CAR_Public/090310.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, March 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 48

                           Headlines

ACS STATE: Faces Litigation in Maryland Over Speed Cameras
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in Md.
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Federal Securities Suits in Maryland
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Property Damages Suit Settlement Approved
DAVE & BUSTER: Wins Appellate Court Ruling in Tip Pool Lawsuit

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Lawsuit Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers
ENRON CORP: Claims Dismissed Against Defendants in Texas Lawsuit
JARDEN CORP: May 18 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
KIA MOTORS: Law Firm Files Friend Of The Court Brief in Pa. Case
KINDER MORGAN: Oct. 19 Trial Set for Royalty Interests Lawsuit

LEXMARK INT'L: Continues to Faces Lawsuits Over Product Defects
MONACO COACH: Faces Lawsuit in Oregon Alleging WARN Violations
NATIONAL CITY: Shareholders Get Nothing in Proposed Settlement
PEDERNALES ELECTRIC: Texas Appeals Court Upholds Suit Settlement
WATERS CORP: To Defend Dearborn Heights Retirement System's Suit

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: April 27 Hearing Set for AWP Settlement
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Motions in Cipro Suit Set for 3Q Hearing
WELLS FARGO: Judge Considers Arguments in Litigation Over Bonds


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit Filing
ING GROEP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo.

SUNTRUST BANKS: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing
SUNTRUST BANKS: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing


                           *********

ACS STATE: Faces Litigation in Maryland Over Speed Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------
ACS State and Local Solutions Inc. is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit in Montgomery County Circuit Court over a per-
ticket fee Hank Silverberg of WTOP reports.

For every $40 speed camera citation in Montgomery County, the
company makes $16.25, according to the WTOP report.

The class-action suit was being pursued by William F. Askinazi
on behalf of people who received tickets for violations in
Montgomery County, Chevy Chase Village and Gaithersburg, reports
WTOP.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in Md.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. faces a consolidated class-
action suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), according to the company's Feb. 27,
2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In the fall of 2008, multiple class action lawsuits were filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland and the
Southern District of New York against Constellation Energy; Mayo
A. Shattuck III, Constellation Energy's Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer; and others in their roles
as fiduciaries of the Constellation Energy Employee Savings
Plan.

The actions, which have been consolidated into one action in
Maryland (the Consolidated Action), allege that the defendants,
in violation of various sections of ERISA, breached their
fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage Constellation
Energy Savings Plan's assets by designating Constellation Energy
common stock as an investment, by failing to properly provide
accurate information about the investment, by failing to
properly monitor the investment and by failing to properly
monitor other fiduciaries.

The Consolidated Action seeks to compel the defendants to
reimburse the plaintiffs and the Constellation Energy Savings
Plan for all losses resulting from the defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duty, to impose a constructive trust on any unjust
enrichment, to award actual damages with pre- and post-judgment
interest, to award appropriate equitable relief including
injunction and restitution and to award costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it
is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to
large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's
largest wholesale power seller.  Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities.  It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity.  The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in
Central Maryland.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Federal Securities Suits in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. faces federal securities class-
action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008.

The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons
who acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A
Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of Constellation
Energy between Jan. 30, 2008 and Sept. 16, 2008, and who
acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008.

The securities class actions generally allege that Constellation
Energy, a number of its present or former officers or directors,
and the underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a
false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in
connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008 offering of
Debentures.

The securities class actions also allege that Constellation
Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of
material undisclosed information which contradicted public
statements including in connection with its announcements of
financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the
first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the
filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.

The securities class actions seek, among other things,
certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory
damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees,
and rescission damages.

A lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed in the New York or
Maryland securities class action lawsuits pursuant to the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and
Constellation Energy and other defendants have accordingly not
been required to respond to the complaints or take other action
to defend the litigation.

The Southern District of New York has granted the defendant's
motion to transfer the two securities class actions filed there
to the District of Maryland, to be coordinated with the
securities class action filed there, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the  fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it
is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to
large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's
largest wholesale power seller.  Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities.  It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity.  The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in
Central Maryland.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Property Damages Suit Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Baltimore City Circuit Court, in December 2008, approved the
settlement agreement in a class-action suit against a subsidiary
of Constellation Energy Group Inc.

In November 2007, a class-action complaint was filed in
Baltimore City Circuit Court alleging that the subsidiary's ash
placement operations at the third party site damaged surrounding
properties.

The complaint seeks injunctive and remedial relief relating to
the alleged contamination, unspecified compensatory damages for
any personal injuries and property damages associated with the
alleged contamination, and unspecified punitive damages.

In September 2008, the company entered into a non-binding
agreement with representatives for the class action plaintiffs
and, as a result, recorded a liability for the anticipated
settlement.

On Oct. 31, 2008, the company entered into a definitive
settlement agreement, which was approved by the Court in
December 2008, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-
K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the  fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it
is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to
large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's
largest wholesale power seller.  Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities.  It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity.  The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in
Central Maryland.


DAVE & BUSTER: Wins Appellate Court Ruling in Tip Pool Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Updated 12:43 p.m. PT, Thurs., March. 5, 2009 -- MarketWire
-- DALLAS, TX -- March 5, 2009 -- In a case closely watched by
the restaurant and hospitality industry, Dallas-based Dave &
Buster's, Inc. has won a California appellate court ruling
affirming the restaurant's policy requiring waitstaff to
contribute a portion of their tips to a pool to be shared with
bartenders.

     The ruling this week, in the Court of Appeal of California,
Second Appellate District, Division Eight, has turned back
efforts to place strict limits on participation in the
traditional practice of mandatory tip pools.  Celeste Yeager, a
labor and employment partner in the Dallas office of Gardere
Wynne Sewell LLP, represented Dave & Buster's as lead counsel in
both the trial and appellate courts.

     The class action, "Aaron Budrow v. Dave & Busters of
California, Inc.," involved an estimated 4,000 current and
former Dave & Buster's employees in California and challenged
the restaurant chain's policy of requiring servers to contribute
1 percent of their gross sales to "tip pools," which then are
shared with bartenders.  Mr. Budrow, a former cocktail server,
and the others claimed the policy violated the state's business
and professions code, but lost the case in the trial court.

     The appellate decision upholds the lower court ruling.
Specifically, the court found no requirement in California law
that money from tip pools should be shared among those employees
who provide "direct" table service only, as Mr. Budrow and the
others claimed.

     "The court called this whole notion of direct versus
indirect service an 'artificial controversy' and it's absolutely
correct in that regard," says Ms. Yeager.  "The court
specifically noted that the California Labor Code does not make
a distinction between the duties performed by employees, nor
does it contain a requirement that tip pools are limited to
those employees providing direct table service."

     The California Restaurant Association and the California
Hotel & Lodging Association filed an amicus curiae brief in
support of Dave & Buster's.

     "Although the use of tip pools is a longstanding practice
in the hospitality industry, and has benefited countless
workers, it is a practice that has received an unfair amount of
scrutiny," adds Ms. Yeager.  "It is a relief to all involved to
finally have a ruling that spells out what constitutes a legal
tip pool in California and that it is the employer's prerogative
to determine which non-management employees should participate."

     Celebrating over 26 years of operations, Dave & Buster's
was founded in 1982 and is one of the country's premier
entertainment/dining concepts with 52 locations throughout the
United States and in Canada. More information on the Company is
available at www.daveandbusters.com.

Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, an AmLaw 200 firm celebrating 100
years in 2009 and one of the Southwest's largest full-service
law firms, has offices in Austin, Dallas, Houston and Mexico
City. Gardere provides legal services to private and public
companies and individuals in areas of energy, hospitality,
litigation, corporate, tax, environmental, labor and employment,
intellectual property and financial services.

For more details, contact:

          Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
          Phone: 214.999.3000
          Fax: 214.999.4667
          Web site: http://www.gardere.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Lawsuit Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Updated 3:04 p.m. PT, Fri., March. 6, 2009 --  MarketWire
-- MINNEAPOLIS, MN -- On March 4, 2009, two former employees of
Domino's Pizza, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in the Federal
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The lawsuit alleges that Domino's violated state and federal law
by failing to reimburse employees for expenses they incurred
while delivering pizzas.  Under Minnesota law, employers have to
reimburse employees for their travel expenses.  According to the
lawsuit, Domino's failed to adequately reimburse its drivers,
instead paying a 'per delivery' amount which was not sufficient
to cover drivers' actual costs.

     The lawsuit also involves minimum wage claims.  Under both
Minnesota law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, all
employees are entitled to be paid the minimum wage "free and
clear" of obligations to their employer.  The lawsuit alleges
that by requiring pizza delivery drivers to pay for their own
automobile expenses, Domino's also failed to pay their drivers
the minimum wage.

     Plaintiff's attorney E. Michelle Drake explained, "The
lawsuit alleges that Domino's required employees to subsidize
their business by paying for their own automobile and gas
expenses.  Minnesota law forbids employers from requiring
employees to pay these kinds of expenses.  What makes this
situation even more egregious is that many Domino's drivers were
only supposed to be paid the minimum wage in the first place.

     In reality, Domino's drivers were paid even less than the
minimum wage because they had to pay travel expenses out of
their own pockets." Drake continued, "One of the reasons the law
exists is to prevent companies like Domino's from using
employees' money to subsidize their cost of doing business.  We
hope to recover the money that rightfully belongs to the
employees."

Plaintiffs are represented by E. Michelle Drake and Paul J.
Lukas from the law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP.  Nichols Kaster
has offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco,
California.

For more details, contact:

          Nichols Kaster, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612.256.3200 or 877.448.0492
          Fax: 612.338.4878
          e-mail: intake@nka.com
          Web site: http://www.nka.com/


ENRON CORP: Claims Dismissed Against Defendants in Texas Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas has thrown out all claims against Credit
Suisse Group AG, Barclays Plc and Merrill Lynch, now part of
Bank of America Corp., in a long-running $40 billion securities
class-action suit launched by shareholders in the wake of Enron
Corp.'s colossal collapse, Law360 reports.

On March 5, 2009, Judge Harmon granted the summary judgment
motions by the three financial institutions seeking to dismiss
all claims against them, according to the Law360 report.

In general, the plaintiffs in the case, led by the University of
California, contend the banks played a role in accounting
misdeeds that led to Enron's bankruptcy, Reuters reports.

Investors, seeking deep-pocketed defendants once Enron imploded,
filed the original case in April 2002 and sought $40 billion in
damages from an array of financial firms, contending they had
violated securities laws through complex transactions with
Enron, Reuters reported.


JARDEN CORP: May 18 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A May 18, 2009 final hearing has been set for the settlement of
a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the Jarden
Corp. in relation to the company's plan to acquire The Holmes
Group, Inc.

In January and February 2006, purported class action suits were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company and certain of its officers,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through Jan.
12, 2006.  The suits were subsequently consolidated.

The company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire
The Holmes Group, Inc., on June 29, 2005.

On June 9, 2006, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs, who
filed an amended consolidated complaint against the company,
Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits
of the THG Acquisition.

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.

On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the
defendants' dismissal motion.  The defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's denial of their request.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for
reconsideration, but reaffirmed its earlier denial of their
dismissal request.

On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification.

On March 6, 2008, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class
comprised of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period from June 29, 2005 through Jan. 11, 2006.

On Nov. 20, 2008, the parties reached an agreement to settle
these securities class action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  Pursuant to the
settlement, which is subject to court approval, the company's
insurance carriers will pay $8 million into a settlement fund
and the Defendants will obtain full releases from all claims in
connection with the litigation.  The plaintiffs' counsel will
seek a portion of the settlement fund to cover attorneys' fees
and expenses.

On Jan. 28, 2009, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and scheduled a final settlement hearing for May 18,
2009.  Any further litigation in the securities class action has
been stayed pending final court approval of the settlement,
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 suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com)
           Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C
           460 Park Avenue 21st Floor
           New York, NY 10022
           Phone: 212-838-3221
           Fax: 212-508-3695

           Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com)
           Paskowitz & Associates
           60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
           New York, NY 10165
           Phone: 212-685-0969
           Fax: 212-685-2306

                - and -

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

Representing the defendants is:

           Stephen William Greiner, Esq.
           Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
           787 Seventh Avenue
           New York, NY 10019
           Phone: 212-728-8000
           Fax: 212-728-8111
           e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


KIA MOTORS: Law Firm Files Friend Of The Court Brief in Pa. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The West Windsor-based firm of Pelletierri, Rabstein and Altman
has filed a friend of the court brief in support of more than
10,000 Kia car owners whose class-action lawsuit over faulty
brake systems is being heard by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,
Lisa Coryell of The Times of Trenton reports.

The move was solicited by two of the nation's leading consumer
rights organizations, the National Consumer Law Center, Inc.,
and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, according to
The Times of Trenton report.

"It's an honor to be chosen by these groups," Michael Coren,
Esq., an attorney for the firm tells The Times of Trenton.  "The
issues in this case are extremely important.  Consumers have a
right to hold companies responsible for defective products and
they have a right to band together to have a meaningful day in
court.

Previously Law.com reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
will consider four issues of first impression in a suit over Kia
Motors America Inc. sedans with defective braking systems.

The issues of first impression, as stated by Kia Motors and
adopted by the Supreme Court in two separate allocatur orders
issued July 11, 1008 are:

     -- whether the fact-specific claim that the class
        representative's brake express warranty was breached can
        be certified and tried on a classwide basis;

     -- whether Kia's due process rights were violated when
        trial court Judge Mark I. Bernstein entered judgment for
        the class without requiring individual proof of the
        breach of the class members' express limited warranty
        contracts;

     -- whether the trial court's award of a $1 million risk
        multiplier to attorney fees violated U.S. Supreme Court
        precedent and if Pennsylvania courts must follow U.S.
        Supreme Court precedent about federal fee shifting
        statutes;

     -- whether an attorney fee can be awarded under the federal
        Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) -- which requires that
        fee awards be entered as part of the judgment -- when
        final judgment was entered at the trial court level
        before the fee award is entered.

                        Case Background

In 2004, the Philadelphia law firm Donovan Searles revealed that
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, in the case of "Samuel-
Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., No. 2199, Jan. Term 2001,"
ordered that Notice of Pendency of Class Action be provided to
all residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who purchased
or leased a model year 1997, 1998, 1999 or 2000 Kia Sephia
between Jan. 17, 1997, and Jan. 17, 2001 (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 22, 2004).

In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed the Sephia 1997, 1998, 1999,
and 2000 model automobiles have defects in their braking system.
The plaintiffs claim that this is a breach of warranty and a
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act.

The plaintiffs had sought to recover money damages from
defendant, which may include the costs of repairs and
compensation for the reduction in vehicle value.

In May 2005, a jury awarded $5,641,200 or $600 a piece, to 9,402
class members (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2005).  The
verdict was rendered following a two-week trial in which the
jurors found that there was a common defective design of the
brake system of the 1995-2001 Kia Sephia.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas then confirmed the jury's
verdict on behalf of a class of 9,402 Pennsylvania consumers
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2007).  The case then proceeded
to the appellate court.

                  Superior Court's Ruling

In Oct. 2007, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the
verdict in a non-precedential decision (Class Action Reporter,
Oct 31, 2007).  According to the report, the court made these
opinions in response to Kia Motors' arguments:

(1) Kia argued that some of the class members might not be
    individually entitled to an award and that it was in error
    to assess $600 for each class member.

    The court said class representative Shamell Samuel-Bassett's
    total cost for brake repairs during the warranty was
    $596.16, and it was reasonable to multiply $600 for the
    9,402 class members to reach the verdict of $5,641,200.

    "Regardless of whether an individual class member had his or
    her brakes repaired under warranty by Kia, all class members
    were entitled to have good brakes on their cars that did not
    require repeated trips to the dealership for replacement in
    order to avoid brake failure," the opinion said.

(2) Kia argued that the class was improperly certified because
    it was not certain that each class member relied upon the
    warranty or that Kia refused to conduct repairs, the opinion
    said.

    The Superior Court said the class was properly certified
    because trial evidence demonstrated that the 1995-2001 Kia
    Sephias had a defective brake system design, that expert
    testimony would be needed to prove each claim and that it
    would strain the court system to litigate each claim
    individually.

(3) Kia also argued that Judge Mark I. Bernstein erred in his
    jury instructions, but the Superior Court noted that Kia
    either "won on the issue or failed to object to the charge."

(4) The Superior Court also ruled that Judge Bernstein must
    issue a supplemental 1925(a) opinion to support why he
    awarded $4.125 million in counsel fees and $267,513 in
    expenses in January 2006.

    The Superior Court said both parties would have 30 days
    after Judge Bernstein issues his 1925(a) opinion to file
    supplemental briefs in the appellate court.

(5) The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff cross-appeal
    of Judge Bernstein's order denying class certification under
    the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Judge Bernstein ruled that Samuel-Bassett met the requirement
for class certification under the commonwealth's rules of civil
procedure for her breach of warranty claims but not her consumer
protection claim.

He found that Samuel-Bassett had met all the requirements of
class certification under Pennsylvania's rules of civil
procedure for the breach of warranty claims but not consumer
protection claims because the commonality requirement was not
met and there were not questions of law or fact common to the
individual class members.

The Superior Court panel -- comprised of Judges John T. Bender,
Susan Peikes Gantman and Richard B. Klein -- said in its recent
decision that there was no palpable abuse of discretion by Judge
Bernstein in his award decision and that it should be upheld.

The panel echoed Judge Bernstein's reasoning that the plaintiffs
attorneys' award was reasonable considering the rates the
defense counsel charged.

The panel also echoed Judge Bernstein's dismissal of the chief
defense witness used to challenge the plaintiffs attorney fees
as dishonest: John Marquess of Legal Cost Control Inc., a
Haddonfield, N.J., firm that helps entities reduce and manage
legal and accounting fees.

Mr. Marquess said that the plaintiffs' fee request should be
reduced by 86 percent to $662,667.15 for a case that was
litigated for five years, during which it was removed to federal
court, remanded to state court and tried, The Legal
Intelligencer previously reported.

Kia's appellate counsel in Pennsylvania, a team of attorneys
from the Lamb McErlane firm in West Chester, argued in their
petition for allowance of appeal on the merits of the case that
classwide proof of violation of an express warranty is
impossible because express warranties can only be "breached
under the specific factual circumstances and events unique to a
particular vehicle and a specific customer."

According to court papers, Kia argued that the proof of the
breach of the class representative Shamell Samuel-Bassett's
individual express limited warranty can't be extrapolated as the
evidence of proof of the breach of the other class members'
warranty contracts.

Kia argued that the only classwide evidence was its warranty
claims records, and the records showed that it honored its
warranties by paying for repairs. Kia also argued that the
Superior Court panel made its decision in the case as if the
case was within the context of an implied warranty case, not an
express warranty case.

"There are some pretty important issues here," William H. Lamb,
Esq., of Lamb McErlane said in a joint interview with co-counsel
James C. Sargent Jr., also of Lamb McErlane.  "And Kia's
position is very simple. It has always tried to take care of its
customers."

"If the existing decisions are permitted to stand, they are an
open invitation to plaintiffs attorneys to sue on breach of
express warranty claims in Pennsylvania, knowing that they only
need prove breach as to a single named plaintiff to obtain a
multi-million dollar verdict as to everyone who has purchased a
product, where every payment by the manufacturer under warranty
may be used as proof that a wrong has occurred and not, as in
the truth, that the warranty has been honored," Kia's appellate
brief said.

The plaintiffs' reply brief on the merits of the case reported
that Pennsylvania courts have "distinguished themselves by
rejecting sweetheart settlements coveted by corporate defendants
and accepted by accommodating plaintiffs attorneys" like the
$62,925 settlement paid to consumers who purchased Sephias in
the 47 states besides Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania where
the plaintiffs attorneys are litigating parallel class actions
against Kia.

The plaintiffs' attorney Michael D. Donovan, Esq., of Donovan
Searles said his co-counsel and he believe that all of the
issues of "first impression" raised by Kia have either been
waived or are of no consequence.

The suit is "Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America Inc."

Trial counsel for plaintiffs and the class of Pennsylvania
consumers are:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq. (mdonovan@donovansearles.com)
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          Phone: +1-215-732-6067 or
          Toll- +1-800-619-1677
          Fax: +1-215-732-8060

          Alan M. Feldman, Esq. (afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com)
          Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock,
          1845 Walnut Street, 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-567-8300
                 1-888-275-0296
          Fax: 215-567-8333

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq. (jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com)
          Francis & Mailman, P.C.
          19th Floor Land Title
          Building, 100 South Broad St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19110,
          Phone: 215-735-8600
          Fax: 215-940-8000


KINDER MORGAN: Oct. 19 Trial Set for Royalty Interests Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 19, 2009 trial has been set for the case captioned "J.
Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD,
individually and on behalf of all other private royalty and
overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit,
New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2 Company,
L.P., No. 04-26-CL (8th Judicial District Court, Union County
New Mexico)."

This case involves a purported class-action suit against Kinder
Morgan CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty
and overriding royalty ("royalty interests") on the true and
proper settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide produced
from the Bravo Dome Unit during the period beginning Jan. 1,
2000.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

The purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the United States of America, and those private royalty
interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class
previously certified as a class action by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter, "Doris
Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC N.M.
Civ. No. 95-0012."

The plaintiffs allege that Kinder Morgan CO2's method of paying
royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer
Class Action.

Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel arbitration of this
matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the
Feerer Class Action settlement agreement, which motion was
denied.  Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New
Mexico Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the
trial court.  The New Mexico Supreme Court granted further
review in October 2006, and after hearing oral argument, the New
Mexico Supreme Court quashed its prior order granting review.

In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking further review.
The petition was denied in December 2007.

The case was tried in the trial court in September 2008.

The plaintiffs sought $6.8 million in actual damages as well as
punitive damages.

The jury returned a verdict finding that Kinder Morgan did not
breach the settlement agreement and did not breach the claimed
duty to market carbon dioxide.  The jury also found that Kinder
Morgan breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing and found
compensatory damages of $0.3 million and punitive damages of
$1.2 million.

On Oct. 16, 2008, the trial court entered judgment on the
verdict.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the district court entered orders vacating the
judgment and granting a new trial in the case.  Kinder Morgan
filed a petition with the New Mexico Supreme Court, asking that
court to authorize an immediate appeal of the new trial orders.
No action has yet been taken by the New Mexico Supreme Court on
that petition.  Subject to potential further review by New
Mexico Supreme Court, the district court scheduled a new trial
to occur beginning on Oct. 19, 2009, 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.

Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or
operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150
terminals. The company's pipelines transport more than two
million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum
products, and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural
gas. The company operates through four segments: Products
Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals.


LEXMARK INT'L: Continues to Faces Lawsuits Over Product Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International, Inc. remains party to various purported
consumer class-action lawsuits alleging, among other things,
various product defects and false and deceptive advertising
claims.

The Company did not disclose specific details regarding the
class actions in its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the  fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Lexmark International, Inc. -- http://www.lexmark.co.uk/-- is a
developer, manufacturer and supplier of printing and imaging
solutions for offices and homes.  Lexmark's products include
laser printers, inkjet printers, multifunction devices, and
associated supplies, services and solutions.  The company
develops and owns most of the technology for its laser and
inkjet products and related solutions.  Lexmark also sells dot
matrix printers for printing single and multi-part forms by
business users. It operates in the office products industry.
The company is primarily managed along Business and Consumer
market segments.


MONACO COACH: Faces Lawsuit in Oregon Alleging WARN Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monaco Coach Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon alleging
violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act, KVAL.com reports.

The suit is captioned, "Folk v. Monaco Coach Corporation, Case
No.6:2009-cv-06060," which was filed by Ronald C. Folk on March
5, 2009.

Mr. Folk, a former employee is claiming that the company did not
give employees the legally required notice that the company was
shutting down, according to the KVAL.com report.

KVAL.com reported that Monaco notified 2,000 employees on March
2, 2009 that they had been terminated from their jobs.   Most of
the employees had been on furlough since late last year.  The
company filed for bankruptcy on March 5, 2009.

Mr. Folk seeks payment for those 60 days.  The suit is filed as
a class-action case, seeking to extend the complaint to other
Monaco Coach employees, reports KVAL.com.


NATIONAL CITY: Shareholders Get Nothing in Proposed Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement in a class-action suit against National
City Corp. would give the bank's shareholders nothing while
paying their attorneys $1.2 million, Dan Gearino of The Columbus
Dispatch reports.

According to court documents obtained by The Columbus Dispatch,
the proposed deal, which was filed in a state court in Delaware,
would resolve a lawsuit brought by shareholders across the
country that alleged that National City's merger with PNC
Financial Services Group was made at a significant discount and
was unfair to shareholders.

The shareholders, including The Dispatch Printing Co., the owner
of The Columbus Dispatch, would be unable to opt out of the
settlement, which would bar them from taking other legal action
related to the merger.

The Columbus Dispatch reported that PNC made a deal to buy
National City in October 2008.  By that time, National City's
share price had collapsed from more than $38 in October 2007, to
$2.75 in late October, as the company dealt with its exposure to
subprime mortgages.  Pittsburgh-based PNC paid $2.23 per share,
or $5.58 billion.

Shareholders lost more than $16 billion worth of equity in the
year between the disclosure about National City's exposure to
subprime mortgages and the sale to PNC.

Neither the law firm that proposed the settlement, which was
filed last month, nor PNC would comment.  The law firm is
Rigrodsky & Long of Wilmington, Del., reports The Columbus
Dispatch.

Shareholders who object to the terms of the proposal have the
opportunity to file comments before April 20, 2009, according to
The Columbus Dispatch.


PEDERNALES ELECTRIC: Texas Appeals Court Upholds Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Third District Court of Appeals in Austin has upheld
the settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed against
Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC) by a group of its members
in July 2007, Newstreamz San Marcos reports.

Settlement of the lawsuit was reached through a final judgment
signed by the trial judge in May 2008, with an appeal of the
settlement filed by David Allen Hall soon following.  The three-
justice panel addressed each of the 10 issues presented in the
Hall appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment in the case,
according to the Newstreamz San Marcos report.

                        Case Background

The Class Action Reporter reported on May 21, 2007, that a Texas
customer filed a class action lawsuit against the officers of
PEC in the 200th Texas District Court of Travis County alleging
"flagrant breaches of fiduciary duty that have gone
uninterrupted for decades" amongst PEC's leadership (Class
Action Reporter, May 8, 2008).

The suit further alleged that PEC overpays its managers in
breach of fiduciary duty to its members and that the
cooperative's officers are too secretive in their financial
dealings.

Attorney Jan Soifer, Esq., filed the class action suit on behalf
of Lee Beck Lawrence, a co-operative member since 1994, and
others in similar situation.  The suit named 19 PEC officers and
directors.

The suit sought damages of all "excessive compensation and
benefits and all improper expenditures" and "exemplary damages
based on malice and/or malfeasance."

The CAR report noted that PEC, at that time, had about 213,000
members and had estimated assets in excess of $1 billion in
2006.  It reportedly had revenues of about $413 million and paid
executive compensation of $829,000 in 2005.  The lawsuit also
sought removal of the entire board of directors, reduction in
executive compensation, return of dividends to members and other
governance changes.

According to a subsequent CAR report on April 24, 2008, the
excessive compensation issue at PEC had led to the forced
testimony of top PEC executives -- including Bennie Fuelberg,
Will Dahmann and former board president W.W. "Bud" Burnett.  All
three resigned after revelations about the pay of and perks
enjoyed by co-op executives and directors.


WATERS CORP: To Defend Dearborn Heights Retirement System's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waters Corp. intends to defend a class action lawsuit commenced
by the City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement
System against the company in November 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges that the company misrepresented its
projected revenues and earnings, its effective tax rates and the
level of business activity in Japan between Jan. 24, 2007 and
Jan. 22, 2008, when it released earnings for the fourth quarter
of 2007.

The complaint asserts that the company and Messrs. Berthiaume
and Ornell violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to fully disclose the information.

The plaintiff class is allegedly comprised of purchasers of
common stock that were injured during the time period stated
above.

In January 2009, Inter-Local Pension Fund ABC/IBT filed a motion
to be appointed as lead plaintiff, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the  fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Waters Corp. -- http://www.waters.com-- is an analytical
instrument manufacturer.  Through its Waters Division, Waters
designs, manufactures, sells and services high-performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC), ultra performance liquid
chromatography, referred to as liquid chromatography, and mass
spectrometry instrument systems and support products, including
chromatography columns and other consumable products.  The
Company operates in two business segments: Waters Division and
TA Division (TA).  Through its TA division, Waters designs,
manufactures sells and services thermal analysis and rheometry
and calorimetry instruments.  The company is also a developer
and supplier of software-based products that interface with the
Company's instruments, as well as other instrument manufacturers
instruments.  In July 2008, the Company completed the purchase
of the net assets of VTI Corporation.  In December 2008, Waters
Corporation completed the purchase of the net assets of
Analytical Products Group, Inc. (APG).


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: April 27 Hearing Set for AWP Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A April 27, 2009 final fairness hearing is scheduled for the
settlement agreement in  a consolidated lawsuit against Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries alleging
improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the
reporting of average wholesale prices of certain products.

Beginning in July 2002, the company and certain of its
subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, were named defendants in various state and federal
court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting
practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices
and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that
the defendants committed other improper acts in order to
increase prices and market shares.

Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under the
caption, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456."

The consolidated amended class-action complaint in this case
alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated the
reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans
and programs.

The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of
certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its average
wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager
to provide others with such drugs.

The company filed an answer to the amended consolidated class
action complaint on April 9, 2004.  The defendants in the
consolidated suit have been divided into two groups.

The company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large
group of defendants that is currently awaiting a ruling on the
plaintiffs' request for certification of classes of plaintiffs
to maintain a class-action against the drug company defendants.

Certain other defendants, referred to as the "Track One"
defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis.  Classes
were certified against these defendants, a trial has been
completed with respect to some of the claims against this group
of defendants, the presiding judge has issued a ruling granting
judgment to the plaintiffs, that judgment is being appealed, and
many of the claims have been settled.

The Track Two Defendants, including the company, have entered
into a settlement agreement resolving all claims of the Track
Two Defendants in the Consolidated Class Action.  The total
amount of the settlement for all of the Track Two Defendants is
$125 million.

On July 2, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track Two settlement.
The amount to be paid by each Track Two Defendant is
confidential.

A final hearing on the fairness of the settlement agreement is
scheduled for April 27, 2009, 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.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a
specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development,
manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and
generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products.  It operates
through three business segments: Generic, Brand and
Distribution.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Motions in Cipro Suit Set for 3Q Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment in the consolidated suit "In Re:
Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation," are scheduled
to be argued to the Superior Court during the third quarter of
2009, according to Watson Pharmaceuticals 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.

Beginning July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson, The Rugby Group and other company affiliates in various
state and federal courts in relation to Cipro, an antibiotic
used to treat bacterial infections, alleging claims under
various federal and state competition and consumer protection
laws.

Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions
seeking class certification.  As of March 8, 2006, approximately
42 cases had been filed against the defendants.

Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re:
Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No.
00-1383."

On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted a motion by Watson to dismiss the case and entered
rulings limiting the theories under which the plaintiffs can
seek recovery against Rugby and the other defendants.

On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of
plaintiffs' claims, denied the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification, and directed the clerk of the court to close the
case.

On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated
action (the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser
plaintiff purchasers and plaintiffs Rite Aid Corp. and CVS
Meridian Inc.) filed notices of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things,
the May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005
order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The three appeals were consolidated by the appellate court.  The
defendants have moved to transfer the appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the ground that patent
issues are involved in the appeal.  The plaintiffs have opposed
the motion to transfer.  The appellate court has not yet ruled
on the motion or the pending appeal.

Other actions are pending in various state courts, including New
York, California, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin.  The
actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in
unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged
agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby
from Aventis, related to the development, manufacture and sale
of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic
version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro.

These actions also generally seek declaratory judgment, damages,
injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of
certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

The courts hearing the cases in New York have dismissed the
actions.  The plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal the
dismissal of the New York action.

In Wisconsin, the plaintiffs appealed and on May 9, 2006, the
appellate court reversed the order of dismissal.  On June 8,
2006, the defendants filed a petition for review in the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.  On July 13, 2007, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

In the action pending in Kansas, the court has stayed the matter
pending the outcome of the appeal in the consolidated case.

In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego, "In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding
Nos. 4154 & 4220," the California Court of Appeal granted on
July 21, 2004, in part and denied in part the defendants'
petition for a writ of mandate seeking to reverse the trial
court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Pursuant to the California appellate court's ruling, the
majority of the plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their
claims as a class.  On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court
granted the parties' joint application to stay the California
case pending the outcome of the appeal of the consolidated case.
In August 2007, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay.  The
court denied the motion to lift the stay, but agreed to consider
the matter again at a status conference.

A status conference was held on May 16, 2008, at which the court
scheduled a further status conference for Dec. 12, 2008.

Aventis has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its
affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations
arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by
Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby,
and is currently controlling the defense of these actions.

The parties intend to file motions for summary judgment, which
are scheduled to be argued to the Superior Court during the
third quarter of 2009.  The trial is scheduled for Jan. 24,
2010.

The consolidated suit is "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
Judge David G. Trager, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert S. Schachter, Esq. (rschachter@zsz.com)
          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. (jtusa@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969

Representing the company is:

          David E. Everson, Esq. (deverson@stinsonmoheck.com)
          Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C.
          1201 Walnut, Suite 2900, Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: 816-842-8600
          Fax: 816-691-3495


WELLS FARGO: Judge Considers Arguments in Litigation Over Bonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court is set to
rule on the certification of a class-action case over nursing
home construction bonds that was filed against Wells Fargo & Co.
and Fifth Third Bancorp, Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record
reports.

Attorney Fred Thompson, Esq. of Motley Rice in South Carolina
seeks to represent 2,013 bond buyers in claims against Wells
Fargo and Fifth Third.  He also seeks damages from Indianapolis
accounting firm Blue and Company and Kansas City bond counsel
firm Gilmore and Bell, according to The St. Clair Record report.

Mr. Thompson claims the defendants ran a Ponzi scheme that left
buyers in 38 states with worthless bonds.  He initially sued 31
defendants, but some ceased to exist and others he didn't
pursue, The St. Clair Record reported.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:35:24 GMT -- BALTIMORE, MD -- 03/06/09
-- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of General Electric Co. ("GE"
or the "Company") (NYSE: GE) during the period between January
23, 2009 and February 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that it dividend was
not sustainable and, rather, represented that its operating
model would assure continued payment of the Company's dividend
at it then-current rate.

     According to the complaint, after the Company revealed on
February 27, 2009 that it would cut its dividend by more than
two thirds, GE's stock declined significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:15:24 GMT - LOS ANGELES - (Business
Wire) Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.
("Heartland" or the "Company") (NYSE:HPY), between August 5,
2008 and February 23, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Heartland and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.  Heartland together with its subsidiaries,
provides bank card payment processing services to more than
250,000 merchants and businesses nationwide.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects.

     Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose:

       -- that the Company's safety and security measures
          designed to protect consumers' financial records and
          data from security breaches were inadequate and
          ineffective;

       -- that the Company's payment processing system had been
          infected with malware as early as May 2008;

       -- that defendants were made aware of a potential breach
          of Heartland's payment processing network;

       -- that, as a result of the above, the Company faced
          liabilities associated with the breach and increasing
          costs associated with implementing appropriate
          security measures;

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at
          risk of losing customers; and

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

     On January 20, 2009, Heartland revealed that the Company's
payment processing network had been breached by malicious
software, exposing tens of millions of debit cardholders to
fraud.  As consumers used their debit cards, so-called "sniffer
software" had been capturing, among other things, card numbers,
expiration dates and cardholder names.  According to an article
published that same day in The New York Times, the breach
occurred as early as May 2008.

     On this news, shares of Heartland declined $1.26 per share,
or 8.16%, to close on January 20, 2009, at $14.18 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.  Over the next two days, shares of
Heartland further declined $6.00 per share, or an additional
42.31%, to close on January 22, 2009 at $8.18 per share.

     On February 24, 2009, Heartland again shocked investors
when it reported earnings for the 2008 fiscal year and fourth
quarter.  The Company posted a lower-than-expected quarterly
profit and disclosed that it might incur losses from the recent
security breach of its system and that the Company could not
estimate the amount of losses that might be incurred in
connection with the security breach.

     On this news, shares of Heartland declined $2.31 per share,
or 30.12%, to close on February 24, 2009, at $5.34 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.  During the Class Period, shares of
Heartland's common stock declined $21.84 per share, or
approximately 80%, from its Class Period high of $27.19 per
share on September 19, 2008.

For more details, contact:

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


ING GROEP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     12:16 p.m. PT, Fri., March. 6, 2009 -- NEW YORK, NY --
Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired the
6.375% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital Securities ("6.375%
Securities") and/or the 8.50% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital
Securities ("8.50% Securities") (NYSE: ING) (NYSE: ISF) (NYSE:
IGK) (collectively, the "Securities") of ING Groep N.V. ("ING"
or the "Company") pursuant or traceable to a false registration
statement and two prospectuses (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2007
and June 2008 offerings of the Securities, respectively (the
"Offerings").

     The complaint charges ING, certain of its affiliates,
certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters of the
Offerings and its auditor with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
persons who acquired the 6.375% Securities and/or the 8.50%
Securities of ING pursuant or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with the Company's June 2007 and
June 2008 Offerings (the "Class").

     The complaint alleges that defendants consummated the
Offerings pursuant to the false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectuses.

     Specifically, ING sold 41,800,000 6.375% Securities at $25
per share for proceeds of over $1 billion in the June 2007
Offering and 80 million 8.50% Securities at $25 per share for
proceeds of approximately $2.0 billion in the June 2008
Offering.  The Registration Statement/Prospectuses incorporated
ING's financial results for 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.  Then,
after the Offerings were completed, ING announced (EURO)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.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statement were:

       -- defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage-
          related securities, were impaired to a much larger
          extent than the Company had disclosed;

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

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting the
          value of its assets; and

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

For more details, contact:

          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212/490-2022
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.ssbny.com


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Updated 12:14 p.m. PT, Thurs., March. 5, 2009 - MarketWire
- ATLANTA, GA - Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf all persons or
entities who purchased shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc.
("Level 3" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LVLT) between February 8,
2007 and October 23, 2007 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Level 3 and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company failed to adequately disclose the problems it was having
integrating various companies Level 3 had purchased and that
these problems were negatively impacting revenue growth.

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


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     March 06, 2009 06:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time -- NEW YORK
--(BUSINESS WIRE) -- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of investors who purchased shares
of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:LVLT) during the period between February 8, 2007 and
October 23, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Level 3 and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants' public statements failed to disclose that:

       -- the Company's efforts to integrate recently acquired
          companies were failing;

       -- the Company's service management processes were
          breaking down, resulting in longer response times to
          resolve customers' network service issues;

       -- steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were
          unsuccessful, and were in fact further complicating
          them;

       -- as a result, the Company did not have adequate
          provisioning capability to convert its increasing
          sales into revenue generating service;

       -- the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

       -- as a result of the above, the statements made by the
          Company and management during the Class Period lacked
          a reasonable basis.

     On October 23, 2007, Level 3 shocked the market when it
revealed that the Company was unable successfully to integrate
the systems and customer-service processes of the numerous
companies it had acquired, and that the difficulties the Company
faced were causing an increase in service activation times.

     Also on October 23, 2007, Level 3 revised downward the
Company's previously issued guidance for fourth quarter 2007 and
full year 2008.  On this news, shares of Level 3 declined $1.04
per share, or approximately 24%, to close on October 23, 2007 at
$3.28 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016-1101
          Phone: 212-682-1818
                 800-497-8076
          e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/


SUNTRUST BANKS: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:46:40 GMT -- SAN DIEGO -- (Business
Wire) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin
Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/suntrust/)announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of SunTrust Banks,
Inc. ("SunTrust") (NYSE:STI) publicly traded securities during
the period between July 22, 2008 and January 21, 2009 (the
"Class Period").

     The complaint charges SunTrust and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     SunTrust is the holding company for SunTrust Bank, which
provides various financial services to consumer and corporate
customers in the United States.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements about SunTrust's
financial results and conditions.  Specifically, the Company's
publicly reported financial results and defendants' statements
regarding the Company's business and capital position were
materially false and/or misleading because they failed to
disclose that:

       -- defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage-
          related securities, were impaired to a much larger
          extent than the Company had disclosed;

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

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting the
          value of its assets; and

       -- SunTrust was not as well capitalized as represented,
          and, notwithstanding the $3.5 billion the Company
          received on November 17, 2008 from the Troubled Asset
          Relief Program ("TARP"), the Company announced that it
          would have to raise an additional $1.4 billion in TARP
          funds just three weeks later.

     As SunTrust's true condition slowly came to light in a
series of write-downs, reserve increases and capital-raising,
SunTrust's stock price dropped from a Class Period high of over
$59 per share to less than $14 per share.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of SunTrust publicly traded securities during the
Class Period (the "Class").

For more details, contact:

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, March 6, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law
Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of purchasers of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
("SunTrust") (NYSE:STI) publicly traded securities during the
period between July 22, 2008 and January 21, 2009 (the "Class
Period") for violations of the federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements about SunTrust's
financial results and conditions.

     Specifically, the Company's publicly reported financial
results and defendants' statements regarding the Company's
business and capital position were materially false and/or
misleading because they failed to disclose that:

       -- defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage-
          related securities, were impaired to a much larger
          extent than the Company had disclosed;

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

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting the
          value of its assets; and

       -- SunTrust was not as well capitalized as represented,
          and, notwithstanding the $3.5 billion the Company
          received on November 17, 2008 from the Troubled Asset
          Relief Program ("TARP"), the Company announced that it
          would have to raise an additional $1.4 billion in TARP
          funds just three weeks later.

     As SunTrust's true condition slowly came to light in a
series of write-downs, reserve increases and capital-raising,
SunTrust's stock price dropped from a Class Period high of over
$59 per share to less than $14 per share.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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



                            *********

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  * * *