,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     On January 27, 2009, 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 Colonial 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.  During the Class Period, Colonial's stock traded as high
as $16.06 per share in February 2008.

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


INTREPID POTASH: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Feb 23, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of
Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid Potash" or the "Company"), has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Intrepid Potash pursuant and/or
traceable to the Prospectus and Registration Statement
(collectively the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Company's Initial Public Offering on April 21, 2008 (the
"IPO").

     The Complaint charges Intrepid Potash and certain of the
Company's current and former executive officers 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 Registration Statement
contained false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
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.

     On February 11, 2009, the Fraud Discovery Institute
revealed that Intrepid Potash's President and COO had
misrepresented his educational qualifications in the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
IPO.  In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock
declined $1.52 per share, to close on February 11, 2009, at
$22.00 per share, which represented a cumulative loss of
approximately 31% of the value of the Company's shares at the
time of its IPO just months earlier.

     On February 11, 2009, Intrepid Potash disclosed that the
Company's President and COO was resigning. A Company-issued
press release stated that the "misrepresentation of his academic
credentials was a violation under the Company's Code of Business
Conduct."

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847


                            *********

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  * * *