CAR_Public/090319.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 55

                           Headlines

AFFINION GROUP: Consumer Fraud Suit Still Pending in Washington
AFFINION GROUP: Ruling on Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit Pending
CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Damages in "Beattie" Still Undetermined
ENGLE HOMES: Roberts & Durkee Files Suit Over Chinese Drywalls
IMAGEPOINT INC: Denies Allegations in Tenn. WARN Violations Suit

ING GROEP: Faces Four U.S. Investors' Lawsuits Over "Perpetuals"
JPMORGAN CHASE: Ninth Circuit Reinstates Calif. TILA Litigation
NYSE EURONEXT: Remanded Specialists' Securities Lawsuit Pending
SPECTRA ENERGY: Awaits Certification Order in ERISA Case v. Duke
TREE.COM INC: Arbitration for "Bercaw" FCRA Breach Suit Pending

TREE.COM INC: Arbitration of "Spinozzi" FCRA Lawsuit Pending
TREE.COM INC: "Bradley" Lawsuit in Calif. Pending Arbitration
TREE.COM INC: Calif. FCRA Violations Suit in Pending Arbitration
TREE.COM INC: "Carson" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration
TREE.COM INC: "Gonzalez" Suit v. HLC in Calif. Dismissed in Dec.

TREE.COM INC: HLC Underwriting Clerks' Lawsuit Pending in Calif.
TREE.COM INC: "Miller" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration
TREE.COM INC: "Mitchell" Suit in Oklahoma Pending Arbitration
TREE.COM INC: Primanto Seeks Suit Nixing to Join Richardson Deal
WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Ga. Litigation Regarding Overdraft Fees

WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Overdraft Fee Suits in Fla., N.J., Calif.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
CORUS BANKSHARES: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
PERRIGO CO: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

AFFINION GROUP: Consumer Fraud Suit Still Pending in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported consumer fraud class-action suit against Affinion
Group, Inc., which, prior to 2007, was known as the Trilegiant
Corp., remains pending in Washington court.

On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The
Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior
Court of Washington, Spokane County.  The claim asserts
violations of various consumer protection statutes.

The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
denied by the court.

There has been limited discovery and motion practice to date,
according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com--
is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world.  Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.


AFFINION GROUP: Ruling on Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County has yet to rule
on a plaintiff's motion appealing its decision to compel
arbitration in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit,
according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class-action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC (now know as Affinion
Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC), and Allstate
Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County,
alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and
violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive
practices act.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County.

The company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008.  In granting the
company's motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration
with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not
class) basis.

On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's order.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com--
is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world.  Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.


CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Damages in "Beattie" Still Undetermined
----------------------------------------------------------------
The scope and amounts of damages awarded in a consumer class-
action lawsuit entitled, "Beattie, et al. v. CenturyTel Inc.,"
remain subject to additional fact-finding and resolution.

The suit was filed by Barbrasue Beattie and James Sovis on  Oct.
28, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  It alleges that the company unjustly and unreasonably
billed customers for inside wire maintenance services.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages and injunctive
relief under various legal theories on behalf of a purported
class of over two million customers in the company's telephone
markets.

On March 10, 2006, the court certified the suit as a class-
action suit and issued a ruling that the billing descriptions
the company used for these services during an approximately 18-
month period between Oct. 29, 2000 and May 2002 were legally
insufficient.  The company's appeal of this class certification
decision was denied.

Centurytel's preliminary analysis indicates that it billed less
than $10 million for inside wire maintenance services under the
billing descriptions and time periods specified in the District
Court ruling.  The Court's order does not specify the award of
damages, the scope and amounts of which, if any, remain subject
to additional fact-finding and resolution of what the company
believes are valid defenses to plaintiff's claims, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Beattie, et al. v. Centurytel, Inc., Case No. 1:02-
cv-10277-DML," filed in the U.S District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Judge Judge David M. Lawson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory J. Boulahanis, Esq.
          Boulahanis & Assoc.
          21905 Garrison Avenue
          Dearborn, MI 48124
          Phone: 313-277-2550
          Fax: 313-277-2550

              - and -

          Elwood S. Simon, Esq. (esimon@esimon-law.com)
          Elwood S. Simon Assoc.
          355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Phone: 248-646-9730
          Fax: 248-258-2335


Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer L. Frye, Esq. (jfrye@dickinsonwright.com)
          Dickinson Wright
          301 N . Liberty, Suite 500
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: 734-623-7075
          Fax: 734-623-1625

               - and -

          David J. Houston, Esq. (dhouston@dickinsonwright.com)
          Dickinson Wright
          215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200
          Lansing, MI 48933-1888
          Phone: 517-371-1730


ENGLE HOMES: Roberts & Durkee Files Suit Over Chinese Drywalls
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Tue., 17 March 2009 11:05:50 GMT -- CAPE CORAL, Fla. --
(Business Wire) Attorney C. David Durkee, a partner with the
Florida law firm Roberts & Durkee, announced the filing of a
Florida class-action lawsuit against Engle Homes (Nasdaq: ENGL),
alleging the national homebuilder used contaminated drywall
imported from China to build homes in the Coral Lakes
development in Cape Coral, Fla. The suit alleges the drywall is
damaging the victims' health, homes and belongings.

     Durkee, along with the plaintiffs and M. Thomas Martin,
president of Americas Watchdog consumer advocacy group, will
provide a news conference at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, March 17, at
the home of one of the plaintiffs, Joyce Dowdy, who lives at
2553 Deerfield Lake Court, Cape Coral, FL 33909. The group will
answer residents' questions about Chinese-made drywall during a
town hall meeting at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, March 19, at the Coral
Lakes community clubhouse, located at 1281 Coral Lakes Blvd.,
Cape Coral, FL 33909.  The town meeting is free and open to the
public.  Attorney Wayne S. Kreger, with the national law firm
Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, based in Santa Monica, Calif., will
help lead the town meeting.  Kreger is handling California
class-action suits concerning toxic Chinese drywall and
collaborating with Durkee and other attorneys nationwide.

     The class-action suit filed by Durkee in Lee County Circuit
Court could ultimately represent all owners of Coral Lakes homes
with contaminated Chinese-made drywall.  According to the
allegations, the defective drywall was negligently used from
2001-2008 at the height of the U.S. construction boom and
installed in countless homes throughout Florida and the U.S.
The suit says that up to 20 million square feet of Chinese
drywall entered the U.S. since 2003, and more than 65,000
American homes could be affected by the hazardous drywall, which
emits sulfur gases, corrodes wiring, contaminates furnishings
and fabrics and damages air conditioners and appliances.

     "People are getting sick, families are being forced from
their homes, enduring financial and emotional turmoil due to
this negligence," Durkee said.  "I have received numerous calls
from people throughout Florida and will meet with them in the
coming weeks.  Rather than file a large national class-action
suit with thousands of plaintiffs where our clients would be
treated like a number and receive a fraction of the total
damages awarded, our legal strategy is to file a series of local
class-action suits on behalf of individual communities where our
clients can be bigger fish in smaller ponds and ultimately stand
to receive higher compensation for their losses."

     Added Martin: "Although we know that at least 65,000 new
homes in the southeast, including at least 30,000 in Florida,
could contain toxic Chinese drywall, we have reason to believe
the number is much higher and the problem is widespread
throughout the United States.  We plan to issue a major call-to-
action at the news conference to encourage homeowners to contact
Americas Watchdog and get help if they believe their homes
contain Chinese drywall."

     The suit names the publicly traded Engle Builders as the
builder of the homes in the walled Coral Lakes community and
alleges Engle obtained the toxic drywall after its manufacture
in China. These allegations are the latest among numerous recent
product-safety scandals involving Chinese imports, including
milk formula, toothpaste, drugs, toys, seafood and pet food.

     In addition to Florida, lawyers in other U.S. coastal
states where humidity can worsen the problem are also working on
this matter. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
recently announced its investigation of the odors and problems
attributed to the Chinese-made drywall.

     According to Americas Watchdog, the public may use the
following criteria to assess whether homes and condos were built
with Chinese-made drywall:

       -- They were built or remodeled between 2004 and 2008;

       -- They have a sulfur or rotten-egg smell, particularly
          when all windows and doors are shut;

       -- Residents suffer severe allergies, nose bleeds, upper-
          respiratory problems and other symptoms that disappear
          when they leave the homes for an extended time; and

       -- Air conditioning units have repeated corrosion of
          their coils.

For details, contact:

          C. David Durkee, Esq. (durkee@rdlawnet.com)
          Roberts & Durkee P.A.
          Phone: (305) 442-1700
          Web site: http://www.rdlawnet.com


IMAGEPOINT INC: Denies Allegations in Tenn. WARN Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ImagePoint, Inc. denied the allegations in a purported class-
action lawsuit for back wages that were filed by a former
employee in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
Court of Tennessee, The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports.

The Knoxville News Sentinel previously reported that Rebecca
Heifner, who lost her job on Jan. 9, 2009, seeks wages and
benefits for 60 days under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Act, which requires that companies provide 60 days advance
notice.  No such notice was given, the lawsuit claims.

On March 12, 2009, ImagePoint filed a response denying Ms.
Heifner's claims and saying the law allows companies struggling
to remain solvent to give shorter notice of termination to their
workers, according to The Knoxville News-Sentinel report.

The suit captioned, "Heifner v. Imagepoint, Inc., Case No. 3:09-
cv-00022," was filed on Jan. 15, 2009.  It seeks class action
status for all former ImagePoint employees who lost their jobs
as part of a mass layoff when the company shut down in January
2009.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the sign manufacturer said it was closing and
eliminating 450 jobs, including 270 at its downtown headquarters
and 180 at its plant in Florence, Ky., a suburb of Cincinnati,
according to the Knoxville News Sentinel report.

The suit is captioned, "Heifner v. Imagepoint, Inc., Case No.
3:09-cv-00022," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District Court of Tennessee, Judge Thomas W. Phillips,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David A Burkhalter, II, Esq.
          (david@burkhalterrayson.com)
          Burkhalter, Rayson & Associates
          P.O. Box 2777
          Knoxville, TN 37901-2777
          Phone: 865-524-4974
          Fax: 865-524-0172

          J. Cecil Gardner, Esq. (cgardner@thegardnerfirm.com)
          The Gardner Firm
          1119 Government Street
          Post Office Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Phone: 251-433-8100
          Fax: 251-433-8181

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq. (sjm@lankmill.com)
          Lankenau & Miller, LLP
          132 Nassau Street
          Suite 423
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-581-5005
          Fax: 212-581-2122


ING GROEP: Faces Four U.S. Investors' Lawsuits Over "Perpetuals"
----------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. and a number of former executives are facing four
separate class-action lawsuits from U.S. investors who have lost
millions of euros on their investments, DutchNews.nl reports.

According to a report by the Financieele Dagblad, the investors
are claiming that ING should cover their losses because the
company sold a type of share known as a perpetual using "a false
and misleading registration statement and prospectuses."

The complainants say ING issued perpetuals valued at a total of
$4.5bn in June and September 2007 and June 2008.  Since then
their value has plummeted by $3.5bn, the paper says.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Ninth Circuit Reinstates Calif. TILA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reinstated a class-action lawsuit accusing
JPMorgan Chase & Co. of violating the federal Truth in Lending
Act by failing to notify cardholders in advance of interest rate
increases resulting from late payments or defaults, Gina Keating
of Reuters reports.

James McCoy, the lead plaintiff, had accused Chase Manhattan
Bank of applying a rate hike to his balance retroactively after
his account was closed, but did not inform him until weeks
later.  The rate was raised after a late payment to Chase or
another creditor -- a practice called "universal default" that
is opposed by consumer advocates, according to the Reuters
report.

In its cardmember agreement, Chase said it disclosed conditions
that Mr. McCoy had to comply with to remain eligible for a
preferred interest rate, as well as the maximum interest rate
that could apply if he violated those terms, reports Reuters.

The panel though ruled that Mr. McCoy can maintain a claim if
Chase failed to notify him of the hike because of a delinquency
or default or if his cardmember contract does not spell out
specific terms for an increase, reports Reuters.

The majority held that the Federal Reserve, in a rule issued in
December, requires notice when a cardholder's interest rates
rise due to a default and specifies that the notice may be
contemporaneous with the rate hike.

Thus, the appeals court sent the case back to the California
district court that had dismissed it, according to the Reuters
report.


NYSE EURONEXT: Remanded Specialists' Securities Lawsuit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Further proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York have not been scheduled for the remanded
consolidated action styled, "In re NYSE Specialists Securities
Litigation," according to NYSE Euronext's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-
K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In 2003, the California Public Employees' Retirement System
("CalPERS") filed a class action complaint, later consolidated
with related actions, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the NYSE, NYSE specialist
firms, and others, alleging various violations of federal
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty, on behalf of a
purported class of persons who bought or sold unspecified NYSE-
listed stocks between 1998 and 2003, and seeking unspecified
money damages.

In 2005, the district court granted the NYSE's motion to
dismiss, holding that the NYSE, as a self-regulatory
organization, is immune from private lawsuits challenging the
manner in which it exercises its regulatory function, and thus
dismissed all the claims asserting that the NYSE had failed to
effectively regulate specialists during the relevant period.

The district court also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing
to assert that the NYSE made false and misleading statements
concerning the regulation and operation of its market.

The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In 2007, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part,
and vacating and remanding in part, the district court's
decision.  The Second Circuit upheld the district court's ruling
as to the NYSE's self-regulatory immunity, but vacated the
district court's holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to
assert their claims that the NYSE made false and misleading
statements.  The appeals court remanded the matter to the
district court for consideration of other grounds for dismissal
that the NYSE had asserted in its motion to dismiss, including
the plaintiffs' failure to allege reliance or loss causation.

NYSE Euronext -- http://www.nyse.com-- operates a liquid
exchange group.  The Company's family of exchanges, located in
six countries, include the New York Stock Exchange, a cash
equities market; Euronext, a cash equities market; Liffe, an
European derivatives exchange; NYSE Liffe, the Company's U.S.
futures business, and NYSE Arca Options, an U.S. options trading
platform.  NYSE Euronext offers an array of financial products
and services for issuers, investors and financial institutions
in cash equities, options, futures and derivatives, exchange
traded funds (ETFs), bonds, market data, and commercial
technology solutions. NYSE Euronext is home to approximately
4,600 listed issues.


SPECTRA ENERGY: Awaits Certification Order in ERISA Case v. Duke
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectra Energy Corp. awaits the U.S. District Court for the
District Court of South Carolina's decision on class
certification of the remaining claims in a purported class-
action suit filed against Duke Energy Corp. over alleged
discrimination and violation of pension laws.

Initially, a class action was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District Court of South Carolina against Duke Energy and
the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.

Various causes of action are alleged, including violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.  These allegations arise out
of the conversion of the Duke Power Company Employees Retirement
Plan into the Duke Power Company Retirement Cash Balance Plan.

The plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants
in the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  This group is
estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons.

Duke Energy filed its answer to the complaint in March 2006.  A
motion to certify a class action was filed by the plaintiffs and
Duke Energy filed its response in opposition to this motion.

A hearing on the class certification motion as well as other
dispositive motions was held in December 2007, and the Court
took the matters under advisement.

A second class-action lawsuit was filed with the federal court
in South Carolina, alleging similar claims and seeking to
represent the same class of defendants.  The second case has
been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice.

In connection with the spin-off from Duke Energy in January
2007, Spectra Energy has agreed to share with Duke Energy any
liabilities or damages associated with this matter that relate
to Spectra Energy employees that may be members of the plaintiff
class.

The Court issued a series of rulings in June 2008, denying the
plaintiffs' class certification motion, dismissing certain of
the causes of action originally filed by plaintiffs and allowing
other causes of action to proceed.  As a result of these
rulings, the plaintiffs re-filed a new Amended Class Action
Complaint in June 2008, asserting and re-pleading the claims
which the Court is allowing to proceed.

Duke Energy filed a motion to dismiss in July 2008, requesting
the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims.
Plaintiffs filed a new motion to certify a class action in
August 2008, and Duke Energy has filed a response to this
motion.  All motions are pending before the Court.

A new scheduling order has been entered and it is expected that
certain discovery activities will ensue with respect to the
surviving causes of action, according to the company's Feb. 27,
2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "George et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00373-HFF," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge
Henry F. Floyd presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James Robinson Gilreath, Esq. (jim@gilreathlaw.com)
         Gilreath Law Firm
         P.O. Box 2147
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-242-4727
         Fax: 864-232-4395

         Cheryl F. Perkins, Esq. (cperkins@attorneyssc.com)
         Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC
         P.O. Box 8086
         Columbia, SC 29202
         Phone: 803-799-9400
         Fax: 803-799-2017

              - and -

         Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. (mwallace@wallacegraham.com)
         Wallace and Graham
         525 North Main Street
         Salisbury, NC 28144
         Phone: 704-633-5244
         Fax: 704-633-9434

Representing the defendants is:

         Robert Oliver King, Esq. (robert.king@odnss.com)
         Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart
         P.O. Box 2757
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-271-1300
         Fax: 864-235-8806


TREE.COM INC: Arbitration for "Bercaw" FCRA Breach Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action suit captioned, "Amy Bercaw v.
LendingTree, LLC, No. SACV08-660 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.),"
is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26,
2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired
by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003.

On June 13, 2008, Amy Bercaw, Russell Winsett and Ty Woods filed
this putative class-action suit against LendingTree in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement
that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public
information relating to its customers.

Plaintiffs allege that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting
agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA") and has violated the FCRA by failing to maintain
reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of
consumer reports.  Plaintiffs also assert claims against
LendingTree for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion
of privacy, misappropriation of confidential information in
violation of California Civil Code Section 17980.89, and
violation of the California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 (the "UCL").

Plaintiff purports to represent all LendingTree customers
affected by the information security breach, and seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson
cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise
jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's
April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained
access to non-public information relating to its customers; and
(2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  On
July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson
plaintiffs in support of this motion.

On Sept. 12, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the case or
transfer it to the Western District of North Carolina in
Charlotte to be consolidated with the Spinozzi, Carson and
Mitchell cases.  While this motion was pending, on Oct. 7, 2008,
the MDL Panel granted the motion before it, transferring the
Bercaw lawsuit to the Western District of North Carolina.

On Feb. 5, 2009, a hearing was held on LendingTree's September
2008 motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.  At the
hearing, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the
Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending
outcome of the arbitration proceeding.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREE.COM INC: Arbitration of "Spinozzi" FCRA Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Constance Spinozzi v.
LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-229 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D.N.C.),"
is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26,
2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired
by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003.

On May 15, 2008, Constance Spinozzi filed this putative class
action against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement
that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public
information relating to its customers.

Plaintiff alleges that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting
agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA") and has violated the FCRA by failing to maintain
reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of
consumer reports.  Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence
and breach of implied contract.

Plaintiff purports to represent all LendingTree customers
affected by the information security breach, and seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson
cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise
jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's
April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained
access to non-public information relating to its customers; and
(2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  On
July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson
plaintiffs in support of this motion.

While this motion was pending before the MDL Panel, on July 8,
2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel
arbitration.  On Aug. 21, 2008, the court granted LendingTree's
motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the
litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted Plaintiff's motion,
transferring all of the related lawsuits to the Western District
of North Carolina.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREE.COM INC: "Bradley" Lawsuit in Calif. Pending Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action suit tagged, "Bradley v. LendingTree,
LLC, et al., SACV08-755 (U.S. Dist. Ct. C.D. Cal.)," is pending
arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired
by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003.

On July 10, 2008, Geraldine Bradley, Joy Paxton-Collis, James
Larson and Mark Swearingen filed this putative class-action suit
against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement
that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public
information relating to its customers.

Plaintiffs allege that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting
agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA").  According to Plaintiffs, LendingTree has
intentionally violated the FCRA by failing to maintain
reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of
consumer reports.  Plaintiffs also allege LendingTree
negligently violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable
procedures to protect Plaintiffs' personal and financial
information.

Plaintiffs also assert claims against LendingTree for
negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
misappropriation of confidential information in violation of
California statute, and violation of California's unfair
competition law.

On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson
cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise
jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's
April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained
access to non-public information relating to its customers; and
(2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  On
July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson
plaintiffs in support of this motion.

On Sept. 12, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the case or
transfer it to the Western District of North Carolina in
Charlotte to be consolidated with the Spinozzi, Carson and
Mitchell cases.  While this motion was pending, on Oct. 7, 2008,
the MDL Panel granted the motion before it, transferring the
Bercaw lawsuit to the Western District of North Carolina.

On Feb. 5, 2009, a hearing was held on LendingTree's September
2008 motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.  At the
hearing, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the
Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending
outcome of the arbitration proceeding.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREE.COM INC: Calif. FCRA Violations Suit in Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Shaver's putative class-action suit against LendingTree,
LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California is pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s
Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired
by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003.

The suit styled, "Shaver v. LendingTree, LLC, et al., SACV08-755
(U.S. Dist. Ct. C.D. Cal.)," was filed on July 10, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement
that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public
information relating to its customers.

Plaintiff alleges that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting
agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA").  According to Plaintiff, LendingTree has
intentionally violated the FCRA by failing to maintain
reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of
consumer reports.  Plaintiff also alleges LendingTree
negligently violated the FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable
procedures to protect Plaintiff's personal and financial
information.

Plaintiff also asserts claims against LendingTree for
negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
misappropriation of confidential information in violation of
California statute, and violation of California's unfair
competition law.

Plaintiff purports to represent all similarly situated persons,
and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson
cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise
jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's
April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained
access to non-public information relating to its customers; and
(2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  On
July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson
plaintiffs in support of this motion.

On Sept. 12, 2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the case or
transfer it to the Western District of North Carolina in
Charlotte to be consolidated with the Spinozzi, Carson and
Mitchell cases.  While this motion was pending, on Oct. 7, 2008,
the MDL Panel granted the motion before it, transferring the
Bercaw lawsuit to the Western District of North Carolina.

On Feb. 5, 2009, a hearing was held on LendingTree's September
2008 motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.  At the
hearing, the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the
Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the litigation pending
outcome of the arbitration proceeding.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREE.COM INC: "Carson" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action suit styled, "Sylvia Carson v.
LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-247 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D.N.C.)" is
pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired
by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003.

On May 30, 2008, Sylvia Carson filed this putative class action
against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.

The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement
that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public
information relating to its customers.

Plaintiff alleges that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting
agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA") and has violated the FCRA by failing to maintain
reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of
consumer reports.  Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence
and breach of implied contract.

Plaintiff purports to represent all LendingTree customers
affected by the information security breach, and seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson
cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise
jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's
April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained
access to non-public information relating to its customers; and
(2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  On
July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson
plaintiffs in support of this motion.

While this motion was pending before the MDL Panel, on July 8,
2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel
arbitration.  On Aug. 21, 2008, the court granted LendingTree's
motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the
litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted Plaintiff's motion,
transferring all of the related lawsuits to the Western District
of North Carolina.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREE.COM INC: "Gonzalez" Suit v. HLC in Calif. Dismissed in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action suit filed by Daniel Gonzalez against
a Tree.com, Inc. subsidiary, Home Loan Center, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California was
dismissed in December 2008.

HLC operates primarily under the brand name "LendingTree
Loans(R)."

The putative class-action suit styled, "Gonzalez v. Home Loan
Center, Inc., No. CV06-5007 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.)" was
filed on Aug. 9, 2006.

Plaintiff, a former HLC loan officer, asserted that HLC failed
to pay overtime; failed to pay wages due upon termination;
failed to provide proper wage statements; failed to reimburse
employees for expenses and/or improperly deducted wages for
business-related expenses; and failed to provide meal and rest
periods.

Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff asserted
violations of various California wage and hour laws, conversion,
and violations of California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 (the "UCL").

Plaintiff purported to represent a class of loan officers
employed by HLC in California since Aug. 9, 2002, and seeks
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

On Dec. 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
adding two additional plaintiffs, David Nottingham and Jeffrey
Howerton.  Because these new plaintiffs had signed agreements
with HLC to arbitrate all employment-related claims, HLC filed a
motion to compel arbitration.

Following a mediation held in September 2007, the parties
entered into an agreement to settle this action, subject to
court approval.  Under the settlement agreement, HLC agreed to
pay a maximum of $4.0 million, inclusive of payments to class
members as well as attorneys' fees and costs.  On May 13, 2008,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On June 13, 2008, the court, following a hearing,
granted Plaintiffs' motion and preliminarily approved the
settlement.  The court also scheduled a final approval hearing
for Dec. 16, 2008.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, LendingTree, LLC's reserve for this matter
was approximately $2.1 million.  The number of class members
actually submitting claims for payment was higher than expected,
resulting in a larger overall settlement than originally
forecasted.  As a final settlement, in December 2008, HLC
disbursed $3.4 million to the class members collectively, of
which approximately $1.0 million is subject to contractual
indemnification by the former HLC stockholders.  Plaintiffs'
claims were then dismissed on Dec. 18, 2008, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREE.COM INC: HLC Underwriting Clerks' Lawsuit Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action suit styled, "Artzi v. LendingTree,
LLC, IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Home Loan Center, Inc., No.
00180037 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)," remains pending.

Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired
by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003.  Home Loan Center is a
subsidiary of the company that operates primarily under the
brand name "LendingTree Loans(R)."

In September 2008, Elion Artzi and Shannon Kostadinov served
this putative class-action suit against LendingTree,
IAC/InterActiveCorp and HLC in the Superior Court of California,
County of Orange.

Plaintiffs, former HLC underwriting clerks, allege that HLC
denied overtime compensation in violation of California labor
law; failed to pay wages for compensable meal breaks in
violation of California labor law; failed to pay timely wages in
violation of California labor law; failed to furnish itemized
wage statements in violation of California labor law; and based
upon the foregoing, committed unfair business practices in
violation of the California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 (the "UCL").

Plaintiffs purport to represent all underwriting clerks employed
by HLC in California since July 27, 2004.

Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification.
No trial date has been set.  A status conference is set for
March 9, 2009.

No further updates were provided in the company's Feb. 26, 2009
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREE.COM INC: "Miller" Suit Over FCRA Breach Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action lawsuit captioned, "Miller v.
LendingTree, LLC, No. 08cv2300 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill.)" is
pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tree.com is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which was acquired
by IAC/InterActiveCorp in 2003.

On April 22, 2008, Eugene Miller filed this putative class-
action case against LendingTree in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement
that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public
information relating to its customers.

Plaintiff alleges that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting
agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA") and has violated the FCRA by failing to maintain
reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of
consumer reports.

Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, invasion of privacy and misappropriation of
confidential information.

Plaintiff purports to represent all LendingTree customers
affected by the information security breach, and seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson
cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it (1) exercise
jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's
April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained
access to non-public information relating to its customers; and
(2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  On
July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson
plaintiffs in support of this motion.

While this motion was pending before the MDL Panel, on June 23,
2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel
arbitration.  On Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted the motion
before it, transferring the Miller lawsuit to the Western
District of North Carolina.

On Feb. 5, 2009, a hearing was held on LendingTree's June 2008
motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.  At the hearing,
the court granted LendingTree's motion, ordering the Plaintiff
to arbitration and staying the litigation pending outcome of the
arbitration proceeding.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREE.COM INC: "Mitchell" Suit in Oklahoma Pending Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action suit styled, "Mitchell v. Home Loan
Center, Inc., No. 08-303-RJC (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. N.C.)," is
pending arbitration, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Home Loan Center, a subsidiary of the company, operates
primarily under the brand name "LendingTree Loans(R)."

On April 28, 2008, Angela Mitchell filed this putative class
action against HLC and LendingTree, LLC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

The case arises out of LendingTree's April 21, 2008 announcement
that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public
information relating to its customers.

Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, negligence and
negligence per se.

Plaintiff purports to represent all similarly situated persons,
and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

On LendingTree's demand, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting
transfer of the lawsuit to the Western District of North
Carolina on June 18, 2008.  The motion was granted and the
lawsuit was transferred to the Western District of North
Carolina on June 26, 2008.

On June 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Spinozzi and Carson
cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel"), requesting that it: (1) exercise
jurisdiction over all actions arising out of LendingTree's
April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained
access to non-public information relating to its customers; and
(2) consolidate all such cases and transfer them to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  On
July 3, 2008, LendingTree joined the Spinozzi and Carson
plaintiffs in support of this motion.

While this motion was pending before the MDL Panel, on July 8,
2008, LendingTree moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel
arbitration.  On Aug. 21, 2008, the court granted LendingTree's
motion, ordering the Plaintiff to arbitration and staying the
litigation pending outcome of the arbitration proceeding.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the MDL Panel granted Plaintiff's motion,
transferring all of the related lawsuits to the Western District
of North Carolina.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREE.COM INC: Primanto Seeks Suit Nixing to Join Richardson Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Primanto seeks dismissal of his putative class-action
suit against a Tree.com, Inc. subsidiary, Home Loan Center,
Inc., to participate in the settlement of the case styled
Richardson v. Home Loan Center, Inc.

On Sept. 28, 2007, William Primanto filed a putative class-
action suit against HLC in the California Superior Court for
Orange County, captioned, "Primanto v. Home Loan Center, Inc.,
No. 07CC01382 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)."

Plaintiff, a former HLC loan officer, alleges that HLC failed to
pay overtime and asserts violations of various California wage
and hour laws and of the California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 (the "UCL").

Plaintiff purports to represent all loan officers employed by
HLC in California since Sept. 28, 2003, and seeks compensatory
damages, statutory penalties, restitution and attorneys' fees.

On December 13, 2007, the court, at the request of the parties,
entered an order staying the action pending resolution of the
"Gonzalez" action.  The case remains stayed.

On Jan. 8, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a dismissal with the court
because Plaintiff will be participating in the Richardson
settlement, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Ga. Litigation Regarding Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Bank, N.A. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in
connection to overdraft fees, R. Robin McDonald of the Fulton
County Daily Report reports.

The suit was filed by Fulton County, Ga., resident Ken Vollmer
on March 2, 2009 under the caption, "Vollmer v. Wachovia Bank,
N.A., Case No. 1:09-cv-00560-CC."

It generally accuses the bank of deceptive practices intended to
maximize bank profits at the expense of their customers and
challenges bank policies governing the assessment of overdraft
fees, according to the Fulton County Daily Report.

Mr. Vollmer's suit claims that Wachovia has a "routine practice"
of posting charges to consumer bank accounts in such a way as to
maximize overdraft fees, even at times when the actual funds in
the account are sufficient to cover the transaction.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by the
Fulton County Daily Report, those practices, include posting to
a consumer account charges that pass through the bank in the
course of a single day in order of the largest amount to the
smallest, even when larger charges occur days after smaller
charges.  They also include "intentionally delaying and
rearranging the posting of transactions to accounts" and
assessing overdraft fees even when customers have sufficient
funds in their account to cover debits as they come due,
according to the complaint.

Mr. Vollmer's suit doesn't dispute Wachovia's right to assess
overdraft fees if an account is legitimately overdrawn, Fulton
County Daily Report reported.

However, Mr. Vollmer's lawyers, E. Adam Webb, Esq., and G.
Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq., argue, "Because the occurrence,
amount and frequency of overdraft charges are set unilaterally
by [the bank], [it] has an obligation to assess and impose
overdraft charges on consumers' bank account in good faith."

The bank breached that obligation, and acted in bad faith, they
add, "by intentionally delaying and rearranging the posting of
transactions to accounts in order to maximize the amount of
overdraft charges imposed," according to the Fulton County Daily
Report.

The suit is "Vollmer v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:09-cv-
00560-CC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. (flemond@webbllc.com)
          Edward Adam Webb, Esq. (eadamwebb@hotmail.com)
          The Webb Law Group, LLC
          Suite 480
          1900 The Exchange, SE
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: 770-444-9325
          Fax: 770-444-0271

Representing the defendant is:

          Jason M. Beach, Esq. (jbeach@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams LLP
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-888-4000


WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Overdraft Fee Suits in Fla., N.J., Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Bank, N.A. is facing nearly identical overdraft fee
lawsuits by irate customers in federal courts in Miami, Fla.,
Camden, N.J., and in the northern district of California -- all
of which are seeking class-action status.

Those suits accuse the bank of deceptive practices intended to
maximize bank profits at the expense of their customers and
challenge bank policies governing the assessment of overdraft
fees.




                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Mar 17, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- On March 12,
2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or acquired the shares of Century Aluminum Company ("Century
Aluminum" or the "Company") [NASDAQ:CENX] pursuant or traceable
to the Company's January 28, 2009 Secondary Offering (the
"Secondary Offering" or the "Class Period") against the Company,
certain officers and directors, and the underwriters pursuant to
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
77k, 77l(a)(2) and 77o (the "Class").

     The case name is styled, "Abrams v. Century Aluminum
Company, et al."

     On or about January 29, 2009, the Company completed its
Secondary Offering in which it sold 24.5 million shares and
received proceeds of approximately $104.7 million.  In
connection with the Secondary Offering, the Company issued a
registration statement and prospectus (together, the "Secondary
Offering Documents") which incorporated by reference the
Company's financial results for the quarterly periods ended
March 31, 2008, June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2008.

     The Complaint alleges that the Secondary Offering Documents
were materially false and misleading because it failed to
include the information contained in the Company's 8-K of March
2, 2009 that the initially reported cash flows associated with
the termination of forward financial sales contracts by issuing
$929 million of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock were
improperly reported "on a net basis as an operating activity"
rather than "on a gross presentation basis as both an operating
activity and a financing activity to reflect the cash receipts
and disbursements associated the transaction."  Century
Aluminum's 8-K also reported that, as a result of this improper
accounting, the financial statements reported in the Form 10-Q
for three quarters in 2008 "should no longer be relied upon."

     As a direct and proximate result of the conduct engaged in
by each of the defendants in issuing materially false and
misleading Secondary Offering documents, plaintiff and the other
members of the Class have sustained substantial damage in
connection with the purchase of the securities issued pursuant
to or traceable to the Offering Documents.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Martin E. Restituyo, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


CORUS BANKSHARES: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., March 17, 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 common stock of
Corus Bankshares, Inc. ("Corus Bankshares")(Nasdaq: CORS)
between January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Corus Bankshares' business, operations and
financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price
of Corus Bankshares common stock.

     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


PERRIGO CO: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     2009-03-17 17:53:01 -- Business Wire 2009 -- 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 common stock of Perrigo
Company (NYSE:PRGO) between November 6, 2008 and February 2,
2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Perrigo's financial condition and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Perrigo securities.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented Perrigo's exposure to at least $18 million of
auction rate securities held by the Company.

     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


                            *********

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  * * *