CAR_Public/090303.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 3, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 43

                           Headlines

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Faces 3 Suits Over Wage & Hour Violations
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Suit v. AMR Over Incorrect Billings Pending
HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: "Ewert" Plaintiffs Re-file Lawsuit v. Unit
JANSSEN-ORTHO INC: Faces Lawsuits Over EVRA Contraceptive Patch

LIFELOCK INC: Ariz. Judge Appointed to Handle Consolidated Suits
META FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Guardian Angel Credit Union's Lawsuit
MICROSOFT CORP: Reinstatement of Class Status in "Kelley" Sought
SPORT CHALET: Processing Purchasers' Suit Settlement Documents
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.

TULLY'S COFFEE: Probing Damages Claims Over Meals, Rest Periods
WELLS FARGO: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Golden West Acquisition
WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeal to "Cuesta" Ruling Pending in Oklahoma
YUM! BRANDS: Feb. 27 Scheduling Conference Set for Hardiman Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Feb. 28 Mediation Set for LJS Managers' Arbitration

YUM! BRANDS: July 27 Hearing Set for "Medlock" Certification Bid
YUM! BRANDS: Settlement of KFC AUMs' Suit Gets Final OK in Nov.
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Face Suits by Calif. RGMs


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
INTREPID POTASH: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
NUTRACEA INC: The Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit

ROCHESTER FUND: Glancy Binkow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
ROCHESTER FUND: Squitieri & Fearon Announces Stock Suit Filing
ROCHESTER FUND: The Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
ROYAL BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                           *********

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated amended complaint with respect to derivative
claims brought on behalf of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.
remains pending.

On Oct. 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et
al.," was filed against, among others, AllianceBernstein L.P.,
AllianceBernstein Holding L.P., and AllianceBernstein
Corporation.

The Hindo Complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to
disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and
other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and
"market timing" of certain of the company's U.S. mutual fund
securities, violating various securities laws.

Following Oct. 2, 2003, additional lawsuits making factual
allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint
were filed in various federal and state courts against
AllianceBernstein and certain other defendants.

On Sept. 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund
shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative
claims brought on behalf of Holding; and claims brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA") by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for
Employees of AllianceBernstein.

On April 21, 2006, AllianceBernstein and attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund
derivative claims, and ERISA claims entered into a confidential
memorandum of understanding containing their agreement to settle
these claims.  The agreement will be documented by a stipulation
of settlement and will be submitted for court approval at a
later date.  The settlement amount ($30 million), which the
company previously accrued and disclosed, has been disbursed.

The derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding, in which
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, remain
pending, according to the company's Feb. 20, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

AllianceBernstein -- http://www.alliancebernstein.com/-- is an
investment manager that administers about 80 domestic and
international mutual funds.  It serves such institutional
investors as pension funds, foundations, endowments, government
entities, and insurance firms.  For retail investors, the
company provides private client services, managed accounts,
annuities, retirement plans, and college savings plans.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Faces 3 Suits Over Wage & Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three different lawsuits purporting to be class actions are
pending against Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary,
American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), and certain subsidiaries
in California, alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws.

On April 16, 2008, Lori Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Alameda, which has
since been removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of California.

On July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On Jan. 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

At the present time, courts have not certified classes in any of
these cases, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

All three suits allege violations of California state wage and
hour compensation laws.

The plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed
to pay daily overtime charges pursuant to California law, and
failed to provide required meal breaks or pay premium
compensation for missed meal breaks.

They are seeking to certify the classes and seeking lost wages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted
under California law for violations of wage and hour laws.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a
provider of emergency medical services in the U.S.  The company
operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and
EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc.
and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively.  AMR is a provider of
ambulance services in the U.S.  EmCare is a provider of
outsourced emergency department staffing and related management
services in the U.S.  The company offers a range of emergency
medical services through its two business segments: AMR and
EmCare.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Suit v. AMR Over Incorrect Billings Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary, American Medical
Response, Inc. (AMR), continues to face a lawsuit purporting to
be a class-action suit in Spokane, Washington.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the class-action lawsuit was commenced against
AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County.

The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party
payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at
higher rates than contractually permitted.

The court has certified a class in this case, but the size and
membership of the class has not been determined, according to
the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a
provider of emergency medical services in the U.S.  The company
operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and
EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc.
and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively.  AMR is a provider of
ambulance services in the U.S.  EmCare is a provider of
outsourced emergency department staffing and related management
services in the U.S.  The company offers a range of emergency
medical services through its two business segments: AMR and
EmCare.


HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: "Ewert" Plaintiffs Re-file Lawsuit v. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Poly
Implants Protheses, S.A., an acquisition of Heritage Worldwide,
Inc., have re-filed their cases.

In February 2008, PIP was served with a Complaint filed in
federal court in Houston, Texas by seven women, alleging product
liability related claims.

The lawsuit is styled, "Nancy Ewert et al v. PIP."  The lead
plaintiff is named Nancy Ewert.

The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs have re-filed their cases but PIP has not been
served yet.

III Acquisition Corp. d/b/a PIP.America claims indemnification
from PIP/USA, Inc., Poly Implants Protheses, S.A., and Jean-
Claude Mas, personally, from all claims.

No further details were disclosed in the company's Feb. 23, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

La Seyne-sur-Mer, France-based Heritage Worldwide, Inc., engages
in the development, manufacture, and marketing of a line of
breast implants primarily in southern France.  Its breast
implants consist of a silicone shell filled with silicone gel
for use in breast augmentation for cosmetic reasons and for
reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy.  Heritage sells
its products directly and indirectly through independent
distributors and sales representatives to surgeons and clinics
in approximately 45 countries worldwide.


JANSSEN-ORTHO INC: Faces Lawsuits Over EVRA Contraceptive Patch
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LONDON, ON, Feb. 27 /CNW/ -- Class Action lawsuits were
launched in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec against
Janssen-Ortho Inc. regarding its contraceptive skin patch
EVRA(R) (a/k/a "ORTHO EVRA(R)"), beginning in July 2006.  Evra
was first approved for marketing and sale in Canada as a
contraceptive in 2002.

     The Statement of Claim alleges that Janssen-Ortho Inc.
failed to adequately warn patients and physicians of EVRA(R)'s
association with an increased risk of developing blood clots,
pulmonary emboli, strokes, heart attacks and/or deep vein
thrombosis, as compared to oral contraceptive products.

    Janssen-Ortho Inc., without any admission of liability, has
agreed to settle certain claims on an individual basis. As a
result of Janssen-Ortho Inc.'s cooperation, the class action
lawsuit in Ontario will be discontinued.

     Michael Peerless, apartner at Siskinds, LLP, lawyers for
the class, commented that "Janssen-Ortho Inc. should be
commended for taking proactive steps at resolving individual
claims and not dragging their heels or these claimants through a
long, drawn-out litigation process".

For more details, contact:

          Michael Peerless
          Siskinds, LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          London, ON, N6A 3V8
          Phone: 1-800-461-6166, ext. 7866

    
LIFELOCK INC: Ariz. Judge Appointed to Handle Consolidated Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
     PHOENIX, Feb. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- U.S. District Judge Mary
Murguia, District of Arizona, was recently selected to handle 13
consolidated lawsuits against LifeLock, Inc., a heavily marketed
identity theft company that claims to protect consumers through
its services, and earlier this week she named Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro (HBSS) and Phoenix-based attorney Rob Carey lead
counsel in the case.

     In Murguia's order she states, "Hagens Berman has the
requisite experience and resources necessary to manage a case of
this size and complexity," determining HBSS can best serve the
interests of the class.

     "We're pleased the court consolidated these 13 cases
allowing us to efficiently move claims forward and help correct
these wrongful practices," said lead attorney Rob Carey.  "This
is a first victory for plaintiffs, and the fact that several
top-tier firms recognized LifeLock's conduct is deficient
indicates we have a strong case - we look forward to preparing
for trial."

     Cases from around the country make up the 13 suits moving
forward, including plaintiffs from Arizona, Maryland, New
Jersey, West Virginia, Florida, Illinois, Texas, and California.

     The suits claim LifeLock, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona,
uses aggressive advertising to entice consumers to sign up for
its $10-a-month service which it describes as "proactive
identity theft protection, offer[ing] a proven solution that
prevents your identity from being stolen before it happens."

     According to the HBSS suit, LifeLock's "proven solution"
consists of illegally placing and renewing fraud alerts under
consumers' names with credit bureaus.  However, under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, corporations such as LifeLock
are not allowed to place fraud alerts on a consumers' behalf -
in fact, according to the complaint, the law was written so as
to specifically bar credit-repair companies from improperly
using fraud alerts.

     Through the lawsuits plaintiffs also claim LifeLock
misstates its legal obligations to customers and what its
protection service covers if a loss occurs.  In advertisements
the company touts a $1 million guarantee, yet a closer
examination at the fine print reveals that LifeLock will not pay
any losses directly to the consumer and does not cover
consequential or incidental damages to identity theft,
plaintiffs claim.

     The first and original suit filed by HBSS claims LifeLock
violated Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Insurance
Code, and seeks to have all members' fees refunded due to the
illegality of the contract and LifeLock's misrepresentations
about its service.

     LifeLock customers can visit www.hbsslaw.com/Lifelock to
join this suit and learn more about the case. HBSS will make
updates as the case progresses.

For more details, contact:

          Rob Carey, Esq. (Rob@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          2425 East Camelback Road
          Suite 650 Phoenix, AZ, 85016
          Phone: (602) 840-5900
          Fax: (602) 840-3012


META FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Guardian Angel Credit Union's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, MetaBank, continues to
face a class action complaint entitled, "Guardian Angel Credit
Union v. MetaBank (Cause No. 08-CV-261-PB)."

On July 14, 2008, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire.

The suit was filed on behalf of Guardian Angel Credit Union and
all other CD purchasers similarly situated, to recover funds in
connection with purported MetaBank certificates of deposit.

No further details regarding the complaint were disclosed by the
company in its Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

Meta Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.metacash.com/-- is a
registered unitary savings and loan holding company.  MetaBank
(the Bank), the only direct, active full service banking
subsidiary of Meta Financial, is a community-oriented financial
institution offering a variety of financial services to meet the
needs of the communities it serves and a payments company that
provides services nationwide.  The company provides a range of
financial services.  The principal business of MetaBank is
attracting retail deposits from the general public and investing
those funds primarily in one- to four-family residential
mortgage loans, commercial and multi-family real estate,
agricultural operations and real estate, construction, and
consumer and commercial business loans primarily in MetaBank's
market areas.  MetaBank also purchases mortgage-backed
securities and other investments permissible under applicable
regulations. Meta Financial also owns Meta Trust Company, a
South Dakota trust corporation.


MICROSOFT CORP: Reinstatement of Class Status in "Kelley" Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/162957.asp
?from=blog_last3
The plaintiffs in a recently decertified class-action lawsuit
against Microsoft Corp. for the alleged deceptive promotion of
its flagship software, Windows Vista, have asked Judge Marsha
Pechman to reinstate the class-action status of the case, under
a narrower scope, Joseph Tartakoff of the Seattle Post
Intelligencer reports.

In recent filing, plaintiffs asked Judge Pechman of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington to certify
a class-action under two more narrowed criteria.

Initially, the class included anyone who bought Windows Vista
Capable PCs.  Now plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify the
class based on two subgroups: Those who participated in a Vista
upgrade program and those who purchased Vista Capable PCs that
could not support a specific driver, which plaintiffs say is
essential to run Vista.

The motion for narrowed class certification is under seal, but
it is described in another filing.  A copy of the motion is
available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3a00.
  
John Letzing of MarketWatch previously reported that the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington
decertified the class-action lawsuit filed against Microsoft
Corp. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009).

In an order filed on Feb. 17, 2009, Judge Marsha Pechman wrote
that, "At this juncture, the Court believes the most appropriate
remedy for Plaintiffs' failure to present evidence suggesting
class-wide causation is decertification."  Judge Pechman
specifically cited a lack of evidence for a "class-wide price
inflation theory" put forward by the plaintiffs, according to
the MarketWatch report.

Judge Pechman allowed the lawsuit to proceed, because Microsoft
has not "demonstrated that no material issue of fact exists for
Plaintiffs' individual claims."  In essence, the ruling forces
plaintiffs to pursue their cases individually, reports
MarketWatch.

                         Case Background

Previously, Joseph Tartakoff of seattlepi.com reported that
Microsoft Corp. sought for the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims
in a class-action lawsuit, which revolves around the company's
marketing before the debut of its Windows Vista operating system
in early 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008).

The suit, captioned, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-
cv-00475-MJP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8,
2008).

In early 2006, Microsoft executives approved a plan allowing PC
makers to designate computers as "Vista Capable" even if they
would only be able to run the most basic version of Vista,
called "Vista Home Basic," according to seattlepi.com.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that through the "Vista
Capable" program Microsoft violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and unjustly enriched itself because the false
designation drove up demand for personal computers and,
therefore, prices, reports seattlepi.com.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit filed
against Microsoft over allegations that the company unjustly
enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even
if they are not.  The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the
2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft
to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of
Windows Vista was delayed, according to the CAR report.

However, according to seattlepi.com, Judge Pechman did dismissed
plaintiffs' claim that Microsoft had deceived consumers into
buying PCs they would not otherwise have bought.  She instead
allowed them to argue that Microsoft had illegally driven up
prices.

A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft
appealed against the court's decision affording class action
status to the Vista lawsuit.  However, in a brief order dated
April 21, 2008, the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's
decision.

In motions that the company filed with court on Nov. 20, 2008,
the company rebuts the claims and asks the judge to decertify
the class.  "Because it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot prove
any element of their 'price inflation' theory, Microsoft moves
for summary judgment," the company's filing reads.

In the filing, which was obtained by seattlepi.com, Microsoft
dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying argument that the most
basic version of Vista was not Vista because it lacked certain
features, including the Aero interface.

Microsoft's attorneys wrote, "The fact that Windows Vista Home
Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of
Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that
Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a
distinct budget edition."  They re-iterated, "Windows Vista Home
Basic falls well within the Windows Vista family as a technical
matter."

In addition, Microsoft lawyers said that plaintiffs -- who have
calculated how much money Microsoft generated from the sales of
its operating systems on Vista Capable PCs -- had not shown that
that revenue was attributable to increased sales of the PCs
because of the program, reports seattlepi.com.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/
          e-mail: office@gordontilden.com


SPORT CHALET: Processing Purchasers' Suit Settlement Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sport Chalet, Inc., is in the process of documenting the
settlement of a purported class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the California Civil Code and Business &
Professions Code, as well as invasion of privacy.

The suit was filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Diego on April 10, 2008.  It is entitled, "Cole v.
Sport Chalet, Inc., Case No. 37-2008-00081675-CU-BT-CTL."

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf
of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested to provide
their zip codes.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making
purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in
California were improperly requested to provide their zip code
at the time of such purchases.

The suit seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, actual damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief to require the company to discontinue
the allegedly improper conduct, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Dec. 16, 2008, the parties agreed on the core terms of a
classwide settlement of this case.  The company is now in the
process of documenting the settlement.  Thereafter, the
settlement will require court approval, according to 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.

Sport Chalet, Inc. -- http://www.sportchalet.com/-- is an
operator of 45 full-service, specialty sporting goods stores in
California, Nevada and Arizona.  As of fiscal year ended April
1, 2007, the Company had 32 locations in Southern California,
seven in Northern California, one in Central California, two in
Nevada and three in Arizona.  These stores average approximately
40,000 square feet in size.  In addition, it operates a retail
e-commerce store through GSI Commerce, Inc. at
http://www.sportchalet.com/ Sport Chalet's prototype store is
42,000 square feet in size and showcases each product category
with the feel of a specialty shop all contained under one roof.
The stores include traditional sporting goods merchandise, such
as footwear, apparel and other general athletic products and
core specialty merchandise such as snowboarding, mountaineering
and self-contained underwater breathing apparatus.


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
TeleTech Holdings, Inc., continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud class-action suit that was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The class action lawsuit -- "Beasley v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc.,
et. al." -- was filed on Jan. 25, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against TeleTech,
certain of its current directors and officers, and other
defendants, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15
of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges, among other things, false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with:

       -- a March 2007 secondary offering of common stock, and

       -- various disclosures made and periodic reports filed by
          the company between Feb. 8, 2007, and Nov. 8, 2007.

On Feb. 25, 2008, a second, nearly identical class action
complaint, entitled, "Brown v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al.,"
was filed in the same court.

On May 19, 2008, the two cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re: TeleTech Litigation," and a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel were appointed.

The company reported no development on the matter in its Feb.
23, 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 Teletech Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00913-
LTS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Laura Taylor Swain, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq.
          Kahn, Gauthier Law Group, L.L.C.
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-455-1400
          Fax: 504-455-1498

Representing the defendants are:

          Geoffrey Hunter Coll, Esq. (gcoll@dl.com)
          Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP
          1101 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005-4213
          Phone: 202-986-8146
          Fax: 202-986-8102

               - and -

          Laurence Martin Berman, Esq. (lberman@mwe.com)
          McDermott, Will & Emery L.L.P.
          2049 Century Park East, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3218
          Phone: 310-551-9308
          Fax: 310-277-4730


TULLY'S COFFEE: Probing Damages Claims Over Meals, Rest Periods
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tully's Coffee Corp. is investigating the claims in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in a California State Court, alleging
that the company failed to provide meal and rest periods for its
employees.

In December 2007, a lawsuit was filed against Tully's in
California State Court by a former store employee, alleging
failure to provide meal and rest periods.

The company anticipates that the plaintiff will seek class
action certification on behalf of all hourly employees in
Tully's California stores.

The plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Similar lawsuits alleging missed meal and rest periods have been
filed in California against many other companies.

The company accrued $147,000 as of Dec. 28, 2008, for estimated
legal fees in order to defend this litigation, according to its
Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Tully's Coffee Corp. -- http://www.tullys.com/-- is a specialty
retailer in the fast-casual categories of specialty coffee,
snacks and non-alcoholic beverages, within the quick-service
restaurant industry.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Golden West Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Co., which recently bought Wachovia Corp. for
$12.7 billion is the subject of several shareholder lawsuits
stemming from Wachovia's acquisition of Golden West Financial
Corp.

According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the class-action suits allege misleading disclosures
about Golden West's mortgage portfolio, collateralized debt
obligations and other problem loans.


WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeal to "Cuesta" Ruling Pending in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by the plaintiffs in the matter "Braulio Cuesta M.D.
v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-0511," from a decision reversing the
certification of a nationwide class in the product liability
case that names Williams Controls, Inc., as a defendant remains
pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The company was named as co-defendant in the matter on Oct. 1,
2004.  The suit sought class-action status, and an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the class.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the Oklahoma district
court granted the suit class-action status.

The company and Ford appealed the District Court's class
certification ruling to the Court of Civil Appeals of the State
of Oklahoma, and during the second quarter of fiscal 2008, the
Appeals Court, in a 3-to-0 decision, reversed the District
Court's ruling and decertified the nationwide class.

As permitted under Oklahoma law, the plaintiffs filed for a re-
hearing by the Appeals Court and during the third quarter of
fiscal 2008, this rehearing request was denied.

The plaintiffs have since appealed the Court of Civil Appeals'
decertification ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, according
to 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 suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-0511,"
filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.

For more details, contact:

         The Burrage Law Firm
         First United Center
         Suite 100, 115 N. Washington
         Durant, OK 74702-1727
         Phone: 580-920-0700
         e-mail: dburrage@burragelaw.com
         Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/


YUM! BRANDS: Feb. 27 Scheduling Conference Set for Hardiman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 27, 2009 scheduling conference has been scheduled for the
lawsuit styled, "Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.,"
according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") complaint in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp.,
the Company and other related entities.

This lawsuit, styled, "Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et
al.," is filed on behalf of Hardiman individually and all other
aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA.

The complaint seeks penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code.

On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an amended complaint adding
class-action allegations on behalf of hourly employees in
California very similar to the Medlock case, including
allegations of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods,
improper wage statements, non-payment of wages upon termination,
unreimbursed business expenses and unfair or unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200.

On July 25, 2008, Taco Bell removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, and
subsequently filed a notice of related case.

On July 31, 2008, the case was transferred to the same judge as
in the "Medlock" case.  Taco Bell filed a motion to strike the
PAGA claims.  A scheduling conference is scheduled for Feb. 27,
2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Feb. 28 Mediation Set for LJS Managers' Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
A second mediation in a collective arbitration on behalf of a
putative class of general and assistant restaurant managers of
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s LJS concept is scheduled for Feb. 28, 2009.

On Nov. 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former LJS restaurant
manager, filed a collective action against LJS in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of
himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general and
assistant restaurant managers.

Mr. Johnson alleged that LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating a
policy and practice of seeking monetary restitution from LJS
employees, including Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") and
Assistant Restaurant General Managers ("ARGMs"), when monetary
or property losses occurred due to knowing and willful
violations of LJS policies that resulted in losses of company
funds or property, and that LJS had thus improperly classified
its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA.

Mr. Johnson sought overtime pay, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees for himself and his proposed class.

LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of
Mr. Johnson's suit.  The district court granted LJS's motion on
June 7, 2004, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005.

On Dec. 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Mr. Johnson's
claims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and
Nick Kaufman, represented by Mr. Johnson's counsel, initiated an
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA")
(the "Cole Arbitration").  The Cole Claimants sought a
collective arbitration on behalf of the same putative class as
alleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the same underlying
claims.

On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued
a Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute
Resolution Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on
a collective or class basis.  LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate
the Clause Construction Award in federal district court in South
Carolina.  On Sept. 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class
Determination Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be
certified in the Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, rather
than as an "opt-in" collective action as specified by the FLSA.

On Jan. 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to
vacate the Class Determination Award and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision on Jan. 28, 2008.  A petition for a writ of certiorari
filed in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of the Fourth
Circuit's decision was denied on Oct. 7, 2008.  The parties
participated in mediation on April 24, 2008, without reaching
resolution.  A second mediation is scheduled for Feb. 28, 2009.

LJS expects, based on the rulings issued to date in this matter,
that the Cole Arbitration will more likely than not proceed as
an "opt-out" class action, rather than as an "opt-in" collective
action.  LJS denies liability and is defending the claims in the
Cole Arbitration, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: July 27 Hearing Set for "Medlock" Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 27, 2009 hearing has been set for the class certification
motion in the putative class action styled, "Sandrika Medlock v.
Taco Bell Corp.," according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell
Corp., the company and other related entities styled, "Sandrika
Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Fresno, California.

The case was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who have
worked for the defendants within the last four years and alleges
numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal
and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation
of California Business & Professions Code 17200.

The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on
Jan. 10, 2008.

On March 24, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint adding a nationwide FLSA claim for
unpaid overtime.  Taco Bell opposed the motion and on June 10,
2008, the court denied plaintiff's motion to amend.  Discovery
is underway, with pre-certification discovery cutoff set for
Feb. 20, 2009 and an April 20, 2009 deadline for plaintiff to
file a motion for class certification.  A hearing on the class
certification motion has been scheduled for July 27, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Settlement of KFC AUMs' Suit Gets Final OK in Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, in
November 2008, granted final approval of the settlement of the
dispute with current and former assistant unit managers of YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s KFC concept.

On Sept. 2, 2005, a collective action lawsuit against the
company and KFC Corporation, originally styled, "Parler v. Yum
Brands, Inc., d/b/a KFC, and KFC Corporation," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The plaintiffs alleged that they and other current and former
KFC Assistant Unit Managers ("AUMs") were improperly classified
as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  They
sought overtime wages and liquidated damages.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the District Court dismissed the claims
against the company with prejudice, leaving KFC Corp. as the
sole defendant.

Plaintiffs amended the complaint on Sept. 8, 2006, to add
related state law claims on behalf of a putative class of KFC
AUMs employed in Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

On Oct. 24, 2006, plaintiffs moved to decertify the
conditionally certified FLSA action, and KFC Corp. did not
oppose the motion.  On June 4, 2007, the District Court
decertified the collective action and dismissed all opt-in
plaintiffs without prejudice.

Subsequently, plaintiffs filed 27 new cases around the country,
most of which alleged a statewide putative collective/class
action.  Plaintiffs also filed 324 individual arbitrations with
the American Arbitration Association ("AAA").  KFC filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") to transfer all 28 pending cases to a single district
court for coordinated pretrial proceedings pursuant to the
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") statute, 28 U.S.C. Section
1407.  KFC also filed a motion with the Minnesota District Court
to enjoin the 324 AAA arbitrations on the ground that Plaintiffs
waived the right to arbitrate by their participation in the
Minnesota (Parler) litigation.

On Jan. 3, 2008, the JPML granted KFC's motion to transfer all
of the pending court cases to the Minnesota District Court for
discovery and pre-trial proceedings.  On Jan. 4, 2008, KFC's
motion to enjoin the 324 arbitrations on the ground that
plaintiffs have waived their right to arbitrate was granted.

On Aug. 30, 2008, KFC and counsel for plaintiffs entered into a
settlement in principle to resolve this matter.  On Nov. 11,
2008, the parties entered into a formal Settlement Agreement and
Release.  On Nov. 20, 2008, the court entered an Order Granting
Final Judgment, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Face Suits by Calif. RGMs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp., a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands,
Inc., continues to face putative class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of all current and former Restaurant General Managers
("RGMs") .

On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled, "Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp.," was
filed in Orange County Superior Court.

On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled,
"Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in San Diego
County Superior Court.

Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell RGM purporting to
represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-
owned restaurants in California from August 2002, to the
present.

The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour
laws involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and
seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties.

As of Sept. 7, 2006, both cases have been consolidated in San
Diego County.  Discovery is underway.

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class
certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal
court in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008.  Plaintiffs have sought to
remand the case back to state court and the court took the
matter under submission without a hearing on Nov. 17, 2008.

No further updates were disclosed in the company's Feb. 23, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD -- 02/27/09 -- Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of 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 accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Company's failure to
disclose in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the
Company's secondary public offering of common stock for $57.25
per share ("Offering") 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
and had failed to properly write down impaired goodwill on the
assets it was acquiring.  According to the complaint, during
late 2008 and early 2009, as these inadequacies and failures by
the Company were revealed, the value of Chesapeake Energy's
stock declined significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law
Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of those who purchased Chesapeake Energy
Corporation ("Chesapeake" or the "Company") (NYSE:CHK) stock
pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
Chesapeake's July 2008 secondary offering (the "Offering").

     The Complaint charges that Chesapeake and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Offering was materially false because it
failed to disclose the following:

       -- Chesapeake's exposure to natural gas price declines
          had not been adequately limited by Chesapeake's
          hedging actions prior to the Offering;

       -- that Chesapeake had entered into hedging contracts
          with Lehman Brothers, an underwriter in the offering,
          though based on Lehman Brothers' rapidly declining
          financial condition, it would be unable to fulfill its
          financial commitment;

       -- prior to the Offering, Chesapeake's aggressive hedging
          activities had been significantly running up the price
          of natural gas and Chesapeake's stock price;

       -- Chesapeake's lease brokers, had been aggressively
          bidding up the prices Chesapeake was obligated to pay
          in leases and royalty agreements; and

       -- Chesapeake was failing to write down impaired goodwill
          on the assets it was acquiring.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, CT -- (Marketwire - February 27, 2009) -- The law
firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities
fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who purchased Chesapeake
Energy Corporation ("Chesapeake" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHK)
stock pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
Chesapeake's July 2008 secondary offering (the "Offering").

     The Complaint charges that Chesapeake and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Offering was materially false because it
failed to disclose the following:

       -- Chesapeake's exposure to natural gas price declines
          had not been adequately limited by Chesapeake's
          hedging actions prior to the Offering;

       -- that Chesapeake had entered into hedging contracts
          with Lehman Brothers, an underwriter in the offering,
          though based on Lehman Brothers' rapidly declining
          financial condition, it would be unable to fulfill its
          financial commitment;

       -- prior to the Offering, Chesapeake's aggressive hedging
          activities had been significantly running up the price
          of natural gas and Chesapeake's stock price;

       -- Chesapeake's lease brokers, had been aggressively
          bidding up the prices Chesapeake was obligated to pay
          in leases and royalty agreements; and

       -- Chesapeake was failing to write down impaired goodwill
          on the assets it was acquiring.

For more details, contact:

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


INTREPID POTASH: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law
Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
against Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid" or the "Company")
(NYSE:IPI) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf
of purchasers of Intrepid securities who purchased pursuant or
traceable to the April 21, 2008 Initial Public Offering (the
"IPO").

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

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


NUTRACEA INC: The Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Feb 27, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- The
Rosen Law Firm announced that it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of NutraCea common stock
during the period from August 14, 2007 through and including
February 23, 2009 (the "Class Period").

     The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona as case no 2:09-cv-00406-FJM.

     The complaint charges NutraCea and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially
inaccurate financial statements to the investing public.  On
February 23, 2009, NutraCea announced that it would be restating
revenue for the quarterly periods from the second quarter of
2007 through the fourth quarter of 2008 and for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2007.  The restatement is due to NutraCea's
improper recognition of revenue on two transactions in 2007.  Of
the approximately $22.2 million of revenue reported for 2007,
NutraCea estimates that $4.6 million will be reversed.  News of
the pending restatement caused NutraCea's stock price to fall
significantly, damaging investors.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


ROCHESTER FUND: Glancy Binkow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Feb 27, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Notice is
hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.
("Oppenheimer") on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased the Rochester Fund Municipals
("Rochester" or the "Fund") from February 26, 2006 through
October 21, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer, which runs the
Fund, misled investors about the risks of investing in the Fund,
resulting in a more than 30% decline in the Fund's value. The
lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares
(RMUNX), B Shares (RMUBX) and C Shares (RMUCX).

     The complaint further 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.  This caused the Trusts
to be collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal
amount of the tendered securities.  Consequently, the Fund was
forced to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of
market conditions and accept prices significantly below the
values at which the bonds were carried on its books.

     Although this risk factor was always present wherever
inverse floaters were employed, it was not disclosed in any of
the Prospectuses, which were filed as part of Registration
Statements with respect to the sale of the Funds shares.

     Plaintiff alleges that this lack of disclosure caused the
Fund's shares to trade at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

     On October 21, 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus
Supplement which disclosed the relevant risks associated with
the Fund's investment in Inverse Floaters.  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.

For more details, contact:

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


ROCHESTER FUND: Squitieri & Fearon Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The following
statement was issued by Squitieri & Fearon, LLP: YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED that Squitieri & Fearon has instituted a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Rochester
Fund Municipals ("Rochester" or the "Fund") (Nasdaq:RMUNX)
(Nasdaq:RMUCX) (Nasdaq:RMUBX) from February 26, 2006 through
October 21, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges that Rochester and its manager,
Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. ("Oppenheimer") and certain of its
Trustees misled investors about the risks of investing in
Rochester which resulted in an over 30% decline in the Fund's
value.

     The Complaint further 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.  This caused the Trusts
to be collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal
amount of the tendered securities.  In order to do so, the Fund
was forced to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of
market conditions and accepted prices far below the values at
which the bonds were carried on its books.

     This risk factor was always present wherever inverse
floaters were employed.  However, no disclosure was made in any
of the Prospectuses filed as part of Registration Statements
with respect to the sale of the Fund's shares.  Because of this
lack of disclosure, the Fund's shares traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

           Lee Squitieri (lee@sfclasslaw.com)
           Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
           Phone: (212) 421-6492


ROCHESTER FUND: The Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     February 27, 2009: 08:00 PM ET -- Marketwire -- The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A. announces that a securities class action lawsuit
was commenced on behalf of purchasers of A, B and C shares of
Rochester Fund Municipals ("Rochester Fund" or the "Fund")
(NASDAQ: RMUNX) (NASDAQ: RMUBX) (NASDAQ: RMUCX) from February
26, 2006 through October 21, 2008 ("Class Period").

     The complaint alleges that Rochester Fund, its manager
Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. and certain officers and directors
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 by misleading investors about the risks of investing in the
Fund.  The Complaint asserts that the Registration Statements
through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose
certain risks concerning Inverse Floaters in connection with the
Fund, which existed during the Class Period.  The Complaint
asserts that on October 21, 2008, the Fund filed a Prospectus
Supplement that finally disclosed the material and relevant
risks concerning the Fund's Inverse Floaters.  The Complaint
asserts that this adverse disclosure caused the Fund's shares to
fall, damaging investors.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


ROYAL BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     February 27, 2009 01:24 PM Eastern Time -- SAN DIEGO --
(BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
("Coughlin Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rbs/)announced
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS" or
the "Company") (NYSE:RBS) publicly traded securities during the
period between June 26, 2007 and January 19, 2009 (the "Class
Period"), including purchasers or acquirers of the preferred
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of RBS.

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

     RBS is a holding company of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
and National Westminster Bank plc, which are United Kingdom-
based clearing banks.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants falsely reassured investors that RBS was well
capitalized when, in fact, the Company was effectively insolvent
as a result of impaired assets, bad loans, and its disastrous
partial acquisition of ABN AMRO ("ABN").  On May 11, 2008, Times
Online reported that the SEC was investigating RBS over its
exposure to American sub-prime mortgages.  On October 7, 2008,
news began to emerge that the British government was holding
talks with major banks, including RBS, concerning the
possibility of government funding, and on November 28, 2008, RBS
announced that the government would take majority control of the
bank, buying a 57.9% stake in the Company.  In December 2008, it
was revealed that RBS had lost half a billion dollars in the
Madoff scandal.

     Then, on January 19, 2009, RBS announced that it expected
to lose approximately 28 billion in 2008, in large part due to
the write-off of goodwill associated with ABN as well as charges
associated with bad loans, the biggest loss in British corporate
history.  Thereafter, as the truth regarding the Company's
deteriorating financial results began to emerge, the prices of
RBS's publicly traded securities declined significantly.

     According to the complaint, defendants' statements during
the Class Period were materially false and misleading for
failing to disclose the following:

       -- the Company's portfolio of debt securities was
          impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had
          disclosed;

       -- the Company had failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

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

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

       -- the Company failed to properly report the goodwill
          associated with the ABN acquisition; and

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting the
          goodwill associated with the ABN acquisition.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of RBS publicly traded securities during the Class
Period, including purchasers of ADSs pursuant and/or traceable
to the Registration Statements issued in connection with certain
RBS offerings.

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/rbs/


                            *********

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  * * *