CAR_Public/090309.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 47

                           Headlines

BECKMAN COULTER: Awaits Approval of Calif. Labor Suit Settlement
CEPHALON INC: Bids to Dismiss PROVIGIL Patent Deal Suits Pending
CEPHALON INC: Continues to Face Suits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug
CHASE BANK: Green Welling Files Calif. Consumer Suits Over Loans
CHOCOLATE MAKERS: Pa. Court Denies Motion v. Price Fixing Suit

CNA FINANCIAL: Appeal v. Approval of "Shaffer" Deal Pending
FMC CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Antitrust Violations
FMC CORP: Settlement of Antitrust Suit in Tenn. Approved in Nov.
INTEL CORP: Lawsuits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices Pending
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: June 1 Hearing Set for $5M Suit Agreement

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dropped as Party in Calif. Antitrust Suits
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CRT Purchasers' Amended Suits Due March 9
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Unit to Oppose Claim Over CRTs in Canada
MYLAN INC: Appeal in Lorazepam Price Hike Ruling Still Pending
MYLAN INC: Dey Continues to Defend Pricing Related Lawsuits

PRIMEO SELECT: Stull Stull Files Investors' Lawsuit in New York
PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Conn. Judge Sides with Firm in 401(k) Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARCLAYS BANK: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

BECKMAN COULTER: Awaits Approval of Calif. Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that
Beckman Coulter, Inc. violated certain provisions of the
California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders is pending final court approval.

On Aug. 16, 2007, a former employee of the company filed a
lawsuit in Orange County California Superior Court, entitled,
"Davila v. Beckman Coulter."  The lawsuit asserts claims on the
plaintiff's own behalf and also on behalf of a purported class
of former and current Beckman Coulter employees.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders
with respect to meal breaks and rest periods, the payment of
compensation for meal breaks and rest periods not taken, the
information shown on pay stubs, and certain overtime payments.
It also alleges that the company engaged in unfair business
practices.

The plaintiff is seeking back pay, statutory penalties, and
attorneys' fees, and seeks to certify the suit on behalf of the
company's non-exempt California employees.

Recently, six additional former employees have sought permission
from the court to be added as class representatives (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2008).

The six additional former employees were added as class
representatives.

The parties have settled this matter, subject to final Court
approval, with the Company to pay an aggregate sum of $2.25
million to settle all claims of the company's California non-
exempt employees, including attorney's fees, class
representative enhancements, costs, and penalties.  The $2.25
million will be shared by the class pursuant to a formula that
factors in the percentage of each class member's total
compensation paid by the company during the class period
compared to the total compensation paid by us to all class
members during the class period.  Payments to the class will be
made on a "claims made" basis, i.e., class members must submit a
valid and timely claim form in order to participate in the
settlement and be paid.  In exchange, all settling class members
will effectively release the company from any claims, known or
unknown, which relate to their wage claims with Beckman Coulter.

Since the court has preliminarily approved the settlement, a
claims administrator will begin the process of compiling data
relating to the class members and sending notice and claim forms
to the class members.  Assuming the court provides final
approval of the settlement, this matter should be settled, class
members paid and the company released within the next five to
six months, 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.

Beckman Coulter, Inc. -- http://www.beckman.com/-- is a
manufacturer of biomedical testing instrument systems, tests and
supplies that simplify and automate laboratory processes.  It
designs, manufactures and sells systems, services, reagents and
supplies to clinical and life science laboratories worldwide.


CEPHALON INC: Bids to Dismiss PROVIGIL Patent Deal Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc.; Barr Laboratories Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA; and Ranbaxy Laboratories
Ltd. continue to pursue the dismissal of lawsuits filed over
their PROVIGIL patent case settlements.

Initially, certain private parties brought a number of civil
antitrust complaints, purportedly filed as class-action suits
against the defendants.  The suits claim, among other things,
that the patent litigation settlements concerning PROVIGIL
violate the antitrust laws of the U.S. and certain state laws.

The suits have been recently consolidated into one complaint on
behalf of a class of direct purchasers of PROVIGIL and a
separate complaint on behalf of a class of consumers and other
indirect purchasers of PROVIGIL.

A separate complaint filed by an indirect purchaser of PROVIGIL
was filed in September 2007.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions are seeking monetary
damages and equitable relief.

The company moved to dismiss the class action complaints in
November 2006 and those motions are still pending.

The company reported no further development in 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.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an
international biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human
diseases.  The company's focuses its efforts in four core
therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain,
cancer and addiction.  In addition to conducting an active
research and development program, it markets six products in the
U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe.


CEPHALON INC: Continues to Face Suits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to face several class-action
complaints over its ACTIQ cancer drug, 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.

The company markets and sells ACTIQ, the only appropriate
medical use of which is the management of breakthrough cancer in
patients with malignancies who are already receiving and who are
tolerant to opioid therapy for their underlying persistent
cancer pain.

In other words, the FDA approved ACTIQ for a narrow class of
patients: cancer patients whose pain could not be managed with
other narcotic based drugs.

In late 2007, the company was served with a series of putative
class-action complaints filed on behalf of entities that claim
to have purchased ACTIQ for uses outside of the product's
approved label in non-cancer patients.

The complaints allege violations of various state consumer
protection laws, as well as the violation of the common law of
unjust enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in
actual, punitive and treble damages, with interest, and
disgorgement of profits.

In May 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint that also allege violations of RICO and conspiracy to
violate RICO.

In February 2009, the company was served with an additional
putative class action complaint filed on behalf of two health
and welfare trust funds that claim to have purchased GABITRIL
and PROVIGIL for uses outside of the products' approved labels.

The complaint alleges violations of RICO and the common law of
unjust enrichment and seeks an unspecified amount of money in
actual, punitive, and/or treble damages, with interest.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an
international biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human
diseases.  The company's focuses its efforts in four core
therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain,
cancer and addiction.  In addition to conducting an active
research and development program, it markets six products in the
U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe.


CHASE BANK: Green Welling Files Calif. Consumer Suits Over Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:45:36 GMT -- SAN FRANCISCO -- (Business
Wire) Green Welling LLP filed two class action lawsuits
regarding promotional offers from Chase Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase")
that promised a low interest rate for the life of the loan or
until paid off.  The parent company of Chase is J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co. ("J.P. Morgan – NYSE: JPM).  Chase credit card
customers allege in the complaints that they were offered
balance transfer loans or loans in the form of blank checks that
were connected to but with different terms than the credit
cards.  The Plaintiffs also claim that the promotional rate
loans offered by Chase had terms that were at low interest rates
usually with APR's or interest rates set at 2.99% or 3.99% "for
the life of the loan."  Chase used the promise of these low
fixed rates for the life of the loan to induce consumers to
transfer their balances from other credit card accounts to a
Chase account, according to one of the Plaintiffs' attorneys,
Robert Green.  Most people paid a substantial balance transfer
fee to Chase to lock in the promotional rates for as long as
there was a balance remaining on the transferred amounts, he
said.

     In November 2008, Chase sent its customers a notice stating
that the minimum monthly payments would go up by 150%, from 2%
of the balance to 5% of the balance, according to the document.
The notice of change in terms sent by Chase also added a new
finance charge misleadingly described as an "Account Service
Charge of $10 a month."  This new $120 annual account finance
charge effectively increases the customers' interest rates, Mr.
Green said.

     The cases are filed in the federal courts in the District
of Oregon and the Central District of California.  The actions
seek to return the accounts of card holders to their original
promised terms and to obtain damages for additional amounts that
card holders were required to pay in violation of the promises
made by Chase.  The lawsuits also seek to address the unfair
provisions placed in the cardmember agreements by Chase that
purport to require cardholders to individually arbitrate their
claims and try to prevent cardholders from joining together in a
class action to vindicate their legal rights.

For more details, contact:

          Robert S. Green, Esq. (gw@classcounsel.com)
          Green Welling LLP
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          web site: http://www.classcounsel.com/


CHOCOLATE MAKERS: Pa. Court Denies Motion v. Price Fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania refused to throw out a lawsuit
accusing the U.S. chocolate industry of price fixing and gave
the plaintiffs additional time to prove their claims, Pete
Shellem of The Patriot-News reports.

In his 83-page opinion issued on March 4, 2009, Judge Conner
denied most of the motions to dismiss filed by the chocolate
companies, including The Hershey Co., except for some claims
under state consumer laws, reports The Patriot-News.

He said the plaintiffs have provided enough evidence to allow
claims of antitrust violations to proceed and granted them
additional time to tie in the actions of the companies' foreign
subsidiaries to the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts, according to
The Patriot-News report.

The 87 class-action lawsuits filed across the country were
consolidated and assigned to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania by an administrative order
citing Hershey's headquarters in the area.

The Patriot-News reported that the lawsuits against Hershey,
Mars, Cadbury and Nestle, which collectively control 75 percent
of the chocolate market in the U.S., allege the companies
conspired to raise chocolate candy prices by about 10 percent in
December 2002, 6 percent in December 2004, and 5 percent in
April 2007.


CNA FINANCIAL: Appeal v. Approval of "Shaffer" Deal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal from an order approving the settlement reached in the
purported class-action lawsuit "Shaffer v. Continental Casualty
Co., et al., Case No. CV06-2235 RGK," which names CNA Financial
Corp. -- an 89%-owned subsidiary of Loews Corp. -- and
Continental Casualty Co., as defendants, is being briefed before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, is a class action suit filed on
behalf of certain California long term health care
policyholders, alleging that CCC and CNAF knowingly used
unrealistic actuarial assumptions in pricing these policies,
which according to plaintiff, would inevitably necessitate
premium increases (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007).

The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of various California
statutes.

Both defendants have denied the material allegations of the
amended complaint and intended to vigorously contest the claims.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a
class action suit.  The defendants have appealed the grant of
class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit refused to hear the appeal on an
interlocutory basis.

In April 2007, the Court denied CCC's and CNAF's motions for
summary judgment with the exception of the motion relating to
the plaintiff's claim under the California Legal Remedies Act,
which was dismissed.  The claim under CLRA involved a provision
for claims of awards for attorneys' fees and enhanced damages.

In June 2007, CCC and CNAF filed a motion to reconsider the
denial of summary judgment on the fraud claim.  In July 2007,
the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On Oct. 10, 2007, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement to resolve the case.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the parties entered into a binding agreement
settling the case on a nationwide basis for the policy forms
potentially affected by the allegations of the complaint.

Under the settlement agreement, CCC will provide certain
enhanced benefits to eligible class members including certain
non-forfeiture benefits, opportunities to exchange policies and
free health screenings.

Following a fairness hearing, the Court entered an order
approving the settlement.  This order was appealed to the Ninth
Circuit.

At present the appeal is being briefed.  No oral argument has
yet been scheduled, according to the company's Current Report on
Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated Feb. 23, 2009.

The suit is "Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. (wkreger@maklawyers.com)
         Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP
         2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
         Santa Monica, CA 90405
         Phone: 310-396-9600

              - and -

         Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. (rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com)
         Neblett Beard and Arsenault
         2220 Bonaventure Court, P.O. Box 1190
         Alexandria, LA 71309-1190
         Phone: 318-487-9874

Representing the defendants are:

         Brent R. Austin, Esq. (austin@wildmanharrold.com)
         Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon
         225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
         Chicago, IL 60606-1229
         Phone: 312-201-2848

              - and -

         Stan Karas, Esq. (stankaras@quinnemanuel.com)
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges
         865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
         Phone: 213-443-3000


FMC CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corp. continues to face putative class-action complaints
alleging violations of antitrust laws in various jurisdictions.

In February 2005, putative class-action complaints were filed
against six U.S. hydrogen peroxide producers (and certain of
their foreign affiliates) in various federal courts alleging
violations of antitrust laws.

Related cases were also filed in various state courts.

All of the federal court cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia).

The District Court certified the class in January 2007.

On Dec. 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals vacated the class
certification order and remanded the case for further
proceedings in the District Court.

FMC then reached an agreement in principle to settle with the
class for $10 million, subject to final documentation and
approval by the Court.  The Court has already finally approved
settlements with four of the six original defendant groups, who
collectively paid approximately $90 million.

Seventeen companies (predominantly paper producers) have opted
out of certain of the settlements with other defendants.
Certain of the defendants in the class action have settled those
opt out claims for undisclosed amounts.  Six of the 17 opt outs
have filed suit against FMC and Foret in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and one has sued FMC as
well as two other producers.  These cases have been assigned to
the same judge as the class action.  Two other opt out cases
have been pending for some time against FMC and other hydrogen
peroxide producers, and in August 2008, Foret was added as a
defendant to these cases.  The stay of all these actions entered
by the District Court during the class certification appeal
remains in place.

Most of the state court cases have been dismissed, although some
remain in California.

In addition, putative class actions have been filed in
provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under
the laws of Canada.  A motion for class certification is
pending, 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.

FMC Corp. -- http://www.fmc.com/-- is a diversified, global
chemical company providing solutions, applications and products
to a variety of markets.  It operates in three segments:
Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial
Chemicals.  Its Agricultural Products segment focuses on
insecticides, which are used in agriculture to enhance crop
yield and quality by controlling a range of insects and weeds.
Specialty Chemicals consists of FMC's BioPolymer and lithium
businesses, and focuses on food ingredients that are used to
enhance texture, structure and physical stability,
pharmaceutical additives for binding, encapsulation and
disintegrant applications, ultrapure technologies for medical
devices and lithium specialties for pharmaceutical synthesis,
specialty polymers and energy storage.  Its Industrial Chemicals
segment manufactures a range of inorganic materials, including
soda ash, hydrogen peroxide, specialty peroxygens and phosphorus
chemicals.


FMC CORP: Settlement of Antitrust Suit in Tenn. Approved in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee state court approved the $500,000 settlement of an
antitrust class action against FMC Corp. in November 2008.

An antitrust class-action suit previously brought in Federal
Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging
violations of antitrust laws involving the company's
microcrystalline cellulose product was settled for $25.0
million, the same amount paid by FMC's codefendant Asahi Kasei
Corporation.  The Court approved this settlement in November
2006.

The claims of plaintiffs who opted out of the class settlement
were also settled late in 2006 for $700,000.

The parties have also reached an agreement to settle a related
state court case pending in California, for a total for $2.5
million, with the company and Asahi Kasei each contributing
$1.25 million.  This settlement was approved by the California
state court in November 2007.

A third related state class-action case against FMC in Tennessee
state court has been settled for $500,000.  This settlement was
approved by the Tennessee state court in November 2008,
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.

FMC Corp. -- http://www.fmc.com/-- is a diversified, global
chemical company providing solutions, applications and products
to a variety of markets.  It operates in three segments:
Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial
Chemicals.  Its Agricultural Products segment focuses on
insecticides, which are used in agriculture to enhance crop
yield and quality by controlling a range of insects and weeds.
Specialty Chemicals consists of FMC's BioPolymer and lithium
businesses, and focuses on food ingredients that are used to
enhance texture, structure and physical stability,
pharmaceutical additives for binding, encapsulation and
disintegrant applications, ultrapure technologies for medical
devices and lithium specialties for pharmaceutical synthesis,
specialty polymers and energy storage.  Its Industrial Chemicals
segment manufactures a range of inorganic materials, including
soda ash, hydrogen peroxide, specialty peroxygens and phosphorus
chemicals.


INTEL CORP: Lawsuits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. continues to face several lawsuits, including some
class-action lawsuits, with regards to the higher prices of its
microprocessors.

In June 2005, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging
that Intel and Intel's Japanese subsidiary engaged in various
actions in violation of the Sherman Act and the California
Business and Professions Code, including providing secret and
discriminatory discounts and rebates and intentionally
interfering with prospective business advantages of AMD.

AMD's complaint seeks unspecified treble damages, punitive
damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits before
the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against
Intel's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's
Anti-monopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55
million, plus various other costs and fees.

At least 82 separate class-action suits, generally repeating
AMD's allegations and asserting various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for Intel microprocessors, have been filed
with the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
California, Southern District of California, and the District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts.

All the federal class action complaints have been consolidated
by the Multi-district Litigation Panel to the District of
Delaware.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.

The plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class
certification, which the company is in the process of opposing.

At the company's request, the Court in the California actions
has agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the
Delaware Federal Court rules on the similar motion in the
coordinated actions, 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. 27, 2008.

Intel Corp. -- http://www.intel.com/-- is a semiconductor
chipmaker, developing advanced integrated digital technology
platforms and components, primarily integrated circuits, for the
computing and communications industries.  Intel's products
include chips, boards and other semiconductor products that are
the building blocks integral to computers, servers, handheld
devices, and networking and communications products.  Its
component-level products consist of integrated circuits used to
process information, including microprocessors, chipsets, and
flash memory.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: June 1 Hearing Set for $5M Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on June 1, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $5 million settlement in the matter, "In Re:
Interlink Electronics, Inc., Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. CV05-8133AG (Shx)."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Andrew J.
Guilford, at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division, Ronald Reagan Federal Building
and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA
92701-4516.

The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 15, 2005, under the caption "Roger
Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," was brought against the company and two of
its current and former officers.  It alleges that between April
24, 2003, and Nov. 1, 2005, the company and the individual
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material information regarding the company's results of
operations and financial condition (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
18, 2008).

The complaint also alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market which had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price.  It seeks
unspecified damages and legal expenses.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs, who
later filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint
includes claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.

In September 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
a motion by the defendants to dismiss the operative complaint.

On April 24, 2008, the parties participated in a mediation with
Retired Justice Howard B. Wiener in Los Angeles.  The parties
were unable to reach a resolution of their dispute and will
continue to litigate.

The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2008,
which the Company subsequently moved to dismiss in part.  On
Oct. 6, 2008, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss,
and on Oct. 22, 2008, the Company filed an answer.

The suit is "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Percy Anderson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         e-mail: service@ssbla.com

              - and -

         David A.P. Brower, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         488 Madison Avenue
         Eighth Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 501-9000

Representing the defendants is:

         Daniel S. Floyd, Esq. (dfloyd@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dropped as Party in Calif. Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. entities have been
dismissed as defendants in two master antitrust class-action
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, 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.

On Dec. 11, 2006, LG Display Co. Ltd (formerly LG.Philips LCD
Co. Ltd.), a company in which Koninklijke Philips holds 13% of
the common stock, announced that officials from the Korean Fair
Trade Commission visited the offices of LG Display and that it
had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice and
similar notice from the Japanese Fair Trade Commission in
connection with inquiries by those regulators into possible
anticompetitive conduct in the LCD industry.

Subsequent to the public announcement of these inquiries,
certain Philips group companies were named as defendants in a
number of class action antitrust complaints filed in the U.S.
courts, seeking damages on behalf of purchasers of products
incorporating thin-film transistor liquid crystal display panels
(TFT-LCD panels), based on alleged anticompetitive conduct by
manufacturers of such panels.

The lawsuits were consolidated in two master actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California: one,
asserting a claim under federal antitrust law, on behalf of
direct purchasers of TFT-LCD panels and products containing such
panels, and another, asserting claims under federal antitrust
law, as well as various state antitrust and unfair competition
laws, on behalf of indirect purchasers of such panels and
products.

On Dec. 5, 2008, following the partial grant of motions to
dismiss consolidated class action complaints in those master
actions, the plaintiffs filed amended consolidated class-action
complaints, asserting essentially the same legal claims as those
alleged in the prior complaints.

The company and certain other companies within the Philips group
companies that were named as defendants in various of the
original complaints have entered into agreements with the
plaintiffs that generally toll the statutes of limitations
applicable to plaintiffs' claims, following which the plaintiffs
agreed to dismiss without prejudice the claims against the
Philips defendants.

None of the companies within the Philips group of companies
currently is named as a defendant in the pending amended
complaints, but the litigation is continuing.

In addition, in February 2007, certain plaintiffs filed
purported class actions in a United States court against LG
Display and certain current and former employees and directors
of LG Display for damages based on alleged violations of U.S.
federal securities laws.  No Philips group company is named as a
defendant in these actions.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips Electronics)
-- http://www.philips.com-- is the parent company of the
Philips Group (Philips).  As of Jan. 1, 2008, Philips'
activities are organized on a sector basis, with each operating
sector Healthcare, Consumer Lifestyle and Lighting being
responsible for the management of its businesses worldwide.  The
company aims, through the Innovation & Emerging Businesses
sector, to invest in projects that are not part of the operating
sectors, but which will lead to growth.  The Group Management &
Services sector provides the sectors with support through shared
service centers. In September 2008, Medialink Worldwide Inc.
announced the transfer of its ownership interest in Teletrax to
the company.  Pursuant to the transfer, it owns 100% of the
Teletrax entities.  In October 2008, the company sold its speech
recognition activities, Philips Speech Recognition Systems, to
Nuance Communications, Inc.  In December 2008, it acquired the
aerosol therapy business of Medel SpA.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CRT Purchasers' Amended Suits Due March 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
The direct and indirect purchasers of Cathode-Ray Tubes (CRT)
and products incorporating CRTs have until March 9, 2009, to
file separate consolidated amended complaints against certain
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. entities.

On Nov. 21, 2007, the company announced that competition law
authorities in several jurisdictions have commenced
investigations into possible anticompetitive activities in the
CRT industry.

As one of the companies that formerly was active in the CRT
business, Philips is subject to a number of these ongoing
investigations.

Subsequent to the public announcement of these investigations,
certain Philips group companies were named as defendants in over
50 class-action antitrust complaints filed in various federal
district courts in the United States.

These actions allege anticompetitive conduct by manufacturers of
CRTs and seek treble damages on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of CRTs and products incorporating CRTs.

These complaints assert claims under federal antitrust law, as
well as various state antitrust and unfair competition laws and
may involve joint and several liability among the named
defendants.

These actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Pursuant to a Stipulation and Order issued by the District Court
on Sept. 12, 2008, a broad stay of merits discovery has been
imposed and the Court has set a deadline of March 9, 2009, for
the filing of separate consolidated amended complaints by the
direct and indirect purchasers.

Philips intends to move to dismiss such consolidated amended
complaints once they are filed, 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.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips Electronics)
-- http://www.philips.com-- is the parent company of the
Philips Group (Philips).  As of Jan. 1, 2008, Philips'
activities are organized on a sector basis, with each operating
sector Healthcare, Consumer Lifestyle and Lighting being
responsible for the management of its businesses worldwide.  The
company aims, through the Innovation & Emerging Businesses
sector, to invest in projects that are not part of the operating
sectors, but which will lead to growth.  The Group Management &
Services sector provides the sectors with support through shared
service centers. In September 2008, Medialink Worldwide Inc.
announced the transfer of its ownership interest in Teletrax to
the company.  Pursuant to the transfer, it owns 100% of the
Teletrax entities.  In October 2008, the company sold its speech
recognition activities, Philips Speech Recognition Systems, to
Nuance Communications, Inc.  In December 2008, it acquired the
aerosol therapy business of Medel SpA.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Unit to Oppose Claim Over CRTs in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s subsidiary, Philips
Group, intends to oppose the claim in a proposed class
proceeding in Ontario, Canada.

Certain Philips group companies have been named as defendants,
in a proposed class proceeding in Canada, along with numerous
participants in the Cathode-Ray Tubes (CRT) industry.

The proceedings remain at a preliminary stage.  At this time, no
class proceeding has been certified and no statement of defence
has been filed, 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.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips Electronics)
-- http://www.philips.com-- is the parent company of the
Philips Group (Philips).  As of Jan. 1, 2008, Philips'
activities are organized on a sector basis, with each operating
sector Healthcare, Consumer Lifestyle and Lighting being
responsible for the management of its businesses worldwide.  The
company aims, through the Innovation & Emerging Businesses
sector, to invest in projects that are not part of the operating
sectors, but which will lead to growth.  The Group Management &
Services sector provides the sectors with support through shared
service centers. In September 2008, Medialink Worldwide Inc.
announced the transfer of its ownership interest in Teletrax to
the company.  Pursuant to the transfer, it owns 100% of the
Teletrax entities.  In October 2008, the company sold its speech
recognition activities, Philips Speech Recognition Systems, to
Nuance Communications, Inc.  In December 2008, it acquired the
aerosol therapy business of Medel SpA.


MYLAN INC: Appeal in Lorazepam Price Hike Ruling Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc.'s appeal of the judgment in the lorazepam price
increase case, which was brought by four health insurers who
opted out of earlier class action settlements, remains pending.

On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MPI), and co-defendants Cambrex
Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0
million, which has been accrued for by the company.  The jury
found that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully violated
Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust laws in
connection with active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) supply
agreements entered into between the Company and its API supplier
(Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, lorazepam and
clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these
drugs in 1998.

The case was brought by four health insurers who opted out of
earlier class action settlements agreed to by the company in
2001, and represents the last remaining antitrust claims
relating to Mylan's 1998 price increases for lorazepam and
clorazepate.

Following the verdict, the company filed a motion for judgment
as a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to
dismiss two of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the company's motion for judgment as a matter
of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining
motions were denied on Jan. 24, 2008.

In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict
be trebled and that request was granted on Jan. 24, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co-
defendants in the total amount of approximately $69.0 million,
some or all of which may be subject to indemnification
obligations by Mylan.

The plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys' fees and
litigation costs in unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest
of approximately $9.0 million.

The company and its co-defendants have appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  The appeals have been
held in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment
interest.

In connection with the company's appeal of the lorazepam
judgment, Mylan submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-
party insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million.  This
surety bond is secured by a pledge of a $40.0 million cash
deposit and an irrevocable letter of credit for $34.5 million
issued under the Senior Credit Agreement.

On Oct. 27, 2008, a U.S. magistrate judge issued a report
recommending the granting of plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment
interest.  The report also recommends requiring the surety bond
amount to be increased to include prejudgment interest.  Mylan
has submitted objections to the magistrate judge's
recommendations and now pending is the district court's
determination of whether to accept or reject those
recommendations.  If the magistrate's recommendations on
prejudgment interest are accepted, Mylan intends to contest
these rulings as part of its pending appeal, 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.

Mylan Inc. -- http://www.mylan.com/-- and its subsidiaries
comprise a global pharmaceutical company that develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
and branded generic pharmaceutical products and active
pharmaceutical ingredients (API).  Mylan has three segments: the
Generics Segment, the Matrix Segment and the Specialty Segment.
Mylan markets more than 570 products to consumers in more than
140 countries.  Mylan's products cover an array of therapeutic
categories, and offer a range of dosage forms and delivery
systems, including oral solids, controlled-release, steriles,
injectables, topicals, liquids, transdermals, semi-solids and
high-potency products.


MYLAN INC: Dey Continues to Defend Pricing Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc.'s specialty pharmaceutical business subsidiary, Dey
L.P., is currently a defendant in various pricing related
lawsuits, including several class-action cases brought by
consumers and third-party payors.

Dey is named as a defendant in lawsuits brought by the state
AG's of Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Pennsylvania, South Carolina (on behalf of the state
and the state health plan), Utah and Wisconsin and the city of
New York and approximately 40 New York counties.

Dey has reached a settlement of most of the class actions, which
has been preliminarily approved by the court.

In addition, the U.S. federal government filed a claim against
Dey in August 2006.

These cases all generally allege that Dey falsely reported
certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by
Dey.

In conjunction with the former Merck Generics business
acquisition by Mylan, Mylan is entitled to indemnification by
Merck KGaA for these Dey pricing related suits, 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.

Mylan Inc. -- http://www.mylan.com/-- and its subsidiaries
comprise a global pharmaceutical company that develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand
and branded generic pharmaceutical products and active
pharmaceutical ingredients (API).  Mylan has three segments: the
Generics Segment, the Matrix Segment and the Specialty Segment.
Mylan markets more than 570 products to consumers in more than
140 countries.  Mylan's products cover an array of therapeutic
categories, and offer a range of dosage forms and delivery
systems, including oral solids, controlled-release, steriles,
injectables, topicals, liquids, transdermals, semi-solids and
high-potency products.


PRIMEO SELECT: Stull Stull Files Investors' Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:43:20 GMT -- LOS ANGELES -- (Business
Wire) On March 5, 2009, attorneys at Stull, Stull & Brody filed
a new Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a Class,
consisting of all persons and entities who invested in the
Primeo Select Fund, Primeo Executive Fund, Thema International
Fund, Herald USA Fund, and Herald Luxemburg Fund ("collectively,
the "Funds") between January 12, 2004 through and including
January 12, 2009 (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges that, unknown to their investors, the
Funds concentrated almost 100% of their investment capital in
the massive, fraudulent scheme perpetrated by defendant Bernard
L. Madoff and his firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.
Defendants include the various Funds' directors, their auditors
(the accounting firms Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers)
and the custodian for the various Funds (HSBC).

For more details, contact:

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq. (Tburke@ssbla.com)
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 1-888-388-4605
          Fax: 1-310-209-2087
          Web site: http://www.ssbny.com


PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a proposed shareholder
class-action lawsuit against PXRE Group Ltd. -- now known as
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. -- after ruling that the
plaintiffs' claims did not show that the reinsurer had a motive
to understate the company's losses initially following Hurricane
Katrina in order to raise more money before credit agencies
could downgrade PXRE, Law360 reports.

In a ruling on March 5, 2009, Judge Sullivan found that the
plaintiffs "failed to plead that defendants were reckless in not
knowing about the flaws in PXRE's calculation of its loss
estimates."  He noted that the plaintiffs had already repleaded
the case three times, and dismissed it with prejudice, according
to a report by David Bario of Am Law Litigation Daily.

Initially, several purported class-action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company; Jeffrey Radke, the company's chief
executive officer; and John Modin, the company's former chief
financial officer.   These suits were brought on behalf of a
putative class consisting of investors who purchased the
publicly traded securities of PXRE between July 28, 2005, and
Feb. 16, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 23, 2008).

Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical
claims and alleges that during the purported class period,
certain PXRE executives made a series of materially false and
misleading statements or omissions about PXRE's business,
prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase
PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934
Act.

The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the
company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material
adverse facts:

      -- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes
         Katrina, Rita and Wilma;

      -- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to
         an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and

      -- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential
         loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from
         A.M. Best.

Furthermore, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing
asserted facts, that PXRE's statements with respect to its loss
estimates for the 2005 hurricane season lacked any reasonable
basis.  The class-action suits seek an unspecified amount of
damages, as well as other forms of relief.

Pursuant to an opinion and order of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York dated March 30, 2007, these
lawsuits have been consolidated into one proceeding.

The lawsuit is "In re PXRE Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-03410-KMK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Kenneth M. Karas,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. (jalieberman@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-661-1100
         Fax: 212-661-8665

              - and -

         Bradley Peter Dyer, Esq. (BPDyer@SSBNY.com)
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212 687-7230
         Fax: 212 490-2022

Representing the defendants is:

         Bruce Domenick Angiolillo, Esq.
         (bangiolillo@stblaw.com)
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-455-2000
         Fax: 212-455-2502


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Conn. Judge Sides with Firm in 401(k) Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Warren W. Eginton of the U.S. Distirct Court for the
District of Connecticut ruled that United Technologies Corp. did
not breach its fiduciary duties in connection with its 401(k)
plan expenses and investment options, Jennifer Byrd of Pensions
& Investments reports.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in September 2006 on behalf of
three participants in the company’s 401(k) plan, alleged that
the plan should not have offered actively managed mutual funds
to participants because those funds do not generally outperform
passively managed funds, after fees.

Pensions & Investments reported that Judge Eginton wrote in his
decision issued on March 3, 2009 that the participants'
arguments were "unpersuasive."  He wrote, "Plaintiffs rely on
expert opinion that actively managed mutual funds generally
underperform passive index funds.  However, plaintiffs have not
addressed the imprudence of selecting any particular actively
managed mutual funds."

The court also ruled against allegations that the company’s so-
called revenue-sharing arrangement with service providers was
improper and led to disproportionate fees and that plan fees and
expenses were not properly divulged to plan participants,
according to the Pensions & Investments report.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARCLAYS BANK: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:35:38 GMT -- HARTFORD, CT -- 03/05/09
-- 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 the American Depositary Shares, Series 2 ("Preferred
Stock") (NYSE: BCS-P) of Barclays Bank Plc ("Barclays Bank" or
the "Company") pursuant and/or traceable to a false and
misleading registration statement and prospectus (the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the
Company's April 2006 offering of the Company's Preferred Stock
representing 6.625% Dollar-Denominated Non-Cumulative Callable
Preference Shares, Series 2 (the "Offering").

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

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement for the Offering was false and misleading because it
omitted the following facts:

       -- Barclays' portfolio of mortgage-related securities was
          impaired to a much larger extent than had been
          disclosed;

       -- defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

       -- Barclays' internal controls were inadequate to prevent
          the Company from improperly reporting its mortgage-
          related investments; and

       -- Barclays was not as well capitalized as represented
          and would have to continually raise additional
          capital, which would dilute current holders and those
          investors purchasing Preferred Stock in the Offering.

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/barclaysbank/


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, Mar 5, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Holzer
Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama on behalf all persons or entities who
purchased shares of The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("ColonialBanc"
or the "Company") between December 2, 2008 and January 27, 2009
(the "Class Period").

     The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
to the public in its press releases and in its Securities
Exchange Commission filings.

     Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company
misrepresented or failed to fully disclose the terms upon which
it had received preliminary approval from the U.S. Treasury
Department to received $550 million under the Troubled Asset
Relief Program ("TARP").

     According to the complaint, the Company's
misrepresentations and/or omissions caused its stock price to
trade at artificially inflated prices in violation of federal
law.

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


                            *********

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  * * *