CAR_Public/090226.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 40

                           Headlines

BEAZER HOMES: Briefing of Motion to Dismiss Suit to End in March
BEAZER HOMES: Pursues Dismissal of RESPA Violations Suit in N.C.
BEAZER HOMES: Pursuing Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit
BEAZER HOMES: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in RESPA Action
CITY OF PHOENIX: Iraq Veteran Files Suit Over Stabbing Incident

COOK COUNTY: Ill. Judge Favors Ex-Inmates Ill. Strip Search Suit
CORVEL CORP: Faces Lawsuit by Illinois Health Care Providers
DVI INC: April 15 Hearing Set for $7M Settlement in Pa. Lawsuit
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Plans Vigorous Defense v. Data Breach Suits
INTEGRATED SILICON: 3 SRAM Direct Purchaser Suits Remain Pending

SCOUT.COM LLC: July 14 Hearing Set for $5M Wash. Suit Settlement
SYMANTEC CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Junked in 3Q08
SYMANTEC CORP: Objector's Appeal to Fees in Settlement Pending
TELLABS INC: Ill. Judge Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: May 27 Hearing Set for $5.35M Suit Settlement

TOYOTA MOTOR: To Seek Consolidation of Reese-Levering Lawsuits
UGI CORP: Unit Continues to Face 2 Suits by The Swigers in W.Va.
WAL-MART STORES: Mo. Judge Approves Wage, Hour Suit Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit in Colo.


                           *********

BEAZER HOMES: Briefing of Motion to Dismiss Suit to End in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing of the motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Beazer Homes USA, Inc.,
and certain of its current and former executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is
expected to be completed in March 2009.

The company and certain of its current and former executive
officers are named as defendants in a putative securities class-
action suit filed on March 29, 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of Beazer Homes' common stock between July 27,
2006, and March 27, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects because the company did not disclose facts related to
alleged improper lending practices in its mortgage origination
business.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages.

Two additional lawsuits were subsequently filed on May 18 and
21, 2007, before the same district court, asserting similar
factual allegations and proposing class periods of July 28,
2005, through March 27, 2007, and March 30, 2005, through March
27, 2007, respectively.

The three cases were subsequently consolidated by the court and
the court appointed Glickenhaus & Co. and Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiffs.

On June 27, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended and
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws, which purports to assert claims on behalf of a
class of persons and entities that purchased or acquired the
securities of Beazer Homes during the period Jan. 27, 2005,
through May 12, 2008.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts a claim against the
defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company business and prospects, including, among other things,
alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to alleged
improper lending practices in the company's mortgage origination
business, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to
improper revenue recognition and other accounting improprieties
and alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
company's land investments and inventory.

The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims against the
Individual Defendants under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Exchange Act.

The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that the suit is
properly maintained as a class action, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  Briefing of the
motion is expected to be completed in March 2009, according to
the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The suit is "Eugene Kratz, et al. v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milberg.com)
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-594-5300

          Krissi T. Gore, Esq. (KGore@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

               - and -

          Francis P. Karam, Esq. (karam@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com)
          Cravath Swaine & Moore
          825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide Plaza
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Phone: 212-474-1227


BEAZER HOMES: Pursues Dismissal of RESPA Violations Suit in N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and subsidiaries Beazer Homes Corp. and
Beazer Mortgage Corp., continue to pursue the dismissal of the
purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of Real
Estate Settlement Practices Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat.
Section 75-1.1.

The putative class-action suit was filed on April 8, 2008,
before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.  The complaint alleges that Beazer violated the Real
Estate Settlement Practices Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat.
Section 75-1.1 by:

       -- improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned
          mortgage and settlement services as part of a down
          payment assistance program, and

       -- illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement
          services sold by Beazer Homes Corp.

The plaintiff also asserts that Beazer was unjustly enriched by
these alleged actions.

The purported class consists of all residents of North Carolina
who purchased a home from Beazer, using mortgage financing
provided by and through Beazer that included seller-funded down
payment assistance, between Jan. 1, 2000, and Oct. 11, 2007.

The complaint demands an unspecified amount of damages, various
forms of equitable relief, treble damages, attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 4, 2008.
On July 25, 2008, in lieu of a response to the dismissal motion,
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The company has moved
to dismiss the amended complaint, 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 suit is "Davis v. Beazer Homes U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No.
1:08-cv-00247-UA-PTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel Kent Bryson, Esq. (akf@lewis-roberts.com)
          Lewis & Roberts, PLLC
          POB 17529
          Raleigh, NV 27619
          Phone: 919-981-0191
          Fax: 919-981-0431

Representing the defendants is:

          Kenneth D. Bell, Esq. (kbell@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams
          Bank of America Plaza
          101 S. Tryon St., Ste. 3500
          Charlotte, NC 28280
          Phone: 704-378-4834


BEAZER HOMES: Pursuing Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. pursues the dismissal of a consolidated
class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On April 30, 2007, a putative class-action complaint was filed
on behalf of a purported class consisting of present and former
participants and beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes 401(k) Plan,
naming Beazer Homes, certain of its current and former officers
and directors and the Benefits Administration Committee as
defendants.  The complaint was filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties, including those set
forth in ERISA as a result of the investment of retirement
monies held by the 401(k) Plan in common stock of Beazer Homes
at a time when participants were allegedly not provided timely,
accurate and complete information concerning Beazer Homes.

Four additional lawsuits were subsequently filed in May, June
and July 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, making similar allegations.

The court consolidated all five lawsuits and, on June 27, 2008,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants Beazer
Homes, its chief executive officer, certain current and former
directors of the company, including the members of the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and certain
employees of the company who acted as members of the company's
401(k) Committee.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  Briefing of the
motion was completed in January 2009, according to the company's
Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Beazer Homes USA, Inc. ERISA Litigation,
Case No. 1:07-cv-00952-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Richard W. Story,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Katherine B. Bornstein, Esq. (kbornstein@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-676-7706

               - and -

          Corey Daniel Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer, Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West
          Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-392-0090

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com)
          Cravath Swaine & Moore
          825 Eighth Avenue
          Worldwide Plaza
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Phone: 212-474-1227

               - and -

          John J. Dalton, Esq. (john.dalton@troutmansanders.com)
          Troutman Sanders, LLP
          Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3000


BEAZER HOMES: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in RESPA Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., Beazer Homes USA Inc., and Security
Title Insurance Co. have filed a motion to dismiss an amended
complaint in a purported class-action suit alleging violations
of Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA).

The suit was filed on March 12, 2008, in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Placer.  The complaint was
amended on June 2, 2008.

The purported class is defined as all persons who purchased a
home from the defendants or their affiliates, with the
assistance of a federally related mortgage loan, from March 25,
1999, to the present where Security Title Insurance Co. received
any money as a reinsurer of the transaction.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated RESPA and
asserts claims under a number of state statutes alleging that
the defendants engaged in a uniform and systematic practice of
giving and accepting fees and kickbacks to affiliated businesses
including affiliated and recommended title insurance companies.
It also alleges a number of common law claims.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages under
RESPA, unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages
and injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs.  The defendants removed the action to federal
court.

On Nov. 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
which substituted new named plaintiffs.  The company filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on Jan. 9, 2009,
according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- designs,
sells and builds primarily single-family homes in over 45
markets located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and
West Virginia.  Through Beazer Mortgage Corp., the Company
offered mortgage origination services to its homebuyers.  On
Feb. 1, 2008, Beazer effectively exited the mortgage origination
business.  In addition, it offers title insurance services to
its homebuyers in many of the Company's markets.  Beazer is a
diversified homebuilder with operations in 21 states.


CITY OF PHOENIX: Iraq Veteran Files Suit Over Stabbing Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Okon, a decorated Iraq war veteran has filed a class-
action lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, Arizona, over an
incident wherein he was stabbed by a deported illegal immigrant
in his very own front yard in 2006, Sandra Haros of KTAR
reports.

Mr. Okon and his wife filed a class action lawsuit against the
city and the Phoenix Police Department.  Some of the allegations
in this civil rights' action include gross negligence in the
enforcement of immigration laws and civil rights violations,
according to the KTAR report.

The suit alleges that the suspect had an active warrant and the
Phoenix Police Department knew about it at the time of the
attack, KTAR reported.


COOK COUNTY: Ill. Judge Favors Ex-Inmates Ill. Strip Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois has ruled in favor of
several thousand former Cook County Jail inmates who claimed
their rights were violated by being strip-searched in
humiliating conditions, The Chicago Tribune reports.

The class-action lawsuit alleges that over a period of years,
strip searches were conducted without regard to the seriousness
of the crime and that bodily fluids were present during these
searches for years, according to The Chicago Tribune report.

It also alleges that guards used abusive language that included
insults about anatomy, body odor and sexual orientation during
the strip searches, according to the complaint, a copy of which
was obtained by The Chicago Tribune.

The Chicago Tribune reported Judge Kennelly found the jail
humiliated inmates, with group searches with up to 100 inmates
at a time standing shoulder-to-shoulder in unsanitary
conditions, according to the news release issued by attorney
Michael Kanovitz, who filed the lawsuit.


CORVEL CORP: Faces Lawsuit by Illinois Health Care Providers
------------------------------------------------------------
CorVel Corp. intends to pursue all available legal remedies
including defending the putative class-action lawsuit filed by
Kathleen Roche, D.C., according to the company's Feb. 6, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a
putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial
District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the company.

The case seeks unspecified damages based on the company's
alleged failure to steer patients to medical providers who are
members of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleges that
the company used biased and arbitrary computer software to
review medical providers' bills.

In December 2007, the court certified a class in this case of
all Illinois health care providers with CorVel PPO agreements,
excluding hospitals.

In January 2008, CorVel filed with the Illinois Appellate Court
a petition for interlocutory appeal of the trial court's class
certification order which was denied in April 2008.

In May 2008, the company appealed the appellate court's denial
of its petition for interlocutory appeal which appeal was also
denied by the Illinois Supreme Court in September 2008.

CorVel Corporation -- http://www.corvel.com/-- is an
independent nationwide provider of medical cost containment and
managed care services designed to manage the medical costs of
workers' compensation and other healthcare benefits, primarily
for coverage under group health and auto insurance policies.
The company's services are sold as separate services directed
toward managing claims, care, networks, reimbursements and
settlements.  They include automated medical fee auditing,
preferred provider networks, out-of-network/line-item bill
negotiation and repricing, utilization review and management,
medical case management, vocational rehabilitation services,
early intervention, Medicare set-asides and life-care planning,
and a variety of directed care services, including independent
medical examinations, diagnostic imaging, transportation and
translation, and durable medical equipment.  Such services are
provided to insurance companies, third-party administrators
(TPAs) and self-administered employers.


DVI INC: April 15 Hearing Set for $7M Settlement in Pa. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on April 15, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed $7,000,000 settlement by Thomas J. Pritzker and The
Pritzker Organization, LLC in the matter, "In Re DVI, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Legrome D. Davis
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

                         Case Background

In 2003, DVI, Inc., was named defendant in a lawsuit filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder (Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2008).

The suit alleged that the company issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between Nov. 7, 2001, and June
27, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of DVI's
publicly traded securities.

The complaint alleged that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:

      -- that the company had failed to timely write down the
         value of certain assets which had become impaired;

      -- that the company's accounting and financial reporting
         policies and procedures for non-systematic (non-
         recurring) transactions were inadequate;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the company; and

      -- that as a result, the values of the company's assets,
         net income and earnings per share were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

The class period ended June 27, 2003.  On that date, DVI shocked
the investing public when it announced that the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission had rejected its March 30, 2003
quarterly report because an independent auditor had not reviewed
it.

The company also disclosed that it was continuing to consider
the need for the accounting change, and, if adopted, its net
income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003, its earnings per
share for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net
income for the fiscal year 2002 would all be drastically
reduced.

Specifically, $1.4 million, or 44.47%, its earnings per share
for the nine months ended March 31, 2003, was reduced by $0.10,
or 44.45% and its net income for fiscal year ended June 30,
2002, was reduced by $1.395 million or 34.12%, reduced the
company's net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003.

Investor reaction was swift and negative, with DVI stock falling
from a close of $5.84 on June 26, 2003 to a close of $4.30 on
June 27, 2003, or a single-day decline of more than 26% on very
high trading volume.

The class consists of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of DVI (its common stock and 9
7/8% Senior Notes), between Aug. 10, 1999, and Aug. 13, 2003,
both dates inclusive.

The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-CV-5336," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Legrome D. Davis
presiding.

For more information, contact:

          Clint Krislov, Esq. (Clint@krislovlaw.com)
          Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
          Civic Opera Building-Suite 1350
          Chicago, IL   60606
          Phone: 312-606-0500
          Fax:312-606-0207
          Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com

               - and -

          In re: DVI Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: (610) 565-9202
          Web site: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?39dc


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Plans Vigorous Defense v. Data Breach Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, which announced a breach of
potentially millions of credit and debit cards in January, said
it plans to vigorously defend itself against lawsuits filed
against it as a result of the data breach, Robert Westervelt of
SearchFinancialSecurity.com reports.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Heartland Chairman and CEO Robert Carr acknowledged the claims
that cardholders, card issuers, the credit card brands,
regulators, and others have asserted, or may assert, against the
payment processor as a result of the breach and the impact it
could have on the business, reports SearchFinancialSecurity.com.

SearchFinancialSecurity.com reported that several class-action
lawsuits have been filed against Heartland, claiming that the
payment processor issued belated and inaccurate statements when
it announced a security breach of its systems.

One lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey by Chimicles & Tikellis LLP on behalf of
Alicia Cooper, a resident of Woodbury, Minn., and others who
might have been affected by the breach (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 30, 2009).

A second lawsuit, which BankInfoSecurity.com previously
reported, was filed by the law firm of Berger & Montague filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2009).

A third lawsuit, which BankInfoSecurity.com previously reported,
was filed by Sheller P.C. of Philadelphia, PA in a New Jersey
court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2009).

Mr. Carr states that the company could not "reasonably estimate
the potential impact of the breach on the day-to-day operations"
of the business, SearchFinancialSecurity.com reported.

In response to the allegations in the lawsuits, Mr. Carr states,
"We intend to vigorously defend any such claims and we believe
we have meritorious defenses to those claims that have been
asserted to date.  At this time we do not have information that
would enable us to reasonably estimate the amount of losses we
might incur in connection with such claims," according to the
SearchFinancialSecurity.com report.

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

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

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


INTEGRATED SILICON: 3 SRAM Direct Purchaser Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., continues to face three
lawsuits brought by direct purchasers in the U.S. relating to
the sale and pricing of static random access memory products.

Initially, 33 purported class-action lawsuits were filed by U.S.
Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against
the company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. Federal
courts, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of
state unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment.

The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal
court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

The suits seek treble damages for the alleged damages sustained
by purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs
and attorneys' fees, as well as an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.

As of Aug. 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from
29 of the 33 pending lawsuits pursuant to a Tolling Agreement
between the company and the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs.

The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed not to name the
company as a defendant unless the Tolling Agreement is
terminated according to terms specified in that agreement.

On Jan. 9, 2008, the company was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice from one more lawsuit, which was brought by the U.S.
Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs.  However, it remains a defendant in
three remaining suits brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser
Plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2008).

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is
a fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high-
performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as
digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications
and automotive electronics.  The company's primary products are
high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low-
and medium-density dynamic random access memory.  It also
designs and markets electrically erasable programmable ready
only memory, SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory
sticks and card reader- writers, and wireless chipsets.


SCOUT.COM LLC: July 14 Hearing Set for $5M Wash. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
will hold a fairness hearing on July 14, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. For
the proposed $5,274,170 settlement by Scout.com LLC and Scout
Publishing, LLC in the matter, "Bucknuts LLC et al. v. Scout
Media Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00737-RSM."

                         Case Background

Publishers of Internet sites devoted to high school sports filed
a class-action against Scout Media, Fox Interactive Media and
three individuals, accusing them of unfair and deceptive trade,
securities violations and criminal profiteering (Class Action
Reporter, May 18, 2007).

The plaintiffs Bucknuts, Inside Tx, The Bootleg and OU Insider
brought the action in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on behalf of a class of all persons,
companies, or other entities that owned or provided content for
a website in the Scout Internet Network and were parties to a
Network Affiliate Agreement with Scout.com (or its predecessors)
between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2007.

They also bring this action on behalf of other Magazine
Publishers in a class defined as all persons, companies, or
other entities that owned or provide content for a magazine in
the Scout Magazine Network and were parties to a Magazine
Content, License, Publishing, and Marketing Agreement with Scout
Publishing between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2007.

The complaint alleges that in early 2001, defendants began
approaching several independent internet publishers to solicit
them to join a network of websites to be operated by Scout.com.

According to the suit, the Internet Publishers Class consists of
approximately 300 persons, companies, or other entities that
owned or provided content for a website in the Scout Internet
Network and were parties to an Affiliate Agreement with
Scout.com between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2007.

These Affiliate Agreements are accordingly substantially
identical, under which the Internet Publishers and Scout.com
worked together to establish and maintain a network of website
dedicated to high school, college and professional athletes.
The Internet Publishers were required to provide certain insider
content for their websites and Scout.com was required to
maintain the network of websites and provide certain national
content that would be available on all of the websites.

The Affiliate Agreements place uniform obligations on Scout.com
to pay a percentage of resulting subscription, advertising, e-
commerce, and syndication revenue to the Internet Publishers.

The complaint alleges that Scout Media, which is the sole owner
of Scout.com and Scout Publishing, have engaged in the following
unlawful acts to benefit themselves:

     (a) defendants caused Scout.com and Scout Publishing to
         take action that did not properly compensate the
         Internet and Magazine publishers and have deceived
         those publishers regarding the amounts that they were
         owed; and

     (b) defendants induced each Internet Publisher to sign
         agreements with Scout.com by falsely promising that the
         Internet Publishers would have a 10% ownership interest
         in Scout Media.

Common questions of law and fact common that the purported class
raise, include:

     (i) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a
         method for allocating subscription revenue under
         Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

    (ii) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a
         method for allocating advertising revenue under
         Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

   (iii) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a
         method for allocating syndication revenue under
         Affiliate Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

    (iv) whether defendants caused Scout.com to implement a
         method for e-commerce under Affiliate Agreement that
         constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice;

     (v) whether defendants caused Scout Publishing to implement
         a method for allocating subscription revenue under
         Magazine Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

    (vi) whether defendants caused Scout Publishing to implement
         a method for allocating newsstand revenue under
         Magazine Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice;

   (vii) whether defendants caused Scout Publishing to implement
         a method for allocating advertising revenue under
         Magazine Agreement that constitutes an unfair or
         deceptive trade practice; and

  (viii) whether defendants committed fraud or unfair or
         deceptive trade practices when they promised the
         Internet Publishers a 10% interest in Scout Media, but
         failed to disclose the material facts that that 10%
         interest had already been significantly diluted and
         subject to further dilution.

Contemporaneously with the filing of this action, plaintiffs
have filed a consolidated class-action complaint with the
American Arbitration Association against Scout.com, Scout
Publishing, Scout Media and Fox Interactive.

In that arbitration, plaintiffs allege among other things that
respondents violated Washington law by:

     (a) implementing accounting systems that did not properly
         compensate internet and magazine publishers and
         deceived those publishers regarding amounts that they
         were owed;

     (b) inducing each internet publisher to sign an Affiliate
         Agreement with Scout.com by falsely promising that the
         Internet Publishers would have a 10% ownership interest
         in Scout Media; and

     (c) failing to satisfy performance obligations in their
         Agreements.

Plaintiffs ask the court to:

     -- certify the Internet Publisher Class;

     -- certify the Magazine Publisher Class;

     -- appoint plaintiffs to be class representatives;

     -- appoint plaintiffs' counsel to be the class counsel;

     -- award damages to plaintiffs and each class member;

     -- award three times the damages sustained to plaintiffs
        and each class member;

     -- enjoin defendants from engaging in further unlawful
        activity;

     -- award prejudgment and postjudgment interest to the
        Internet and Magazine Publishers;

     -- award plaintiffs and each class member the costs of this
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- grant to plaintiffs and each class member such further
        relief to which they are entitled to.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f66

The suit is "Bucknuts LLC et al. v. Scout Media Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00737-RSM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Judge Ricardo S.
Martinez, presiding.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey M. Thomas, Esq. (jthomas@gordontilden.com)
          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP
          1001 4TH AVE, STE 4000
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477

               - and -

          CAC Services Group, LLC
          P.O. Box 1939
          Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
          Phone: 1-800-951-7346
          e-mail: info@cacservicesgroup.com
          Web site: http://cacservicesgroup.com/


SYMANTEC CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Junked in 3Q08
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
Veritas Software Corp. -- which was recently acquired by
Symantec Corp. -- was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California during the quarter ended
Oct. 3, 2008.

After Veritas announced in January 2003 that it would restate
its financial results as a result of transactions entered into
with AOL Time Warner in September 2000, numerous separate
complaints purporting to be class-action suits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging that Veritas and some of its officers and directors
violated provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints contain varying allegations, including that
Veritas made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to its 2000, 2001 and 2002 financial results included in
its filings with the SEC, press releases and other public
disclosures.

A consolidated complaint entitled, "In Re VERITAS Software
Corporation Securities Litigation" was filed by the lead
plaintiff on July 18, 2003.

On Feb. 18, 2005, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
in the class-action suit.  On March 18, 2005, the Court entered
an order preliminarily approving the class action settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, a $35 million
settlement fund was established on March 25, 2005.  Veritas'
insurance carriers funded the entire amount of the settlement
fund.

In July 2007, the Court of Appeals vacated the settlement,
finding that the notice of settlement was inadequate.

The matter has been returned to the District Court for further
proceedings, including reissuance of the notice.

The District Court again approved the settlement and dismissed
the matter, according to Symantec Corp's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Jan. 2, 2009.

The suit is "In Re VERITAS Software Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-03-283-MMC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Maxine M.
Chesney, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Luke O Brooks, Esq. (lukeb@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@classcounsel.com)
          Green Welling LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710


SYMANTEC CORP: Objector's Appeal to Fees in Settlement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An objector's appeal to the fees portion of the $21.5-million
settlement in the consolidated lawsuit "Paul Kuck, et al. v.
Veritas Software Corp., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 00831-SLR," is
pending.

VERITAS Software Corp. has been acquired by Symantec Corp.

The purported class action complaint was filed on July 7, 2004,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  The
lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with the company's announcement on July 6, 2004, that
it expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2004, to fall below earlier estimates.  It generally
seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class-action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the
court entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005,
expanding the class period from April 23, 2004, through July 6,
2004.

The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as
a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named
officers made false or misleading statements in the company's
press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were
unsigned or lacked essential terms.

The defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in July 2005, which request was
denied by the court in May 2006.

In April 2008, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement in
order to resolve the matter.  The court held a hearing and, on
Aug. 5, 2008, entered an order approving the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the company established
a settlement fund of $21.5 million on May 1, 2008.

An objector to the fees portion of the settlement has lodged an
appeal, according to Symantec Corp's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Jan. 2, 2009.

The suit is "Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00831-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com)
          Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
          Citizens Bank Center
          Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Phone: 302-656-4433

Representing the defendants are:

          Erica Niezgoda Finnegan, Esq. (efinnegan@crosslaw.com)
          Cross & Simon, LLC
          913 North Market Street
          11th Floor, Suite 1001
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-777-4200
          Fax: 302-777-4224

               - and -

          Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq. (pwalsh@potteranderson.com)
          Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
          1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr.
          P.O. Box 951
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
          Phone: 302-984-6037
          Fax: 302-658-1192


TELLABS INC: Ill. Judge Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amy St. Eve of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois has granted class-action status to a
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
telecommunications supplier Tellabs, Inc., Law360 reports.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Directors
Tellabs) and Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and
Director of Tellabs) (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 10, 2008).

Eight similar complaints were subsequently filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on
Dec. 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain
other of the company's current or former officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (Dec. 11, 2000-June 19, 2001), the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting
overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in its financial
statements.

Furthermore, certain of the individual defendants were alleged
to have violated the federal securities laws by trading the
company's securities while allegedly in possession of material,
non-public information about the company pertaining to these
matters.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
restitution, damages and other relief.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc, et al., f/k/a/
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., Case No. 1:02-cv-
04356," filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
District of Illinois, Judge Amy J. St. Eve, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Richard H. Weiss, Esq. (rweiss@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-946-9304
          Fax: 212-273-4401

Representing the defendants is:

          David F. Graham, Esq. (dgraham@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-7000


TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: May 27 Hearing Set for $5.35M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on May 27, 2009, at 12:00 p.m. For
the proposed $5,350,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Tower
Automotive Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-01926 (RWS)."

The hearing will be held at the David Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18C, New York,
New York 10007, before the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, United
States District Judge.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who acquired Tower's
securities between Aug. 14, 2000, and Feb. 1, 2005, inclusive,
and alleges violations by certain current and former officers
and directors of Tower of federal securities laws, including
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Class Action
Reporter, April 18, 2007).

For more details, contact:

          Tower Automotive Securities Litigation
          c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC
          P.O. Box 8040
          San Rafael CA 94912-8040
          Phone: (800) 654-5763
          Web site: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?39db

          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, Florida 33431
          Phone: (561) 392-4750
          Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.com/

               - and -

          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Web site: http://www.lawssb.com/


TOYOTA MOTOR: To Seek Consolidation of Reese-Levering Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. intends to seek consolidation of
nearly identical class-action lawsuits over alleged violations
of the Reese-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of
California.

Initially two separate lawsuits were filed.  The first lawsuit,
"Garcia v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," is a cross-
complaint, alleging a class action, filed on January 2007 in the
Superior Court of California Stanilaus County.  It claims that
the company's post-repossession notice failed to comply with the
Reese-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of California.

The second cross-complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
California San Francisco County, alleging a class action.  The
suit, "Aquilar and Smith v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,"
was filed in February 2008 and contains similar allegations
claiming that the company's post-repossession notices failed to
comply with Reese-Levering.

The plaintiffs in the Aguilar matter are seeking injunctive
relief, restitution and disgorgement, as well as damages.

The company has filed a petition to consolidate these cases as
they present nearly identical questions of law and fact.  The
cases have been consolidated in Stanislaus County as they
present nearly identical questions of law and fact.

A complaint alleging a class action in the Superior Court of
California San Diego County, "McNess v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation," filed in September 2008, contains similar
allegations claiming that the company's post-repossession notice
failed to comply with Reese-Levering.

An additional complaint alleging a class-action suit in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, "Smith v.
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, " filed in December 2008, also
contains similar allegations claiming that the Company's post
repossession notice failed to comply with Reese-Levering.

The plaintiffs in the McNess and Smith cases are seeking
injunctive relief and restitution.  The Company intends to seek
consolidation of the McNess and Smith cases with the Garcia
Cases as they present nearly identical questions of law and
fact, 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.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial
equipment dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range
of finance products, including retail financing, leasing, and
dealer financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and
their customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and
claims administration related to covering certain risks of
vehicle dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage
and related administrative services to its affiliates.  The
company is wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas
Corp. (TFSA).


UGI CORP: Unit Continues to Face 2 Suits by The Swigers in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corp.'s subsidiary, AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP"),
faces two purported class action lawsuits filed by Samuel and
Brenda Swiger and their son (the "Swigers") in West Virginia.

The Swigers sustained personal injuries and property damage as a
result of a fire that occurred when propane that leaked from an
underground line ignited.

In July 1998, the Swigers filed a class action lawsuit against
AmeriGas Propane, L.P. (named incorrectly as "UGI/AmeriGas,
Inc."), in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West
Virginia, in which they sought to recover an unspecified amount
of compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees, for
themselves and on behalf of persons in West Virginia for whom
the defendants had installed propane gas lines, resulting from
the defendants' alleged failure to install underground propane
lines at depths required by applicable safety standards.

In 2003, AmeriGas OLP settled the individual personal injury and
property damage claims of the Swigers.

In 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to include
customers acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as
additional potential class members and the plaintiffs amended
their complaint to name additional parties pursuant to such
ruling.

Subsequently, in March 2005, AmeriGas OLP filed a crossclaim
against CEG, former owner of Columbia Propane, seeking
indemnification for conduct undertaken by Columbia Propane prior
to AmeriGas OLP's acquisition. Class counsel has indicated that
the class is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12
million plus punitive damages, civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.

In 2005, the Swigers filed what purports to be a class action in
the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia against UGI,
an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the
General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance
adjusters.

In the Harrison County lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the putative
class for violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade
Practice Act, negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil
conspiracy.

The Swigers have also requested that the Court rule that
insurance coverage exists under the policies issued by the
defendant insurance companies for damages sustained by the
members of the class in the Monongalia County lawsuit.

The Circuit Court of Harrison County has not certified the class
in the Harrison County lawsuit at this time and, in October
2008, stayed that lawsuit pending resolution of the class action
lawsuit in Monongalia County, 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.

UGI Corp. -- http://www.ugicorp.com/-- is a holding company,
which through its subsidiaries and joint venture affiliates,
distributes and markets energy products and related services.
The company is a domestic and international retail distributor
of propane and butane; a provider of natural gas and electric
service through regulated local distribution utilities; a
generator of electricity; a regional marketer of energy
commodities; and a regional provider of heating, ventilation,
air conditioning, refrigeration and electrical contracting
services.  The segments of the company include AmeriGas Propane,
International Propane, Gas Utility, Electric Utility and Energy
Services.  The company conducts the international liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) distribution business in Europe through its
wholly owned subsidiaries, Antargaz and Flaga.


WAL-MART STORES: Mo. Judge Approves Wage, Hour Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Missouri judge has preliminarily approved a settlement of up
to $90 million in a wage and hour class-action suit against Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., Greg Griffin of The Denver Post reports.

Denver attorney Steve Long of Polsinelli Shughart, Esq.,
represented the class of more than 178,000 current and former
Wal-Mart and Sam's Club employees in Missouri with a team that
included Denver lawyers Frank Azarm Esq, and Gerald Bader, Esq.,
according to The Denver Post.

The lawsuit accused the company of forcing employees to work off
the clock, changing employee time cards and preventing workers
from taking breaks, reports The Denver Post.

The Denver Post reported that the new settlement is part of an
agreement reached in December 2008 in which Wal-Mart settled 63
class-action lawsuits nationwide for $352 million to $640
million.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Finkelstein
Thompson LLP announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of The Colonial
BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial") (NYSE: CNB) common stock during the
period of December 2, 2008 through January 27, 2009.

     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 approved funding from the Troubled Asset
Relief Program ("TARP").  According to the complaint, the
defendants knew but concealed from the investing public that the
U.S. Government's approval to provide Colonial with $550 million
in funding as announced on December 2, 2008 was conditioned upon
Colonial raising an additional $300 million in capital from
outside sources.

     Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions, Colonial's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the class period.  On
December 2, 2008, Colonial announced that it had received TARP
funding approval of $550 million. In response to that
announcement, the Company's stock price surged to $2 per share.

     Colonial, however, failed to disclose that as a
prerequisite to receiving the funding, the Company would have to
raise outside capital of $300 million.  When Colonial finally
announced this condition after the markets closed on January 27,
2009, the Company's stock price plunged from a close of $1.58 on
January 27, 2009 to $0.85 the next trading day - a 46% drop on
volume exceeding 26 million shares.

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          The Duvall Foundry
          1050 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000
                 877-337-1050 (toll free)
          Fax: 202-337-8090
          e-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com
          Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com/


DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     February 24, 2009 02:52 PM Eastern Time -- SAN DIEGO --
(BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
(http://www.csgrr.com/cases/deutschepreferred/)announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons
who acquired the 6.375% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities
of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust VIII ("6.375%
Securities") (NYSE:DUA) and/or the 7.35% Noncumulative Trust
Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X
("7.35% Securities") (NYSE:DCE) (collectively, the "Securities")
pursuant or traceable to materially false and misleading
registration statements and prospectuses (collectively, the
"Registration Statements") issued in connection with the October
2006 and November 2007 offerings, respectively, of the
Securities.

     The complaint charges Deutsche Bank AG ("DB" or the
"Company"), certain of its subsidiaries, its senior insiders and
the investment banks that underwrote the Offerings with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     DB is an investment bank headquartered in Frankfurt am
Main, Germany, which has offices in the United States.

     The complaint alleges that in October of 2006, DB
consummated the offering of the 6.375% Securities pursuant to a
false and misleading registration statement, selling 24 million
6.375% Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of approximately
$600 million.  Then, in November 2007, DB consummated the
offering of the 7.35% Securities pursuant to a false and
misleading registration statement, selling 32.2 million 7.35%
Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of approximately $805
million.

     After the Offerings, on January 14, 2009, DB issued a press
release announcing disappointing fourth quarter 2008 financial
results, including a loss after taxes of EUR4.8 billion for the
fourth quarter of 2008, reflecting market conditions that
severely impacted results in the sales and trading businesses,
"most notably in Credit Trading including its proprietary
trading business, Equity Derivatives and Equities Proprietary
Trading."  As a result of this disclosure, the prices of the
Securities fell dramatically.

     According to the complaint, the Registration Statements
issued in connection with the Offerings were false and
misleading because they omitted the following true facts:

       -- the Company failed to properly record provisions for
          credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities,
          commercial real estate loans, and exposure to monoline
          insurers;

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent it from improperly recording provisions for
          credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities,
          commercial real estate loans, and the Company's
          exposure to monoline insurers;

       -- the Company's internal risk management systems were
          inadequate to limit the Company's exposure to credit
          trading, equity derivatives, and proprietary equity
          trading; and

       -- the Company was not as well capitalized as
          represented, and, notwithstanding the billions of
          dollars raised in the Offerings, the Company would
          have to raise an additional 10 billion by selling
          equity in the Company to the German government.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
who acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statements issued in connection with the Offerings
(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
          e-mail: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/deutschepreferred/


OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP (http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/ocif)filed a
class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court of
Colorado against Oppenheimer Funds on behalf of investors.

The suit, captioned "Ron Jansen v. Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.,"
filed in U.S. District Court of Colorado, is on behalf of two
classes of shareholders, one under state law claiming breach of
contract and secondly all fund purchasers during the outlined
period of Nov. 1, 2006 to Dec. 31, 2008.

     The suit claims Oppenheimer, which runs the Oppenheimer
Champion Income Fund ("The Fund"), misled investors about the
Fund's investment style and risky investments resulting in an 82
percent collapse of the Fund's value.  The lawsuit identifies
the following funds as affected: A Shares (OPCHX), B Shares
(OCHBX), C Shares (OCHCX), N Shares (OCHNX) and Y Shares
(OCHYX).

     The lawsuit alleges defendants marketed and sold the fund
as a conservative high-income fund, portraying it as diversified
and higher yielding. Plaintiff's claim fund managers failed to
disclose the true risk of the fund, which took gambles on
mortgage-backed securities and illiquid derivatives that
ultimately led to the fund's collapse.

     Beginning in July 2008, shares declined as did other high-
yield funds as the credit crunch exposed the volatility and
collapse of mortgage-related investments.  The Champion Fund
continued to fall further as Lehman Brothers Holdings and other
institutions collapsed.

     Overall, the Fund experienced an 82 percent drop.  Compared
to other high-yield funds that averaged a drop of 32 percent in
2008, The Champion Fund experienced an almost $2 billion drop in
assets in 15 months.

     The complaint sites several misleading representations of
the fund from defendants including, 'In selecting securities for
the Fund, the overall strategy is to build a broadly diversified
portfolio to help moderate the special risks of investing in
high-yield debt instruments.'  Plaintiffs claim the fund
collapsed because fund managers targeted highly risky
derivatives in an effort to 'pump returns.'

     Hagens Berman seeks to represent two classes of
shareholders, one under state law claiming breach of contract
and secondly all fund purchasers during the outlined period.
The lawsuit represents investors who purchased or held shares
between Nov. 1, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2008.

     The suit contends Oppenheimer violated state laws when it
changed the fund's fundamental policies, a move requiring the
vote of a majority of the fund's outstanding voting securities.
The fund's policy says it cannot invest 25 percent or more of
its total assets in one industry.  The suit claims in late 2006,
the fund concentrated more than 25 percent of its total assets
in high-risk mortgage backed securities and failed to obtain
approval from a majority of shareholders.

For more information, contact:

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          e-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com or oppenheimer@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/ocif


                            *********

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  * * *