CAR_Public/090302.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 42

                           Headlines

BANK OF AMERICA: Cotchett Pitre Files Suit Over Merrill Merger
BLUE CROSS: Mich. Court Io Issue Ruling in Autism-Related Case
COMPRESSOR MAKERS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Mich. Federal Court
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settlement of Software Suits Reached in Feb.
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery in Consolidated ERISA Suit Ongoing

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Still Faces Claims in "Graden" ERISA Lawsuit
EBAY INC: Hearing Set for Certification Motion in Calif. Lawsuit
ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations
KELLY SERVICES: Judgment Motions in Calif. Labor Suit Pending
LEVI STRAUSS: Calif. Suit Settlement Approved on Oct. 17, 2008

MF GLOBAL: Bid to Junk Securities Fraud Lawsuit Granted in 4Q08
MF GLOBAL: Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending in N.Y.
PENN NATIONAL: Md. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
SPANSION INC: Faces WARN Lawsuit in Calif. Over Recent Lay-Offs
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: $925.5M Settlement Set for March 16 Hearing

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Zilhaver" ERISA Suit Deal Gets Prelim Okay
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Defends Remaining Claims in Tag-Along Suits
WORLD WRESTLING: Conn. Court Dismisses Ex-Wrestlers' Lawsuit
XINHUA FINANCE: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated IPO Litigation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Whatley Drake Announces Stock Suit Filing
DEUTSCHE BANK: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
ROCHESTER FUND: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

BANK OF AMERICA: Cotchett Pitre Files Suit Over Merrill Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
     February 26, 2009 03:37 PM Eastern Time -- SAN FRANCISCO --
(BUSINESS WIRE) -- Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy announces that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 09-CV-
00544) on behalf of all persons and entities who owned Bank of
America Corporation ("Bank of America") stock on October 10,
2008 and were eligible to vote on the proposed merger between
Bank of America and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"),
and all persons and entities who purchased Bank of America
common stock between October 16, 2008 and January 20, 2009.

     The complaint names as defendants Bank of America, Bank of
America CEO Kenneth D. Lewis, and former Merrill Lynch CEO John
A. Thain.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued
materially false and misleading information and failed to
disclose material information regarding Merrill Lynch's business
and record financial losses, including in an October 31, 2008
Proxy Statement.  Among other things, defendants allegedly
concealed Bank of America's failure to properly value certain
troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities,
collaterized debt obligations and related derivative positions.

     Moreover, Bank of America allegedly failed to meet due
diligence obligations to its shareholders to provide full
transparency regarding the acquisition and acquisition price of
Merrill Lynch.

     On December 5, 2008, as a result of defendants' alleged
misrepresentations, Bank of America shareholders approved the
merger with Merrill Lynch, which closed on January 1, 2009. On
January 16, 2009, Bank of America disclosed Merrill Lynch's 2008
fourth quarter losses of $15.3 billion.

     The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 14 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Any member of the putative class may, no later than March 23,
2009, move the court to serve as lead plaintiff. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel

For more details, contact:

          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
          Phone: (650) 697-6000
          Web site: http://www.cpmlegal.com


BLUE CROSS: Mich. Court Io Issue Ruling in Autism-Related Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
will issue a written opinion on whether parents of autistic
children who want Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan to pay for
behavioral therapy have viable claims and whether their case
should proceed as a class-action lawsuit against the insurer,
Jennifer Chambers of The Detroit News reports.

The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan is facing a class-action complaint filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan alleging it unfairly denies coverage for treatment of
autism (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008).

Autism is a complex developmental disability, which adversely
affects, inter alia, verbal and nonverbal communication and
social interactions, a child's educational performance, and the
overall ability of a person who suffers from the condition to
function in society.

Named plaintiff Chris Johns brings this action as a class-action
case against defendant pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons who are participants in or
beneficiaries of an employee benefit plan administered by or
provided by Defendant and who have been denied coverage for ABA
treatment to an insured person diagnosed with autism.

The suit seeks certification of a class of people who have been
refused coverage by Blue Cross for their autistic children, as
well as damages and an injunction requiring Blue Cross to
provide coverage for the care in the future (Class Action
Reporter, July 3, 2008).

On Feb. 26, 2009, Judge Stephen Murphy heard arguments from Blue
Cross on why the case should be dismissed and from Johns
attorneys on why it should proceed.

The suit is "Chris Johns et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, Case No. 2:08-cv-12272-SFC-MJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. (gmantese@manteselaw.com)
          Mark C. Rossman, Esq. (mrossman@manteselaw.com)
          David S. Hansma, Esq. (dhansma@manteselaw.com)
          Mantese and Rossman, PC
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Phone: 248-457-9200

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq. (john@johnjconway.com)
          John J. Conway, P.C.
          645 Griswold St, Ste 3600
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Phone: 313-961-6525


COMPRESSOR MAKERS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Mich. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several refrigerator component manufacturers and sellers,
including Tecumseh Products Co., Whirlpool Corp., Tecumseh
Products Co., and Panasonic Corp., are facing a purportred
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, alleging the companies engaged in a
conspiracy to fix the prices of hermetically sealed compressors,
Law360 reports.

K-N-D Appliances, a Honolulu appliance company, and its
proprietors Kelly and Dennis Higashi of Honolulu filed the
complaint on Feb. 25, 2009 under the caption, "Higashi et al v.
Tecumseh Products Company et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-10720-RHC-
SDP," according to the Law360 report.

The suit is "Higashi et al v. Tecumseh Products Company et al.,
Case No. 2:09-cv-10720-RHC-SDP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Robert H.
Cleland, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kerry Rhoads-Reith, Esq. (kreith@smsm.com)
          Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney
          7960 Grand River Avenue
          Suite 260
          Brighton, MI 48114
          Phone: 810-225-4227
          Fax: (810) 225-4201


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settlement of Software Suits Reached in Feb.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A agreement was reached in February 2009, settling two purported
class-action lawsuits in the Miller County Circuit Court,
Arkansas, claiming that the defendants conspired to wrongfully
use the Colossus software products licensed by Computer Sciences
Corp. and the other software vendors to reduce the amount paid
to the licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims are ongoing.

On Feb. 7, 2005, the company was named, along with other vendors
to the insurance industry and dozens of insurance companies in
the matter, "Hensley, et al. vs. Computer Sciences Corporation,
et al."  The lawsuit was filed as a putative nationwide class-
action suit in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas,
shortly before the Class Action Fairness Act was signed into
law.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to wrongfully use
software products licensed by the company and the other software
vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insured for
bodily injury claims.  They also allege wrongful concealment of
the manner in which these software programs evaluate claims and
wrongful concealment of information about alleged inherent
errors and flaws in the software.

The suit seeks injunctive and monetary relief of less than
$75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

On June 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
sever certain defendants, including the company, from the
Hensley litigation.

As a result, the company continues as a defendant in the Hensley
litigation and is also now a defendant in a separate putative
class-action lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Miller
County,  Arkansas, styled "Basham, et al. vs. Computer Sciences
Corporation,  et  al.," along with certain insurance companies
previously named as defendants in the Hensley litigation.

In July 2008, the court issued a scheduling order in the Hensley
litigation setting a class certification hearing date of Dec. 2,
2008.  No class certification date has been set in the Basham
lawsuit at this time (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2008).

During the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2009, the
company, along with certain other defendants in the Hensley and
Basham litigation, engaged in settlement discussions with legal
counsel representing the putative class members through
mediation proceedings facilitated by an independent mediator.

In February 2009, the company and the class representatives in
the Hensley and Basham litigation agreed to a settlement of the
pending litigation and the parties are in the process of filing
the settlement agreement with the court for approval.  As part
of the settlement, the company has agreed to certain injunctive
relief, primarily involving the publication of information
regarding the use of the company's software by its licensees in
adjusting bodily injury claims, and to the payment of legal fees
to legal counsel representing the classes in the litigation,
according to the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Jan. 2, 2009.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in
the information technology and professional services industry.
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings
include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and
professional services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.
Systems integration encompasses designing, developing,
implementing and integrating complete information systems.
Consulting and professional services includes advising clients
on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business
strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering,
operations, change management and business process
reengineering.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery in Consolidated ERISA Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California over
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act statute related to claims of alleged backdating of stock
options, according to Computer Sciences Corp.'s Feb. 11, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 2, 2009.

Initially, on Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class-action suit
involving allegations of backdating at CSC was filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of New York. The suit is
entitled "Quan, et al.  v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-3927."

On Sept. 21, 2006, a related ERISA class-action lawsuit --
entitled "Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-5100" -- was
filed in the same court.  The complaints named as defendants
CSC, the CSC Retirement and Employee Benefits Plans Committee,
and various directors and officers, and alleged various
violations of the ERISA statute.

The two ERISA actions have been consolidated and, on Feb. 28,
2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class-action
complaint.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the district court granted a motion to transfer
the case to California.  Upon arrival in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, the two cases were
consolidated before U.S. District Judge James Otero in Case No.
CV 08-2398-SJO.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
case and the plaintiffs opposed this motion.  The motion is
currently under submission.  The plaintiffs have also filed a
motion for class certification (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7,
2008).

The defendants filed  their memorandum in opposition to the
motion on Aug. 11, 2008.  On Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued
orders denying defendants' motion to dismiss, and also denying
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The defendants have
since answered the complaint (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18,
2008).

On Nov. 13, 2008, plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification and the defendants filed a memorandum in
opposition on Dec. 8, 2008.

On Dec. 29, 2008, Judge Otero granted plaintiffs motion for
class certification.

On Jan. 13, 2009, defendants filed a petition with the Ninth
Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules, requesting
that the court of appeals accept their appeal from the order
granting class certification.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition
on Jan. 23, 2009.

The suit is "Federico Quan et al v. Computer Sciences
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02398-SJO-JWJ," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge S. James Otero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Paul Blankenstein, Esq. (pblankenstein@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-955-8500


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Still Faces Claims in "Graden" ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc., continues to face several remaining
claims in a purported class-action suit against the company,
certain of its current and former officers, and its Employee
Benefits Plan Committee.

The suit was filed in February 2005, on behalf of all persons
who were participants in the company's 401(k) Plan during a
specified class period, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  It specifically alleges that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, as
amended, to the Plan and the participants in the Plan.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005.  On
Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case.

On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed the case and ordered it
closed.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 17,
2006.

The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007.  On July 31,
2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated
the District Court's order dismissing the Graden complaint and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

On Nov. 17, 2007, the defendants filed a Renewed Motion to
Dismiss with the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.  The
plaintiffs filed an opposition on Feb. 8, 2008.

On Dec. 4, 2007, the defendants also filed a petition for
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's ruling, which petition
was denied on March 3, 2008.

On Aug. 27, 2008, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and
denied in part. The judge left in claims against all of the
individual defendants as well as against the Company, according
to its Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 3, 2008.

The suit is "Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Judge Stanley R. Chesler, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. (lisa@trrlaw.com)
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
         8 Kings Highway
         West Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Phone: 856-795-9002

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com)
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC
         65 Livingston Ave.
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: 973-597-2500


EBAY INC: Hearing Set for Certification Motion in Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc. noted in its 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that a class certification motion is
scheduled for June 2009 in the consolidated litigation,
entitled, "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
5:07-cv-01882-JF," Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com reports.

The plaintiffs will file their motion to certify a class, eBay
will likely oppose the motion, in which case the plaintiffs
would reply.  The court will then have a hearing to decide
whether to certify a class of eBay sellers, according to the
AuctionBytes.com report.

Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com previously reported that the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
ordered the consolidation of two purported antitrust class
actions that were filed against eBay, Inc. in April 2007 (Class
Action Reporter May 11, 2007).

In consolidating the cases, "The court finds that, "Malone v.
eBay Inc., Case No. 07-01882-JF," and "Farmer, et al. v. Ebay,
Inc., Case No. C-07-02209," are related actions and such cases
are hereby consolidated into "Malone v. eBay Inc.," and are
referred to herein as the consolidated action."

The consolidated case is now know by the caption, "In Re eBay
Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," and is
pending before Judge Jeremy Fogel.

                 "Malone" Litigation Background

According to an earlier report by AuctionBytes.com, "Malone" is
an antitrust class action that was initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas but has been
refilled in California, where eBay is headquartered (Class
Action Reporter April 10, 2007).

The suit generally accuses eBay of illegally tying and steering
customers to use its wholly owned subsidiary, PayPal, Inc., to
monopolize payments and unjustly enriches itself.

The original complaint alleges "sellers are forced to accept a
payment procedure that imposes upon them the obligation to pay
needless and supracompetitive fees to defendant."

The suit contends, "sellers are forced to accept eBay's payment
process as a condition of being able to use the eBay auction
process."

Lead plaintiff in the suit is Michael Malone of Texas, who sold
a pair of Sansui SP-2000 speakers on eBay for $200 in December
2005.

Mr. Malone is representing all customer sellers of eBay who are
and have been required to honor all payment methods encompassed
by PayPal in respect of sales and purchases on eBay.com since
2002.

Specifically, the suit alleges:

     (1) eBay leverages its monopoly in the on-line auction
         market by requiring that sellers utilize an on-line
         payment system that imposes needless and
         supracompetitive fees on them;

     (2) eBay has economic power in the on-line auction market
         sufficient to restrain competition in respect of
         payment methods;

     (3) eBay's coercion has achieved or has the dangerous
         probability of achieving monopoly power in the market
         for on-line payment systems for use in on-line
         auctions; and

     (4) the amount of commerce is substantial.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) the definition of the relevant product and geographic
         markets;

     (b) whether defendant has sufficient economic power in the
         tying market to restrain appreciably competition in the
         tied product market;

     (c) whether defendant uses coercion in the market for on-
         line auctions to monopolize (or attempt to monopolize)
         the market for on-line payment systems for use in on-
         line auctions;

     (d) whether the amount of commerce affected is substantial;

     (e) antitrust impact; and

     (f) whether the practices are ongoing.

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the
class, prays for judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure on behalf of the class, defined herein,
        declaring plaintiff to be an adequate representative of
        that class, declaring plaintiff's counsel to counsel to
        the class;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally monopolized and maintained a monopoly in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally attempted to monopolize a market in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade in
        violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Profession Code
        Section 16720 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Professions Code
        Section 17200 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay was unjustly enriched;

     -- awarding judgment against eBay, in an amount to be
        proved at trial, treble the amount of damages suffered
        by the members of the class to their business and
        property interests, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and
        interest as allowable by law, for eBay's violations of
        the Sherman Act and applicable California law;

     -- enjoining eBay from continuing with its anticompetitive
        behavior (including the tie and the monopoly maintenance
        of the on-line payment services market) in violation of
        the Sherman Act;

     -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class
        such other relief that the court may consider necessary
        or appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the
        markets affected by eBay's unlawful conduct; and

     -- granting such other relief as the court may deem just
        and proper.

                  "Farmer" Litigation Background

"Farmer" is a class-action complaint filed on April 23, 2007 by
Ann Farmer and Todd Van Pelt.  It alleges that eBay possesses
monopoly power in the online auction market, estimating it
controls over 90 percent of the market in part due to the
"network effect," according to a report by Ina Steiner of
AuctionBytes.com.

The complaint goes on to cite eBay's alleged anti-competitive
activities, saying the company acquires its competitors; forces
sellers to use PayPal; and blocks competitor Google from online
auctions.

It alleges that, as a result, actual and potential competition
has been restrained and that eBay sellers who accept PayPal
"have paid or are likely to pay artificially inflated and supra
competitive fees."

The consolidated suit is "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael McShane, Esq. (mmcshane@audetlaw.com)
         Audet & Partners LLP
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-568-2555
         Fax: 415-568-2556

Representing the defendants is:

         Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
         Phone: (415) 984-8947


ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc. faces class action lawsuits over
claims based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
and comparable state statutes.

These claims may result in class action lawsuits, which can be
material to the company due to the remedies available under
these statutes, including punitive damages.

A number of cases styled as class actions have been filed
against the company.

A class has been certified in several of these cases.  Several
of these cases present novel issues on which there is no legal
precedent.

No specific details regarding the cases were disclosed by the
company in its Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/
-- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off
consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of
bankruptcy services to the finance industry.  The company
acquires receivable portfolios at deep discounts from their face
values using its valuation process that is based upon an
analysis of the individual consumer attributes of the underlying
accounts.  The receivable portfolios it purchases consist
primarily of unsecured, charged-off domestic consumer credit
card, auto loan deficiency and telecom receivables purchased
from national financial institutions, retail credit
corporations, telecom companies and resellers of such
portfolios. In September 2007, the Company exited its healthcare
purchasing and internal collection activities, although it
receives collections from certain healthcare portfolios that it
purchased.


KELLY SERVICES: Judgment Motions in Calif. Labor Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc.'s motions for summary judgment of the
certified claims in a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of
the company's employees working in the State of California are
pending.

The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of
personal attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under
state law and alleged technical violations of a state law
pertaining to information furnished on employee pay stubs.

On April 30, 2007, the trial court certified two sub-classes
that correspond to the claims in the case.

In the third quarter of 2008, Kelly was granted a hearing date
for its motions related to summary judgment on both certified
claims, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a
global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and
territories throughout the world.


LEVI STRAUSS: Calif. Suit Settlement Approved on Oct. 17, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted final approval of the proposed settlement in a
consolidated securities fraud class action against Levi Strauss
& Co., on Oct. 17, 2008.

The suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-03-05605 RMW," is in connection with the company's April
6, 2001 and June 16, 2003 registered bond offerings.

Aside from Levi Strauss, the suit also names as defendants:

      -- the company's chief executive officer,

      -- its former chief financial officer,

      -- its corporate controller,

      -- its directors, and

      -- its underwriters.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection
of lead counsel in the matter.  The action purports to be
brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's bonds who made
purchases pursuant or traceable to the company's prospectuses
dated March 8, 2001, or April 28, 2003, or who purchased the
company's bonds in the open market from Jan. 10, 2001, to Oct.
9, 2003.

The action makes claims under the federal securities laws,
including Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, relating to the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and other public statements.

Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the company's
financial statements and other public statements during this
period materially overstated its net income and other financial
results and were otherwise false and misleading, and that the
company's public disclosures omitted to state that it made
reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were improper.

The plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions
caused the trading price of the company's bonds to be
artificially inflated.  They seek compensatory damages as well
as other relief.

On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.  The matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and,
after oral arguments had concluded, the court took the matter
under submission.

On Sept. 11, 2007, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) and
20(a) claims in the case and dismissed the tax fraud aspects of
the Section 11 and 15 claims.

The court also limited the plaintiff class on the Section 11 and
15 claims by eliminating from the class those bondholders who
purchased the bonds in private offerings and then exchanged them
for registered bonds in the subsequent exchange offer.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to the
tax-fraud claims Jan. 14, 2008, and the company stipulated with
the plaintiffs that its response will be due on or before March
21, 2008, subject to court approval.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the parties agreed to settle the matter.  The
parties finalized their settlement agreement, and the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement of this matter on
July 21, 2008.

The court issued final approval of the settlement agreement on
Oct. 17, 2008.  The amounts involved in the settlement are not
material and the matter was fully concluded by the end of fiscal
year 2008, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2009 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:03-cv-05605-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq.
         Green Welling, LLP
         235 Pine Street, 15th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710
         e-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com

         Robert Gans, Esq. (robert@blbglaw.com)
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP
         12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Phone: 858-793-0070

              - and -

         Jill Manning, Esq. (jmanning@kmslaw.com)
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         7665 Redwood Blvd., Suite 200
         Novato, CA 94945
         Phone: 415-898-8160

Representing the defendants are:

         Erin E. Schneider, Esq. (eschneider@gibsondunn.com)
         Austin Van, Esq. (aschwing@gibsondunn.com)
         Schwing of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         One Montgomery St., 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-393-8276
                415-393-8210
         Fax: 415-374-8458


MF GLOBAL: Bid to Junk Securities Fraud Lawsuit Granted in 4Q08
---------------------------------------------------------------
MF Global Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a purported class-action suit
was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, during the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company and certain of its executive officers and directors
have been named as defendants in the purported class-action
lawsuit.

This action, which purports to be brought as a class-action suit
on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between March 17,
2008 and June 20, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under
Sections 10 and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the
company's financial results and projections and capital
structure.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss, which the court has
granted, according to its Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

MF Global Ltd. -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- is a broker of
exchange-listed futures and options.  It provides execution and
clearing services for exchange-traded and over-the-counter
(OTC), derivative products, as well as for non-derivative
foreign exchange products and securities in the cash market.  It
provides its clients with access to many of the financial
markets worldwide.  MF Global provides its clients with three
primary types of products: exchange-traded derivatives, OTC
derivatives and cash products.  It provides these services
through dedicated broker teams focused on particular markets.


MF GLOBAL: Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed
against MF Global, Ltd., Man Group plc, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters for
the Initial Public Offering remains pending in New York.

Initially, five purported class-action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

These actions, which purport to be brought as class-actions on
behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the
IPO and Feb. 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under
Section 11, 12, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 for
alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the
company's risk management and monitoring practices and
procedures.

The five purported shareholder class-actions have been
consolidated for all purposes into a single action.

No further updates regarding the consolidated matter were
disclosed in the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The consolidated suit is "Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd. et al, Case
No. 1:08-cv-02233-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq.
          (racocelli@weisslurie.com)
          Weiss & Lurie
          The Fred French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-682-3025
          Fax: 212-682-3010

               - and -

          William J. Ban, Esq. (wban@barrack.com)
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838

Representing the defendants are:

          David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com)
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000

               - and -

          David A. Barrett, Esq. (dbarrett@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
          333 Main St.
          New York, NY 10504
          Phone: 212-446-2310
          Fax: 212-446-2350


PENN NATIONAL: Md. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Penn
National Gaming Inc., falling under the caption, "Braude v. Penn
National Gaming, Inc., Case No. 8:08-cv-01752-PJM," Ryan Conley
of BloodHorse reports.

On Feb. 24, 2009, Judge Peter J. Messitte signed the dismissal
order, just one day after oral arguments were heard on a
dismissal motion filed by PNGI, according to court records and
online docket information, obtained by BloodHorse.  Judge
Messitte granted the motion of dismissal with prejudice, meaning
the plaintiffs cannot re-file the lawsuit, reports BloodHorse.

Previously Ryan Conley of BloodHorse reported that on July 16,
2008, the company was served with a purported class-action suit
brought by Herman Braude, on behalf of himself and others who
purchased shares of company stock between April 1, 2008, and
July 3, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 28, 2008).

The lawsuit alleges that the company's disclosure practices
relative to the proposed transaction with Fortress Investment
Group LLC and Centerbridge Partners, L.P., and the eventual
termination of that transaction were misleading and deficient in
violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint, which seeks class certification and unspecified
damages, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland.

BloodHorse reported that in its motion seeking for dismissal of
the case, the company claimed that the legal action is an
attempt by the plaintiffs to recover on bad investment
decisions.

Besides demanding dismissal based on various claimed
deficiencies in the complaint, the motion also refutes
accusations that the company held undisclosed termination
discussions with two private equity firms seeking to buy the
company's holdings for $8.9 billion, and charges that executives
tipped off certain outsiders of the deal's demise, according to
BloodHorse.

The company claims the deal, which was announced in June 2007,
ultimately collapsed for a variety of reasons related to a
deteriorating national economy hampered by a credit crisis, and
a general downturn in the gaming industry, reports BloodHorse.

"Amid these conditions, the market began to have substantial
doubts as to whether the Penn buyout would close," the dismissal
motion claimed.  "Having made the wrong investment decision,
plaintiffs now seek to hold Penn responsible for their
investment losses."

The suit is "Braude v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., Case No.
8:08-cv-01752-PJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Judge Peter J. Messitte, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Herman Martin Braude, Esq.
          (hbraude@braudemargulies.com)
          Braude and Margulies PC
          1200 Potomac St NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 1-202-471-5400
          Fax: 1-202-471-5404


Representing the defendants is:

          Kevin B. Collins, Esq.
          Covington and Burling LLP (kcollins@cov.com)
          1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 1-202-662-5598
          Fax: 1-202-778-5598


SPANSION INC: Faces WARN Lawsuit in Calif. Over Recent Lay-Offs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spansion, Inc. is facing two purported class-action lawsuits in
California that were filed by several laid-off workers alleging
violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act, Steve Johnson of Mercury News reports.

Mercury News reported that early last week, the company laid of
as many as 3,000 employees.  In an interview, Russ Barck,
Spansion's chief of staff, told Mercury News, "None of us feel
good about the reduction in force.  It was one of those things
we felt from a business perspective we had to do."  He added
that Spansion is confident the layoffs were done lawfully.

However, the two class-action suits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of fired
Spansion employees dispute that.  Both claim that Spansion
failed to adhere to federal and state law, known as the WARN
Act, requiring large employers to give a two-month notice before
laying off more than 50 workers, according to the Mercury News
report.

Attorney Eric Gibbs, Esq. of San Francisco, which is handling
the cases, told Mercury News, "What we're seeking on behalf of
the folks who were recently let go by Spansion are damages in
the form of back pay and other benefits that they likely were
entitled to but didn't receive."

In response to the allegations, company spokeswoman Holly
Burkhart told Mercury News that Spansion filed a WARN Act notice
on Feb. 23, 2009, but that it has an "exemption" to the 60-day
notice requirement.  The company though would not elaborate.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: $925.5M Settlement Set for March 16 Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold
a final settlement approval hearing on March 16, 2009, at 10:00
a.m. for the proposed $925,500,000 million settlement by  in the
matter, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case
No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN"

The hearing will be held before the Honorable James M.
Rosenbaum, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota, 300 South
Fourth St., Minneapolis, Minnesota.

                         Case Background

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class-action suits
alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought
by an individual shareholder against certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
22, 2008).

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Dec. 8, 2006,
consolidating the seven actions into a single case.  The action
is captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN."  The appointed lead plaintiff is
California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants,
in connection with the same alleged course of conduct identified
in the shareholder derivative actions, made misrepresentations
and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005, and May
17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially
inflated the price of the company's common stock.

The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain
defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in
possession of material, non-public information concerning the
matters set forth in the complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims under Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act.  It seeks
unspecified money damages and equitable relief.

On March 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On July 2, 2008, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with CalPERS and the plaintiff class
representative Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension
Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of the class, to
settle the lawsuit.

The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against
the company, all current officers and directors of the company
named in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors
of the Company named in the lawsuit.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company has paid
$895 million into a settlement fund for the benefit of class
members.

In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company
will also supplement the substantial changes it has already
implemented in its corporate governance policies with additional
changes and enhancements.

The proposed settlement, which was approved by the boards of
directors of CalPERS and the company, is subject to final court
approval.

Further, the company has the right to terminate the settlement
if class members representing more than a specified amount of
alleged securities losses elect to opt out of the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, on Nov. 24,
2008, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the court a
stipulation of settlement entered into by all parties to the
litigation.  On Dec. 18, 2008, the court granted preliminary
approval of the stipulation of settlement.  Notice has been
provided to class members, and a final settlement approval
hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2009, according to the
company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              -and -

         Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com)
         Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
         651 Nicollet Mall Ste 501
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
         Phone: 612-341-0400
         Fax: 612-341-0844

Representing the defendants is:

         Gretchen A. Agee, Esq. (agee.gretchen@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-492-6741
         Fax: 612-340-8856

             - and -

         Charles E. Bachman, Esq. (cbachman@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         7 Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-408-2421


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Zilhaver" ERISA Suit Deal Gets Prelim Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The tentative settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit
"Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-
02237-JMR-FLN," was granted preliminary approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on Jan. 8, 2009.

On June 6, 2006, the purported class action was filed against
the company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of participants in the company's
401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (UnitedHealth Group
Inc. 401 (k) Savings Plan) for whose individual accounts the
Plan purchased and held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. common
stock at any time from Dec. 21, 2005, through May 24, 2006.

The case alleges that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other Plan
fiduciaries concealed from the Plan participants important
information concerning:

      -- long-standing, improper practices at the company
         relating to executive stock options, including those
         awarded to former chief executive William McGuire and
         current chief executive Stephen Hemsley; and

      -- whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a
         prudent and suitable retirement investment for the
         Plan.

On May 1, 2007, the plaintiffs amended the complaint.  That
amended complaint alleges that the fiduciaries to the company-
sponsored 401(k) plan violated ERISA by allowing the plan to
continue to hold company stock.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a class consisting
of certain participants in the company's 401(k) plan.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 22, 2007.  The
court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and their motion
for partial summary judgment on June 30, 2008.

On July 2, 2008, the company announced it had reached an
agreement in principle to resolve this lawsuit.  Under the terms
of the proposed settlement, the company has accrued $17 million
to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of class
members, most of which will be paid by the company's insurance
carriers.

The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against
the company and all of the individual defendants in the action.
It is subject to completion of final documentation and
preliminary and final court approval.

On Jan. 8, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edwin J. Mills, Esq. (ssbny@aol.com)
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., Ste. 500
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

              - and -

         James B. Hovland, Esq. (jhovland@krauserollins.com)
         David E. Krause, Esq. (dkrause@krauserollins.com)
         Krause & Rollins
         310 Groveland Ave.
         Minneapolis, MN 55403
         Phone: 612-874-8550
         Fax: 612-874-9362

Representing defendants are:

         Peter W. Carter, Esq. (carter.peter@dorsey.com)
         Thomas P. Swigert, Esq. (swigert.tom@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868

              - and -

         David M. Brodsky, Esq. (david.brodsky@lw.com)
         Blair Connelly, Esq. (blair.connelly@lw.com)
         Alexandra A. E. Shapiro, Esq.
         (alexandra.shapiro@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins
         885 3rd Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-906-1628
                212-906-1658
                212-906-1670
         Fax: 212-751-4864


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Defends Remaining Claims in Tag-Along Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Inc. continues to defend against the
remaining claims for certain statutory violations in tag-along
lawsuits, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class-action lawsuits were filed
against UnitedHealthcare, PacifiCare, and virtually all major
entities in the health benefits business.  These lawsuits were
consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern
District Court of Florida.

The health care provider plaintiffs alleged statutory
violations, including violations of the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) in connection with alleged
undisclosed reimbursement policies.  Other allegations included
breach of state prompt payment laws and breach of contract
claims for failure to timely reimburse health care providers for
medical services rendered.

The consolidated lawsuits seek injunctive, compensatory and
equitable relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and
interest payments.

The trial court granted the health care providers' motion for
class certification.  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the class action status of certain of the RICO claims,
but reversed as to the breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
prompt payment claims.  Most of the co-defendants have settled.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the trial court dismissed all claims against
PacifiCare, and on June 19, 2006, the trial court dismissed all
claims against UnitedHealthcare brought by the lead plaintiffs.
On June 13, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
those decisions.

Included in the multidistrict litigation are tag-along lawsuits,
which contain claims against the Company similar to the claims
dismissed in the lead case.  The tag-along cases were stayed
pending resolution of the lead case.  That stay has not been
lifted, but it is anticipated that the trial court will now lift
the stay and address the continuing viability of the tag-along
claims.

The plaintiffs in a number of the tag-along cases have sought to
remand the cases to alternate forums.  The company has opposed
these efforts and have moved the court to apply its June 2006
summary judgment ruling, and its other applicable pretrial
rulings, to those cases.

On Feb. 12, 2008, the court denied all pending motions without
prejudice and set a briefing schedule for future motions,
including motions for summary judgment.

In August 2008, the trial court, applying its rulings in the
lead MDL lawsuit, dismissed 7 of the 11 related lawsuits, and
all but one claim in an eighth lawsuit.  The plaintiffs have
appealed these dismissals to the Eleventh Circuit.  The trial
court ordered the final claim in the eighth lawsuit to
arbitration.

In December 2008, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court
dismissed without prejudice one of the three remaining lawsuits.
In late 2008, a federal magistrate judge recommended that the
trial court deny the plaintiffs' motions to remand to state
court the remaining two lawsuits.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the trial court adopted this recommendation
with respect to one of the lawsuits.  The trial court has not
yet issued an order with respect to the final lawsuit.

UnitedHealth Group Inc. -- http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/--
is a diversified health and well-being company which offers
offers a broad spectrum of products and services through six
operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice,
Uniprise, Specialized Care Services and Ingenix.  Through its
family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70
million individuals nationwide.


WORLD WRESTLING: Conn. Court Dismisses Ex-Wrestlers' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted
a motion that sought for the dismissal of a purported class-
action suit filed against World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. by
former independent contract wrestlers who claimed the
organization cheated them out of health care and other benefits.

The wrestlers -- Scott "Raven" Levy, Christopher "Kanyon"
Klucsarits and "Above Average" Michael Sanders -- said the level
of control exerted over them by the WWE qualified them as full-
time employees.

The plaintiffs -- who sought class-action status -- claim that
they signed contracts that dictated their compensation, physical
training regimens, dates and sites of matches, costumes and
storylines for their wrestling personae.  WWE also reserved the
right to use their images and submitted them to drug screenings,
the wrestlers said.

According to the suit, the WWE avoided withholding federal taxes
from their paychecks by not classifying them as full-time
employees.  The company did not pay Social Security and Medicare
taxes, nor did it pay for performers' benefits such as health
care and vacation time, the suit said.

The suit was filed in July 2008 in state Superior Court and then
was moved to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The suit is "Levy et al v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-01289-PCD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, Judge Peter C. Dorsey,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David S. Golub, Esq. (dgolub@sgtlaw.com)
          Silver, Golub & Teitell
          184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389
          Stamford, CT 06904
          Phone: 203-325-4491
          Fax: 203-325-3769

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Hosking, Esq. (richard.hosking@klgates.com)
          K & L Gates, LLP-PA
          Henry W. Oliver Building
          535 Smithfield Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2312
          Phone: 412-355-8612
          Fax: 412-355-6501

               - and -

          Douglas W. Bartinik, Esq. (dwbartinik@daypitney.com)
          Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT
          242 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-1212
          Phone: 860-275-0278
          Fax: 860-275-0343


XINHUA FINANCE: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated IPO Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BEIJING, Feb. 26 /PRNewswire-Asia/ -- XFMedia a.k.a. Xinhua
Finance Media (Nasdaq: XFML) today announced that the U.S.
District Court of New York has dismissed the class action
lawsuit against the Company, CEO Fredy Bush, former CFO Shelly
Singhal and the Company's IPO underwriters.  The lawsuit was
initially filed in May 2007, following the Company's IPO in
March 2007, and was consolidated with all other claims into a
single class action lawsuit in August 2007.

"With the dismissal of this lawsuit, we have been completely
vindicated," said XFMedia CEO Fredy Bush.  "From the start, we
have said this lawsuit was wholly without merit. This ruling
proves the accusations were completely groundless and
misleading, causing undue harm to XFMedia and all of the
individual defendants. With this frivolous lawsuit behind us, we
will be better able to focus on our No. 1 priority -- delivering
maximum value to our shareholders."

Xinhua Finance Media -- http://www.xfmedia.cn-- is a leading
media group in China with nationwide access to the upwardly
mobile demographic.  Through its synergistic business groups,
Broadcast, Print and Advertising, XFMedia offers a total
solution empowering clients at every stage of the media process
and connecting them with their target audience.  Its unique
platform covers a wide range of media assets, including
television, radio, newspaper, magazine, outdoor, online and
other media assets.  Headquartered in Beijing, the company has
offices and affiliates in major cities of China including
Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     February 26, 2009: 11:58 AM ET -- Marketwire -- Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Chesapeake Energy Corporation
("Chesapeake" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHK) stock issued
pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with
Chesapeake's July 2008 secondary public stock offering (the
"Offering").

     The Complaint alleges that Chesapeake, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Offering
with violation of the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements about Chesapeake's
business activities and financial condition in their
Registration Statement.

     Chesapeake is the third largest independent producer of
natural gas in the United States. Chesapeake engages in the
acquisition, exploration, and development of properties for the
production of crude oil and natural gas from underground
reservoirs.

     According to the complaint, on July 15, 2008, Chesapeake
completed a secondary public offering of 28.75 million shares of
common stock at $57.25 per share, receiving approximately $1.65
billion in gross proceeds, with net proceeds of $1.586 billion.

     The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the Offering was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose numerous facts which
were required to be stated therein, including:

       -- that the Company's exposure to natural gas price
          declines had not been adequately limited by the
          hedging actions the Company had undertaken prior to
          the Offering, including its decision to increase its
          hedge position from 20% to 80% of its production, as a
          growing proportion of the hedging agreements on
          Chesapeake's 2009 production contained so-called
          "knockout" provisions that eliminated the counter-
          party's financial obligation once the price of natural
          gas fell below a certain benchmark;

       -- though the Company disclosed it had entered into
          hedging contracts to protect its production from
          falling prices, the Registration Statement failed to
          disclose that a significant proportion of these
          contracts had been made with one of the underwriters
          in the Offering, Lehman Brothers, though based on
          Lehman Brothers' rapidly declining financial
          condition, Lehman Brothers would be unable to fulfill
          its financial commitment -- rendering Chesapeake's
          "protection" meaningless;

       -- in the months leading up to the Offering, Chesapeake's
          aggressive hedging activities (and those of certain of
          the underwriter defendants) had been significantly
          running up the price of natural gas and Chesapeake's
          stock price, which moves in tandem with natural gas
          prices;

       -- that Chesapeake's "land men," i.e., lease brokers, had
          been aggressively bidding up the prices Chesapeake was
          obligated to pay in leases and royalty agreements in
          the months leading up to the Offering, causing
          Chesapeake to pay unreasonably high prices for certain
          leases and royalty contracts;

       -- that the Company was failing to write down impaired
          goodwill on the assets it was acquiring, causing its
          balance sheet and financial results to be artificially
          inflated; and

       -- that the Company's internal controls were inadequate
          to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its
          goodwill.

     During late 2008 and early 2009, as these omitted facts
were revealed to the market, the price of Chesapeake stock
declined to less than $12 per share, approximately 80% below the
Offering price.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Chesapeake common stock during the Class Period
(the "Class").

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jfruchter@aftlaw.com)
          Arthur J. Chen, Esq. (achen@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Whatley Drake Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Feb. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm of
Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC (WDK) announced that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of common
stock of Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (NYSE: CNB) on behalf of all
individuals who acquired CNB stock between Jan. 23, 2008 and
Jan. 27, 2009 (the "class period").

     Montgomery-based Colonial Bank is a $27 billion financial
services company, and a subsidiary of the Colonial BancGroup.
Colonial Bank offers a broad line of retail and commercial
banking products and services including checking and savings
accounts, personal and commercial loans, online banking, credit
card, merchant services, and treasury management, as well as
wealth management including asset management and financial
planning solutions, money management products and insurance
through Colonial Brokerage, Inc., and private banking services.

     The complaint, which was filed yesterday (February 25,
2009), alleges that Colonial and several of its executives
issued materially false and misleading statements that violated
the federal securities laws.  The complaint alleges that
Colonial and its officers presented a false and misleading
picture of its financial health for two basic reasons: First,
they misrepresented Colonial's financial health by misstating
Colonial's financial health in the face of the downturn in the
housing market.

     Second, they misstated the conditions on which Colonial
would be allowed to participate in the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP), the program created by the U.S. Department of
the Treasury to shore up the balance sheets of banks across the
country by allowing them either to (1) offload troubled real-
estate backed loans or (2) receive new capital in exchange for a
combination of warrants and preferred and/or common stock in
participating institutions.

     On December 2, 2008, Colonial stated that it had been
preliminarily approved to receive more than $500 million in TARP
capital. Colonial stated in a company news release that its
books would be shored up by the infusion of new capital:
"Colonial BancGroup will receive $550 million from the Emergency
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 aimed at enhancing the
economy by restoring liquidity and increasing financing to
businesses and consumers."  Colonial President and CEO Bobby
Lowder hailed the new capital as a welcome sign for the bank:
"The $550 million in new capital will enhance our capital
cushion and will allow Colonial Bank to meet our customers'
financing needs with additional lending activity throughout our
five state footprint."  The market reacted positively to that
announcement, and Colonial's share price jumped 54 percent in
the day after its TARP participation was announced.

     On January 27, 2009 -- more than six weeks after its last
statement regarding TARP approval -- Colonial released its 2008
fourth quarter earnings report and an accompanying news release.
In this news release, for the first time, Colonial stated that
it would not receive the $550 million from the TARP fund until
it had first raised $300 million in private capital.

     Analysts and investors reacted negatively to that
unexpected disclosure. Analyst Jefferson Harralson of Keefe,
Bruyette & Woods, a New York investment bank that is among the
most influential analysts of regional bank stocks, summed up
Colonial's deception this way: "We had believed that Colonial
was awarded TARP funds in December based on typical standard
conditions and are surprised that the TARP funds are contingent
on a common raise."  Colonial stock fell sharply after the truth
came to light -- on January 28, CNB share price fell more than
50%, closing at $0.63, compared to $1.58 on January 27.


For more information, contact:

          Adam Plant, Esq. (aplant@wdklaw.com)
          Tom Butler, Esq. (tbutler@wdklaw.com)
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 1-800-695-6750 or 1-205-328-9576
          Web site: http://www.wdklaw.com/


DEUTSCHE BANK: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Feb 26, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired the
6.375% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank
Capital Funding Trust VIII (the "6.375% Securities") and/or the
7.35% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank
Capital Funding Trust X (the "7.35% 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
"Offerings").

     The complaint charges Deutsche Bank AG, certain of its
subsidiaries, its senior insiders and the investment banks that
underwrote the Offerings with violations of federal securities
laws.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statements issued in connection with the Offerings were false
and misleading and filed to disclose, among other things, that:

       -- 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;

       -- 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.

     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


ROCHESTER FUND: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     February 26, 2009 06:35 PM Eastern Time -- NEW YORK --
(BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
(http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rochester/)announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
certain shares of Rochester Fund Municipals ("Rochester Fund" or
the "Fund") (NASDAQ:RMUNX) between February 26, 2006 and October
21, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Rochester Fund and certain of its
Trustees with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act").

     Rochester Fund is a diversified mutual fund which seeks to
provide a high level of income exempt from federal income tax as
well as New York State and New York City income taxes.
Rochester Fund has more than $9 billion under management and its
shares are offered in four separate classes: Class A Shares
requiring the payment of an initial sales charge; Class B Shares
on which no initial sales charge is paid at the time of
purchase, but requiring a contingent deferred sales charge if
the shares are sold within 6 years of buying them; Class C
Shares on which no initial sales charge is paid, but requiring
the payment of an annual asset-based sales charge and the
payment of 1.0% sales charge if sold within 12 months of buying
them; and Class Y Shares which are offered pursuant to special
arrangements.

     The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements
through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose
that under certain circumstances Trusts which contain Inverse
Floaters, such as those employed by the Fund, may be put to the
Fund for repayment of principal.  According to the complaint, on
October 21, 2008, Rochester Fund filed a Prospectus Supplement
which disclosed the relevant risks associated with the Fund's
investment in Inverse Floaters.  As a result of these
disclosures, as of October 21, 2008, the Fund's shares traded at
$12.35 per share, down from $18.00 per share at the beginning of
the year.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of certain shares of Rochester Fund between February
26, 2006 and October 21, 2008 (the "Class").

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

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  * * *