CAR_Public/090316.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 52

                           Headlines

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Rulings on Motions in OrthoClear Suit Pending
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Denied "Marin" Certification Pending
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Gary Anthony's Appeal to Junked Case Pending
CATALYST HEALTH: AWP Suits v. FirstDatabank & Medispan Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal to "Lawrence" Certification Pending

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Defending Remanded "Rix" Contract Breach Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Pursues Dismissal of "Chronister" Matter
GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Denies Review Request in Ark. Lawsuit
INVESTFORCLOSURES FINANCIAL: Ex-Accountant Faces Suit For Scheme
ISTAR FINACIALL: Bid to Junk Consolidated N.Y. Suit Due March 19

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces Investors' Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Minibonds
NISOURCE INC: Continues to Face Royalties Lawsuits in Kentucky
NISOURCE INC: Suit Over Alleged Illegal Gas Scheme Still Pending
NISOURCE INC: Tawney Judgment Discharged by W.Va. Court in Jan.
PERRIGO CO: Conn. Firm Files Suit Alleging Securities Fraud

PIXELPLUS CO: Changes Made to Proposed Settlement in N.Y. Suit
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces New Mexico Litigation by Investors
TISHMAN SPEYER: Appellate Division Overturns Nixing of N.Y. Case
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal on "Hohider" Certification Remains Pending
UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Cerberus Merger


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARCLAYS BANK: Abraham Fruchter Announces Securities Suit Filing
CORUS BANKSHARES: Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
PERRIGO CO: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                           *********

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Rulings on Motions in OrthoClear Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motions in a purported class-action lawsuit
filed against Align Technology Inc., OrthoClear Inc., and
OrthoClear Holdings Inc.

The complaint, filed on behalf of Debra A. Weber and all others
similarly situated on May 18, 2007, alleges that orthodontic
treatments of the dental patient plaintiff "were interrupted,
unduly prolonged or terminated as a result of defendants'
unlawful conduct" relating to the OrthoClear Settlement.

                    OrthoClear Settlement

On Oct. 13, 2006, Align Technology entered into a formal
agreement with OrthoClear Inc., OrthoClear Holdings, and
OrthoClear Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. (OrthoClear), together with
certain individuals associated with OrthoClear to end all
pending litigation between the parties.

As part of the OrthoClear Settlement, OrthoClear agreed to stop
the importation of aligners into the U.S. and discontinue all
aligner business operations worldwide.

As a result, most OrthoClear patients were unable to complete
their orthodontic treatment with OrthoClear.  In an attempt to
help minimize treatment disruptions for the OrthoClear patients
and their doctors, Align Tech committed to make treatment
available to these patients at no additional cost under the
"Patients First Program."

Align Technology launched the Patients First Program to provide
new Invisalign treatment to former OrthoClear patients at no
charge to patients or their doctors.

                       Causes of Action

The "Weber" complaint alleges two causes of action against the
OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against Align
Technology for breach of contract.

The cause of action against Align Technology references the
company's agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to
OrthoClear patients, alleging that Align failed "to provide the
promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the Class Members."

On July 3, 2007, the company filed its answer to the complaint
and asserted 17 affirmative defenses.  On July 20, 2007, the
company filed a motion for summary judgment on the Third Cause
of Action (the only cause of action alleged against Align).

On Aug. 24, 2007, Ms. Weber filed a motion for class
certification.  On Oct. 1, 2007, the company filed an opposition
to the motion of class certification and it is currently
awaiting rulings from the Court.

OrthoClear has filed a motion to dismiss the case.  The initial
case management conference and all discovery has been stayed
pending the Court's decision on the motion for class
certification, OrthoClear's motion to dismiss and Align's motion
for summary judgment (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 30, 2008).

No further developments in the case 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.

The suit is "Weber v. Align Technology, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:07-cv-00535-NAM-GJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Norman A. Mordue,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Mark J. Schulte, Esq. (mschulte@hancocklaw.com)
         Daniel B. Berman, Esq. (dberman@hancocklaw.com)
         Maureen E. Maney, Esq. (mmaney@hancocklaw.com)
         Zachary M. Mattison, Esq. (zmattison@hancocklaw.com)
         Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm
         P.O. Box 4976
         1500 MONY Tower I
         Syracuse, NY 13221-4976
         Phone: 315-471-3151
         Fax: 315-471-3167
              315-233-4312


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Denied "Marin" Certification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from their denied motion for class
certification in the beryllium action against Brush Engineered
Materials, Inc.'s subsidiary, Brush Wellman Inc., remains
pending.

The class-action suit, "Manuel Marin, et al. v. Brush Wellman
Inc., Case No. BC299055," filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County was filed on July 15, 2003.

The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield
Perry and Susan Perry.  The defendants are Brush Wellman,
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, naming
five additional plaintiffs.  The five additional named
plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,
James Jones and John Kesselring.

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to
beryllium while employed at the Boeing Company.  The plaintiffs'
wives claim loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately
250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing
or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.  They have brought claims for
negligence, strict liability - design defect, strict liability -
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied
warranties, and unfair business practices.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, medical monitoring,
medical and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees
and costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and
punitive damages.

Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and
Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in
California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.

Defendant Appanaitis Enterprises Inc. was dismissed on May 5,
2005.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the
Company opposed, was heard by the court on Feb. 8, 2008, and the
motion was denied by the court on May 7, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2008.

No further updates 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.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Gary Anthony's Appeal to Junked Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Anthony's appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of his purported
class-action lawsuit against Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. is
pending.

The purported class-action lawsuit is captioned, "Gary Anthony
v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Small Tube
Products Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. 000525," which was
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, on Sept. 7, 2006.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4,
2006.

The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.  The defendants are
Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation, d/b/a Small Tube Products
Corporation, Inc.; Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube Methods, Inc.; and
Cabot Corporation.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a
period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.

The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence.  Plaintiff
seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost
of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical
screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint
against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006.
Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing
products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those
products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for
indemnification and contribution.  Brush moved to dismiss the
Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006.  On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube
Methods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brush
moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007; however, the Court denied the
motion on Sept. 28, 2007.  Brush filed its answer to the amended
third-party complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.

On Nov. 14, 2007, two of the defendants filed a joint motion for
an order permitting discovery to make the threshold
determination of whether plaintiff is sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the court approved the parties' stipulation
that the plaintiff is not sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 29, 2008, Brush filed a motion for summary judgment
based on plaintiff's lack of any substantially increased risk of
chronic beryllium disease (CBD).

Oral argument on this motion took place on June 13, 2008, and
the court took the motion under submission.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted the motion for summary
judgment in favor of all of the defendants and dismissed
plaintiff's class action complaint.

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 plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
Oct. 29, 2008.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.


CATALYST HEALTH: AWP Suits v. FirstDatabank & Medispan Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation involving FirstDatabank and Medispan continues to
raise concerns whether to use Average Wholesale Price (AWP) as
it has previously been calculated or to adopt pricing benchmarks
for establishing prices within the industry, according to
Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

As part of a proposed class action settlement in the case of New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First DataBank, in a
federal court in Massachusetts, First DataBank (FDB), agreed to
reduce the reported AWP of thousands of specific pharmaceutical
products by five percent.  Additionally, FDB agreed to cease
reporting AWPs for all pharmaceutical products within two years
of the final settlement, with limited ability to resume
publication of AWPs.

In May 2007, Medispan was named as a defendant in a
substantially similar class action litigation involving the
publication of AWP.  Medispan similarly agreed to a proposed
settlement under which Medispan would reduce the mark-up factor
utilized in connection with the calculation of its AWP data
field and, ultimately, discontinue publication of its AWP data
field for all drugs, subject to certain conditions.

Although the Massachusetts federal court granted preliminary
approval to settlements for both FDB and Medispan in June 2007,
opposition to approval was brought by both pharmacy and PBM
associations, including the National Community Pharmacists
Association (NCPA) and the Pharmaceutical Care Management
Association (PCMA).  In January 2008, the court refused to grant
final approval of the proposed settlement, and the litigation is
ongoing.  As of the close of December 2008, the settlement has
not yet been approved.

According to the proposed settlement agreement, the AWP changes
would take effect either 60 days after the effective date of the
settlement agreement or 270 days from preliminary approval of
the settlement.  Except when the company's health plan clients
mandate the use of AWP as reported by FDB, its contracts with
pharmacies in its retail network and its health plan clients
generally cite AWP as reported by Medispan, National Drug Data
file, as a pricing source for brand name and certain generic
drugs.

Rockville, Md.-based Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc. --
http://www.catalysthealthsolutions.com/-- is a full-service
pharmacy benefit management (PBM) company.  The company operates
primarily under the brand name Catalyst Rx.  The company
provides its clients access to a contracted, non-exclusive
national network of approximately 61,000 pharmacies.  It also
provides its clients members with timely and adjudication, while
controlling pharmacy spending trends through customized plan
designs, clinical programs, physician orientation programs and
member education.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal to "Lawrence" Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc.'s appeal to the ruling of the
Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, Eufaula Division,
granting certification in the class-action lawsuit filed by
uninsured individuals is pending.

The suit was filed by Arleana Lawrence and Lisa Nichols against
Eufaula Community Hospital, Community Health Systems Inc., South
Baldwin Regional Medical Center, and Community Health Systems
Professional Services Corp.

The class action suit, captioned, "Arleana Lawrence and Robert
Hollins v. Lakeview Community Hospital and Community Health
Systems, Inc.," was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Lakeview
Hospital or any of the company's other Alabama hospitals.

The plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify
for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably
high rates for services and materials and that the company uses
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  They seek restitution
of overpayment, compensatory and other allowable damages and
injunctive relief.

In October 2005, the complaint was amended to eliminate one of
the named plaintiffs and to add Community Health's management
company subsidiary as a defendant.

In November 2005, the complaint was again amended to add another
plaintiff, Lisa Nichols and another defendant, the company's
hospital in Foley, Alabama -- South Baldwin Regional Medical
Center.

After a hearing held on June 13, 2007, the Circuit Court ruled
in favor of the plaintiffs' class action certification request.

On summary judgment, the Circuit Court dismissed the case
against Community Health Systems, Inc. only.  All other parties
remain.

According to its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the company disagrees with the certification
ruling and pursued its automatic right of appeal to the Alabama
Supreme Court. Briefs have now been filed and oral argument
requested.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Defending Remanded "Rix" Contract Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
remanded lawsuit captioned "Sheri Rix v. Heartland Regional
Medical Center and Health Care Systems, Inc."

The lawsuit names Community Health Systems and certain of its
subsidiaries as defendants.  It was served against the company
on March 3, 2005, and was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of
herself and as the representative of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's
Heartland Regional Medical Center.

The plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify
for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably
high rates for services and materials and that the company uses
unconscionable methods to collect bills.

The suit seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of
overpayment, and for unjust enrichment.  The complaint also
seeks compensatory and other damages and equitable relief.

The court recently granted the company's motion to dismiss this
case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her case.

The plaintiff elected to appeal the court's decision in lieu of
amending her case.  Oral argument was heard on Jan. 9, 2008.

On June 16, 2008, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of
the consumer fraud claim, but reversed the dismissal of the
contract claim.

The company filed a Petition for Leave of Appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court, which was denied on June 16, 2008.

The case has now been remanded and the company is evaluating its
position concerning discovery and possible dispositive motions,
according to its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Pursues Dismissal of "Chronister" Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. continues to pursue the dismissal
of the purported class-action lawsuit, "Chronister, et al. v.
Granite City Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/aGateway
Regional Medical Center," which was filed before the Circuit
Court of Madison County, Illinois, and names the company, as a
defendant.

The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8,
2005, seeks class-action status on behalf of the uninsured
patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges
statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which
the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to
uninsured patients.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company's motion to dismiss the case has been granted in
part and denied in part and discovery has commenced.

Gateway Regional Medical Center v. Holman is a companion case to
the Chronister action, seeking counterclaim recovery on a
collections case.  Holman has been stayed pending the outcome of
the Chronister action.

The company has refiled its motion to dismiss in light of
subsequent favorable Illinois Appellate court decisions on the
consumer fraud issues, 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.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Denies Review Request in Ark. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by General Motors to
review a class-action suit pending against the company in the
Miller County Circuit Court of Arkansas, Michelle Massey of The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

The decision denying the petition for writ of certoriatia was
released Jan. 12, 2009, according to The Southeast Texas Record.

The litigation accuses GM of selling four million pickup trucks
and sport utility vehicles with defectively designed parking
brakes.  Named class representative, Boyd Bryant, argues that
General Motors knew of the parking brake defect in 2000 but, in
an effort to avoid paying millions of dollars in warranty
claims, alleges GM did not release the information until 2003,
reports The Southeast Texas Record.

The Southeast Texas Record reported that the case will include
"owners or subsequent owners of 1999-2002 1500 series pickups
and utilities originally equipped with an automatic transmission
and a PBR 210 x 30 Drum-in-Hat parking brake system utilizing a
high-force spring clip retainer that registered his vehicle in
any state in the United States."

The Texarkana Gazette previously reported that Mr. Bryant filed
a national class action against General Motors Corp. in circuit
court in Miller County for alleged faulty parking brakes in
certain makes of GM vehicles made from 1998 through 2004 (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2005).

According to Mr. Bryant's lawyer, James Wyly of Patton, Roberts,
McWilliams & Capshaw, there could be as many as 3 million
vehicles affected.

The suit, which has been assigned to Circuit Judge Jim Hudson,
specifically alleges, "At some point after it began selling
vehicles with the defective parking brake, (GM) received many
reports from automobile owners and dealerships that the parking
brakes failed and/or had to be replaced."

State inspections brought the problems to light when the
vehicles failed to pass the customary annual checks. Mr. Wyly
believes that the vehicles' owners paid about $500 to replace
the parking brakes.

Court documents stated that "Despite the fact that (GM) was on
notice as to the parking brake's defective design, it did not
correct the design defects, but rather continued to sell the
vehicles with these defective brakes to the public.  Likewise,
(GM) did not warn consumers and dealerships about the design and
manufacture defects in its parking brakes, but instead concealed
from the public the fact that its parking brakes were defective
and needed replacement."

Those potentially covered by the lawsuit are owners of:

     (1) 2004 Buick Ranier

     (2) 2002-2004 Cadillac Escalade, Escalade EXT

     (3) 2003-2004 Cadillac Escalade ESV

     (4) 1998-2004 Chevrolet Blazer

     (5) 1999-2004 Chevrolet Silverado (1500 Series)

     (6) 2000-2004 Chevrolet Suburban, Tahoe (1500 Series)

     (7) 2002-2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer, TrailBlazer EXT

     (8) 2003-2004 Chevrolet Astro, Express

     (9) 1998-2004 GMC Jimmy

    (10) 1999-2004 GMC Sierra (1500 Series)

    (11) 2000-2004 GMC Yukon (1500 Series)

    (12) 2002-2004 GMC Envoy, Envoy XL

    (13) 2003-2004 GMC Safari, Savana

    (14) 2004 GMC Envoy XUV

    (15) 1998-2004 Oldsmobile Bravada

The lawsuit though does exclude anyone, who suffered a personal
injury or property damage because of the allegedly faulty
brakes.  Those who at any time prior to 2002 knew that the
brakes were allegedly defective also are excluded.


INVESTFORCLOSURES FINANCIAL: Ex-Accountant Faces Suit For Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
A staff accountant for InvestForClosures Financial was one of 10
named and 30 unnamed defendants in a class-action lawsuit that
alleges $8 million invested for home renovations was used to buy
property in Mexico, Diana Sroka of the Northwest Herald reports.

The civil case about the alleged real-estate investment scheme,
was filed late last month, and named Tom Rodriguez, who is now
an accountant with Huntley District 158, as one of the
defendants, according to the Northwest Herald report.

The Northwest Herald reported that the lawsuit also named Daniel
E. Fizgerald of Lakemoor, Francis X. Sanchez of Woodstock, James
D. Bourassa of Gilberts and Deana M. Guidi of Orlando, Fla., who
occasionally lives with her parents in Sun City, near Huntley.

They're accused of soliciting and accepting about $8 million
from investors to renovate foreclosed and distressed homes
during the course of eight years, but instead using the money to
buy about 27 acres of Mexican property.

The case is due in McHenry County Court on March 26, 2009,
reports the Northwest Herald.


ISTAR FINACIALL: Bid to Junk Consolidated N.Y. Suit Due March 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
iStar Financial, Inc. has until March 19, 2009, to file a motion
to dismiss a consolidated amended purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

                     Citiline Litigation

On April 14, 2008, Citiline Holdings, Inc., filed a suit on
behalf of purchasers of common stock in iStar's Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

                    Christenson Litigation

On April 24, 2008, Dennis Christenson filed suit on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock on its Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

Both suits were purportedly filed on behalf of the same putative
class of investors who purchased common stock in the Company's
Dec. 13, 2007 public offering.

The two complaints were consolidated on April 30, 2008.

On June 13, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings, Inc. filed an unopposed Motion for
Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and their chosen counsel as
Lead Counsel, which was granted by the Court on Nov. 17, 2008.

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on Feb. 2,
2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of investors who
purchased iStar common stock between Dec. 6, 2007 and March 6,
2008 (the "Complaint").

The Complaint named as defendants the company, certain of its
current and former executive officers, and certain investment
banks who served as underwriters in the company's Offering.

The Complaint reasserted claims for alleged violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and added claims for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

Plaintiffs allege the defendants made certain material
misstatements and omissions relating to the company's continuing
operations, specifically with regard to the deterioration in the
value of the company's loan portfolio and certain debt
securities held by the company  during the fourth quarter of
2007.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees, and
rescission of the public offering.

No class has been certified and discovery has not begun.  The
company and its current and former officers intend to file a
motion to dismiss the Complaint, which is due on March 19, 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.

iStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.istarfinancial.com/-- is a
finance company focused on the commercial real estate industry.
The company provides custom-tailored financing to private and
corporate owners of real estate, including senior and mezzanine
real estate debt, senior and mezzanine corporate capital,
corporate net lease financing and equity.  It has two primary
lines of business: lending and corporate tenant leasing.  Its
primary sources of revenues are interest income, which is the
interest that borrowers pay on loans, and operating lease
income, which is the rent that corporate customers pay to lease
corporate tenant lease properties.  The lending business
primarily consists of senior and mezzanine real estate loans
that range in size from $20 million to $150 million, and have
maturities ranging from 3 to 10 years.  The company's corporate
tenant leasing business provides capital to corporations and
others who control facilities leased primarily to single credit-
worthy customers.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces Investors' Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Minibonds
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of minibond investors has filed a class-action lawsuit
against several financial institutions, including a unit of
bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., in an effort to prevent
the Lehman unit from seizing more than $1.5 billion worth of
minibond collateral currently held by a trustee on behalf of the
investors, Law360 reports.

In an adversary complaint filed on March 12, 2009 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, the
seven plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive
relief.

The lawsuit was filed in the bankruptcy case of Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc., which entered court protection on Sept. 15, 2008,
according to The Associated Press.


NISOURCE INC: Continues to Face Royalties Lawsuits in Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuits styled "John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake
Appalachia, L.L.C.," and "Kentucky Poplar Creek Development
Company v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.," which name NiSource,
Inc., as a defendant, are pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky.

On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class-action
suit, alleging that Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., failed to pay
royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of
their oil and gas leases covering real property located within
the state of Kentucky.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007,
which, among other things, added NiSource and Columbia Natural
Resources as defendants.

On March 31, 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants
to dismiss the case.  The defendants then filed their answers to
the complaint on April 25, 2008.

On June 3, 2008, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class
consisting of all persons entitled to payment of royalty by
Chesapeake under leases operated by Chesapeake at any point
after Feb. 5, 1992, on real property in Kentucky.  The
defendants' response to this certification motion was filed on
July 18, 2008.

The class certification hearing scheduled for Nov. 13, 2008 was
vacated.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Chesapeake tendered the Poplar Creek case to
Columbia and Columbia subsequently assumed the defense of this
matter pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase
Agreement.  Poplar Creek also purports to be a class action
covering royalty owners in the state of Kentucky and alleges
that Chesapeake has improperly deducted costs from the royalty
payments; there is thus some overlap of parties and issues
between the Poplar Creek and Thacker cases.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on Oct. 12, 2008.  Chesapeake filed its answer
on Dec. 8, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No.
7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed in the U.S. District Court of the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Thomas E. Meng, Esq. (tmeng@stites.com)
         Stites & Harbison PLLC
         250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-226-2300
         Fax: 859-425-7902

Representing the defendants are:

         Anne Adams Chesnut, Esq. (aac@gdm.com)
         Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, PLLC
         300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-288-4613
         Fax: 859-255-2742

              - and -

         Nora Clevenger Price, Esq.
         (pricenc@steptoe-johnson.com)
         Steptoe & Johnson
         1000 Fifth Avenue, Suite 250
         P.O. Box 2195
         Huntington, WV 25722-2195
         Phone: 304-522-8290
         Fax: 304-526-8089


NISOURCE INC: Suit Over Alleged Illegal Gas Scheme Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit that alleges certain "select
shippers," including certain subsidiaries and affiliates of
NiSource, Inc., have engaged in an "illegal gas scheme" that
constituted a breach of contract and violated state law remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of West
Virginia.

Initially, on July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a
complaint in the Kanawha County Court in West Virginia.  This
suit is styled, "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corp., et al."

The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource
subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia Transmission and
Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies and certain
"select shippers" engaged in the illegal gas scheme,
constituting a breach of contract and violated state law.

The "illegal gas scheme" relates to the Columbia Transmission
and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance transactions that were the
subject of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enforcement
staff investigation and subsequent settlement approved in
October 2000.

Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of
removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West
Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004, and a motion to dismiss the suit on
Sept. 10, 2004.

In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the
"select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause
of action.

On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion
to strike the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to
amend.

To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint,
the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of their
previously filed motions to dismiss.

In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the
Second Amended Complaint.

One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the
case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals.

On Dec. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
case as a class action.  The defendants filed their opposition
to this motion in March 2008.  All briefing has been completed.

Oral argument was heard on June 3, 2008, and on Aug. 19, 2008,
the Court denied the Motion for Class Certification.

In late December 2008, the lead plaintiff, Stand Energy
Corporation, reached a settlement agreement of all claims with
all Defendants.  Stand Energy Corporation was dismissed from the
case on Dec. 31, 2008.  The Columbia companies continue to
defend against the claims made by the remaining individual
plaintiffs.

The previously scheduled trial date of April 28, 2009 has been
canceled, 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 "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge
Robert C. Chambers, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joshua I. Barrett, Esq.
          Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Esq.
          Molly McGinley Han, Esq.
          Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq.
          Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero
          604 Virginia Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304-342-0133
          Fax: 304-342-4605
          Web site: http://www.ditrapanolaw.com/

               - and -

          Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
          The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders
          12051 Upper Marlboro Pike
          Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2922
          Phone: 301-574-3400
          Fax: 301-574-2153

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael S. Becker, Esq. (mbecker@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-879-5000
          Fax: 202-879-5200

               - and -

          John H. Tinney, Esq. (JackTinney@tinneylawfirm.com)
          The Tinney Law Firm
          P. O. Box 3752
          Charleston, WV 25337-3752
          Phone: 304-720-3310
          Fax: 304-720-3315.


NISOURCE INC: Tawney Judgment Discharged by W.Va. Court in Jan.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County, on Jan. 20,
2009, entered its order discharging the judgment in a purported
class-action suit involving the rights of mineral owners, which
names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant.

The suit is entitled, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc."  It alleges that the defendants underpaid
royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly deducting
post-production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008).

In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
add NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources, as defendants.

The plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, also claimed
that the defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of
post-production charges.

The court certified the case as a class action that includes any
person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties
from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying
within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated
to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages
ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs.

In November 2008, a Roane County judge gave final approval to a
deal that settles the 6-year old case.

NiSource's share of the settlement liability is up to $338.8
million.  NiSource has complied with its obligations under the
settlement agreement to fund $85.5 million in the qualified
settlement fund by Jan. 13, 2009.  NiSource has also complied
with its obligation to provide a letter of credit on Jan. 15,
2009, securing the unpaid portion of the settlement.

The trial court entered its order discharging the judgment on
Jan. 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.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St.
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


PERRIGO CO: Conn. Firm Files Suit Alleging Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Connecticut law firm is seeking class-action status for a
lawsuit against generic drugmaker Perrigo Co. claiming
securities fraud, Alex Nixon of Kalamazoo Gazette reports.

On March 11, 2009, The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has
significant experience representing investors in prosecuting
claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those
who purchased the common stock of Perrigo Company between
November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class
Period") (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2009).

The Complaint charges that Perrigo and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false statements regarding the Company's exposure to
at least $18 million of Auction Rate Securities ("ARS").

In January and February of 2008, auctions of ARS began to fail,
limiting the ability of holders to sell these securities.

Nevertheless, Perrigo had a reasonable expectation of redeeming
its $18 million in ARS until September 15, 2008 when Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc., the bank that underwrote and sold the
ARS to Perrigo, declared bankruptcy.

On November 6, 2008, the beginning of the Class Period,
defendants reported the "fair value" of Perrigo's ARS as
$14,500,000, but concealed the impact of Lehman's bankruptcy on
Perrigo's ARS.  Then on February 3, 2009, defendants disclosed
that Lehman had underwritten and sold the ARS to Perrigo and
that the Company was writing off the entire value of its ARS,
wiping out over a third of Perrigo's earnings.  On this news,
Perrigo's stock price fell 18%.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/perrigo/


PIXELPLUS CO: Changes Made to Proposed Settlement in N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK, March 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Pixelplus Co., Ltd. is unable
to entirely fund its portion of the proposed settlement in a
consolidated class-action lawsuit due to the economic turmoil in
Asia arising from the global financial crisis and the world-wide
recession, which continues to have a severe negative impact on
the financial position and business operations of the Company.

In light of these circumstances, the Company and Lead Plaintiff
have renegotiated the Company's contribution to the Settlement
Fund.  The Underwriters' contribution to the Settlement Fund,
$355,000, is unchanged.  In lieu of a $1,000,000 cash
contribution to the Settlement Fund by the Company, the Samsung
Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Inc., the insurance carrier for
the Company, will pay 500,000,000 South Korean Won (converted
into US Dollars) into the Settlement Fund within two business
days of receipt of notification of final approval of the
Settlement.

The exchange rate of the South Korean Won on March 10, 2009 was
0.000662439 to the Dollar.  The total value of Samsung's
contribution, based on the exchange rate as of March 10, 2009,
is $331,219.43, but that is subject to currency rate
fluctuations and may be larger or smaller depending on the
exchange rate at the time of final approval.  The average
recovery per ADS, subject to those rate changes, is
approximately $0.13.  The balance of the previously-agreed-upon
$1,000,000 contribution from the Company will be paid by the
Company if and when such funds become available, according to
terms agreed upon by the Parties.  It is further agreed that the
costs and expenses for the Class Notice and the administration
and distribution of the Settlement Fund shall be paid out of the
gross Settlement Fund.

Aside from these modifications, the previously entered-into
Stipulation of Settlement in this Litigation remains fully
intact.

The deadline for exclusions from and objections to this
Settlement is extended from March 5, 2009, to March 16, 2009.

A tentative settlement was in a consolidated class-action suit
against Pixelplus Co., Ltd., according to the Pixelplus Co.'s
July 24, 2008 Form 20-F/A/ filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007 (Class
Action Reporter July 30, 2008).

On or about April 17, 2006, the company's chief executive
officer, Seo Kyu Lee; its former chief financial officer, Moon
Sung Kim; and its chief technology officer, Sang Soo Lee, were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit is styled "Michael Y. Kim v. Seo
Kyu Lee, et al., Case No. 06-CV-2951."

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act during the period from Dec. 21, 2005, through April
11, 2006.

The plaintiff's allegations concern the company's correction of
revenue numbers for the fourth quarter of 2005 and fiscal year
2005 and the decision to consolidate the financial results of
PTI.

The plaintiff alleges that the company made false and misleading
statements about these issues in its IPO documents and in other
public statements and seeks unspecified damages.

Four similar purported shareholder class-action lawsuits were
subsequently filed:

1. On April 24, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in New York Federal
   Court by plaintiff Robert Corwin against the company, Case
   No. 06- V-3141;

2. On April 25, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in New York Federal
   Court by plaintiff Diosma Detweiler against the company, Seo
   Kyu Lee, Sang Soo Lee and Moon Sung Kim, Case No. 06-CV-3206;

3. On May 15, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in New York Federal
   Court by plaintiff Shu-O-Lin-Chen against the company, Seo
   Kyu Lee, Sang Soo Lee and Moon Sung Kim, Case No. 06-CV-3691;
   and

4. On May 25, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of
   the State of New York, County of Kings, by plaintiff Michael
   Rubin against the company, Seo Kyu Lee, Sang Soo Lee, Moon
   Sung Kim, Dongwoo Chun, Ha Jin Jhun, Choong-ki Kim and Taek
   Jin Nam, Case No. 16242/2006.  This action was subsequently
   removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
   of New York (Case No. CV-06-2964).

On June 16, 2006, Colin Garvey, Brett Simon, Peter Paul Enand,
Alan Hedge, Cladine Kurp and James Kurp and West End Capital
Management LLC each filed motions in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York for appointment as lead
plaintiff, consolidation of the putative class action suits
filed in the Southern District of New York, and approval of
selection of lead counsel.

In March 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York appointed West End Capital Management as the lead
plaintiff in the consolidated class action lawsuit against the
company and its underwriters, Jefferies & Company, Inc. and WR
Hambrecht + Co., LLC.

On April 15, 2008, the company announced that it reached a
tentative settlement to resolve the consolidated shareholder
class action lawsuit against the company and certain current and
former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York filed in April 2006.

Under the terms of the tentative settlement, the company says it
continues to dispute the merits of the lawsuit, but has approved
a compromise payment of $1.0 million.

The settlement provides a dismissal with prejudice of the
lawsuit and full releases for the company and the named officers
and directors from all allegations made in the lawsuit.   The
settlement further provides no presumption or admission of
fault, liability or wrongdoing by the company or the directors
or officers.

The compromise payment will be funded by the company's directors
and officers liability insurance.

For more details, contact:

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
          New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
          Phone: (504) 455-1400
          Web site: http://www.kgscounsel.com/


THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces New Mexico Litigation by Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. faces a purported class-action in New
Mexico, which also names banks and rating agencies involved in
the sale of Thornburg mortgage-backed securities, alleging that
Thornburg didn't follow its own lending guidelines and failed to
disclose the true riskiness of its offerings, Corey Pein of the
Santa Fe Reporter reports.

On Feb. 27, a public pension fund in Michigan filed a class-
action complaint against Thornburg in Santa Fe's 1st Judicial
District Court.  The plaintiff, the Genesee County Employees'
Retirement System, provides pension benefits for approximately
3,000 current and former county employees.

In short, the plaintiffs want their money back.  The class-
action suit seeks compensatory and "rescissory" damages, which
is legalese for putting investors back to where they were
financially before they made a bad investment, the Santa Fe
Reporter reported.

William Carpenter, Esq., an Albuquerque attorney filed the
complaint for Genesee County, according to the Santa Fe
Reporter.

Key to this new complaint are allegations from several
"confidential witnesses" who underwrote mortgages for Thornburg,
cited from another case against the company.  The complaint
quotes a team manager for Adfitech, a Thornburg subsidiary, as
saying, "Anything goes for Thornburg loans."  The company handed
out loans that would not have otherwise been approved if the
borrower could put up enough collateral, the complaint states.

The same anonymous manager also claims department managers "were
ordered to 'get more loans out of here,' that they were
'spending too much time on details,' and that they 'would have
to sacrifice something,' i.e., standards so that Thornburg could
earn more revenue," according to the complaint, a copy of which
was obtained by the Santa Fe Reporter.

Labaton Sucharow, LLP, the New York firm handling the case for
Genesee County, specializes in securities fraud.  Stefanie
Sundel, Esq., a Labaton Sucharow attorney on the case, declined
comment, citing company policy, reports the Santa Fe Reporter.


TISHMAN SPEYER: Appellate Division Overturns Nixing of N.Y. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The First Department of an N.Y. state court's appellate division
has overturned the dismissal of the purported class-action suit,
"Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al.," which
was filed by a group of tenants suing the landlord of Stuyvesant
Town/Peter Cooper Village, Tishman Speyer, Lydia DePillis and
Eliot Brown of The New York Observer reports.

In a ruling issued on March 12, 2009, a four-judge panel ruled
that the landlord must not only stop de-stabilizing units, but
pay some tenants four years worth of back rent that the court
determined was illegally charged, according to The New York
Observer.

The case, which was dismissed in State Supreme Court by Justice
Robert Lowe in August 2007, centered around whether landlords
are able to take apartments out of rent stabilization at the
same time that they are receiving benefits from the widely used
renovation incentive program, J-51.  That program grants
landlords abatements or exemptions from property taxes if they
improve their apartments, reports The New York Observer.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 10, 2008).

The New York Observer reported that typically, landlords are
able to take properties out of rent stabilization when the
apartments go vacant and landlords are able to charge more than
$2,000 a month, regardless of apartment size.  There are about
one million rent-stabilized apartments in the city, though the
number that receive J-51 benefits numbers in the tens of
thousands.


UNITED PARCEL: Appeal on "Hohider" Certification Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc.'s appeal of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania's recent certification
order in the matter "Hohider v. United Parcel Service, et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-JFC," remains pending with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The lawsuit was filed in 2004, charging UPS with systematic
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal
law that protects persons with disabilities from employment
discrimination (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2007).

According to one of the allegations in the lawsuit, UPS
maintains a policy, pattern and practice of requiring employees
to provide a "full" or "100 percent" medical release, without
restrictions, before permitting employees to return to work
following a medical leave of absence.

The lawsuit also charges that UPS refuses to meet in good faith
with its disabled employees to determine the extent of their
disabilities and what work the employees can perform at UPS
within the limits of their work restrictions, instead conducting
a sham investigation of the workers' medical condition, which
invariably results in a decision by UPS that the individual is
either too disabled to work at any job UPS has or not disabled
enough to warrant the protection of federal laws that require
UPS to assist the worker to return to work.  Either way UPS puts
the employee out of a job at the company.

Employees also contend that UPS refuses to reinstate permanently
disabled employees in a position that will accommodate their
medical restrictions in situations where reinstating them would
not impose an undue hardship on the company.

Finally, the lawsuit charges UPS retaliates against workers who
have filed workers compensation or discrimination claims by
refusing to let them return to work even if a 100% release is
eventually submitted, and in violation of the workers' seniority
rights under UPS' collective bargaining agreement with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin UPS
from engaging in discriminatory employment practices in
violation of the ADA, as well as the implementation of policies
that provide equal employment opportunities for persons with
present, past or perceived disabilities.

The court certified the suit as a class action.

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted the company's petition to hear its appeal of the trial
court's recent certification order.

The appeal will likely take one year, 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 suit is "Hohider v. United Parcel Service, et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-00363-JFC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Joy Flowers Conti,
presiding.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christian Bagin, Esq. (christian@wienandandbagin.com)
          312 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1916
          Phone: 412-281-1110
          Fax: 412-281-8481

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

          Erin G. Comite, Esq. (ecomite@scott-scott.com)
          Anita M. Laing, Esq. (alaing@scott-scott.com)
          David R. Scott, Esq. (drscott@scott-scott.com)
          Scott & Scott
          108 Norwich Avenue, P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860-537-5537
                 860-537-3818

               - and -

          Judith B. Goldstein, Esq.
          (jgoldstein@equaljusticefoundation.com)
          Kimberly M. Skaggs, Esq.
          Equal Justice Foundation
          88 East Broad Street, Suite 1590
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-221-9800
          Fax: 614-221-9810

Representing defendant are:

          Joseph E. Culleiton, Esq. (jculleiton@reedsmith.com)
          David J. McAllister, Esq. (dmcallister@reedsmith.com)
          Joseph P. McHugh, Esq. (jmchugh@reedsmith.com)
          Perry A. Napolitano, Esq. (pnapolitano@reedsmith.com)
          Reed Smith
          435 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886
          Phone: 412-288-7216
                 412-288-3131
  

UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Cerberus Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court of the District
of Connecticut dismissed a proposed securities fraud class-
action lawsuit related to a 2007 buyout deal gone bad between
United Rentals Inc. and Cerberus Capital Management LP, saying
the plaintiffs failed to meet the pleading standards established
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Law360 reports.

Subsequent to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 announcement that
affiliates of Cerberus had notified the company that they were
not prepared to proceed with the purchase of the company on the
terms set forth in a merger agreement, three putative class-
action lawsuits were filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 8, 2008).

The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits sought to sue on behalf of
a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's securities between Aug. 29, 2007, and Nov. 14,
2007.

The lawsuits named as defendants the company, its directors and
certain of its officers and alleged, among other things, that
the named plaintiff and members of the purported class suffered
damages when they purchased or otherwise acquired securities
issued by the company, as a result of false and misleading
statements and material omissions relating to the contemplated
merger with affiliates of Cerberus, contained in:

       -- proxy materials that the company disseminated and
          filed with the SEC in anticipation of the Oct. 19,
          2007 special meeting of stockholders; and

       -- certain of the company's filings with the SEC and
          other public statements.

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiff in each action
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder; and against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaints in these actions sought unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, expenses and fees.

On Feb. 7, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions and appointing the Institutional Investor Group,
consisting of First New York Securities, L.L.C. and Omni
Partners LLP, as lead plaintiffs for the purported class.

The actions are now consolidated under the caption, "Vincent
DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al."

On March 24, 2008, pursuant to a schedule approved by the Court,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which,
among other things:

       -- amended the purported class period to include
          purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities
          from July 23, 2007, to Nov. 14, 2007;

       -- dropped as defendants one of the company's officers
          and all but one of the company's directors;

       -- named as additional defendants Cerberus, certain of
          its affiliates, its chief executive officer and one of
          its managing directors; and

       -- withdrew the previously asserted claim under Section
          14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder.

On May 16, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in this action.  Briefing with
respect to those motions is complete, according to the company's
Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Vincent DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-01708-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet C. Hall, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. (rcappucci@Entwistle-Law.com)
          Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
          280 Park Ave., 26th Fl. West
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-894-7200
          Fax: 212-894-7272

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          David J. Elliott, Esq. (djelliott@daypitney.com)
          Day Pitney LLP
          242 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-1212
          Phone: 860-275-0100
          Fax: 860-275-0343

               - and -

          Alan R. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@kramerlevin.com)
          Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-715-9300
          Fax: 212-715-8000


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARCLAYS BANK: Abraham Fruchter Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY -- (Marketwire) -- 03/12/09 -- The law firm of
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP announces that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of those who purchased the American Depositary Shares, Series 4
("Preferred Stock") (NYSE: BCS-C) of Barclays Bank PLC
("Barclays Bank" or the "Company") pursuant and/or traceable to
a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus
(the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the
Company's December 3, 2007 offering of the Company's Preferred
Stock (the "Offering").

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

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

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

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

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

       -- Barclays was not as well capitalized as represented
          and would have to continually raise additional
          capital.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Philip T. Taylor, Esq. (ptaylor@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


CORUS BANKSHARES: Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, N.Y., March 12, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) --
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Corus Bankshares,
Inc. ("Corus" or the "Company") common stock during the period
from January 25, 2008 to January 30, 2009 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint alleges that Corus' press releases, SEC
filings and other public statements during the Class Period were
false and misleading for failing to disclose:

       -- that Corus was failing to recognize losses on its
          condominium loans as required by accounting rules, and

       -- that Corus was purchasing condominiums in developments
          Corus had financed in an attempt to:

               -- inflate the appraised values of condominiums
                  to delay having to recognize losses on
                  financing for such condominiums;

               -- inflate developers' sales figures to increase
                  the likelihood of successful future sales; and

               -- create the illusion of successful sales
                  histories in order to inflate appraisal values
                  for the condominiums to ensure inflated future
                  prices for the condominiums.

     On January 30, 2009, Corus released poor financial results
for fiscal 2008 stemming from the adverse business practices it
had concealed.  Upon this announcement, Corus' shares fell
nearly 47% to close at $.59 per share on February 2, 2009, on
heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


PERRIGO CO: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Business Wire 2009 -- 2009-03-12 23:30:02 -- Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Perrigo Company ("Perrigo") (NASDAQ:PRGO) common
stock during the period between November 6, 2008 and February 2,
2009 (the "Class Period").

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

     Perrigo develops, manufactures, and distributes over-the-
counter and prescription pharmaceuticals, nutritional products,
active pharmaceutical ingredients, and consumer products
worldwide.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants misled investors regarding the Company's exposure to
at least $18 million of Auction Rate Securities ("ARS") held by
the Company.  In January and February of 2008, several auctions
of ARS began to fail, limiting the liquidity of these
securities. Eventually it came to light that the investment
banks that collected lucrative fees for underwriting the
issuance of ARS and conducting the auctions had secretly been
buying ARS in their own auctions whenever necessary to keep
auctions from failing.

     By early 2008, however, the banks' balance sheets were
stretched too thin for the practice to continue and the market
for ARS collapsed.

     According to the complaint, Perrigo was left holding $18
million of ARS when the market froze.  With few secondary
markets and virtually no liquidity, the value of most ARS
plummeted, even though the issuers were not in default.

However, because the Attorneys General for New York and
Massachusetts, as well as the SEC, initiated investigations
and/or proceedings against many of the banks that underwrote ARS
and conducted the auctions, one bank after another began to
redeem the ARS their clients had purchased.  Perrigo had a
reasonable expectation of redeeming its $18 million in ARS until
September 15, 2008.  On that date, Lehman Brothers Holdings,
Inc. ("Lehman") declared bankruptcy.  Lehman was the bank that
underwrote and sold the ARS to Perrigo.  On November 6, 2008,
the beginning of the Class Period, defendants reported the "fair
value" of Perrigo's ARS as $14,500,000, but concealed the impact
of Lehman's bankruptcy on Perrigo's ARS.  Then just three months
later, on February 3, 2009, defendants disclosed, for the first
time, that Lehman had underwritten and sold the ARS to Perrigo.
They also announced that the Company was writing off the entire
value of its ARS, wiping out over a third of Perrigo's earnings
in the quarter.  As a result of this disclosure, the stock price
plunged 18% that day, causing massive losses to investors.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Perrigo 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/


                            *********

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  * * *