CAR_Public/090304.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 4, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 44

                           Headlines

CASH STORE: To Set Up Settlement Fund for Ontario Litigation
LAWNMOWER MAKERS: Court Panel Transfers W.Va. Suit to Wisconsin
MAPLE LEAF: Contaminated Food Victim Opposes CDN$27M Settlement
MASCO CORP: Ga. Judge Certifies Class in Price-Fixing Lawsuit
MICHAEL BIANCO: Several Ex-Employees Receive Settlement Checks

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" in Calif.
PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Nix Claims in Neurontin Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: March 3 Oral Argument Set for "Brown" Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Turner Case as of Feb.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Howard Case as of Feb.

SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Lawnmower Horsepower
TREMONT GROUP: HBSS Firm Files Amended Complaint to Wash. Suit
YOU WALK: Calif. Homeowners File Suit Over Foreclosure Services
YUM! BRANDS: "Leyva" Suit v. Taco Bell Pending in Fresno, Calif.
YUM! BRANDS: "Naranjo" Suit v. Taco Bell Pending in California

YUM! BRANDS: Parties in "Baskall" Suit Mull Settlement Options
YUM! BRANDS: "Archila" Suit v. KFC Pending in Calif. State Court
YUM! BRANDS: Cross Motions in "Moeller" Suit Due in Summer 2009


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DEUTSCHE BANK: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
ING GROEP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.


                           *********

CASH STORE: To Set Up Settlement Fund for Ontario Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Store Financial Services Inc. will set up a fund to settle
a class-action lawsuit filed in Ontario regarding the fees and
interest it charged customers, The Victoria Times Colonist
reports.

The Edmonton-based payday loan provider said the fund will
include CDN$1.5 million in cash and CDN$1.5 million in credit
vouchers, reports The Victoria Times Colonist.

In a news release, the company said, "The settlement fund will
be used to make payments to all customers of The Cash Store and
Instaloans, outside of Alberta and British Columbia, who
obtained and repaid a payday loan in full."

The vouchers can be used to pay new or existing brokerage fees
on payday loans from Cash Store or Instaloan offices, according
to the company.  The vouchers have no expiry date and are
transferable, according to The Victoria Times Colonist report.

The Canadian Press previously reported that Cash Store Financial
Services received court approval to settle a class-action
lawsuit over its allegedly excessive charges for payday loans
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 13, 2008).

According to the Edmonton-based financial company, which
operates more than 410 branches across Canada, the 2004 lawsuit
filed in Ontario concerns brokerage fees and interest charged to
customers of The Cash Store and Instaloans.


LAWNMOWER MAKERS: Court Panel Transfers W.Va. Suit to Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
a newly filed class-action lawsuit over lawnmowers from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to a
federal court in Wisconsin, Steve Korris of The West Virginia
Record reports.

On Feb. 5, 2009, the panel added the West Virginia suit to 42
similar suits before Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to The
West Virginia Record report.

In general, the lawsuits allege that manufacturers and retailers
overstated the horsepower of lawnmower engines, The West
Virginia Record reports.

The West Virginia suit, captioned, "Lilly v. Sears, Roebuck and
Co. et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00010," seeks damages from Sears,
Roebuck and Co., Deere & Company, Tecumseh Products Company,
Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA, MTD
Products Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Company,
Inc., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Kohler Co., Platinum
Equity, LLC and Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc.

The West Virginia Record reported that attorney Kristofer
Cormany, Esq. filed the suit on Jan. 6, on behalf of John F.
Lilly of Charleston.  Six Minnesota lawyers and one from
Pennsylvania later added their names to the suit.

Mr. Lilly bought a Yard Machines mower at K-Mart in Charleston
for $158.99 in 2001, according to the complaint, a copy of which
was obtained by The West Virginia Record.  "Plaintiff and
members of the proposed class paid more for their lawnmowers
than they would have paid absent Defendants' unlawful conduct,"
Mr. Cormany wrote.


MAPLE LEAF: Contaminated Food Victim Opposes CDN$27M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
     VANCOUVER / BRITISH COLUMBIA / NEWS RELEASE -- (Marketwire
- March 2, 2009) - Arlene Laughren is the proposed
representative plaintiff in a class action commenced in
Vancouver against Maple Leaf foods by the law firm, Collette
Parsons.

     Ms. Laughren suffered brain damage after consuming Maple
Leaf food products contaminated by the Listeria bacteria during
July 2008.  The proposed class Ms. Laughren seeks to represent
includes all British Columbia residents affected by Maple Leaf
food products contaminated with the Listeria bacteria, as well
as non-residents who were affected by the contaminated food and
wish to opt in to the British Columbia class action.

     Similar class actions were commenced across Canada
including two other actions in British Columbia.  A consortium
of law firms acting in all of the class actions in Canada,
excluding Ms. Laughren's action, has tentatively negotiated a
maximum $27 million settlement with Maple Leaf Foods.

     Between March 5, 2009 and March 20, 2009 approval of the
maximum $27 million settlement is being sought in the courts of
Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, by the consortium on behalf
of all persons affected by the Maple Leaf Listeria outbreak.
The application in Ontario seeks to include the claims of
residents of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario.  If
approved in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, the settlement
would dispose of the claims of everyone affected by contaminated
Maple Leaf food products for $25 million with an additional $2
million to be contributed if the $25 million is not adequate to
satisfy the claims of all the victims.  If approved, Maple Leaf
Foods will not have to contribute any further funds to pay for
the injuries caused by the Listeria outbreak.

     Today is the deadline for filing an objection to the
proposed settlement application in Ontario and Ms. Laughren is
filing an objection to the proposed settlement, and the
inclusion of BC residents in the Ontario class action, because
she is unaware of data supporting the contention that the
proposed pool of money will be adequate to compensate all class
members injured by the contaminated food.

     "I am objecting to the settlement because no information
has been provided to allow people injured by the contaminated
food to determine whether the proposed settlement is large
enough to compensate the thousands of victims affected across
Canada," explained Ms. Laughren.

     Ms. Laughren's lawyer, Guy Collette, stated, "The proposed
settlement agreement provides that any damages paid by Maple
Leaf Foods to claimants who opt out of the class action will
reduce the proposed $27 million class action settlement by an
equivalent amount.  Therefore, individuals injured by Maple
Leaf's contaminated products may only receive full compensation
if they opt out of the proposed class settlement."
  

MASCO CORP: Ga. Judge Certifies Class in Price-Fixing Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie E. Carnes of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia has green-lighted a national class-
action lawsuit that accuses Masco Corp. -- one of the country's
largest home insulation installers -- of price fixing, Urvaksh
Karkaria of the Atlanta Business Chronicle reports.

On Feb. 9, 2009, Judge Carnes granted the lawsuit "class
certification," meaning it will represent 377 independent
insulation installers who are suing Masco.  No trial date has
been set, according to the Atlanta Business Chronicle report.

In general, the suit contends that the Michigan-based fiberglass
insulation contractor Masco Corp. violated antitrust laws by
conspiring with fiberglass insulation manufacturers to fix
prices from 1999 through 2003, hurting competing independent
contractors, reports the Atlanta Business Chronicle.

Masco allegedly conspired with manufacturers to maintain prices
for independent insulation contractors above prices charged to
Masco.  Evidence suggests a difference in prices of least 12
percent to 15 percent, according to court documents, obtained by
the Atlanta Business Chronicle.

The Detroit Free Press previously reported that Judge Carnes
denied a motion that sought for the dismissal of a purported
class-action suit (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2009).


MICHAEL BIANCO: Several Ex-Employees Receive Settlement Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 750 former employees of Michael Bianco, Inc. who had
been denied overtime pay or were docked wages have received
settlement checks, WPRI reports.

The checks ranged from $20 to $6,000, depending on how much
overtime the workers earned.  The money is part of a settlement
reached last November 2008, according to the WPRI report.

Brian R. Ballou of The Boston Globe previously reported that
Michael Bianco, Inc., settled a purported class-action lawsuit
in Massachusetts entitled, "Chach et al v. Bianco et al., Case
No. 1:2007-cv-10915" by agreeing to pay current and former
workers $850,000 in overtime (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20,
2008).

The suit, which generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the for
the District of Massachusetts on May 15, 2007.  It names as
defendants:

       -- Michael Bianco, Inc.;
       -- Front Line Defense, Inc.;
       -- Francesco Insolia;
       -- Marguerite Insolia;
       -- Suzanne Thompson; and
       -- Gloria Melo.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are:

       -- Flor Chach;
       -- Elsy Hernandez;
       -- Digna Mendoza;
       -- Pedro Pacheco;
       -- Carlos Simaj-Morente; and
       -- Gilberto Vieira.

The plaintiffs are charging that the company set up a fake
corporation, Front Line Defense Inc., to avoid paying overtime
wages.

Employees said they were required to clock out at 5 p.m. After
working a full day shift at Michael Bianco and then clock back
in at 5:30 p.m. for Front Line.  They received checks from both
companies, to make it appear they had not exceeded 40 hours a
week, reports The Boston Globe.

According to Audrey Richardson, senior attorney for Greater
Boston Legal Services, which has represented many of the
workers, "Most of the time, the workers were doing the same work
on the same machine as they did during the day.

Workers who clocked the most hours will receive up to $8,000 in
back overtime pay.  The six employees who brought the lawsuit
will receive an additional $2,000 above the back pay they are
entitled to, compensation for coalescing the group of workers,
Ms. Richardson told The Boston Globe.

The suit is "Chach et al v. Bianco et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-
10915," filed in the U.S. District Court for the for the
District of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Audrey R. Richardson, Esq. (Arichardson@gbls.org)
          Greater Boston Legal Services
          197 Friend Street
          Boston, MA 02114
          Phone: 617-603-1662
          Fax: 617-371-1222

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq. (pgordon@gordonllp.com)
          Gordon Law Group
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: 617-536-1800
          Fax: 617-536-1802

               - and -

          Christa C. von der Luft, Esq. (cvonderluft@nutter.com)
          Nutter, McClennen & Fish
          World Trade Center West
          155 Seaport Boulevard
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: 617-439-2627
          Fax: 617-310-9627

Representing the defendants is:

          Diane M. Saunders, Esq. (dsaunders@morganbrown.com)
          Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP
          200 State Street
          11th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-523-6666
          Fax: 617-367-3125


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit styled, "Sean
Lane et al. v. Facebook Inc. et al., Case No. C08 03845," in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Aug. 12, 2008, the company along with 7 other defendants, was
sued by Sean Lane, and 17 other individuals, on their own behalf
and for others similarly in a class action suit, alleging
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and
California' Consumer legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law.

The complaint relates to the company's use of a product known as
Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the company by
Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook
users to share purchasing data among their Facebook friends.

The plaintiffs and defendants, including the company, have
stipulated to an extension in the time for answering the
complaint, while the parties engage in a mediation of the
dispute.  The company has not responded to the Complaint.

The company has notified Facebook, Inc. of its indemnification
obligations under the contract by which the company obtained and
deployed Facebook Beacon.

The company intends to defend this action and pursue with
Facebook its indemnification rights under the Facebook Beacon
agreement, according to its Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. (ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          2757 Leonis Blvd.
          Vernon, CA 90058-2304
          Phone: 323-585-8696


PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Nix Claims in Neurontin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several end-payor plaintiffs, including Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
have voluntarily dismissed all claims against Pfizer, Inc. in a
consolidated class-action suit that accused the pharmaceutical
company of engaging in an anti-competitive scheme to delay
generic competition for the epilepsy drug Neurontin, Law360
reports.

On Feb. 26 and 27, 2009, Smithfield and four individual consumer
plaintiffs lodged stipulations of voluntary dismissal in
litigation that was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, according to the Law360 report.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: March 3 Oral Argument Set for "Brown" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 3, 2009 oral argument is scheduled for the plaintiffs'
petition for review of the order decertifying the class in the
suit styled in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., according to
Reynolds American, Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown
& Williamson Holdings, Inc.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a
case filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.

The action was seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of
profits and other equitable relief under California Business and
Professions Code 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq.

Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition.

The court, however, refused to certify the class under the
California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law
claims.

On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
decertify the class.

On Sept. 5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
judge's order decertifying the class.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the plaintiffs' petition for review with the
California Supreme Court was granted.  Briefing is complete.
Oral argument is scheduled for March 3, 2009.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Turner Case as of Feb.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against a subsidiary of Reynolds American,
Inc., styled Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., remains
pending in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois.

In the Turner case filed in February 2000, in Circuit Court,
Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class on Nov. 14,
2001.

On June 6, 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case
pending Philip Morris's appeal of the Price v. Philip Morris
Inc. case, which the judge denied on July 11, 2003.

On Oct. 17, 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request.

On Nov. 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in Price.

The Price case is a seminal "lights" class-action involving RJR
Tobacco's competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal and remanded the case to the
circuit court.

There is currently no activity in the case, 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.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Howard Case as of Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against an affiliate of Reynolds American,
Inc., styled Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., remains
pending in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois.

In the "Howard" case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court,
Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class on Dec. 18,
2001.

On June 6, 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all
proceedings pending resolution of the Price v. Philip Morris,
Inc. case.

The Price case is a seminal "lights" class-action involving R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.

The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's
stay order on Aug. 19, 2005.

There is currently no activity in the case, 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.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Lawnmower Horsepower
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve prominent lawnmower manufacturers, including Sears,
Roebuck and Co., face a purported class-action lawsuit that
accuses them of conspiring and overstating the horsepower in
their products so they could charge consumers higher prices,
Kelly Holleran of The Madison County Record reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 18, 2009 in St. Clair County Circuit
Court, under case number 09-L-0085 by Rhonda Lemay of
Belleville, who claims the companies sold lawnmowers that
contained identical motors, but some were marked with a higher
horsepower and cost more than others.

In April 2003, Ms. Lemay bought a White Outdoor lawnmower
manufactured by MTD from Jones Brothers in Belleville, according
to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Madison
County Record.

Ms. Lemay is represented by JoDee Favre, Esq., of Belleville,
and Vincent J. Esades, Esq., Renae D. Steiner, Esq., and Scott
W. Carlson, Esq., of Heins, Mills and Olson in Minneapolis,
Brian M. Sund, Esq., Joshua G. Hauble, Esq., and Jackson D.
Bigham, Esq., of Morrison, Fenske and Sund in Minnetonka, Minn.,
and William H. London, Esq., and Douglas A. Millen, Esq., of
Freed, Kanner, London and Millen in Bannockburn, according to
The Madison County Record report.

According to the complaint, "Throughout the Class Period
(January 1, 1994 through the present), Defendants have knowingly
misrepresented the horsepower of Defendants' lawn mowers and
lawn mower engines through statements and representations made
and disseminated to the public in Defendants' advertising."  It
further states, "In fact, the true horsepower of Defendants'
engines is significantly less than the horsepower represented by
Defendants," reports The Madison County Record.

In order to charge the higher prices for less horsepower, the
companies communicated and agreed to conceal their
misrepresentations, the complaint alleges.

In the four-count suit, Ms. Lemay is asking the court to certify
the case as a class action and prohibit the defending companies
from engaging in similar conduct, reports The Madison County
Record.

The Madison County Record reported that she is also asking the
court to enjoin the companies from misrepresenting to the public
any power rating regarding engines or lawn mowers and to order
the defending companies to disgorge to class members all money
they unjustly received through their unlawful conduct.

Ms. Lemay is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and other relief the court deems just, according
to The Madison County Record.


TREMONT GROUP: HBSS Firm Files Amended Complaint to Wash. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, March 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP (www.hbsslawsecurities.com/tremont) filed an amended
class-action complaint last week against Tremont Group Holdings
(Tremont) with an expanded list of defendants including the Bank
of New York Mellon Corporation ('BNY') and BNY Alternative
Investment Services claiming the groups failed to properly
manage the Rye Broad Market Funds, and had it done so, would
have uncovered the massive Ponzi scheme to which all capital was
invested.  The amended complaint expands on the allegations of
the firm's original complaint filed in December 2008.

     The complaint claims BNY provided professional fund
administration to certain Rye Broad Market Funds for which BNY
allegedly accepted substantial fees for administrative tasks.

     The lawsuit claims BNY failed to exercise due diligence in
verifying the fund investments, which would have helped the fund
avoid unnecessary risks.

     The extended defendant list also includes Robert Schulman,
Tremont's chairman emeritus, Jim Mitchell the former president
and CEO of Rye Investment Management, John Murphy chairman, CEO
and director at OppenheimerFunds, Inc. and Select Spectrum
Partners LLC.

     The lawsuit claims that Tremont and other affiliated
entities failed to perform proper due diligence and failed to
vet, monitor, oversee, and safeguard Plaintiffs' investments,
before handing all of it over to Bernard Madoff.  As a result,
Tremont clients lost a total of $3.3 billion in assets, $3.1
billion from the Rye Funds.

     HBSS represents investors and groups that used Tremont to
invest capital.  The firm continues to examine other feeder
funds that turned capital investments over to Tremont and
Madoff.

     The amended complaint also includes an expanded list of
claims against defendants including: breach of fiduciary duty by
investment managers, breach of fiduciary duty by auditor (KPMG),
breach of fiduciary duty by administrator defendants and unjust
enrichment.

For more information, contact:

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


YOU WALK: Calif. Homeowners File Suit Over Foreclosure Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
     CAPISTRANO BEACH, Calif., February 23, 2009 - The Law
Offices of Benjamin L. Meeker, APC announced today that it
represents the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed
against You Walk Away, LLC, a "foreclosure consultant" company
located in Carlsbad, California.

     According to the complaint filed in San Diego County
Superior Court on February 13, 2009, You Walk Away peddles
foreclosure consulting "services" and "protection kits" through
which it entices desperate homeowners into paying an upfront fee
of $995 for an essentially worthless service.

     "We believe that You Walk Away's conduct falls within that
described by the California Attorney General's Office as the
'Foreclosure For a Fee Scam'" says attorney Benjamin Meeker. As
described by the California Attorney General's Office,
foreclosure consultants who perpetrate this scam advertise to
homeowners that they can provide "advice" on staying in their
home until they are evicted.

     "As its business name illustrates, the plaintiffs allege
that You Walk Away entices homeowners into believing that simply
walking away from a foreclosed home has few, if any,
consequences, while charging hefty fees for its products" Mr.
Meeker explained.


YUM! BRANDS: "Leyva" Suit v. Taco Bell Pending in Fresno, Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Miriam Leyva vs. Taco
Bell Corp., et al.," is pending in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Fresno, California, 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 June 16, 2008, the "Leyva" lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp.
and the company was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court.

The case was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other
California hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages
upon discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements,
unfair business practices and wrongful termination and
discrimination.

This case is very similar to the "Medlock" case; accordingly, on
July 3, 2008, Taco Bell filed a notice of related case.

The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on
Aug. 20, 2008.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court in Los Angeles on
Jan. 23, 2009.  Plaintiff did not oppose removal, and the
parties stipulated to transfer the case to the Eastern District
of California, where the "Medlock" case is pending.

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: "Naranjo" Suit v. Taco Bell Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Loraine Naranjo vs.
Taco Bell Corp., et al.," is pending in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Fresno, California, 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 Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the company was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.

The case was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all
other California employees and alleges failure to pay overtime,
failure to reimburse for business related expenses, improper
wage statements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure
to pay minimum wage and unfair business practices.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on Dec. 5, 2008.

Plaintiffs did not oppose removal and agreed to transfer the
case to the Eastern District of California, where the "Medlock"
case is pending.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 15, 2008, which
was denied on Jan. 20, 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: Parties in "Baskall" Suit Mull Settlement Options
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Baskall
v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.," plan to continue to explore
potential settlement options, 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 Dec. 21, 2007, the lawsuit against KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.
was filed in San Diego County Superior Court on behalf of all
current and former Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs"),
Assistant Unit Managers ("AUMs")and Shift Supervisors who worked
at KFC's California restaurants since Dec. 21, 2003.

The lawsuit alleges violations of California's wage and hour and
unfair competition laws, including denial of sufficient meal and
rest periods, improperly itemized pay stubs, and delays in
issuing final paychecks, and seeks unspecified amounts in
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

A first amended complaint was filed on Feb. 5, 2008.

KFC answered the amended complaint on March 21, 2008.

The parties participated in mediation on Feb. 10, 2009, without
reaching resolution, but plan to continue to explore potential
settlement options.

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: "Archila" Suit v. KFC Pending in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s KFC concept continues to face a putative
class-action suit styled, "Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties,
Inc.," in California state court.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the class-action suit was filed in California
state court on behalf of all California hourly employees
alleging various California Labor Code violations, including
rest and meal break violations, overtime violations, wage
statement violations and waiting time penalties.

KFC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Jan. 7, 2009.  No court deadlines have
yet been set, 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: Cross Motions in "Moeller" Suit Due in Summer 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cross motions for summary judgment in a class-action lawsuit
styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. are scheduled to be
filed in late summer 2009.

Taco Bell is a concept of YUM! Brands, Inc.

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in the
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On Aug.4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated
against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for
mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned
restaurants in California (the "California Restaurants")
accessible to the class.

The plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural
and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to
the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S.
Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil
Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled
Persons Act (the "CDPA").

They have requested:

   (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell
       to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations;

   (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of
       the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

   (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum
statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh
Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the
class.  They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000
individuals in the class.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The District Court certified a Rule
23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals
with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for
mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were
denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California
Restaurants.  The class includes claims for injunctive relief
and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004,
the District Court ordered that the trial of this action be
bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims
for damages.  The parties are currently proceeding with the
equitable relief stage of this action.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, without
reaching resolution.  A new trial court judge was assigned on
April 4, 2008.  The court ordered supplemental discovery and
heard Taco Bell's motion for partial summary judgment regarding
statute of limitations on Nov. 5, 2008, which was denied.  Cross
motions for summary judgment regarding ADA issues, and cross
motions for summary judgment regarding state law issues, are
scheduled to be filed in late summer, 2009.

Taco Bell has taken certain steps to address potential
architectural and structural compliance issues at the
restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws, 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.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DEUTSCHE BANK: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     March 02, 2009: 06:55 PM ET -- Marketwire -- The law firm
of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities
fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired the 6.375%
Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank
Capital Funding Trust VIII ("6.375% Securities") (NYSE: DUA)
and/or the 7.35% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of
Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X ("7.35% Securities")
(NYSE: DCE) (collectively, the "Securities") pursuant or
traceable to 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 ("DB" or the
"Company"), certain of its subsidiaries, officers, directors and
underwriters violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, the Registration Statements were materially
false because they omitted the following:

       -- DB 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;

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

       -- DB would have to raise an additional EUR10 billion by
          selling equity in the Company to the German
          government.

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


ING GROEP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN FRANCISCO, Mar 02, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The law firm
of Girard Gibbs LLP (http://www.girardgibbs.com/ing.asp)has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of 7.375%
ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital Securities of ING Groep N.V.
"ING").  It charges global financial services company ING and
certain of its affiliates, officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the offerings with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933.

     The class action, entitled, "Hathorn v. ING Groep N.V., et
al, 09-cv-1820," is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

     The complaint alleges that ING consummated the offerings
pursuant to a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectuses.  Specifically, ING sold shares of 7.375%
Securities for proceeds of over $1.45 billion in the September
2007 offering.  The registration statement and prospectuses
incorporated ING's financial results for 2005/2006 and 2007
through September.  After ING completed the offerings, the
company announced EUR 2 billion in impairment charges associated
with its exposure to bad loans, mortgage-related securities and
other "pressurized" assets, causing the prices of the securities
issued in the offerings to decline.

For more information, contact:

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/ing.asp


                            *********

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  * * *