CAR_Public/090324.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 58

                           Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Ark. Court Allows "McGinnis" Case to Proceed
AMERICAN INT'L: Michigan Named Lead Plaintiff in Holders' Case
AMGEN INC: April 27 Fairness Hearing Set for AWP Suit Settlement
AMGEN INC: Motion v. Certification in Securities Suit Due April
AMGEN INC: "Swanston" Case Over AWP Claims Pending in Arizona

CHRYSLER LLC: Panel Transfers W.Va. Sludge Suits to New Jersey
CIRCUIT CITY: Faces Suit in Virginia Alleging WARN Violations
COLUMBIA GRAIN: Faces Montana Suit Claiming Contract Violations
CON-WAY INC: Ruling on WARN Act Violations Suit v. EWA Pending
DIEBOLD INC: Appeal to Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit Pending

DIEBOLD INC: Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit Pending in Ohio
FEDEX KINKO: Ninth Circuit Reinstates Calif. Overtime Pay Case
MAYO CLINIC: Ariz. Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in Nurses' Suit
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Utah Securities Fraud Suit For $15M
OMNICOM GROUP: No Argument Date Yet for Appeal to Dismissed Suit

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Third-Party Payors' Lawsuits
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Remanded N.J. Lawsuit Over Savings Plan Ongoing
SCHERING-PLOUGH: June 1 Trial Set for N.J. Securities Suit Deal
SCHERING-PLOUGH: K-DUR Suits Recommended for Dismissal in Feb.
SCHERING-PLOUGH: VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Suits Still Pending

VOYAGER LEARNING: Approval Sought For $20M Deal in Mich. Lawsuit
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION: Pays $4.7M to Settle Colo. Royalties Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DEUTSCHE BANK: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
STEEL DYNAMICS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ADVANCE AMERICA: Ark. Court Allows "McGinnis" Case to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court allowed a purported class-action
suit, entitled, Brenda McGinnis v. Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas, Inc. et al.," to proceed with its current lead
plaintiff as the class representative, the Arkansas Democrat
Gazette reports.

In essence, the court rejected defendant Advance America's
appeal of Circuit Judge John Alexander Thomas' April 15, 2008,
order, which certified as a class a group of people "who have
engaged in check cashing or deferred presentment transactions
with the Defendants in Arkansas since Feb. 27, 2002, up through
and including the date of the entry of judgment in this case,"
according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette report.

Linda Satter of The Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported that
Judge Thomas allowed plaintiff to be the designated class
representative.  In doing so, he rejected arguments from Advance
America that the plaintiff wasn't qualified because she
admittedly suffers from mental illness and allegedly has
conflicts of interest with other class members.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Jim Hannah, the Supreme
Court said that although the plaintiffs have admitted being
diagnosed with schizophrenia and having hallucinations, she has
counsel, and that "Courts have recognized that persons with
limited intellect or mental handicaps can serve as
representative plaintiffs in class actions," reports the
Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

Judge Hannah noted that the circuit court determined that the
plaintiff understood the essential facts of the case, showed a
serious interest in the case and shared the same overall
complaint -- being charged a usurious interest rate -- as the
other class members.

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 27, 2007 in
the Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas by Brenda McGinnis.
It alleges violations of the Arkansas usury law, the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and a 2001 class action settlement
agreement entered into by the company's prior subsidiary in
Arkansas.

The complaint also alleges that the company's current subsidiary
made usurious loans under the Arkansas Check Cashers Act
beginning on May 15, 2001.  It seeks compensatory damages in
amount equal to twice the interest paid on the loans, a
declaration that the contracts are void, enforcement of the 2001
class action settlement agreement, attorneys fees and costs.

The trial court has denied the company's motion to compel
arbitration and the class was certified on April 22, 2008.

The company appealed both decisions.  The Appellate Court has
issued a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending outcome
of the company's appeal of the arbitration issue, according to
Advance America's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2008.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com/-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.  Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas, Inc., is a subsidiary of Advance America, Cash
Advance.


AMERICAN INT'L: Michigan Named Lead Plaintiff in Holders' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan has been named the lead plaintiff in a national class-
action lawsuit against insurance giant American International
Group, Inc., Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press reports.

A judge determines who will be the lead plaintiff.  Among
Michigan's claims is that it had the most victims -- roughly
574,000 -- who lost money in pension funds, according to the
Detroit Free Press report.

Michigan Treasurer Robert Kleine said in a press statement, "Our
decision to pursue lead-plaintiff status sends a clear message
that we will take every step necessary to recover lost funds and
ensure our investments do not fall victim to fraudulent
activity."

Together, Mr. Kleine and Attorney General Mike Cox said if the
case goes to trial, they will lead all strategy decisions.  They
will fight on behalf of AIG stock and bondholders and negotiate
settlement terms, reports the Detroit Free Press.


AMGEN INC: April 27 Fairness Hearing Set for AWP Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on the tentative class settlement of  the
lawsuit captioned, "In Re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average
Wholesale Price Litigation," involving Amgen Inc., is scheduled
for April 27, 2009.

Amgen and Immunex are named as defendants, either separately or
together, in numerous civil actions broadly alleging that they,
together with many other pharmaceutical manufacturers, reported
prices for certain products in a manner that allegedly inflated
reimbursement under Medicare and/or Medicaid programs and
commercial insurance plans, including co-payments paid to
providers who prescribe and administer the products.  The
complaints generally assert varying claims under the Medicare
and Medicaid statutes, as well as state law claims for deceptive
trade practices, common law fraud and various related state law
claims.  The complaints seek an undetermined amount of damages,
as well as other relief, including declaratory and injunctive
relief.

The AWP litigation was commenced against Amgen and Immunex on
Dec. 19, 2001, with the filing of "Citizens for Consumer
Justice, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al."
Additional cases have been filed since that time.  Most of these
actions have been consolidated, or are in the process of being
consolidated, in a federal Multi-District Litigation proceeding
("the MDL Proceeding"), captioned In Re: Pharmaceutical Industry
Average Wholesale Price Litigation MDL No. 1456 and pending in
the Massachusetts District Court.

In the MDL Proceeding, the Massachusetts District Court has set
various deadlines relating to motions to dismiss the complaints,
discovery, class certification, summary judgment and other pre-
trial issues.  For the private class action cases, the
Massachusetts District Court has divided the defendant companies
into a Track I group and a Track II group.  On Jan. 30, 2006,
the Massachusetts District Court certified three classes (one
nationwide class and two Massachusetts only classes) with
respect to the Track I group. Both Amgen and Immunex are in the
Track II group.  On March 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed a fourth
amended master consolidated complaint, which did not include
their motion for class certification as to the Track II group.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the Massachusetts District Court commenced the
Track I trial as to the two Massachusetts only classes
certified.  Closing arguments in that case were held on Jan. 26,
2007.

On March 7, 2008, the Track II defendants reached a tentative
class settlement of the MDL Proceeding, which was subsequently
amended on April 3, 2008.  The tentative Track II settlement
relates to claims against numerous defendants, including Amgen
Inc. and Immunex Corporation.  On July 2, 2008, the
Massachusetts District Court issued an order of preliminary
approval of the Track II defendants' class settlement and
scheduled a fairness hearing for Dec. 16, 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, at that hearing, the District Court was not
satisfied with several notice requirements the plaintiffs were
to have completed prior to the hearing and rescheduled the
fairness hearing for April 27, 2009.

Amgen Inc. -- http://www.amgen.com/-- is a biotechnology
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human
therapeutics-based on advances in cellular and molecular
biology.  The company operates in human therapeutics.  It
markets human therapeutic products in the areas of supportive
cancer care, nephrology and inflammation.  Its principal
products include Aranesp (darbepoetin alfa), EPOGEN (Epoetin
alfa), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), NEUPOGEN (Filgrastim) and
Enbrel (etanercept).


AMGEN INC: Motion v. Certification in Securities Suit Due April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen's response in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in a consolidated action captioned, "In re
Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation is due in April 2009."

Six federal class-action shareholder complaints filed against
Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M.
Fenton, Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow,
Edward V. Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson,
Jr., (the "Federal Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (the "California Central
District Court") were consolidated by the California Central
District Court into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc.
Securities Litigation.

The six lawsuits were "Kairalla v. Amgen Inc., et al.," "Mendall
v. Amgen Inc., et al.," "Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.," "Eldon v.
Amgen Inc., et al.," "Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.," and
"Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen
Inc., et al."

The consolidated complaint was filed with the California Central
District Court on Oct. 2, 2007.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to
purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices.

The complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations that,
throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly
marketed Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) for off-label uses while aware
that there were alleged safety signals with these products.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
legal fees and other relief deemed proper.

The Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 8,
2007.  On Feb. 4, 2008, the California Central District Court
granted in part, and denied in part, the Federal Defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

Specifically, the California Central District Court granted the
Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual
defendants Fritzky, Omenn, Johnson, Fenton and McNamee, but
denied the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
individual defendants Sharer, Nanula, Perlmutter and Morrow.
The California Central District Court granted plaintiffs leave
to amend the complaint.

Parties in the case are conducting class certification
discovery.  Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due
before the California Central District Court on March 4, 2009,
and Amgen's response in opposition is due 45 days later.  The
California Central District Court has not set a date for the
hearing on the motion for class certification, 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.

Amgen Inc. -- http://www.amgen.com/-- is a biotechnology
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human
therapeutics-based on advances in cellular and molecular
biology.  The company operates in human therapeutics.  It
markets human therapeutic products in the areas of supportive
cancer care, nephrology and inflammation.  Its principal
products include Aranesp (darbepoetin alfa), EPOGEN (Epoetin
alfa), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), NEUPOGEN (Filgrastim) and
Enbrel (etanercept).


AMGEN INC: "Swanston" Case Over AWP Claims Pending in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. continues to face an action over average wholesale
price tagged Robert J. Swanston v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products,
Inc., et al., 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 Arizona state class action was filed against Amgen and
Immunex on Dec. 20, 2002, in the Maricopa County, Arizona
Superior Court.

The Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court set a hearing on
plaintiffs' motion to certify a statewide class for May 13,
2005; however, the state court stayed the case in March 10,
2005.  The case remains stayed and another status conference was
held on March 17, 2008.

On Aug. 6, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
The hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment was
postponed due to need for assignment of a new judge.

On Oct. 20, 2008, the Track II defendants in the multi-district
litigation proceeding captioned, "In Re: Pharmaceutical Industry
Average Wholesale Price Litigation," filed a motion to stay all
proceedings.

Amgen Inc. -- http://www.amgen.com/-- is a biotechnology
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human
therapeutics-based on advances in cellular and molecular
biology.  The company operates in human therapeutics.  It
markets human therapeutic products in the areas of supportive
cancer care, nephrology and inflammation.  Its principal
products include Aranesp (darbepoetin alfa), EPOGEN (Epoetin
alfa), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), NEUPOGEN (Filgrastim) and
Enbrel (etanercept).


CHRYSLER LLC: Panel Transfers W.Va. Sludge Suits to New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred a
West Virginia class-action suit against automaker Chrysler LLC
and five similar suits to a New Jersey court, Steve Korris of
The West Virginia Record reports.

The panel assigned all six suits to Judge Faith Hochberg of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
transfer to New Jersey took effect on March 10, 2009, according
to The West Virginia Record report.

In general, the lawsuits allege that oil sludge accumulated in
2.7-liter Chrysler engines, creating a risk of overheating,
reports The West Virginia Record.

In the West Virginia case, Robert Trezza and Susan Trezza
proposed to lead a class-action suit in federal court claiming
Chrysler owes West Virginians at least $5 million.

The West Virginia Record reported that attorney Rodney Miller,
Esq. of Birmingham, Ala., identified his clients as Ohio
residents who formerly lived in Parkersburg.

The first page of their complaint stated that they bought a 1999
Dodge Intrepid.  The fourth page stated that they bought a 1999
Chrysler Sebring.  The plaintiffs claimed Chrysler built a
million defective engines from 1998 to 2004.

Mr. Miller wrote, "Chrysler received hundreds of complaints of
engine failure with the 2.7L engine, and was on notice that
these engines were defective and would fail prematurely even
with proper maintenance."

Chrysler equipped engines with five quart oil pumps when
Chrysler knew the engines needed six quart pumps, he wrote,
reports The West Virginia Record.


CIRCUIT CITY: Faces Suit in Virginia Alleging WARN Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Washington, D.C. (PRWEB) March 20, 2009 -- Kantrowitz
Goldhamer & Graifman and The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P., have filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, "Mondragon v. Circuit City
Stores, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-03073-KRH," on behalf
of several hundred employees who were laid off by Circuit City
in November 2008 and thereafter without receiving prior notice.

     Circuit City, the country's largest consumer electronics
retailer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on January
16, 2009.

     The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the
"WARN Act") provides that employers must give sixty days notice
to employees prior to a plant closing or mass layoff.  The
lawsuit seeks sixty days wages and benefits in lieu of the
notice.  The lead plaintiff, Marlon Mondragon, was employed by
Circuit City at its retail outlet located in the Palisades Mall,
West Nyack, New York. Mondragon filed this lawsuit on behalf of
all employees who were part of the layoffs.

     "The WARN Act provides for sixty days advance notice of
plant closings and mass layoffs to affected employees" said Gary
Graifman of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., an attorney
for the plaintiffs.  "Although the Bankruptcy Court has
authorized WARN Act payments to terminated employees in an
estimated amount of $8 to $10 million, Circuit City has not made
any payments at all."

     Co-Counsel Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P.,
added that the lawsuit seeks compliance with the federal laws
passed by Congress to protect employees from being abruptly
terminated without notice.

For more details, contact:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.
          Phone: 845-356-2570

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P.
          Phone: 202-429-2290


COLUMBIA GRAIN: Faces Montana Suit Claiming Contract Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Grain faces a purported class-action lawsuit by Great
Falls, Montana farmers who accuse the company of arbitrarily
raising the dockage rates, or penalty for grain defects, beyond
those specified in a contract, Peter Johnson of the Great Falls
Tribune reports.

In a recently filed amended complaint, attorneys Gary Zadick,
Esq., Roger Witt, Esq., and Channing Hartelius, Esq., stated
that they are seeking a class-action lawsuit involving 70 or 80
farmers.  Listed as representative plaintiffs were Cline Farms
Inc., John Diekhans, Klimas Farm Inc. and Missouri River Breaks
Ranch Inc., reports the Great Falls Tribune.

The farmers' lawsuit -- filed in state District Court -- states
that many area farmers entered into a contract before July 1,
2008, to sell their grain to the Columbia Grain elevator.  The
contract included a particular discount for dockage, a penalty
the elevator can claim for a load of grain that has such flaws
as cracked kernels or foreign material, according to the suit, a
copy of which was obtained by the Great Falls Tribune.

The plaintiffs say Columbia Grain charged a higher dockage rate
for grain presold to the company under the contract before July
1, but delivered afterward.

The suit states that Columbia Grain was notified of its failure
to follow the dockage rate listed in the contract, but it did
not properly compensate the farmers, reports the Great Falls
Tribune.

It contends that Columbia breached the terms of the contract by
charging higher dockage fees and should be required to pay
exemplary or punitive damages for fraudulent misrepresentation,
according to the Great Falls Tribune


CON-WAY INC: Ruling on WARN Act Violations Suit v. EWA Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's
decision in a class action lawsuit filed against Con-way Inc.'s
former subsidiary, Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. ("EWA"),
alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (the "WARN Act") is pending.

In February 2002, a lawsuit was filed against EWA in the
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under the WARN
Act, in connection with employee layoffs and ultimate
terminations due to the August 2001 grounding of EWA's airline
operations and the shutdown of the airline operations in
December 2001.

The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action
on behalf of affected employees laid off between August 11 and
August 15, 2001.

The WARN Act generally requires employers to give 60-days
notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of notice, of any
shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site of employment.

The estimated range for potential loss on this matter is zero to
approximately $9 million, including accrued interest.

The lawsuit was tried in early January 2009, and the parties are
awaiting a decision from the court, 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.

Con-way Inc. -- http://www.con-way.com/-- provides
transportation, logistics and supply-chain management services
for a range of manufacturing, industrial and retail customers.
Con-way's principal business units operate in regional and
transcontinental less-than-truckload (LTL) and full-truckload
freight transportation, contract logistics and supply-chain
management, truckload brokerage, and trailer manufacturing.
Con-way Inc. is divided into five segments: Freight, Logistics,
Truckload, Vector, and Other.


DIEBOLD INC: Appeal to Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the dismissal of the matter, "In re:
Diebold Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:2005cv02873," remains
pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Initially, several purported class-action suits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
against Diebold, Inc., and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

These complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecific
amount, fees and expenses related to such lawsuits and the
granting of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief.

The lawsuits are:

       -- "Konkol v. Diebold Inc., et al., No. 5:05CV2873 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Dec. 13, 2005)."

       -- "Ziolkowski v. Diebold Inc., et al., No. 5:05CV2912
          (N.D. Ohio, filed Dec. 16, 2005)."

       -- "New Jersey Carpenter's Pension Fund v. Diebold, Inc.,
          No. 5:06CV40 (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 6, 2006)."

       -- "Rein v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV296 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 9, 2006)."

       -- "Graham v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No.5:05CV2997 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Dec. 30, 2005)."

The Konkol, Ziolkowski, New Jersey Carpenter's Pension Fund,
Rein and Graham cases, which allege violations of the federal
securities laws, have been consolidated into a single
proceeding.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint in the consolidated securities litigation and entered
a judgment in favor of the defendants.

On Sept. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
litigation filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 14,
2008).

No further updates were provided 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 "In re: Diebold Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:2005-cv-02873," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Judge Peter C. Economus, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq.
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

          Lauren Block, Esq. (lblock@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg, Weiss & Bershad
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-631-8630
          Fax: 212-868-1229

               - and -

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli
          Ste. 1950
          55 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-621-8484
          Fax: 216-771-1632
          e-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
          Jones Day
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7207
          Fax: 216-579-0212
          e-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com


DIEBOLD INC: Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit Pending in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class-action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

Initially, several purported class-action lawsuits were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, by shareholders and participants in the
company's 401(k) savings plan, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties with respect to the 401(k) plan.

These complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecific
amount, fees and expenses related to such lawsuits and the
granting of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief.

The suits are:

       -- "McDermott v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV170
          (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 24, 2006)."

       -- "Barnett v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV361 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 15, 2006)."

       -- "Farrell v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV307 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 8, 2006)."

       -- "Forbes v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV324 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed Feb. 10, 2006)."

       -- "Gromek v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV579 (N.D.
          Ohio, filed March 14, 2006)."

The McDermott, Barnett, Farrell, Forbes and Gromek cases, which
allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the
401(k) plan, have been consolidated into a single proceeding
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 14, 2008).

The company did not disclose further developments regarding the
case in its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Diebold ERISA Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-
00170-PCE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Judge Peter C. Economus, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John R. Climaco, Esq. (jrclim@climacolaw.com)
          Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli
          Ste. 1950
          55 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-621-8484
          Fax: 216-771-1632

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. (mgyandoh@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:

          Donald L. Havermann, Esq. (dhavermann@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 202-739-5072
          Fax: 202-739-3001


               - and -

          John M. Newman, Jr., Esq. (jmnewman@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7207
          Fax: 216-579-0212


FEDEX KINKO: Ninth Circuit Reinstates Calif. Overtime Pay Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a
class-action lawsuit in which several hundred FedEx Kinko's
center managers in California are seeking overtime pay, CBS 5
reports.

In its ruling, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stated
that Judge Saundra Armstrong of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California used the wrong standard in when
she ruled in 2007 that the managers could not pursue their case
as a group or class, according to the CBS 5 report.

The panel sent the lawsuit, filed against FedEx Kinko's Office
and Print Services in 2005, back to Judge Armstrong's court for
further consideration.

CBS 5 reported that the issue in the case is whether the center
managers are executive employees who are exempt from overtime
pay.

The appeals court said preliminary evidence submitted by the
plaintiffs had established "a genuine issue" as to whether the
employees spent more than half their time on executive tasks and
were therefore exempt from overtime pay, reports CBS 5.


MAYO CLINIC: Ariz. Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in Nurses' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan R. Bolton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona denied three hospitals' motion for dismissal
from a class-action suit brought by nurses in Arizona who
accused a state health care association and participating
hospitals of operating a cartel and suppressing wages, but
tossed the plaintiffs' state law claims for interference with
business expectancy and unfair competition, Law360 reports.

In a ruling issued o March 19, 2009, Judge Bolton denied the
majority of a motion to dismiss filed by Mayo Clinic Arizona,
one of the defendants in the case, according to the Law360
report.


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Utah Securities Fraud Suit For $15M
----------------------------------------------------------------
NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. settled consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit that was pending with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah, Steven Oberbeck of The Salt Lake
Tribune reports.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah, investors who purchased
NPS stock between August 7, 2001, and May 2, 2006, will share in
a $15 million fund to be set up by the company, according to The
Salt Lake Tribune report.

In 20006, NPS Pharmaceuticals and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in several purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009).

The suits were:

     -- "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;"

     -- "Baird v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;"

     -- "McCormick v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.;" and

     -- "Skubella v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al."

All lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and
allege that between August 2005 and May 2006, the defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
market prospects for its proprietary drug, PREOS(R), in
violation of federal securities laws.  PREOS is for the
treatment of osteoporosis.

By order dated Sept. 14, 2006, the court consolidated the four
separately filed lawsuits into one action.  By order dated Nov.
17, 2006, the court appointed lead plaintiff and counsel for the
proposed class.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff and its counsel filed a
consolidated amended complaint asserting two federal securities
claims on behalf of lead plaintiff and all other shareholders of
the company who purchased publicly traded shares of company
between Aug. 7, 2001, and May 2, 2006.

The consolidated complaint asserts two claims:

      -- a claim founded upon Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the 1934 Act, and

      -- SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, which is
         asserted against all defendants, and a claim founded
         upon Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, which is asserted
         against the individual defendants.

Both claims are based on the allegations that, during the class
period, the company and the individual defendants made false and
misleading statements to the investing public concerning PREOS.

The consolidated complaint alleges that false and misleading
statements were made during the class period concerning the
efficacy of PREOS as a treatment for post-menopausal
osteoporosis, the potential market for PREOS, the dangers of
hypercalcemic toxicity as a side effect of injectable PREOS, and
the prospects of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of
NPS's New Drug Application for injectable PREOS.

The complaint also alleges claims of option backdating and
insider trading of stock during the class period.  The
consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, unspecified equitable or injunctive relief,
and an award of an unspecified amount for plaintiff's costs and
attorneys' fees.

On March 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, which the court denied on July 3, 2007.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the court entered a scheduling order setting a
trial date for the action on April 20, 2009.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed its motion to certify
the class of shareholders that it seeks to represent in the
action.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to this
motion, and it is currently pending before the court.

On Feb. 29, 2008, lead plaintiff filed its reply brief in
support of the motion for class certification.  On March 20,
2008, the court entered a stipulation by the parties staying the
action pending mediation commencing on June 3, 2008.

Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement to settle
this matter and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with respect to the same.  The MOU memorializes the terms
pursuant to which the plaintiffs and the defendants intend to
settle the case, subject to court approval.

Under the terms of the MOU, the defendants' directors' and
officers' liability insurers will pay $15 million in resolution
of the matter and all claims asserted against the company, and
the other named defendants will be dismissed with prejudice with
no admission or finding of wrongdoing on the part of any
defendant.

The company has recorded $15.0 million as Litigation receivable
and Litigation payable on its balance sheet as of Sept. 30,
2008.  The settlement is subject to negotiation of definitive
settlement documents and preliminary and final court approvals
following notices to shareholders and members of the class,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-00570-PGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah, Judge Paul G. Cassell, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
         Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
         Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
         One Penn Plaza, Ste. 2805
         New York City, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-279-5050

              - and -

         Scott A. Call, Esq. (scall@aklawfirm.com)
         Anderson & Karrenberg
         50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700
         Salt Lake City, UT 84101
         Phone: 801-534-1700


OMNICOM GROUP: No Argument Date Yet for Appeal to Dismissed Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An oral argument date has yet to be set for the plaintiffs'
appeal from the dismissal of their consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit filed against Omnicom Group, Inc., and
certain of its senior executives.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class action
complaints were filed.  The actions have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the caption, "In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 02-CV-4483 (RCC)," on behalf of a proposed class
of purchasers of the company's common stock between Feb. 20,
2001, and June 11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
company's public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:

      -- the company's calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth;

      -- the company's valuation of and accounting for certain
         Internet investments made by its Communicade Group,
         which it contributed to Seneca Investments LLC in 2001;
         and

      -- the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages plus costs and attorneys fees.  The defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint and, on March 28, 2005, the court
dismissed certain portions of the complaint.

The court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss
the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate
merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading.

Discovery was then concluded in the second quarter of 2007.  On
April 30, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for
class certification.

In the third quarter of 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claim.

Subsequently, on Jan. 28, 2008, the court granted the
defendants' motion in its entirety, dismissing all claims and
closing the case.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to
appeal the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The appeal has been fully
briefed.  The parties await a date for oral argument before the
Court of Appeals, 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 "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Judge John Keenan presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Max W. Berger, Esq. (mwb@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1403
          Fax: 212-554-1444

               - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

          David Harold Braff, Esq. (braffd@sullcrom.com)
          Stacey Rubin Friedman, Esq. (friedmans@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-558-4705
                 212-558-4000
          Fax: 212-558-3333
               212-558-3588


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Third-Party Payors' Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of third-party
payors against Schering-Plough Corp. remain pending, 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.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, Schering-Plough
made cash payments of US$435 million for the settlement of the
investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Massachusetts involving certain of the Company's sales,
marketing and clinical trial practices and programs, cash
payments of US$9 million of employee termination costs related
to the 2006 manufacturing streamlining and US$6 million related
to integration planning.

Several purported class action litigations were filed following
the announcement of the settlement of the Massachusetts
Investigation.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages on behalf of third-
party payors resulting from the allegations of off-label
promotion and improper payments to physicians that were at issue
in the Massachusetts Investigation (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
6, 2008).

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world.  The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Remanded N.J. Lawsuit Over Savings Plan Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded putative class-action complaint filed against
Schering-Plough Corp. for breach of fiduciary duties under the
Company's Employee Savings Plan (Plan) is ongoing in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On March 31, 2003, the Company was served with a putative class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging that Schering-Plough, retired
Chairman, CEO and President Richard Jay Kogan, its Plan
administrator, several current and former directors, and certain
former corporate officers breached their fiduciary obligations
to certain participants in the Plan.

The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly
suffered by the Plan.

The complaint was dismissed on June 29, 2004.  The plaintiffs
appealed.  On Aug. 19, 2005 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit reversed the dismissal by the District Court.

The matter has been remanded back to the District Court for
further proceedings (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 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

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world. The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: June 1 Trial Set for N.J. Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement agreement in the federal securities
litigation filed by a purported class of Schering-Plough Corp.
shareholders is scheduled to be presented for final approval at
a hearing on June 1, 2009.

Following Schering-Plough's announcement that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) had been conducting inspections of its
manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had
issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with
current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain named officers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that Schering-Plough failed to
disclose an alleged serious risk that a new drug application for
CLARINEX would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing
issues, and they allege that the Company failed to disclose the
alleged depth and severity of its manufacturing issues.

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of Schering-Plough stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb.
15, 2001.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.
The Court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003.

Notice of pendency of the class action was sent to members of
that class in July 2007.

Discovery has been completed, and motions for summary judgment
have been briefed (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2008).

On Feb. 18, 2009, the Court signed an order preliminarily
approving a settlement agreement.  The proposed settlement
agreement is scheduled to be presented for final approval at a
hearing on June 1, 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

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world. The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: K-DUR Suits Recommended for Dismissal in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A special master recommended in February 2009, that the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismiss the
purported antitrust class-action suits against Schering-Plough
Corp. with regards to the drug K-DUR on summary judgment.

The company reported that during the quarterly period ended
Sept. 30, 2008, discovery has been completed in several
purported antitrust class-action suits filed before the federal
and state courts against the Company with regards to the drug K-
DUR.

Schering-Plough Corp. had settled patent litigation with Upsher-
Smith, Inc. and ESI Lederle, Inc. relating to generic versions
of K-DUR, the company's long-acting potassium chloride product
supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and
Upsher Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications.

Following the commencement of an Federal Trade Commission
administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from
those settlements, which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's
favor, alleged class action suits were filed in federal and
state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-
DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle.

These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of
action.

These suits seek unspecified damages  (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 6, 2008).

In February 2009, a special master recommended that the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismiss the class
action lawsuits on summary judgment, 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.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world.  The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several purported class-action suits in connection with the sale
and promotion of Schering-Plough Corp.'s VYTORIN, ZETIA, and
ENHANCE products remain pending.

Since mid-January 2008, Schering-Plough has become aware of or
been served with litigation, including:

        -- civil class-action lawsuits alleging common law and
           state consumer fraud claims in connection with
           Schering-Plough's sale and promotion of the Merck &
           Co., Inc./Schering-Plough joint-venture products'
           VYTORIN and ZETIA;

        -- several putative shareholder securities class action
           lawsuits (where several officers are also named
           defendants) alleging false and misleading statements
           and omissions by Schering-Plough and its
           representatives related to the timing of disclosures
           concerning the ENHANCE results, allegedly in
           violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
           Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

        -- a putative shareholder securities class action
           lawsuit (where several officers and directors are
           also named), alleging material misstatements and
           omissions related to the ENHANCE results in the
           offering documents in connection with Schering-
           Plough's 2007 securities offerings, allegedly in
           violation of the Securities Act of 1933, including
           Section 11; and

        -- several putative class action suits alleging that
           Schering-Plough and certain officers and directors
           breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and
           seeking damages in the amount of losses allegedly
           suffered by the Plans (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6,
           2008).

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb.
27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world.  The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


VOYAGER LEARNING: Approval Sought For $20M Deal in Mich. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported shareholder class-action lawsuit
against Voyager Learning Co., formerly known as ProQuest Co.,
are seeking court approval for a $20 million settlement
resolving claims stemming from an accounting fraud scandal from
2001 to 2006, Law360 reports.

In a motion filed on March 19, 2009 asked the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to approve the
proposed deal, according to the Law360 report.

The settlement in the matter, "In Re: ProQuest Company
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-10619-AC-MKM," which was
filed against Voyager Learning Co., formerly known as ProQuest
Co., remains subject to final approval by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 23, 2009).

Between February and April 2006, four putative securities class-
action complaints, now consolidated and designated as "In re
ProQuest Company Securities Litigation," were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the
company and certain of its former and then-current officers and
directors (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2008).

Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the
associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the company's proposed
restatement.

On May 2, 2006, the court consolidated the four cases and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel.  By
stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed
pending restatement of the company's financial statements.

The lead plaintiffs subsequently asked the Court to lift the
stay of proceedings to enable them to file a consolidated
complaint, which they did on July 17, 2006.

The defendants then filed motions for sanctions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint.

Rather than respond to these motions, the lead plaintiffs moved
to reinstate the stay of proceedings, which was granted.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the Court again lifted the stay of proceedings
and ordered the lead plaintiffs to either respond to the
previously filed motions to dismiss and for sanctions, or to
file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On Jan. 24, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended
Consolidated Complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss on
March 15, 2007.

On July 22, 2008, Voyager Learning Co. reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated shareholder securities
class-action lawsuit.

The settlement will be funded largely by insurance.  Under the
terms of the agreement, the company would pay approximately $5
million in fees and settlement amounts to settle the class
action with remaining amounts to be paid by the insurers.

A Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement was signed by the
parties and the Court granted preliminary approval of such
agreement.  The company paid $4.0 million into an escrow account
on Jan. 9, 2009.  The final settlement is subject to final Court
approval and the participation of a sufficient percentage of the
putative class, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2009 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: ProQuest Company Securities Litigation, Case
No. 2:06-cv-10619-AC-MKM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Avern Cohn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq. (ffox@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          NY, NY 10022
          Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714
          Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667.7706
          Fax: (610) 667.7056
          Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com/

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael J. Faris, Esq. (michael.faris@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5800
          Chicago, IL 60606-6401
          Phone: 312-876-7700
          Fax: 312-993-9767

               - and -

          George B. Donnini, Esq. (donnini@butzel.com)
          Butzel Long
          150 W. Jefferson, Suite 100
          Detroit, MI 48226-4430
          Phone: 313-225-7000
          Fax: 313-225-7080


WILLIAMS PRODUCTION: Pays $4.7M to Settle Colo. Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Production RMT will pay about $4.7 million under a
partial settlement approved on March 20, 2009 in a class-action
lawsuit involving about 1,200 oil and gas royalty owners in
Garfield County, The Associated Press reports.

The settlement will help the company resolve litigation over how
it calculates payments to owners of mineral interests in the
county, according to the AP report.

The AP reported that Judge Denise Lynch credited attorneys on
both sides for coming up with what she called a "very, very fair
settlement" of some of the issues raised in the case, including
alleged accounting errors.

John Gardner of Citizen Telegram previously reported that
Williams Production RMT is offering about $5 million in back
royalty payments as part of a proposed partial settlement of a
purported class-action suit by mineral rights owners (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2009).

The Daily Sentinel previously reported that Grand Junction
attorney Nate Keever, Esq. filed a class-action suit in Garfield
County District Court against Williams Production, in an attempt
to recover unpaid royalties from the company (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006).

Named plaintiffs in the suit -- Sid Lindauer, his wife, Ruth,
and his brother, Ivo -- said they decided to act after two other
Garfield County mineral owners, the late Bill Clough and Joan
Savage, won millions of dollars from Williams over underpaid
royalties.  Diamond Minerals LLC is also listed as a plaintiff
in the suit.

Mr. Lindauer said they resisted leasing to Williams for some
time, but when faced with the prospect of the company "pooling"
the family mineral rights with others and getting their gas from
adjacent property, they relented.

Citizen Telegram reported that the plaintiffs filed the action
on Sept. 20, 2006, against Williams alleging that Williams was
underpaying royalties and had failed to refund amounts withheld
from royalty payments for ad valorem taxes in Garfield County in
excess of the tax that Williams actually paid to the county on
behalf of such royalty owners, reads a statement on the Fleeson,
Gooing, Coulson & Kitch LLC website, the law firm handling the
class-action portion of the case.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Nate Keever, Esq., Williams
withheld money, like a real estate ESCROW account, to pay taxes
on the royalty payments for the owners.  However, the suit
alleges Williams did not refund any leftover funds.  The suit
also alleges that Williams underpaid owners for other
hydrocarbons extracted, Mr. Keever tells Citizen Telegram.

Traditionally, production companies pay 12.5 percent of the
profits from a well to the mineral rights owners, reports
Citizen Telegram.

According to a preliminary payment schedule provided by
Williams, a total allocation of $5,222,085 are to be disbursed
to more than 1,000 mineral rights owners in Garfield County with
payments ranging from as low as $0.03 to upward of $402,000 for
individual mineral rights owners or groups, Citizen Telegram
reported.

The amounts are gross payments before reductions for attorney's
fees, expenses and administrative expenses, but include interest
up to May 19, 2009, the anticipated date of distribution, the
document reads.

A fairness hearing is set for March 20, 2009 in Garfield County
District Court in Glenwood Springs at which time any objections
from the plaintiffs would be heard, according to the Citizen
Telegram report.

For more details, contact:

          Nate Keever, Esq.
          Dufford Waldeck Milburn & Krohn LLP
          744 Horizon Court, Suite 300
          Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
          Phone: (970) 241-5500
          Fax: (970) 243-7738
          Web site: http://www.dwmk.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DEUTSCHE BANK: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, March 20, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (No.
09-cv-2556), against Deutsche Bank AG ("DB" or the "Company"),
certain of its subsidiaries, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters, on behalf of a class of: 1)
purchasers or acquirers of the 6.625% Noncumulative Trust
Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust IX
(NYSE: DTT: 10.63, 0, 0%) pursuant to the public offering in
July 2007, and/or 2) purchasers or acquirers of the 7.35%
Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank
Capital Funding Trust X (NYSE: DCE) pursuant to the public
offering in November 2007.

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially false and misleading registration statement,
prospectuses, and other documents.

     These documents failed to disclose risks that:

       -- The Company failed to properly record provisions for
          credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities,
          commercial real estate loans, and exposure to monoline
          insurers;

       -- The Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent it from improperly recording provisions for
          credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities,
          commercial real estate loans, and the Company's
          exposure to monoline insurers;

       -- The Company's internal risk management systems were
          inadequate to limit the Company's exposure to credit
          trading, equity derivatives, and proprietary equity
          trading; and

       -- The Company was not as well-capitalized as
          represented, and, notwithstanding the billions of
          dollars raised in the Offerings, the Company would
          have to raise an additional EUR 10 billion by selling
          equity in the Company to the German government.

     Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

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


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     PITTSBURGH, Mar 20, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Notice is
hereby given that the Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the
"Company")(Nasdaq: LVLT) between October 24, 2006 and October
23, 2007, inclusive (the expanded "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Level 3 and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     Level 3 engages in the communications business in North
America and Europe.  The Company's network and Internet services
include transport services, high speed Internet protocol
services, dedicated Internet access, virtual private network
services, colocation services and dark fiber services. Between
December 2005 and January 2007, Level 3 also acquired several
companies.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Level 3's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate that:

       -- the Company's efforts to integrate the numerous
          acquired companies were not going well;

       -- specifically, the Company was experiencing an increase
          in service activation times, which was negatively
          impacting the Company's service installation intervals
          and rate of revenue growth;

       -- the Company was also experiencing challenges in its
          service management processes that were resulting in
          longer response times to resolve customers' network
          service issues;

       -- steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were
          not working, and actually were further complicating
          the issues and making them worse;

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

       -- the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

     On October 23, 2007, Level 3 shocked the market when it
revealed that the Company was having extensive difficulties
integrating the systems and customer-service processes of the
numerous companies it had acquired, and these difficulties were
causing an increase in service activation times.  Moreover,
Level 3 revised downward the Company's previously issued
guidance for fourth quarter 2007 and full year 2008.  On this
news, shares of Level 3 declined $1.04 per share, or
approximately 24%, to close on October 23, 2007 at $3.28 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Level 3 securities during the Class Period (the
"Class").

For more information, contact:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. (yateslaw@aol.com)
          Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, Pittsburgh
          Phone: 800-391-5164 or 412-391-5164
          Fax: 412-471-1033


STEEL DYNAMICS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, March 20, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- The
Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana on behalf of common stock purchasers of
Steel Dynamics, Inc. ("STLD" or the "Company") between January
26, 2009 and March 11, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), for
violations of the federal securities laws.

     The complaint charges STLD and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results.

     Defendants failed to disclose that:

       -- demand for STLD's products showed continuing weakness
          in Q1 2009;

       -- STLD's inventories in its Flat Roll Division were at
          excessive levels and were materially impaired by
          approximately $70 million;

       -- given the continuing weakness in demand for STLD's
          products in Q1 2009, and in the absence of any
          existing facts to indicate or exhibit a reversal in
          that adverse trend, as well as the impaired value of
          inventories in STLD's Flat Roll Division, defendants
          lacked a reasonable basis in fact for their earnings
          guidance for Q1 2009; and

       -- Defendant Bates engaged in unusual insider selling and
          realized proceeds of in excess of $30 million.

     When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March
11, 2009, the price of STLD's common stocked dropped 15% to
close at $7.25, on volume of more than 33 million shares, many
times the average trading day volume for STLD common stock.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *