CAR_Public/090312.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 50

                           Headlines

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Stock Lawsuit
BROOKLINE BANCORP: Mosca Appeals Dismissal of Complaint in Mass.
CARTER'S INC: Bid to Junk Contract Breach Suit Pending in Ill.
CARTER'S INC: To Defend Securities Suit Over OshKosh Integration
CITIGROUP MORTGAGE: Judge OK's Lead Plaintiffs in Subprime Suit

COMMONWEALTH MEDICAL: Employees File WARN Violations Suit in Pa.
CONVERGYS CORP: Still Defends Intervoice Securities Suit in Tex.
COVENTRY HEALTH: Harrison Plaintiffs Yet to File for Arbitration
LCD LITIGATION: Judge Refuses to Nix Direct Purchasers' Claims
LEAP WIRELESS: Bid to Junk Amended Securities Suit Due April 9

MAPLE LEAF: Canadian Judge OKs Settlements in Listeriosis Suit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.J. Judge Approves $69M Agreement in MDL-1663
MASCO CONTRACTOR: Settles Calif. Wage, Hour Litigation For $8.5M
MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
MOONSHIN TATTOO: Faces Lawsuit Over Peel Region Health Scare

PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending
ST. LOUIS COUNTY: Faces Missouri Litigation Over Sewer Fees
TRUEBEGINNINGS LLC: Settles Tex. Customers' Litigation for $1.5M
WEYERHAEUSER CO: OSB Suit Dismissed by Court-Approved Settlement
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Ruling on Post-trial Bids in Alder Suit Pending


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
SPRINT NEXTEL: Coughlin Stoia Files Kans. Securities Fraud Suit
WESTGATE CAPITAL: Anderson Kill Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     MINNEAPOLIS, March 10, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Zimmerman Reed announced that shareholder claims against Boston
Scientific Company will be allowed to proceed as a class action.

     On March 10, 2009 Judge Douglas Woodlock, United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, issued a
memorandum certifying a shareholder class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Scientific equity
securities between November 20, 2003 and July 15, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

     At the core of the lawsuit are allegations concerning known
manufacturing defects with Boston Scientific's flagship stent
product, TAXUS drug-eluting stent. In their lawsuit, the
investors allege that Boston Scientific violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly withholding material
information and making misleading statements concerning TAXUS,
which artificially inflated the Company's stock and ultimately
caused investor losses.

     In addition, the investors allege that the Company's top
executives engaged in improper insider trading and wrongfully
enriched themselves in excess of $332 million by selling their
personal holdings.

     The case involves allegations that in 2003 and 2004,
medical device-manufacturer Boston Scientific misled investors
about its TAXUS device.

     First, Defendants attributed problems-including patient
deaths-with its drug-eluting TAXUS stent and Express2 bare metal
coronary stent systems to physician error, despite the fact that
the Company had previously determined that the problems were
attributable to its internal manufacturing processes.

     Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that, despite knowing the
serious risks associated with the manufacturing problems, the
Company chose to delay implementing manufacturing changes until
after it launched the flawed device onto the U.S. market, to
avoid further FDA scrutiny of the Company's application to put
TAXUS on the United States market.  The problems caught up with
the Company when it was forced to recall TAXUS from the U.S. and
international markets three times in the summer of 2004.  In
reaction, the share price dropped 14.3% in the following three
trading days.

     The Court's Memorandum and Order certifying the Class, and
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, are available at
http://www.zimmreed.com/boston-scientific.

For more details, contact:

          Carolyn Anderson
          Zimmerman Reed
          Phone: 612.965.0318
          Web site:  http://www.zimmreed.com/boston-scientific


BROOKLINE BANCORP: Mosca Appeals Dismissal of Complaint in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie E. Mosca appeals the decision of the Superior Court for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granting Brookline Bancorp,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment.

On Feb. 21, 2007, Ms. Mosca filed a putative class-action
complaint against Brookline Bank in the Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Ms. Mosca defaulted on a loan obligation on an automobile that
she co-owned.

She alleged that the form of notice of sale of collateral that
the Bank sent to her after she and the co-owner became
delinquent on the loan obligation did not contain information
required to be provided to a consumer under the Massachusetts
Uniform Commercial Code.

The action purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
individuals to whom the Bank sent the same form of notice in
connection with transactions documented as consumer transactions
during the four year period prior to the filing of the Action.

The action sought statutory damages, an order restraining the
Bank from future use of the form of notice sent to Ms. Mosca, an
order barring the Bank from recovering any deficiency from other
individuals to whom it sent the same form of notice, attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses and costs.

The Bank answered denying liability and opposing Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class.

The Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in
an order dated July 18, 2008.

On July 31, 2008, Plaintiff served a motion for summary judgment
seeking an award of damages in the amount of $2,928 to her
individually.  The Bank opposed that motion and moved for
summary judgment in its favor.

On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the
Bank.

On Feb. 23, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,
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.

Brookline Bancorp, Inc. -- https://www.brooklinebank.com/ --
serves as the holding company for Brookline Bank (Brookline).
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Brookline operated eighteen
full-service banking offices in Brookline, Medford and adjacent
communities in Middlesex County and Norfolk County in
Massachusetts.  Brookline's deposits are gathered from the
general public primarily in the communities in which its banking
offices are located.


CARTER'S INC: Bid to Junk Contract Breach Suit Pending in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a class-action
lawsuit against Carter's, Inc. for contract breach remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

A class-action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 29, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
company claiming breach of contract arising from certain
advertising and pricing practices with respect to Carter's brand
products purchased by consumers at Carter's retail stores
nationally.

The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint, alleging breach
of contract on behalf of a nationwide class and Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act claims on behalf of Illinois consumers.

The company has moved to dismiss the entire amended complaint.

On Feb. 3, 2009 the same plaintiff's attorney filed a second,
nearly identical action against the company in the same court
but in the name of a different plaintiff.

The parties filed an agreed upon motion to consolidate this
second action with the first case and to stay the need for
response in the second case until after the court has ruled upon
the pending motion to dismiss, 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 Jan. 3, 2009.

Carter's, Inc. -- http://www.carters.com/-- is a marketer of
apparel for babies and young children in the United States.  The
company owns two brand names in the children's apparel industry,
Carter's and OshKosh.  Carter's offers multiple product
categories, including baby, sleepwear, playclothes and other
accessories.  The company sells its products to national
department stores, chain and specialty stores, discount
retailers, and as of Dec. 29, 2007, through 228 Carter's and 163
OshKosh outlet and brand retail stores.  Under its Carter's
brand, the company designs, sources and markets an array of
products, primarily for sizes newborn to seven.  Its Carter's
brand is sold in department stores, national chains, specialty
stores, off-price sales channels, and through its Carter's
retail stores.  Carter's sells its Just One Year and Child of
Mine brands through the mass channel at Target and Wal-Mart,
respectively.


CARTER'S INC: To Defend Securities Suit Over OshKosh Integration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carter's, Inc. intends to defend a class action lawsuit filed on
Sept. 16, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that between Feb. 21, 2006 and July 21,
2007, the company made misrepresentations regarding the
successful integration of OshKosh into the company's business,
and that the share price of the company's stock later fell when
the market learned that the integration had not been as
successful as represented.

Plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement System filed an unopposed
motion to be appointed lead counsel on Nov. 18, 2008, and that
motion was fully submitted as of Dec. 8, 2008.  Plaintiff is
waiting for a decision from the court.

By stipulation of the parties, no motion to dismiss or other
response to the complaint will be due until 60 days after an
amended complaint is filed subsequent to lead plaintiff
appointment.

Following appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the
company intends to file a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim under the federal securities laws, 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
Jan. 3, 2009.

Carter's, Inc. -- http://www.carters.com/-- is a marketer of
apparel for babies and young children in the United States.  The
company owns two brand names in the children's apparel industry,
Carter's and OshKosh.  Carter's offers multiple product
categories, including baby, sleepwear, playclothes and other
accessories.  The company sells its products to national
department stores, chain and specialty stores, discount
retailers.  Under its Carter's brand, the company designs,
sources and markets an array of products, primarily for sizes
newborn to seven.  Its Carter's brand is sold in department
stores, national chains, specialty stores, off-price sales
channels, and through its Carter's retail stores.  Carter's
sells its Just One Year and Child of Mine brands through the
mass channel at Target and Wal-Mart, respectively.


CITIGROUP MORTGAGE: Judge OK's Lead Plaintiffs in Subprime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas H. Boyle of the U.S. District Court
Eastern District of New York has approved both the City of Ann
Arbor Employees' Retirement System and the Greater Kansas City
Laborers' Pension Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs in a class-
action lawsuit against Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc.,
alleging that the Citigroup unit made false claims to sell
mortgage pass-through certificates backed by subprime mortgages,
Law360 reports.

In his report on March 8, 2009, Judge Boyle also approved naming
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP to serve as lead
counsel in the lawsuit, according to the Law360 report.


COMMONWEALTH MEDICAL: Employees File WARN Violations Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Commonwealth Medical Center in Aliquippa,
Pennsylvania have sued the hospital, saying they are owed money
because they didn't receive any notice when the hospital closed
in December 2008, Michael Pound of The Beaver County Times.

The suit was filed on March 6, 2009, alleging that the hospital
violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, which requires that an employer give at least
60 days notice to its workers prior to a mass layoff or the
closure of a business.

According to the complaint, the workers and their union, the
Service Employees International Union's Healthcare Pennsylvania,
are seeking up to 60 days' pay for the 200 employees included in
the class-action suit.

The Beaver County Times reported that the workers have been
seeking pay owed by the hospital since it closed in December
2008, about a week after declaring bankruptcy.

In January 2009, the union, the hospital and Bridge Healthcare
Finance, the Chicago firm that is Commonwealth's largest
creditor, reached an agreement to pay the workers money they
earned after the filing but prior to the closure.

Everyone involved expected a similar agreement that would have
covered two weeks' worth of pre-bankruptcy wages, but those
talks dissolved in February 2009.  At a hearing in February,
union attorney Claudia Davidson, Esq. said she would consider
pursuing a suit based on the WARN Act, reports The Beaver County
Times.

In the filing, Ms. Davidson said workers were told on Dec. 11,
2008 that payroll was going to be delayed but all employees were
expected to report to work as usual; including in the filing is
a memo from hospital Chief Executive Officer John O'Donnell
threatening to terminate any worker who failed to show up as per
the schedule, The Beaver County Times reports.

The suit also says the workers were all dismissed on Dec. 12,
2008, according to the The Beaver County Times report.


CONVERGYS CORP: Still Defends Intervoice Securities Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corp. continues to defend a consolidated class-action
lawsuit against Intervoice, Inc., 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 September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its
acquisition of Intervoice.

Several related class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Intervoice during the period from
Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000 (the Class Period).

The plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into
one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice as well as certain
named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on
behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger
with Brite and the alleged future business projections of
Intervoice.  They have asserted that these alleged statements
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because
it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet
the pleading standards applicable to federal securities
litigation.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in
part and reversed in part.  The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited
number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice
stock during the Class Period.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted Intervoice's
petition to appeal the District Court's decision to grant
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's
class-certification order and remanded the case to the District
Court for further consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's
decision in "Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance
Telecom, Inc."

The parties filed additional briefing in the District Court
regarding class certification and are awaiting the District
Court's ruling.

The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint and Intervoice moved to dismiss
portions of that amended complaint.  On March 14, 2008, the
District Court granted that motion in part and denied it in
part.

Intervoice has largely completed the production of documents in
response to the plaintiffs' requests for production.

Convergys Corp. -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global
player in relationship management.  The Company provides its
clients with solutions to support their customers (Customer
Solutions) and employees (human resource (HR) Solutions).  It
has three segments: Customer Management, which provides
outsourced customer care solutions, as well as professional and
consulting services to in-house customer care operations;
Information Management, which provides convergent rating,
charging and billing solutions for the global communications
industry, and Human Resources Management, which provides human
resource business process outsourcing (HR BPO) solutions and
learning solutions.  In September 2008, Convergys announced the
closing of its acquisition of Intervoice, Inc.  In October 2008,
the Company announced the acquisition of Ceon Corporation, a
developer of product lifecycle management and multi-play
fulfillment software for communications service providers.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Harrison Plaintiffs Yet to File for Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Harrison vs. Coventry Health Care
of Georgia, Inc. (CHCGA)" -- a tag-along action that is included
in the Multi-District Litigation "In Re: Managed Care
Litigation, MDL No. 1334" -- which names Coventry Health Care,
Inc., as defendant, have yet to file a demand for arbitration.

The company was a defendant in the provider track of "In Re:
Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division, in the suit captioned "Charles B. Shane., et al., vs.
Humana, Inc., et al."

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company
on all claims asserted in the litigation.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's
order granting summary judgment.

The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class-
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals.  Each of these actions has been
transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along"
actions.  There are three tag-along actions currently filed
against the company.

The trial court had entered an order which stayed all
proceedings in these tag-along actions.

Recently, the trial court requested the parties in the tag-along
actions to refile all motions pending at the time of the stay
and to file any new motions.

On July 14, 2008, the trial court entered an order in the
Harrison tag-along action, dismissing all of the plaintiffs'
claims except their breach of contract claim, which the court
ordered to arbitration.

In addition, the court deferred to the arbitrator for decision
the company's affirmative defenses that the plaintiffs waived
their right to arbitration and their claim is barred by the
doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata.

The Harrison tag along action is a purported class-action suit
on behalf of all physicians in Georgia who had written provider
contracts with CHCGA.  The plaintiffs allege that CHCGA breached
their contracts by not paying statutory interest on claims not
adjudicated in compliance with Georgia's prompt pay statute.

To date, the Harrison plaintiffs have not filed a demand for
arbitration, 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.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a
national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland,
operating health plans, insurance companies, network
rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation
services companies.


LCD LITIGATION: Judge Refuses to Nix Direct Purchasers' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California refused to dismiss claims by direct
purchasers in a class-action suit filed on behalf of purchasers
of liquid-crystal displays (LCDs) against LG Electronics, Inc.,
Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., Hitachi, Ltd. and other
manufacturers, Karen Gullo of Bloomberg reports.

The plaintiffs in that case include small and medium-sized
systems integration companies that bought the screens to make
displays for fast food restaurants and other businesses.  They
claim they paid higher prices for screens because of price-
fixing and seek unspecified damages, according to the Bloomberg
report.

Bloomberg reported that in a March 3, 2009 ruling, Judge
Illston, who is presiding over the case, refused to dismiss
claims by direct purchasers, she however dismissed some by
indirect purchasers such as consumers, governments and others
who purchased products containing the displays.


LEAP WIRELESS: Bid to Junk Amended Securities Suit Due April 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leap Wireless International, Inc., and certain of its current
and former officers and directors have until April 9, 2009, to
file motions to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuit.

Lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, between November 2007 and
February 2008 purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased
Leap common stock between May 16, 2004, and Nov. 9, 2007.

The company's independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these
lawsuits.

The suits allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege that the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making false and misleading statements about the company's
business and financial results arising from its Nov. 9, 2007
announcement of its financial restatement.  Some of the lawsuits
also allege false and misleading statements revealed by Leap's
Aug. 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release.

The class action complaints seek determinations that the suits
are proper class actions.  They also seek unspecified damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

A consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on Aug. 28, 2008.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants' motions
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

On Feb. 23, 2009, defendants were served with an amended
complaint, which does not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Defendants' motions to dismiss are due on April 9, 2009,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The first identified complaint is "HCL Partners Limited
Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-2245," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
          Latham and Watkins
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Phone: 619-236-1234
          Fax: 619-696-7419


MAPLE LEAF: Canadian Judge OKs Settlements in Listeriosis Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Ron Barclay of Court of Queen's Bench has approved a
$25-million deal in the Canada-wide class-action lawsuit against
Maple Leaf Foods, which was filed over last year's listeriosis
outbreak, The Canadian Press reports.

People who got sick will be entitled to compensation of between
$750 and $125,000 each and there will be more for families of
those who died, according to the The Canadian Press.

Justice Barclay's decision approves the settlement for
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince
Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and the three
territories, reports The Canadian Press.

Chris Thompson of The Windsor Star previously reported that
settlements have been reached in class-action lawsuits against
Maple Leaf Foods in connection with a listeriosis outbreak from
tainted meats that resulted in the deaths of 20 Canadians last
summer (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2008).

The Sutts Strosberg law firm is one of eight across Canada that
have been involved in the lawsuit, which has been settled out of
court for between CDN25 and CDN27 million.

Specifically, Sutts Strosberg is one of five firms in Ontario
involved in the litigation.  Though it could not say how many
people in Windsor and Essex County were part of the lawsuit,
Sutts Strosberg did point out that in late October 2008 about
two dozen locals had signed on.

Under the settlement, which applies in Ontario, Quebec, and
Saskatchewan and will be fully funded by the company's liability
insurers, the estate of someone who died from physical symptoms
of listeriosis is entitled to CDN120,000 for their estate,
CDN35,000 for a surviving spouse, CDN30,000 for each surviving
child and CDN5,000 for surviving siblings and grandchildren,
according to The Windsor Star.

Death is one of eight injury levels outlined in the suit.  The
lowest level is compensation for psychological injuries or
trauma as a result of consuming meats covered by the recall.

Medical documentation and proof of purchase is required for a
payment of CDN2,000 per month up to two months for a total of
CDN4,000.

There are currently about 5,000 plaintiffs nationally in the
case and all will have to apply for compensation in one of the
three provinces approved in the suit.

Court approval for the settlement is expected by February 2009
and claimants could begin receiving settlement checks by next
summer, according to The Windsor Star report.

The national class-action suit originally claimed CDN100-million
for all consumers who purchased or consumed products on the
Maple Leaf Foods recall list, reports The Windsor Star.

The Maple Leaf Foods' Toronto meat-processing plant was shut for
a month when it was determined that its deli meats had been
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

The Windsor Star reported that listeria monocytogenes is a
bacterium that exists in the environment and can contaminate
meats, fish and vegetables.  It can lead to the development of
listeriosis, associated with flu-like symptoms that can include
nausea, vomiting, cramps, diarrhea, high fever, severe headache,
neck stiffness, constipation, persistent fever and death.

Symptoms usually appear within two to 30 days, but it can take
up to 90 days to get sick after someone has eaten contaminated
food.  The elderly, pregnant women, children and those with weak
immune systems are most at risk.

For more details, visit:

            http://www.mapleleaffoodsclassaction.com/


MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.J. Judge Approves $69M Agreement in MDL-1663
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Garrett Brown Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey has approved a $69 million settlement in
a class-action suit accusing leading insurance brokers of
conspiring with carriers to manipulate the market.

The decision resolved a big chunk of the litigation, entitled,
"In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 04-Civ.-5184,
MDL No. 1663," in which the plaintiffs claim that the brokers
violated antitrust and racketeering laws by taking part in a
scheme to rig bids for insurance policies and steer customers to
certain carriers in return for payments or kickbacks.

The money will be paid by Marsh & McLennan Cos. and several
related brokerage and investment consulting entities, including
Marsh Inc., Marsh USA Inc. and Mercer Inc.

Of the $69.02 million, $62 million is designated for class
plaintiffs, with up to $5 million of that amount to be used for
claims by state officials on behalf of policyholders who are
potential members of the class.  The remaining $7 million is
allocated to resolve nonclass member "tag-along" actions.

Brown found all nine factors in Girsh v. Jepson , 521 F.3d 153
(3d Cir. 1975), weighed in favor of approving the deal,
especially those relating to the complexity, expense and
duration of the litigation, reaction of the class, stage of the
proceeding and risks of litigating.

The class, approved by Judge Brown for purpose of the
settlement, has two parts.

The first consists of individuals or entities who dealt directly
with Marsh & McLennan or an affiliate in obtaining insurance
brokerage or other services related to buying or renewing
insurance or reinsurance between Aug. 26, 1994, and Sept. 1,
2005.

The other part -- referred to as the "conspiracy class" by one
of the lead plaintiffs counsel, Bryan Clobes, Esq. of Cafferty
Faucher of Philadelphia -- is made up of those who dealt with
another of the dozens of broker-defendants during the same
period.

Mr. Clobes estimates the direct class members number around
400,000 and the conspiracy class is in the millions.

The litigation began in 2004 in various district courts and was
consolidated in New Jersey in 2005.   


MASCO CONTRACTOR: Settles Calif. Wage, Hour Litigation For $8.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Contractor Services, Inc., and its California units,
Western Insulation and Schmid Insulation Contractors settled for
$8.5-million a purported class-action suit by thousands of
mostly Latino workers who accused defendants of violating
California's wage and hour laws, Joanna Lin of The Los Angeles
Times reports.

The workers, most of whom did not belong to a union, installed
insulation, rain gutters and fireplaces, Todd Jackson, one of
several attorneys representing the more than 3,100 employees
tells The Los Angeles Times.

In general, the suit alleged that defendants failed to pay the
workers for a full day's work when warranted.

The settlement was approved on March 9, 2009 by Judge Dale
Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Workers represented in the lawsuit include current and former
California installers who worked for Western Insulation and
Schmid Insulation at any time from Oct. 13, 2002, to Sept. 30,
2008, and who worked for Masco between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30,
2008.

Affected workers do not have to file any claim forms and will
begin receiving settlement checks by mail in mid-April,
attorneys said.  Workers who have changed their address since
their time of employment or who have questions about the
settlement can call (888) 546-7439.


MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Kyle of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota dismissed a securities class-action lawsuit against
Medtronic, Inc. that alleged the medical device giant covered up
fatal defects in its defibrillators and was responsible for the
company's stock price collapse in 2007, Law360 reports.

In October 2008, Medtronic sought for the the dismissal of the
consolidated complaint in the matter, "Medtronic, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-04564," which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 14, 2008).

On Nov. 8, 2007, a class-action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of
Section 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased securities of Medtronic during the period June 25,
2007, through Oct. 15, 2007.  It alleges that "materially false
and misleading" representations were made as to the market
acceptance and use of the Fidelis defibrillator leads to
artificially inflate Medtronic's stock price.

Pursuant to court order, the caption of the case was changed to
"Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation," and a consolidated
putative class-action complaint was filed on April 18, 2008.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint with prejudice, and a hearing date is scheduled
for Nov. 5, 2008, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 25, 2008.

The suit is "Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
07- 04564," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq. (rfinkel@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 3rd Ave
          New York, NY 10022
          212-451-9620

               - and -

          Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. (rhagstrom@zelle.com)
          Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette
          500 Washington Ave. S. Ste. 4000
          Mpls, MN 55415
          Phone: 612-339-2020
          Fax: 612-339-9100

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
          WilmerHale LLP
          399 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-937-7220

               - and -

          Patrick S. Williams, Esq. (pwilliams@briggs.com)
          Briggs & Morgan, PA
          80 S. 8th St. Ste. 2200
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-977-8400
          Fax: 612-977-8650


MOONSHIN TATTOO: Faces Lawsuit Over Peel Region Health Scare
------------------------------------------------------------
     TORONTO, ONTARIO -- (Marketwire) -- 03/10/09 -- A $20
million class action lawsuit will be commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against Moonshin Tattoo, Charles A.
Mason, Evelyne Smith, Peel Region Public Health Department (Peel
Public Health) and The Regional Municipality of Peel. The
lawsuit is commenced on behalf of all persons who received a
tattoo or body piercing at the Moonshin Tattoo studio between
March 2005 and February 2009.

     Ruben and Ana Travassos of Mississauga, Ontario claim that
Mr. Travassos received a tattoo at the Moonshin Tattoo on March
31, 2007.

     Under provincial legislation, public health authorities
must inspect "Personal Services Settings", such as tattoo and
piercing studios where there is a risk of exposure to blood, at
least once a year.  The first inspection at Moonshin occurred in
early 2005, shortly after the tattoo parlour opened at 95 Dundas
Street West, in the City of Mississauga.  The next inspection
was not until February 11, 2009.  During the February 11, 2009
inspection of Moonshin Tattoo, Peel Region Public Health
Department and The Regional Municipality of Peel (Peel Public
Health) discovered that as many as 3000 individuals who received
tattoo or piercing services at this establishment between March
2005 and February 2009 may have been exposed to equipment that
was not adequately sterilized.  Health Inspectors also found
Moonshin was not keeping adequate maintenance records for its
sterilization equipment on a monthly basis, as required.

     The use of non-sterile equipment could lead to the
transmission of diseases like hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.
People who believe they may be affected are urged to take
certain precautions, such as avoid sharing clippers, razors,
toothbrushes and other personal items, and to use a condom
during sexual activity, until evidence of transmission of
infectious diseases can be ruled out.

     This latest health scare comes on the heels of a $10
million class action lawsuit launched against Longhorn Custom
Body Art and Hugh Francis Towie, a tattoo studio operating in
the City of Oshawa. In August 2007, up to 2,000 customers of
Longhorn Custom Bodyart Studio in Oshawa were urged by Durham
Region health authorities to get tested for HIV, hepatitis B and
hepatitis C, after launching an investigation into potential
exposure to non-sterile equipment.

     Ruben and Ana Travassos are represented by Todd J.
McCarthy, Sean A. Brown and Madeline R. Ferreira of Flaherty Dow
Elliott & McCarthy; a firm with offices in Toronto, Ottawa and
Whitby, specializing in litigation. This same firm represents
the Class Members in the action involving the Longhorn
litigation.

     Todd J. McCarthy is one of Ontario's most renowned trial
lawyers. He is certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a
Specialist in Civil Litigation, has been an instructor in the
Bar Admission Course for ten years, and has delivered multiple
papers and presentations during his distinguished career.

For further information please contact:

          Todd J. McCarthy (todd.mccarthy@fdemlaw.com)
          Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy
          Barristers & Solicitors
          Phone: (905) 686-6448
          Fax: (905) 686-6447

               - and -

          Sean A. Brown (sean.brown@fdemlaw.com)
          Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy
          Barristers & Solicitors
          Phone: (416) 368-0231
          Fax: (416) 368-9229


PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuits filed against one of Peabody Energy
Corp.'s subsidiaries, Gold Fields Mining, LLC, are pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Gold Fields and two other companies are defendants in two class
action lawsuits allegedly involving past operations near Picher,
Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of
intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking
compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of
medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected
individuals.

No further developments regarding the matter were reported in
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.

Peabody Energy Corp. -- http://www.peabodyenergy.com/-- is a
coal company.  It sells coal to over 340 electricity generating
and industrial plants in 19 countries.  The Company owns
majority interests in 31 coal operations located throughout all
the United States coal producing regions and in Australia.  In
addition, it owns a minority interest in one Venezuelan mine,
through a joint venture arrangement.  Most of the production in
the western United States is low-sulfur coal from the Powder
River Basin.  Peabody owns and operates six mines in Queensland,
Australia, and five mines in New South Wales, Australia.


ST. LOUIS COUNTY: Faces Missouri Litigation Over Sewer Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
A group of 14 home and property owners is suing the St. Louis
County and its revenue collector for improperly charging a fee
that funds repairs to sewer lines that feed homes, Rachel
Lippmann of KWMU reports.

The class-action lawsuit, which was filed in in St. Louis County
Circuit Court in Missouri, generally alleges that defendants
illegally billed or overcharged thousands of residents for
lateral sewer insurance.  It cites a variety of allegedly
improper charges, reports KWMU.

According to the suit, revenue collector John Friganza of
levying the fees against condominium buildings with more than
six residents, and charging all residents of smaller condo
complexes the entire fee, rather than pro-rating it.

KWMU reported that Mr. Friganza is also accused of charging the
fee to residents who use private sewer systems, and to
developers who had not yet hooked their properties to public
sewer lines.

The lawsuit seeks refunds for the alleged overbillings, which
are estimated at $10 million, according to the KWMU report.


TRUEBEGINNINGS LLC: Settles Tex. Customers' Litigation for $1.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
TrueBeginnings, LLC, the owner and operator of the True.com
online dating website, settled a purported class-action lawsuit
in Texas, which is alleging that True.com continues to charge
customers after they canceled their memberships, Dan X. McGraw
of The Dallas Morning News reports.

Under an agreement filed on March 6, 2009, True.com will
compensate customers who were incorrectly charged for services
since 2003.  Customers were incorrectly charged membership fees
after canceling their accounts or after accidentally clicking on
links, according to the federal lawsuit, which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the the Northern District of Texas under
the caption, "Thomas Wong v. TrueBeginnings LLC, Case No.
3:2007-cv-01244."

The agreement still must be approved by U.S. District Judge
David C. Godbey before the refund process can begin, Jonathan
Tycko, Esq., an attorney representing plaintiff Thomas Wong
tells The Dallas Morning News.

The complaint, filed in 2007, alleges that True.com charges its
customers monthly service fees in excess of $50 per month, and
that True.com charges its customers' credit card or bank
accounts for these fees.  True.com advertises on its website
that memberships can be canceled at any time (Class Action
Reporter, June 15, 2007).

However, the complaint alleges that True.com does not accept
cancellations in writing or on its website.  Instead, True.com
will only accept cancellation requests made over the phone.  The
complaint alleges that True.com bills its former subscribers
service fees, even after those subscribers have attempted to
cancel their subscriptions over the phone, and that this is done
without the knowledge or authorization of the former
subscribers.

The complaint also alleges that certain of the terms contained
in True.com's click-through "Terms" are unconscionable and
unenforceable.  For example, in the "Terms" is a provision that
purports to grant True.com a perpetual, world-wide license to
use, distribute or display all information -- including
photographs -- submitted by subscribers while using True.com's
service.  Under this provision, True.com claims the right to use
(and potentially to sell) all photographs submitted by a
subscriber, even after the subscriber has cancelled his or her
membership, without any notice or payment to the former
subscriber.

The lawsuit sought an injunction from the court prohibiting the
enforcement of this provision.

According to the settlement, True.com must revise its auto-
subscription system to avoid future members from being
accidentally charged.

Both parties will identify eligible former customers and refer
them to a Web site for refunds.  Those charged one month of
membership would receive $35 and those charged for more than two
months would receive $50, according to court documents obtained
by The Dallas Morning News.

Some members would also be given a free 45-day membership to the
site, reports The Dallas Morning News.

Mr. Tycko told The Dallas Morning News that at least 150,000
members are expected to get a cash or membership refund, but the
number could grow once the agreement is finalized.

The suit is "Thomas Wong v. TrueBeginnings LLC, Case No. 3:2007-
cv-01244," filed in the U.S. District Court for the the Northern
District of Texas.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          Tycko, Zavareei & Spiva LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W, Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Fax: (202) 973-0950
          Website: http://www.tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jon Shepherd, Esq. (JShepherd@CSM-Lawyers.com)
          Crews, Shepherd & McCarty LLP
          2200 Ross Ave. Suite 4650W
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          Phone: 214.432.7770
          Fax: 214.432.7771


WEYERHAEUSER CO: OSB Suit Dismissed by Court-Approved Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust class-action lawsuit with regard to
Oriented Strand Boards, which names Weyerhaeuser Co. as a
defendant, has been dismissed pursuant to the court-approved
settlement of the case.

In 2006, a series of suits that had been filed against the
company were consolidated into one case in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The cases were
brought on behalf of persons and entities who directly or
indirectly purchased OSB between June 2002 and February 2006
from the company or from Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific,
Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber, Tolko Forest Products, Grant Forest
Products, Norbord or J.M. Huber Corp.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges that:

       -- the defendants conspired to fix and raise OSB prices
          in the U.S. during the class period, and

       -- the plaintiffs paid artificially inflated prices for
          OSB during that period.

No specific damages were alleged, but the direct and indirect
plaintiffs have estimated total damages from all defendants,
with trebling, of $4.9 billion.  This amount is lower than
previously reported because the plaintiffs' experts have
modified their opinions and because the class period ending is
now February 2006 rather than "to the present."

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has issued a number of rulings approving class action status for
various classes of direct and indirect purchasers for the period
from June 2002 through February 2006.

J.M. Huber, Georgia-Pacific and Ainsworth have reached
settlement with the direct and indirect purchasers.

A June 2008 trial has been scheduled and motions for summary
judgment have been filed on behalf of the remaining defendants,
including the company.

In March 2008, the company reached a settlement with the direct
purchasers for $18 million and recognizes a charge of $18
million in the first quarter of 2008.  The settlement was
finalized in June.  The court conducted a hearing on
Weyerhaeuser's settlement with direct purchaser plaintiffs on
Aug. 5, 2008.

In April 2008, the company also reached a settlement with the
indirect purchasers for approximately $1 million.  A formal
settlement agreement with the indirect purchasers for $1 million
was signed Aug. 4, 2008.

Both settlement agreements received preliminary court approval.
A hearing on final approval is scheduled for Nov. 24, 2008.

Both settlements received final approval from the court in
December 2008. These cases were dismissed as part of the
settlement, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-
00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond, presiding.

Representing the defendants are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue
         N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com)
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300

Representing the defendants are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com)
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com)
         James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144
                312-861-2350

              - and -

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com)
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Ruling on Post-trial Bids in Alder Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A decision on the post-trial motions in a purported antitrust
class-action lawsuit against Weyerhaeuser Co. over alder logs
and lumber remains pending.

The suit was filed in 2004 before U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon.  It claims that as a result of the company's
alleged monopolization of what was claimed to be the alder
sawlog market in the Pacific Northwest, the company also had
monopolized or controlled an alleged market for finished alder
and charged monopoly prices for finished alder lumber.

In 2004, the judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as
class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder
lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purpose
of awarding monetary damages.

In 2005, the class counsel notified the court that 5% of the
class members opted out of the class-action lawsuit.

In 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a
second amended complaint, extended the claims period to Dec. 31,
2006, and scheduled trial on the matter for April 2008.  In the
same year, the court denied the company's motion to decertify
the class.

Also, in 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request to file
a third amended complaint, which eliminated all allegations of
overbidding and overbuying of alder sawlogs as a mechanism to
affect the price of alder lumber.  In turn, the company filed a
motion for summary judgment.

In April 2008, a jury found in favor of the class and imposed
trebled damages of $84 million.  The company will appeal the
judgment. Post-trial motions were briefed and argued to the
court. A decision by the court on the post-trial motions is
pending, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Weyerhaeuser Co. -- http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/-- is an
integrated forest products company.  The company's business
segments are Timberlands, which includes logs, chips and timber;
Wood Products, which includes softwood lumber, engineered
lumber, structural panels, hardwood lumber, and building
materials distribution; Cellulose Fibers, which comprises pulp
and liquid packaging board; Real Estate, which comprises real
estate development, construction and sales, and Corporate and
Other. The Company grows and harvests trees, builds homes, and
makes wood and paper products.  It has operations in 13
countries and has customers worldwide.  The company manages 22
million acres of forests.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, Ga. -- (Marketwire - March 10, 2009) -- Holzer
Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Chesapeake Energy Corporation
("Chesapeake" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHK) and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Chesapeake
securities who purchased the securities pursuant or traceable to
the July 2008 secondary public offering (the "Offering").

     The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act
of 1933 by issuing false and misleading statements to the public
in its Registration Statement and Prospectus.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus contained material
misrepresentations concerning Chesapeake's true exposure to
decreasing natural gas prices and that the Company had been
taking steps to manipulate natural gas prices.

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


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK -- (Marketwire) -- 03/10/09 -- Federman &
Sherwood announces that on March 6, 2009, a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (NYSE:
HPY).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from August 5, 2008 through February 23, 2009.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Mar 10, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. ("Heartland") between August 5, 2008 and
February 23, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Heartland's business and operations, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Heartland securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847


SPRINT NEXTEL: Coughlin Stoia Files Kans. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, Mar 10, 2009 -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia")
(http://www.csgrr.com/cases/sprintnextel/)announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of
Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint") common stock during the
period between October 26, 2006 and February 27, 2008 (the
"Class Period").

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

     Sprint is a global communication company offering a range
of wireless and wireline communications products and services
for individual consumers, businesses and government customers.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results.  As a
result of defendants' false statements, Sprint stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

     In December 2004, Sprint Corporation and Nextel
Communications ("Nextel") announced that they would merge.  The
merger was completed on August 12, 2005, with Sprint Corporation
buying Nextel for $37.8 billion.  The merger, the complaint
alleges, turned out to be a disaster, as the Company has had
difficulties in combining the resources of the two companies due
to culture clashes and technological issues.

     However, during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly
assured the market that the Company was poised for a turnaround
and was focused on improving its core operations.  As late as
the summer of 2007, defendants continued to play down and
conceal Sprint's problems with its network and with its customer
service issues and subscriber base.  Beginning in early Fall
2007, Sprint finally began to acknowledge that its initiatives
were not working and that the Company was experiencing a serious
deterioration in its subscriber base, due both to a slow down in
new growth and a massive defection of its current subscribers to
its competitors.

     On February 28, 2008, before the market opened, the Company
reported disappointing fourth quarter and full year 2007
financial results, including a net loss for the quarter of $29.5
billion or $10.36 diluted loss per share.  On this news,
Sprint's stock collapsed $0.86 per share to close at $8.09 per
share.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

       -- the Company's CDMA business was not as healthy as
          represented;

       -- the Company would be unable to complete its migration
          of its entire customer base to a uniform billing
          platform by 2007 from the multiple legacy platforms,
          thus continuing to cause customer service problems and
          having a negative effect on the Company's voluntary
          churn rate;

       -- the Company had not taken the proper steps to address
          its customer service issues;

       -- the Company failed to disclose known trends and
          uncertainties as required by SEC regulations
          concerning the loosening of its credit standards for
          its CDMA network and its failure to take the proper
          steps to address customer service issues, which would
          have a negative effect on the Company's operations in
          the future;

       -- the Company was not adequately reserving for its
          impaired goodwill associated with Nextel or its
          allowance for bad debts related to subprime
          subscribers in violation of GAAP, causing its
          financial results to be materially misstated;

       -- the Company had far greater exposure to liquidity
          concerns and ratings downgrades than it had previously
          disclosed;

       -- the Company was failing to integrate the CDMA network
          and the iDEN network; and

       -- given the increased volatility in the subprime market,
          the intense competition in the wireless industry and
          the problems facing Sprint due to its failure to
          integrate legacy Sprint and legacy Nextel operations,
          the Company's projections issued during the Class
          Period about its earnings for 2007 and 2008 were at a
          minimum reckless.

     As a result of defendants' false statements, Sprint's stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period.  However,
after the above revelations seeped into the market, the
Company's shares fell more than 65% from their Class Period
high.
     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Sprint common stock 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/sprintnextel/


WESTGATE CAPITAL: Anderson Kill Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, March 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm of Anderson
Kill & Olick, P.C. announced that a class action lawsuit was
filed on March 2, 2009 on behalf of individuals and entities
that invested with the investment firm of Westgate Capital
Management LLC between January 1, 2004 and March 2, 2009 (the
"class period").

     The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York as case no 09 98CV 1906 (NRB).

     The complaint charges Westgate and certain of its officers
and directors, including James M. Nicholson, with violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various
other torts for issuing materially false and inaccurate
financial statements and other information to the investing
public.

     For instance, Westgate represented that it managed assets
ranging from $600 million to $900 million, that it used prime
brokers for custody of fund assets and that its financial
statements were audited by independent certified public
accountants. However, the complaint alleges that Westgate had no
more than $100 million under its management, failed to use
independent auditors and failed to place fund assets with
custodians.

     On February 25, 2009, the SEC filed a complaint against
Westgate and Nicholson charging them with operating a large-
scale scheme that defrauded hundreds of investors of millions of
dollars by providing them with misleading marketing materials
that overstated investment returns and by misrepresenting the
value of the assets under management.

     Additionally, the SEC sought a court order freezing
Westgate and Nicholson's assets.  Moreover, on February 25,
2009, the FBI announced that Nicholson had been arrested on
charges of securities and bank fraud based upon these same
allegations.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

http://www.andersonkill.com/webpdfext/SummonsOfACivilCase-II.pdf

For more details, contact:

          David E. Wood, Esq. (dwood@andersonkill.com)
          Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.
          Phone: 805-288-1300
          Web site: http://www.andersonkill.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  * * *