CAR_Public/090311.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 11, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 49

                           Headlines

CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement in Wage & Hour Suits Reached in 4Q
DAIRYAMERICA INC: FACES CALIF. SUIT OVER NON-FAT DRY MILK PRICES
FORMFACTOR INC: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending
FORMFACTOR INC: Calif. Stockholder Derivative Suit Still Pending
L-1 IDENTITY: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Affirmed on Jan. 12

MARATHON OIL: 1Q09 Hearing Set for Faulty Gas Suit Settlement
NORTHEAST HEALTH: Reaches $1.25M Settlement in Nurses' Lawsuit
OKLAHOMA: Judge Excludes Group From Human Services Dept. Lawsuit
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 2 Lawsuits Over 2008 Stock Offering
SOTHEBY'S INC: Calif. Court Nixes Suit Over Concealed Interests

SPRINT NEXTEL: Easements Cases v. Unit Still Pending in Tenn.
SPRINT NEXTEL: Shareholders' Securities Lawsuit in Discovery
STEEL DYNAMICS: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suits in Illinois
VALERO ENERGY: Discovery in Kans. Fuel Temperature Suits Ongoing
VALERO ENERGY: Seeks Judgment or New Trial in "Rosolowski" Case

YAHOO! INC: April 23 Hearing Set for Bid to Junk Securities Suit
YAHOO! INC: Calif. Consolidated Shareholder Suit Remains Stayed
YAHOO! INC: Del. Judge Approves Stockholder Lawsuit Settlement
YAHOO! INC: Watkins Seeks Leave to Amend Derivative Complaint


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit
OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Spector Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit


                           *********

CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement in Wage & Hour Suits Reached in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. has reached a tentative settlement in a
class-action case alleging violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws.

As a result of the settlement, there was a $3.5 million charge,
including related legal fees, in the fourth quarter of 2008.

No further details regarding the settlement or the class action
were disclosed in the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Feb. 27, 2009.

Carriage Services, Inc. -- http://netserv2.carriageservices.com
-- is a provider of death care services and merchandise in the
United States. The Company operates two types of businesses:
funeral homes, which principally service businesses that provide
burial and cremation services and sell related merchandise, such
as caskets and urns, and cemetery operations, which provides
interment rights (grave sites and mausoleums) and related
merchandise, such as markers and memorials.


DAIRYAMERICA INC: FACES CALIF. SUIT OVER NON-FAT DRY MILK PRICES
----------------------------------------------------------------
DairyAmerica, Inc. and California Dairies, Inc. are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by a group of
dairy farmers who accuse the defendants of incorrectly reported
non-fat dry milk prices to the USDA, resulting in depressed
blend prices to producers, Mateusz Perkowski of The Capital
Press reports.

The suit was filed by Gerald Carlin, John Rahm, Paul Rozwadowski
and Bryan Wolfe on March 6, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Californnia.  It was brought on behalf
of dairy farmers in 25 states, including California and
Washington, who were subject to a Federal Milk Marketing Order
between 2002 and 2007, according to The Capital Press report.

Benjamin Brown, Esq., an attorney for the plaintiffs, told The
Capital Press the lawsuit did not specify a dollar amount for
compensation, but the incorrect reporting is estimated to have
cost dairy producers tens of millions of dollars.  "Determining
damages is going to require an economist," according to him.


FORMFACTOR INC: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint in a consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit,
which was filed against FormFactor, Inc.

Initially, a purported stockholder class action, entitled "Danny
McCasland, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster
and Richard M. Freeman," was filed on Oct. 31, 2007, and names
the company and certain of its current officers, including one
officer who is a director, as defendants.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed two other purported
stockholder class-action suits before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the captions:

      1. "Yuk Ling Lui, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
         Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman,"
         and

      2. "Victor Albertazzi, Individually and on Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
         Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman."

The plaintiffs filed these actions following the company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that
year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30,
2007.

The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and
Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
that the defendants knowingly issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results prior to the restatements.  They seek to
recover unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The three actions were later consolidated.  In April 2008, the
designated lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

On or about May 5, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On or about July 25, 2008,
the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On Aug. 22, 2008 the designated lead plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint.  The Second Amended Complaint also alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs again claim
that defendants knowingly issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
results prior to the restatement, as well as regarding the
development of the Harmony product line.  Plaintiffs seek to
recover unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on Oct. 6, 2008, and a hearing on the motion was held
on Jan. 16, 2009.  The company expects that the Court will rule
on the current motion to dismiss within the next several weeks,
according to its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 27, 2008.

The suit is "McCasland v. Formfactor, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
05545-SI," filed before the U.S. District Court for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Susan Illston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

               - and -

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          (ashingler@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott, LLC
          600 B. Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert P. Varian, Esq. (rvarian@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: 415-773-5759


FORMFACTOR INC: Calif. Stockholder Derivative Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. continues to face a consolidated stockholder
derivative lawsuit that was filed in the the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda.

Initially, two purported stockholder derivative actions were
filed starting Nov. 19, 2007.  The suits name the company as a
nominal defendant and certain of its directors and officers as
defendants.

The first suit is captioned, "John King, Derivatively on Behalf
of Nominal Defendant FormFactor, Inc. v. Dr. Igor Y. Khandros,
Dr. Homa Bahrami, Dr. Thomas J. Campbell, G. Carl Everett, Jr.,
Lothar Maier, James A. Prestridge, Harvey A. Wagner, Ronald C.
Foster and Richard M. Freeman, and FormFactor, Inc."

The second purported stockholder class action suit is captioned
"Joseph Priestley, Derivatively on Behalf of FormFactor, Inc. v.
Igor Y. Khandros, Mario Ruscev, James A. Prestridge, Thomas J.
Campbell, Harvey A. Wagner, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Homa Bahrami,
Lothar Maier, William H. Davidow and Joseph R. Bronson, and
FormFactor, Inc."

The plaintiffs filed the actions following the company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that
year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30,
2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and violated applicable law by issuing, and
permitting the company to issue, materially false, and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results prior to the restatements.

The plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The two derivative actions have been consolidated, and a
consolidated amended complaint is to be filed 30 days after the
Court in the stockholder class action enters a final ruling,
according to its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 27, 2008.

FormFactor, Inc. -- http://www.formfactor.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures, sells and supports precision
semiconductor wafer probe cards.  Semiconductor manufacturers
use the company's wafer probe cards to perform wafer probe test
on the whole wafer in the front end of the semiconductor
manufacturing process.  FormFactor offers products and solutions
that are custom designed for semiconductor manufacturers' wafer
designs.


L-1 IDENTITY: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Affirmed on Jan. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on Jan. 12,
2009, affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated class action
against L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc.'s recently acquired
business, Digimarc Corporation.

In connection with the company's August 2008 acquisition of Old
Digimarc, which consisted of its Secure ID Business following
the spin-off of its digital watermarking business, the company
assumed certain legal proceedings of Old Digimarc.

In 2004, three purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against Old
Digimarc and certain of its then-current and former directors
and officers on behalf of purchasers of Old Digimarc's
securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004.
These suits were later consolidated into one action for all
purposes.

The amended complaint, which sought unspecified damages,
asserted claims under the federal securities laws relating to
the restatement of Old Digimarc's financial statements for 2003
and the first two quarters of 2004 and alleged that Old Digimarc
issued false and misleading financial statements and issued
misleading public statements about its operations and prospects.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted Old Digimarc's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in Old
Digimarc's favor.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeal was fully briefed.

Oral argument was held before a three-judge panel on Aug. 26,
2008.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on Jan. 12,
2009, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.l1id.com/-- provides
a range of identity solutions and services that enable
governments, and businesses to enhance security, establish a
biometric-based identity, protect personal data and support
various intelligence requirements. L-1 operates in two business
segments: the Identity Solutions segment and the Services
segment.


MARATHON OIL: 1Q09 Hearing Set for Faulty Gas Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia has scheduled the fairness hearing in the first quarter
of 2009 on a proposed settlement of a purported lawsuit over
defective gasoline that Marathon Oil Corp. sold.

The lawsuit, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al.," alleges that the company's
Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline to wholesalers and
retailers, causing permanent damage to storage tanks, dispensers
and related equipment, resulting in lost profits, business
disruption, and personal and real property damages.

In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Co. conducted extensive cleaning
operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent
damages resulted from the incident.

Class-action certification was granted in August 2007.

The company has entered into a tentative settlement agreement in
this case.  Notice of the proposed settlement has been sent to
the class members.  Approval by the court after a fairness
hearing is required before the settlement can be finalized.

The suit is "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00966," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory B. Breedlove, Esq. (gbb@cbcbb.com)
         Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove
         P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660
         Phone: 251/471-6191
         Fax: 251/479-1031

              - and -

         James M. Cawley, Jr., Esq. (jay@jaycawley.net)
         Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana Street
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/426-1700
         Fax: 713/425-5325

Representing the defendants are:

         Joseph S. Beeson, Esq. (jsb@ramlaw.com)
         Robinson & Mcelwee
         400 Fifth Third Center
         700 Virginia Street, East
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566

              - and -

         Jeffrey V. Mehalic, Esq.
         The Law Offices Of Jeffrey V. Mehalic
         P.O. Box 11133
         Charleston, WV 25339-1133
         Phone: 304/346-3462
         Fax: 302/346-3469


NORTHEAST HEALTH: Reaches $1.25M Settlement in Nurses' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     ALBANY, N.Y., March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Nurses
applauded the announcement of a settlement in a class action
lawsuit which was reached between bedside nurses and Northeast
Health, a network which includes Albany Memorial and Samaritan
Hospitals.  The lawsuit contends that Albany area hospitals had
for years violated federal antitrust law by sharing confidential
wage data and conspiring to depress wages for registered nurses.
Nurses hailed the settlement as an important step towards
ensuring fair compensation for their profession and helping to
solve the nurse shortage crisis, thereby improving quality of
care for patients.

     The $1,250,872 settlement, which is subject to court
approval, includes provisions to halt anti-competitive behavior
by Northeast Health in the future. These provisions prohibit
Northeast Health from sharing current and future nurse wage
information with other healthcare facilities in the Albany area,
and give plaintiffs access to Northeast Health witnesses in
order to further prosecute the action against other area
defendants.  Northeast Health is the first among Albany area
hospitals to "settle out" of the lawsuit and similar suits are
moving forward in Detroit, Chicago, San Antonio and Memphis.
The SEIU Nurse Alliance has played a leading role in supporting
empirical research that has exposed the national problem of
employer collusion around nurse wages, shown the link between
wage levels and the shortage of bedside nurses, and demonstrated
the importance of staffing levels for improving patient care.

     "This is a breakthrough not only for nurses, but for the
people we care for every day. For too long, hospitals cut
corners when it came to valuing the hard work of nurses.  Our
hope is that this is the first step towards making sure that
hospitals invest in the kind of quality care that patients
deserve," said Cathy Glasson, RN, of the Nurse Alliance of SEIU.

     "By helping to ensure competitive methods for setting RN
wages, we can attract more new nurses to the profession, bring
non-practicing nurses back to the bedside, and improve patient
outcomes," said Anne Jacobs-Moultrie, a registered nurse and
Vice President of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.

     The class action suit ultimately seeks to recover three
times the amount that nurses in the class were underpaid.  The
proposed settling class consists of direct-care nurses who were
employed by certain Albany area hospitals between June 20, 2002
and June 20, 2006.  Northeast Health recently announced an
intended merger with two other area healthcare companies, St.
Peter's Health Care Services and Seton Health, but this will not
effect the settlement.

     The settlement comes at a time when there is an intense
shortage of bedside nurses in the Albany area and throughout the
country. Because of the aging population and advances in medical
technology that require higher-skilled staff, more nurses are
needed than ever before.  According to a report by the Institute
for Women's Policy Research, there is currently a shortage of
more than 13,000 nurses in New York State alone and over 1.2
million nursing positions will need to be filled nationally over
the next 5 years.  The report shows that the shortage is due in
part to artificially low wages caused by collusion amongst
hospital employers in a given region.

     Numerous medical studies have shown that better nurse
staffing levels lead to higher quality patient care, fewer
medical mistakes and lower mortality rates.  Nurses believe that
setting fair, competitive wages will also produce a benefit for
hospitals in the long-term by allowing facilities to meet their
staffing needs without resorting to mandatory overtime or
expensive temporary nurse agencies.  Competitive wage practices
offer hospitals the opportunity to enhance patient outcomes and
ensure medical needs are handled by competent, compassionate
nursing staff.

     With more than 84,000 nurses in 23 states, the Nurse
Alliance is one of the largest nurse organizations in the
country.  Through the Nurse Alliance, nurses are uniting across
the country to pursue any and all solutions to bring nurses back
to the bedside and raise the standard of care -- from
enforcement of existing laws, to calling for new legislation
protecting nurses and patients, to giving nurses a voice in the
delivery of patient care.


OKLAHOMA: Judge Excludes Group From Human Services Dept. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma has excluded a state employees'
group from a purported class-action lawsuit seeking to reform
the state child welfare system Jay F. Marks of NewsOK.com
reports.

The Oklahoma Public Employees Association, which includes more
than 300 state Department of Human Services child welfare
workers, filed a brief in February in support of an advocacy
group's attempt to turn its lawsuit into a class-action case,
according to the NewsOK.com report

U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell sided with DHS, agreeing
the group did not have any unique perspective to offer, reports
NewsOK.com.

NewsOK.com reported that the group's proposed brief, which was
filed Feb. 11, 2009 largely duplicated the arguments made by
Children's Rights, the advocacy group behind the lawsuit, Judge
Frizzell wrote.

The Daily Oklahoman previously reported that Children's Rights,
a New York-based child advocacy organization, joined several
prominent Oklahoma law firms and an international firm in filing
a class action against Oklahoma's Department of Human Services.

The suit accuses DHS of repeatedly subjecting children in state
custody to extreme abuse and neglect.  It asks the judge to
impose far-reaching reforms on the state system.

"Oklahoma has long maintained one of the most dangerous and
badly mismanaged child welfare systems in the nation, and
thousands of children have suffered under nightmarish conditions
for years as a result," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive
director of Children's Rights.

"It is disgraceful that we have to seek a federal court order to
force the state to begin fixing problems that it should have
addressed many years ago. But it is clear that this is the only
way to protect Oklahoma's abused and neglected children -- and
that is what this lawsuit is about."

Children's Rights is asking the judge to declare the lawsuit a
class action so the attorneys can represent all of the more than
10,000 children in state care.

For more details, contact:

          Marcia Robinson Lowry
          Children's Rights
          330 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10001


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 2 Lawsuits Over 2008 Stock Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces two purported securities
class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported securities class-action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants Rigel, Inc., certain of its
officers, its directors and the underwriters for the company's
February 2008 stock offering.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
defendants related to the results of a Phase II clinical trial
of the company's product candidate R788.

The plaintiff seeks damages, including rescission or rescissory
damages for purchasers in the Stock Offering, an award of its
costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of
the company's common stock during the period between Dec. 13,
2007 and Oct. 27, 2008, including purchasers in the Stock
Offering.

An additional purported securities class action lawsuit
containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Feb. 20, 2009.

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, it is possible that additional suits will
be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with
respect to these same matters and also naming the company and/or
its officers and directors as defendants.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com-- is a
clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and
develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory/
autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases.  The company's
research focuses on intracellular signalling pathways and
related targets that are critical to disease mechanisms.  Rigel
has collaborations with pharmaceutical partners to develop and
market its product candidates.  The company has internal product
development programs in inflammatory/autoimmune diseases, such
as rheumatoid arthritis and thrombocytopenia, and cancer, as
well as partnered product development programs relating to
asthma and cancer.


SOTHEBY'S INC: Calif. Court Nixes Suit Over Concealed Interests
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit against Sotheby's
Inc. over allegations it hides its economic interest in property
it auctions off, deceiving clients into bidding up the price,
Lindsay Barnes of The Hook reports.

The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that the action
is brought pursuant to New York General Business Law Section 349
and other common law in effect (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7,
2008).

Named plaintiff Halsey Minor -- who paid $8.6 million for the
painting "The Peaceable Kingdom with the Leopard of Serenity" --
claims Sotheby's Executive Vice President and Director of the
American Paintings Department, acting as his art consultant and
purchasing agent, advised him how much he should bid on the
"Peaceable Kingdom" painting.

Mr. Minor says the VP failed to mention that the seller owed
Sotheby's millions of dollars and that the advised bid greatly
exceeded Sotheby's own valuation of the work.  He further claims
Sotheby's scheme allows the largest fine art auctioneer in the
world to recoup debts and maximize returns by duping its
customers into making inflated bids.

Mr. Minor alleges fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.  He wants
his money back and he wants Sotheby's ordered to disclose its
interests in auctioned property.

Mr. Minor brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a), and 23(b), and the case law, on behalf of all
persons who purchased property at auctions conducted by
Sotheby's, in which Sotheby's held any economic interest in the
auctioned property other than disclosed fees and buyer
commissions, within the six-year period preceding the filing of
the plaintiff's complaint through the date notice is mailed to
the class.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Sotheby's auctioned and sold property without
         disclosing information concerning its economic
         interests in that property;

     (b) whether Sotheby's had a duty to disclose information
         concerning its economic interests in auctioned
         property;

     (c) whether Sotheby's pursued the common course of conduct
         complained of;

     (d) whether the failure of Sotheby's to disclose
         information concerning its economic interests in
         auctioned property constitutes an unfair deceptive
         consumer sales practice;

     (e) whether Sotheby's was unjustly enriched; and

     (f) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief.

The plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment for:

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring
        disclosure by Sotheby's, in its auction catalogs, of
        information concerning all economic interests Sotheby's
        holds in any auctioned property other than disclosed
        fees and buyer commissions;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring
        disclosure by Sotheby's, in its auction catalogs, of the
        identities of all counter-parties whose indebtedness to
        Sotheby's has resulted in an economic interest being
        held by Sotheby's in the auctioned property;

     -- disgorgement to plaintiff and the other class members of
        a sum determined to reflect the premium received by
        Sotheby's for those property auctioned by Sotheby's
        during the class period for which Sotheby's concealed
        information concerning economic interests it held in the
        auctioned property, along with any increased buyers'
        fees Sotheby's obtained as a result of that premium;

     -- compensatory damages for Sotheby's wrongful conduct in
        an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- punitive damages for Sotheby's wrongful conduct in an
        amount to be determined at trial;

     -- treble damages pursuant to NY Gen. Bus. Law Section 349;

     -- costs of this action, including reasonable attorney's
        fees;

     -- any applicable and appropriate pre- and post-judgment
        interest; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court deems just
        and proper.

The suit is "Halsey Minor, et al. v. Sotheby's Inc., Case No. C-
08-4568," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Eric M. George, Esq.
          Dreier Stein Kahan Browne Woods George LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, 24th Floor
          Century City, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-374-7100
          Fax: 310-275-5697
  

SPRINT NEXTEL: Easements Cases v. Unit Still Pending in Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cases filed against Sprint Nextel Corp.'s subsidiary, Sprint
Communications Company L.P., for alleged failure to obtain
easements for fiber optic network installations remain pending
in Tennessee.

A number of cases that allege Sprint Communications failed to
obtain easements from property owners during the installation of
its fiber optic network in the 1980's have been filed in various
courts.  Several of these cases sought certification of
nationwide classes, and in one case, a nationwide class was
certified.

In 2003, a nationwide settlement of these claims was approved by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
but objectors appealed the preliminary approval order to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the
settlement and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.  The parties proceeded with litigation and/or
settlement negotiations on a state by state basis, and
settlement negotiations have been coordinated in all cases but
those pending in Louisiana and Tennessee.  The Louisiana claims
have been separately settled for an amount not material to the
company, and that settlement was given final approval by the
Court, and the time to appeal that approval has expired.

The company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
claims in all the other states, excluding Tennessee, for an
amount not material to the company.  The Court issued its
preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2008, and the
Court is in the process of considering objections to the
settlement, 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.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Shareholders' Securities Lawsuit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a shareholder class-action lawsuit
against Sprint Nextel Corp., alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

In September 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging
that the company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and
misleading in violation of federal securities laws to the extent
they described new employment agreements with certain senior
executives without disclosing that, according to the
allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable.

These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit
originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the company and
certain current and former officers and directors, and seek to
recover any decline in the value of the company's tracking
stocks during the class period.

The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class
action.

All defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations and intend to
defend this matter vigorously, according to the company's Nov.
7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims
against the same defendants and the company's former independent
auditor, were dismissed by the Court in April 2004.

The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
denied, and the parties are engaged in discovery, 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.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suits in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc., seeks to dismiss several purported
antitrust class actions filed in Illinois in connection with its
steel products, 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.

On Sept. 17, 2008, Steel Dynamics, Inc. was served with a class-
action antitrust complaint alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing companies,
including Steel Dynamics.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, alleges that the defendants conspired to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the U.S. by artificially restricting the
supply of such steel products.

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all purchasers of steel products directly from the
defendants between Jan. 1, 2005 and the present, seeks treble
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre-
and post-judgment interest.

Since the original filing, six additional lawsuits, each of them
materially similar to the original, have been filed in the same
federal court, each of them likewise seeking similar class
certification.  All but one of the Complaints purport to be
brought on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of
steel products directly from the defendants between Jan. 1, 2005
and the present.  The other Complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel
products from the defendants within the same time period.

All Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief.

On Jan. 2, 2009, the defendants in these cases including Steel
Dynamics filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the suits.  On
Jan. 30, 2009 the plaintiffs filed their response to the Motion
to Dismiss, and on Feb. 20, 2009 the defendants filed their
reply.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com-- is a
steel producer.  The company, with its acquisition of OmniSource
Corp., is a scrap processor in the U.S.


VALERO ENERGY: Discovery in Kans. Fuel Temperature Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the matter "In re: Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, Multi-District
Litigation Docket No. 1840," which names Valero Energy Corp. as
a defendant.

As of Feb. 1, 2009, the company was named in 21 consumer class-
action lawsuits relating to fuel temperature.  The complaints,
filed before federal courts in several states, allege that
because fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the
defendants have violated state consumer protection laws by
failing to adjust the volume of fuel when the fuel temperature
exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

The complaints seek to certify classes of retail consumers who
purchased fuel in various locations.  They seek an order
compelling the installation of temperature correction devices as
well as associated monetary relief.

In June 2007, the federal lawsuits were consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation case in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, Multi-District Litigation Docket No.
1840).

In February 2008, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaints.

In July 2008, the plaintiffs filed a pleading attempting to name
Valero and other petroleum companies as class representatives of
defendant classes composed of their respective branded outlets,
including retail outlets owned by other parties.

The court has scheduled briefing on class certification through
2008 and early 2009, although this schedule may be delayed
further into 2009.

The court is expected to rule on certain class certification
issues within the first half of 2009, according to its Feb. 26,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


VALERO ENERGY: Seeks Judgment or New Trial in "Rosolowski" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy, Inc. seeks judgment or, alternatively, a new
trial, in the matter "Rosolowski v. Clark Refining Marketing,
Inc., et al., Case No. 95-L 014703."

The purported class-action lawsuit was assumed by the company
after its acquisition of Premcor Inc. under a merger agreement
on Sept. 1, 2005.

The suit, filed on Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release
to the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of
heavy metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery
on Oct. 7, 1994.  The release resulted in the temporary
evacuation of certain areas near the refinery.

The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three
classes, two of which received nominal or no damages, and one of
which received a sizeable jury verdict.

That class consisted of local residents who claimed property
damage or loss of use and enjoyment of their property over a
period of several years.

In November 2005, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
of $80.1 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in
punitive damages.

However, following the company's motions for new trial and
judgment notwithstanding the verdict (citing, among other
things, misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel and improper class
certification), the trial judge in November 2006 vacated the
jury's award and decertified the class.

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to vacate the
$120 million judgment and decertify the class.  The plaintiffs'
appeal was heard before the state appeals court in February
2008, and in June 2008, the state appeals court reversed the
trial court's decision to decertify the class and set aside the
judgment.

The appeals court preserved the company's rights, and on Aug. 4,
2008, the company filed an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear the case and returned
it to the trial court.  The company has submitted renewed
motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or,
alternatively, a new trial, according to its Feb. 26, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


YAHOO! INC: April 23 Hearing Set for Bid to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 23, 2009 hearing has been set for the motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit pending against Yahoo! Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Initially, on May 11, 2007, the first of two purported
securities class-action complaints was filed against Yahoo! And
certain of its officers and members of its board of directors.

The lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky, under
the caption, "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-03125."

The second lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California by Manfred Hacker, under the
caption, "Manfred Hacker v. Yahoo! Inc et al., Case No. 2:2007-
cv-03902."

These actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and, on Dec. 21, 2007, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who
purchased Yahoo!'s common stock between April 8, 2004, and July
18, 2006.  They allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme
to inflate Yahoo!'s share price by making false and misleading
statements regarding Yahoo!'s operations, financial results, and
future business prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The plaintiffs also allege that the individual defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of the Section 20(A) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and as control persons are
subject to liability under Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of alleged insider trading
proceeds, and other equitable relief.

On March 10, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to
transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

Pursuant to the order, plaintiffs must file their Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint by Nov. 17, 2008.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on
Dec. 19, 2008.  On Feb. 2, 2009, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which is scheduled for hearing on April 23, 2009,
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.

The suit is "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-03125-CAS-FMO," pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nate Bear, Esq. (nbear@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0853

               - and -

          Mark I. Labaton, Esq. (mlabaton@kreindler.com)
          Kreindler and Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-622-6469

Representing the defendants is:

          Jordan Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-7000


YAHOO! INC: Calif. Consolidated Shareholder Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended class-action and derivative complaint
captioned, "In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Litigation," in Santa
Clara County Superior Court, remains stayed pending resolution
of similar proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Since Feb. 1, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County,
against Yahoo! Inc., members of the Board and selected former
officers by plaintiffs Edward Fritsche, the Thomas Stone Trust,
Tom Turberg, Congregation Beth Aaron, and the Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System (collectively, the
"California Lawsuits").

The California Lawsuits were consolidated, and on March 12,
2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint was filed, captioned In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint alleges
that the Board breached fiduciary duties in connection with
Microsoft's unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo!.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit by plaintiff Congregation Beth Aaron was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice, and re-filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on Dec. 3, 2008.

On March 28, 2008, the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted
defendants' motion to stay the Consolidated Amended Class Action
and Derivative Complaint pending resolution of similar
proceedings pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, 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.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  The company's offerings to users fall into five
categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities;
Media, and Connected Life.  The majority of its offerings are
available in more than 20 languages.  Yahoo! generates revenues
by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority
of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites.  In addition, although
many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a
range of premium services that it offers.


YAHOO! INC: Del. Judge Approves Stockholder Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Chandler III of Delaware's Court of the
Chancery gave final approval to he proposed settlement of the
consolidated stockholder lawsuit against Yahoo! Inc. and members
of the company's Board, Law360 reports.

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, a March 6, 2009 hearing was set by the
Delaware Court of Chancery for the final approval of the
proposed settlement, which calls on the company institute major
changes to its employee severance plan, clearing a stumbling
block shareholders believe was keeping the company from
finalizing a profitable acquisition deal.

Since Feb. 11, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Yahoo! Inc. and
members of the Board by plaintiffs The Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System, Ronald Dicke, and The Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit along with The General
Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund, and
Vernon A. Mercier (the "Delaware Lawsuits").

Two of the Delaware Lawsuits (by plaintiff Wayne County and by
plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union) were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.  The remaining Delaware Lawsuits were
consolidated (lead plaintiff is the Police and Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit) and lead counsel was appointed.

On Nov. 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for leave
to amend and supplement its complaint.  In connection with the
amended motion for leave to amend, plaintiff submitted a
proposed Second Amended and Supplemental Consolidated Complaint
(the "Second Amended Complaint").

The Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that defendants
breached fiduciary duties in connection with the consideration
of proposals by Microsoft to purchase all or part of Yahoo!,
adoption of severance plans, the June 12, 2008 agreement between
Google Inc. and Yahoo! and purports to state claims relating to
alleged false and misleading statements and omissions in
Yahoo!'s proxy statement.

Plaintiffs allege that the proxy statement contained false and
misleading statements and omissions related to the severance
plans, including statements and omissions with respect to the
purpose of the plans, the reasons for adopting the plans, the
benefits provided to employees under the plans, the role played
by outside compensation consultants and the information provided
by them and the total cost of the plans.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award
of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On Dec. 10, 2008, plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuits, Yahoo!
and the Individual Defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") that, if
approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery, will settle and
resolve all claims that were or could have been asserted by the
plaintiffs or members of the settlement class, consisting of all
persons who held Yahoo! common stock at any time between Jan. 31
and Dec. 7, 2008, or on behalf of Yahoo! Inc. in the Delaware
Lawsuits or in any forum.  As provided in the Settlement
Agreement, in consideration for the settlement, Yahoo! agreed to
amend in various ways the severance plans that Yahoo! adopted in
February 2008.

On Dec. 19, 2008, Chancellor Chandler and the Delaware Court of
Chancery approved an order scheduling a hearing to determine
whether to grant final approval to the settlement.  Pursuant to
this order, on Dec. 30, 2008, Yahoo! mailed notice of the
proposed settlement and published a summary notice of the
proposed settlement.  Class members and Yahoo! stockholders had
until Feb. 4, 2009 to serve and file any written objections to
the proposed settlement.  Plaintiffs' counsel submitted a fee
petition seeking legal fees and expenses.  By stipulation and
order, the Court set the hearing on final approval of the
proposed settlement and the plaintiffs' counsel's request for
legal fees and expenses for March 6, 2009.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  The company's offerings to users fall into five
categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities;
Media, and Connected Life.  The majority of its offerings are
available in more than 20 languages.  Yahoo! generates revenues
by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority
of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites.  In addition, although
many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a
range of premium services that it offers.


YAHOO! INC: Watkins Seeks Leave to Amend Derivative Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Watkins' motion for leave to file an amended complaint in
her stockholder derivative action is pending, according to
Yahoo! Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the  fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

On June 14, 2007, a stockholder derivative action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by Jill Watkins against members of the company's Board and
selected officers.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and corporate
waste, with the addition of a claim for relief for alleged
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Watkins
agreed to coordinate her action with the federal class action
litigation.

On April 29, 2008, the federal court in Los Angeles granted
defendants' motion to transfer the Watkins action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, and
declined to decide the Plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2009, Watkins filed a new motion for leave to file
an amended complaint seeking to:

   -- substitute a new plaintiff,

   -- add a derivative claim alleging violations of Section 20A
      of the Exchange Act,

   -- add a class claim for alleged violations of Section 14(a)
      of the Exchange Act,

   -- add a class claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty,
      and

   -- allege claims relating to Microsoft's unsolicited proposal
      to acquire Yahoo! Inc. on Feb. 1, 2008.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  The company's offerings to users fall into five
categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities;
Media, and Connected Life.  The majority of its offerings are
available in more than 20 languages.  Yahoo! generates revenues
by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority
of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites.  In addition, although
many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a
range of premium services that it offers.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:46:29 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 Northern District of California on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Century Aluminum Company
("Century Aluminum" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CENX), pursuant
and/or traceable a materially false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's January 28,
2009 Secondary Offering (the "Offering").

     The Complaint charges Century Aluminum, certain of the
Company's executive officers and directors, and the underwriters
of the Offering with violations of federal securities laws.

     Century Aluminum, through its subsidiaries, produces
primary aluminum in the United States and internationally.  The
Company offers molten aluminum, as well as standard-grade ingot,
extrusion billet and other value-added primary aluminum
products.

     The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and/or misleading because defendants failed to
disclose that the Company issued $929 million of Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock in July 2008 on a net basis as an
operating activity – when the transaction should have been
presented on a gross presentation basis as both an operating
activity and a financing activity to reflect the cash receipts
and disbursements associated with the transaction.  The
Registration Statement incorporated by reference the Company’s
quarterly financial reports, which were filed with the United
States Securities & Exchange Commission on Form 10-Q, for the
fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2008, June 30, 2008 and
September 30, 2008.

     On March 2, 2009, Century Aluminum shocked the market when
the Company filed an Interim Report on Form 8-K with the SEC
which disclosed that the Company would restate its interim
consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine months ended
September 30, 2008, to reflect cash flows related to the
preferred stock issued in July 2008, which was not presented on
the consolidated statement of cash flows in accordance with the
Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 95 "Statement of Cash Flows."

     In response to this news, shares of the Company’s stock
declined more than 24% per share, to close at $1.67 per share on
March 2, 2009.  This closing price of Century Aluminum
represented a cumulative loss of $2.61, or approximately 60%, of
the value of the Company’s shares at the time of its Secondary
Offering less than two months earlier.

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


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, March 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law Offices
Bernard M. Gross, P.C. commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
09cv2084, on behalf purchasers of common stock of General
Electric Company ("GE") (NYSE:GE) between January 23, 2009 and
February 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
action is pending before the Honorable Shira Scheindlin.

     The complaint charges that GE and its Chief Executive
Officer, Jeffrey Immelt, violated federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements regarding GE's common
stock dividend in 2009.

     Specifically, GE, since its inception in 1899, had paid a
dividend on its common stock.  As the credit crisis in the
capital markets continued and intensified in 2009, the market
began to seriously question whether GE would be able to maintain
its common stock dividend.  After stating on numerous occasions
during the Class Period that GE's common stock dividend was
safe, defendants suddenly, on February 27, 2009, issued a press
release stating that they were cutting GE's common stock
dividend by 68% commencing with the third quarter of 2009 and
that GE would pay a dividend of only $0.10 per share, down from
$0.341 per share.  When defendants disclosed the truth to the
market on February 27, 2009, GE's common stock price plummeted.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock of General Electric Company
(NYSE:GE) between January 23, 2009 and February 27, 2009,
inclusive.


For more information, contact:

          Susan R. Gross, Esq. (susang@bernardmgross.com)
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600
          Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com/


OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Spector Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, March 9, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The law firm
of Spector, Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. announces that a
class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court of Colorado against Oppenheimer Funds on behalf of
investors who purchased shares in the Funds during the period of
Nov. 1, 2006 through Dec. 31, 2008.

     The suit alleges that Oppenheimer, which runs the
Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund ("The Fund"), misled investors
about the Fund's investment criteria and risky investments
resulting in an 82 percent collapse of the Fund's value.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of investors in the following
funds: A Shares (OPCHX), B Shares (OCHBX), C Shares (OCHCX), N
Shares (OCHNX) and Y Shares (OCHYX).

     Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that defendants marketed
and sold the Fund as a conservative, high-income fund,
portraying it as diversified and higher yielding.  However, it
is alleged that the Fund managers failed to disclose the true
risk of the Fund, which invested in high-risk mortgage-backed
securities and illiquid derivatives that ultimately led to the
Fund's collapse.

     Eventually, the Fund experienced an 82 percent drop.
Compared to other high-yield funds that averaged a drop of 32
percent in 2008, The Champion Fund experienced an almost $2
billion drop in assets in 15 months.

     The suit alleges that Oppenheimer violated state laws when
it changed the Fund's fundamental policies, a move requiring the
vote of a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities.

     Furthermore, in violation of the Fund's policy that it
cannot invest 25 percent or more of its total assets in one
industry, in late 2006, the Fund concentrated more than 25
percent of its total assets in high-risk mortgage-backed
securities and failed to obtain approval from a majority of
shareholders.

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862
          e-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com
          Web site: http://www.srkw-law.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  * * *