CAR_Public/090325.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 25, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 59

                           Headlines

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Lawsuits Over Shipping Operations Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Brozovich" Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Option Consommateurs & St-Pierre's Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Several Lawsuits Over ERISA Violations
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Option Consommateurs and Fortin's Suit Pending

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Fraud Complaint
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Remanded "Ross" Suit Ongoing in District Court
AMGEN INC: Amended Consolidated Third-Party Payors' Suit Pending
AMGEN INC: Appeal to Dismissal of "Harris" Suit Remains Pending
AMGEN INC: "Ramos" Suit Remains Stayed Pending "Harris" Outcome

APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over 3G iPhones' Speed, Performance
BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Funds Seek Lead Plaintiff Appointment
BEST BUY: N.Y. Court Certifies Suit Over "Price Match Guarantee"
EBAY INC: March 18 Hearing in Calif. Suit Rescheduled to April 1
ECOLAB INC: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Wage Hour Claims

EXXON MOBIL: Remanded Suit Over Crude Oil Damage Claims Ongoing
HOLLAND & KNIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Arthur Nadel's Hedge Funds
HOLLINGER INT'L: June 11 Hearing Set for $37.5M Suit Settlement
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Cancer-Causing Content in Products
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: June 16 Hearing Set for $1M Agreement

PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Appeals Court Upholds Suit's Dismissal
UNITED STATES: Court to Notify Veterans on $20M Suit Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Kirby McInerney Announces Stock Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit
STEEL DYNAMICS: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ind.


                           *********

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Lawsuits Over Shipping Operations Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., and its main subsidiary, Matson
Navigation Co., Inc., continue to face several purported class-
action lawsuits over their domestic shipping carrier operations.

The company and Matson have been named as defendants in civil
lawsuits purporting to be class-action lawsuits alleging
violations of the antitrust laws and seeking treble damages and
injunctive relief.  As of Jan. 8, 2009, the company was aware of
26 such lawsuits.

All of the lawsuits have been or will be transferred and
consolidated into a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington in Seattle purporting to be a
class action.

Another domestic shipping carrier operating in the Hawaii and
Guam trades, Horizon Lines, Inc., has also been named as a
defendant in the consolidated civil lawsuit.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
Feb. 2, 2009.

The company and Matson intend to file a motion to dismiss the
complaint by March 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.

Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. -- http://www.alexanderbaldwin.com/--
is a diversified corporation with most of its operations
centered in Hawaii.  The business industries of the company
constitute transportation, real estate and agribusiness.  The
Company's ocean transportation operations, related shore side
operations in Hawaii, related intermodal, truck brokerage and
logistics services are conducted by its wholly owned subsidiary,
Matson Navigation Company, Inc. and two Matson subsidiaries.
Its property development and agribusiness operations are
conducted by A&B and certain other subsidiaries of A&B.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Brozovich" Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. faces a putative class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

On Feb. 20, 2009, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned Brozovich v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault
and Daniel T. Henry.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with certain alleged misstatements regarding the
credit quality of the company's credit card customers.

The purported class covers the period from March 1, 2007 to
Nov. 12, 2008.

The action seeks unspecified damages and costs and fees,
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.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Option Consommateurs & St-Pierre's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amex Bank of Canada, a subsidiary of American Express Co.,
continues to face a class action captioned, "Option
Consommateurs and Joel-Christian St-Pierre v. Bank of Montreal
et al.," in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec.

In May 2005, Amex Bank of Canada was added as a defendant to a
motion to authorize a class action captioned, "Option
Consommateurs and Joel-Christian St-Pierre v. Bank of Montreal
et al.," filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Quebec.

The motion, which also names as defendants Royal Bank of Canada,
Toronto-Dominion Bank, HSBC Bank of Canada, among others,
alleges that the defendants violatedthe Quebec Consumer
Protection Act ("QCPA") by imposing finance charges on credit
card transactions prior to 21 days following the receipt of the
statement containing the charge.

It is alleged that the QCPA provisions, which require a 21-day
grace period prior to imposing finance charges, applies to
credit cards issued by Amex Bank of Canada in Quebec and that
finance charges imposed prior to this grace period violate the
QCPA.

The proposed class seeks reimbursement of all finance charges
imposed in violation of the QCPA, CDN$100 in punitive damages
per class member, interest and fees and costs, 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.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Several Lawsuits Over ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. faces putative class actions alleging
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In December 2008, a putative class action captioned, "Obester v.
American Express Company, et al.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain ERISA
obligations by:

   -- allowing the investment of American Express Retirement
      Savings Plan assets in American Express common stock when
      American Express common stock was not a prudent
      investment;

   -- misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts to
      Plan participants in connection with the administration of
      the Plan; and

   -- breaching certain fiduciary obligations.

The company is also a defendant in three other putative class
actions making allegations similar to those made in the Obester
matter:

   (1) Tang v. American Express Company, et. al., filed on
       Dec. 29, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
       Southern District of New York,

   (2) Miner v. American Express Company et. al., filed on
       Feb. 4, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
       District of New York, and

   (3) DiLorenzo v. American Express Company et. al., filed on
       Feb. 10, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the
       Southern District of New York.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Option Consommateurs and Fortin's Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The matter captioned, "Option Consommateurs and Benoit Fortin v.
Amex Bank of Canada et al.," remains pending in the Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, according to American
Express Co.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008

Amex Bank of Canada is a subsidiary of American Express Co.

In November 2006, in the matter (originally filed in July 2003),
the Court authorized a class action against Amex Bank of Canada,
Citibank Canada, MBNA Canada, Diners Club International, Capital
One and Royal Bank of Canada.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have violated the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act ("QCPA") by imposing finance
charges on credit card transactions prior to 21 days following
the receipt of the statement containing the charge.

It is alleged that the QCPA provisions which require a 21-day
grace period prior to imposing finance charges applies to credit
cards issued by Amex Bank of Canada in Quebec and that finance
charges imposed prior to this grace period violate the Act.

The class seeks reimbursement of all finance charges imposed in
violation of the Act, CDN$200 in punitive damages per class
member, interest and fees and costs.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Fraud Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of the amended
complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit filed against the American Express Co., under the
caption, "In re American Express Company Securities Litigation,
Case No. 02-CV-5533 (RMB)."

Beginning in mid-July 2002, 12 putative class-action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In October 2002, these cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re American Express Company Securities Litigation."

These lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws
and the common law in connection with alleged misstatements
regarding certain investments in high-yield bonds and write-
downs in the 2000-2001 time frame.

The purported class covers the period from July 26, 1999 to July
17, 2001.  The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages as
well as disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and interest.

On March 31, 2004, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In August 2006, the Court of Appeals, without expressing any
views whatsoever on the merits of the cases, vacated the
District Court's judgment and remanded all claims to the
District Court for further proceedings.

More particularly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's ruling that two of the plaintiff's claims in an amended
complaint did not "relate back" to the original complaint and
were thus time-barred under the statute of limitations period.

As a result, the Court of Appeals decided that it was prudent to
remand all claims back to the District Court so that plaintiffs
could file a new amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint on January 5, 2007.

On or about March 6, 2007, the company filed a motion to strike
the amended complaint, which the District Court denied on July
24, 2007.

The company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was granted in September 2008.

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal, 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 styled "Slayton, et al. v. American Express Company,
et al., Case No. 02-CV-5533 (RMB)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M.
Berman, presiding.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Remanded "Ross" Suit Ongoing in District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded class-action suit styled "Ross, et al. v. American
Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and
American Express Centurion Bank," is ongoing in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The purported class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York back in July 2004.

The complaint alleges that AMEX conspired with Visa, MasterCard
and Diners Club in the setting of foreign conversion rates and
in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their
cardmember agreements.  The suit seeks injunctive relief and
unspecified damages.

The class is defined as "all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club
general purpose cardholders who used cards issued by any of the
MDL Defendant Banks...." American Express cardholders are not
part of the class.

In September 2005, the Court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the action and preliminarily certified an injunction
class of Visa and MasterCard cardholders to determine the
validity of Visa's and MasterCard's cardmember arbitration
clauses.

American Express filed a motion for reconsideration with the
District Court, which motion was denied in September 2006.  The
company filed an appeal from the District Court's order denying
its motion to compel arbitration.

In October 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit denied the company's appeal and remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings.

No further updates regarding the case 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.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMGEN INC: Amended Consolidated Third-Party Payors' Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. continues to face an amended complaint in the
consolidated third-party payors lawsuit pending before the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("MDL").

In 2007, several putative class-action lawsuits were filed by
third-party payors against Amgen in the California Central
District Court.

The suits are styled:

   -- the United Food & Commercial Workers Central Pennsylvania
      and Regional Health & Welfare Fund v. Amgen Inc. (the
      "United Food Matter"),

   -- the Vista Healthplan Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (the "Vista
      Healthplan Matter"),

   -- the Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund
      v. Amgen. Inc. (the "Painters Matter"),

   -- the Ironworkers v. Amgen Inc. (the "Ironworkers Matter")

   -- Watters (State of Michigan) v. Amgen Inc. (the Watters
      Matter"), and

   -- Sheet Metal v. Amgen Inc. (the "Sheet Metal Matter"),

In each action, the plaintiff alleges that Amgen marketed its
anemia medicines, EPOGEN(R) and Aranesp(R), for "off-label"
uses, or uses that are not approved by the Food and Drugs
Administration, and claims that, as a result, the plaintiff paid
for unwarranted prescriptions.

Specifically, the complaints allege that Amgen promoted
EPOGEN(R) and Aranesp(R) for: treating cancer patients who are
not on chemotherapy; treating quality of life symptoms
associated with anemia, such as fatigue; and reaching hemoglobin
targets above the FDA-approved level.

Each plaintiff asserts claims under California's consumer
protection statutes and for breach of implied warranty and
unjust enrichment and plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide
class of individuals and entities.

On Oct. 29, 2007, in the United Food Matter, the Vista
Healthplan Matter and the Painters Matter, a motion to dismiss
and a motion to transfer each of the three cases were heard
before California Central District Court.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the United Food Matter was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania, the Vista
Healthplan Matter was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida and the Painters Matter was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

On Dec. 4, 2007, the Watters Matter was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the Ironworkers Matter was transferred back to
the District Court of New Jersey.  On Feb. 4, 2008, the
California Central District Court heard defendants' motion to
dismiss and motion to transfer the Sheet Metal Matter back to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

On Jan. 10, 2008, plaintiffs in the United Food Matter brought a
motion before MDL seeking to have the five third-party payor
lawsuits consolidated into one MDL case and assigned to the
Northern District of Illinois.  Defendants filed an opposition
to the MDL consolidation motion on Feb. 3, 2008.

On Jan. 11, 2008, the Vista Healthplan Matter was voluntarily
dismissed.

On April 8, 2008, the Judicial Panel on MDL granted plaintiffs'
motion in the United Food Matter to centralize the five third-
party payor lawsuits into one MDL case for the purpose of
consolidated pre-trial proceedings and the five cases have been
transferred back to the California Central District Court.  The
five cases will be transferred back to their respective
jurisdictions if and when they are set for trial.

On July 2, 2008, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed an amended and
consolidated complaint.  Defendants' motion to dismiss before
the California Central District Court was filed on Aug. 4, 2008.
On Dec. 17, 2008, the MDL Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss without prejudice and, on Jan. 30, 2009, plaintiffs
filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which is
predicated on similar underlying allegations.  Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is due before the MDL
Court on March 6, 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.

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: Appeal to Dismissal of "Harris" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the dismissal of the claims in the
class-action lawsuit styled, "Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen,
Inc., et al.," remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit.

On Aug. 20, 2007, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) class-action lawsuit, "Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al.,"
was filed against Amgen and certain members of its Board of
Directors in the California Central District Court.

Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and various Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former
employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and Savings
Manufacturing Plan and the Amgen Savings Plan of the alleged
off-label promotion of both Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) while a
number of studies allegedly demonstrated safety concerns in
patients using Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs).

On Feb. 4, 2008, the California Central District Court dismissed
the complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who had
filed claims against Amgen Inc.  The claims alleged by the
second plaintiff, Ramos, were also dismissed but the court
granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the
California Central District Court to dismiss the claims of both
plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit, which remains pending before the 9th Circuit,
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 "Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-05442-PSG-PLA," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. (gregorek@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
          Symphony Tower, 750 B St., Ste. 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-239-4599

Representing the defendants is:

          Mack Anderson, Esq.
          Mayer Brown
          350 S. Grand Ave., 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: 213-229-9500
          Web site: http://www.mayerbrown.com/


AMGEN INC: "Ramos" Suit Remains Stayed Pending "Harris" Outcome
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit tagged, "Dennis F. Ramos v. Amgen, Inc.
et al.," remains stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the
case styled, "Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., et al."

On Aug. 20, 2007, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) class-action lawsuit of "Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al.,"
was filed against Amgen and certain members of its Board of
Directors in the California Central District Court.

Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and various Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former
employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and Savings
Manufacturing Plan and the Amgen Savings Plan of the alleged
off-label promotion of both Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) while a
number of studies allegedly demonstrated safety concerns in
patients using Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs).

On Feb. 4, 2008, the California Central District Court dismissed
the complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who had
filed claims against Amgen Inc.  The claims alleged by the
second plaintiff, Mr. Ramos, were also dismissed but the court
granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the
California Central District Court to dismiss the claims of both
plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit, which remains pending before the 9th Circuit.

On May 19, 2008, Mr. Ramos in the "Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al.," action filed another lawsuit captioned, "Ramos v. Amgen
Inc., et al.," in the California Central District Court.  The
lawsuit is another ERISA class action.

The "Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al.," matter names the same
defendants in the "Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al.," matter plus
four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing Limited, Richard
Nanula, Dennis Fenton and the Fiduciary Committee.  Pursuant to
the parties' stipulation, the Ramos matter has been stayed
pending the outcome of the Harris matter appeal, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Dennis F. Ramos v. Amgen, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:08-cv-03316-PSG-PLA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. (gregorek@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
          750 B. Street Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-239-4599
          Fax: 619-234-4599

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
          Gainey and McKenna
          295 Madison Avenue 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300
          Fax: 212-983-0383

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. (Rifkin@whafh.com)
          Law Offices of Mark C. Rifkin
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the defendants is:

          Steven O. Kramer, Esq. (skramer@mayerbrown.com)
          Mayer Brown LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: 213-229-9500


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over 3G iPhones' Speed, Performance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T, Inc. are
facing a purported class-action suit by a consumer who claims to
have been misled by false advertising about the speed and
performance of 3G iPhones, Bloomberg reports.

The suit, captioned, "Dickerson v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:09-cv-01188-DMC-MF," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on March 16, 2009 by Damone
Dickerson.

According to the complaint, Apple's iPhone 3G failed to deliver
on its promises to transfer data rapidly on AT&T's third-
generation network.

Bloomberg reported that the complaint is claiming that Apple led
consumers to believe they were connected to AT&T's 3G network
and receiving full, continuous 3G speeds.  However, Mr.
Dickerson and others "only experience 3G bandwidth and transfer
rates a fraction of the time that they are connected to the AT&T
network."

"Apple and AT&T have engaged in a collaborated scheme to deceive
the plaintiff and other consumers, since the 3G iPhone and
AT&T's 3G network are faulty and rarely provide 3G connectivity
to its customers," according to the complaint.

The complaint, which seeks class action or group status, alleges
the companies violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.  It also
accuses them of negligence, breach of warranty, breach of
contract and breach of express and implied warranty, reports
Bloomberg.

Mr. Dickerson is seeking unspecified damages, according to the
Bloomberg report.

The suit is "Dickerson v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:09-cv-01188-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq. (jcecchi@carellabyrne.com)
          Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein,
               PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: (973) 994-1744

Representing the defendants is:

          Alexander Granovsky, Esq. (agranovsky@crowell.com)
          Crowell & Moring LLP
          590 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-223-4000
          Fax: 212-895-4201


BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Funds Seek Lead Plaintiff Appointment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and
California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) sought to
lead a a class-action lawsuit against Bank of America, that
accuses the company of mis-stating or omitting crucial
information about the financial health of acquired investment
bank Merrill Lynch, Reuters reports.

On March 23, 2009, the first and third largest U.S. pension
funds filed a joint motion to the U.S. District Court of the
Southern District of New York to be designated lead plaintiff in
class actions against Bank of America stemming from its merger
with Merrill Lynch, according to the Reuters report.

According to the pension fund, they were trying to protect the
retirement security of their over 2 million members, reports
Reuters.

On Feb. 20, 2009, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Bank of
America Corp. between July 21, 2008 and Jan 20, 2009 (Class
Period) and who were damaged thereby, including all persons who
acquired BofA common stock pursuant and/or traceable to a false
and misleading registration statement and prospectuses
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with BofA's Oct. 7, 2008 secondary common stock
offering (Offering), and further, including persons who owned
BofA stock on October 10, 2008 and were entitled to vote on
BofA's merger with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
pursuant to a false and misleading proxy statement (Merger
Proxy) (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2009).

The complaint charges BofA, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Offering with violations
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding both
the Company's and Merrill Lynch's business and financial
results.  Defendants concealed BofA's and Merrill Lynch's
failures to properly value their mortgage-related assets and
BofA's failure to engage in proper due diligence in determining
the fairness of its proposed deal with Merrill Lynch. As a
result of defendants' false statements, BofA's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $38.13 per share on Oct. 1, 2008, and then retaining
value in the $22-$25 per share range even as the stock market
collapsed in early October 2008.  It was at this time that BofA
sold 455 million shares of its common stock at $22 per share in
the Offering, which raised some $10 billion.

Then, on Jan. 16, 2009, BofA announced its first quarterly loss
in 17 years. BofA announced a $1.8 billion loss for the fourth
quarter of 2008 and slashed its dividend from $0.32 to a penny a
quarter.  In addition to its own losses, BofA reported that
Merrill Lynch's preliminary results for the fourth quarter of
2008 indicated a net loss of $15.3 billion.  BofA further
confirmed that it would receive an additional $20 billion in
assistance from the U.S. Government.  Between Jan. 15 and 20,
2009, BofA's stock lost a dramatic 50% of its value, declining
from $10.20 per share on Jan. 14, 2009 to close at $5.10 per
share on Jan. 20, 2009.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, and/or which were omitted from the
Registration Statement and/or from the Merger Proxy, were as
follows:

       -- both the Company and Merrill Lynch failed to
          adequately reserve for mortgage-related exposure,
          causing their balance sheets and financial results to
          be artificially inflated;

       -- the Company and its advisors had failed to engage in
          proper due diligence in assessing the fairness of the
          deal with Merrill Lynch;

       -- the Company's acquisition of Merrill Lynch would have
          disastrous results on the Company's capital position
          and overall operations;

       -- Merrill Lynch had not substantially decreased its risk
          exposure to troubled mortgage-related assets;

       -- the significant deterioration of Merrill Lynch's
          financial position, including its substantial fourth
          quarter 2008 loss, were sufficient to trigger
          termination of the merger;

       -- the Company had to approach the U.S. Government for
          additional funding and financial guarantees in
          December 2008 in order to complete its acquisition of
          Merrill Lynch; and

       -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to
          withstand the significant deterioration in the
          subprime market and, as a result, BofA would be forced
          to seek government funding in order to raise
          significant amounts of additional capital.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BofA during
the Class Period and who were damaged thereby, including all
persons who acquired BofA common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the
Offering and/or who owned BofA stock on Oct. 10, 2008 and were
entitled to vote on BofA's merger with Merrill Lynch pursuant to
the Merger Proxy (Class).

For more details, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/bofa/


BEST BUY: N.Y. Court Certifies Suit Over "Price Match Guarantee"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Best Buy Co.,
Inc., alleging false advertising and deceptive practices in
connection to its "price match guarantee," Jacqui Cheng of Ars
Technica reports.

The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that Best Buy
Co. Inc. is facing a class complaint in Manhattan District Court
alleging it fails to deliver on its "price match guarantee"
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 15, 2008).

The company allegedly promised to match any local competitor's
prices and refund the difference plus 10% if a Best Buy customer
has already bought the item.

Named plaintiff Thomas Jermyn claims Best Buy refused to match
an $860 price for a Nikon camera he paid Best Buy $1,200 for,
and charged him $180 to return it.

The suit is "Jermyn v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-
00214-CM-DCF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Colleen McMahon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gary Steven Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: 845-356-2570
          Fax: (845) 356-4335

               - and -

          Michael Scott Green, Esq. (green@lawgp.com)
          Green & Pagano, LLP
          522 Route 18, P.O. Box 428
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Phone: (732)-390-0480
          Fax: (732)-390-0481

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer G. Daugherty, Esq. (jgdaugherty@rkmc.com)
          Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. (MN)
          2800 LaSalle Plaza
          800 LaSalle Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 349-8293
          Fax: (612) 339-4181

               - and -

          Todd C. Norbitz, Esq. (tnorbitz@foley.com)
          Foley & Lardner, LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-682-7474
          Fax: 212-687-2329


EBAY INC: March 18 Hearing in Calif. Suit Rescheduled to April 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing scheduled for March 18, 2009, in the matter, "In Re
eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF,"
has been rescheduled for April 1, 2009, to allow the parties to
meet and try and resolve disputes in the ongoing litigation
process, Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com reports.

The hearing will address eBay's motion for leave to serve
additional interrogatories on plaintiff Michael Malone and the
plaintiffs' motion for a discovery management plan, according to
the AuctionBytes.com report.

Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com previously reported that eBay,
Inc. noted in its 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that a class certification motion is
scheduled for June 2009 in the consolidated litigation (Class
Action Reporter, March 2, 2009).

The plaintiffs will file their motion to certify a class, eBay
will likely oppose the motion, in which case the plaintiffs
would reply.  The court will then have a hearing to decide
whether to certify a class of eBay sellers, according to the
AuctionBytes.com report.

Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com previously reported that the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
ordered the consolidation of two purported antitrust class
actions that were filed against eBay, Inc. in April 2007 (Class
Action Reporter May 11, 2007).

In consolidating the cases, "The court finds that, "Malone v.
eBay Inc., Case No. 07-01882-JF," and "Farmer, et al. v. Ebay,
Inc., Case No. C-07-02209," are related actions and such cases
are hereby consolidated into "Malone v. eBay Inc.," and are
referred to herein as the consolidated action."

The consolidated case is now know by the caption, "In Re eBay
Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," and is
pending before Judge Jeremy Fogel.

                 "Malone" Litigation Background

According to an earlier report by AuctionBytes.com, "Malone" is
an antitrust class action that was initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas but has been
refiled in California, where eBay is headquartered (Class Action
Reporter April 10, 2007).

The suit generally accuses eBay of illegally tying and steering
customers to use its wholly owned subsidiary, PayPal, Inc., to
monopolize payments and unjustly enriches itself.

The original complaint alleges "sellers are forced to accept a
payment procedure that imposes upon them the obligation to pay
needless and supracompetitive fees to defendant."

The suit contends, "sellers are forced to accept eBay's payment
process as a condition of being able to use the eBay auction
process."

Lead plaintiff in the suit is Michael Malone of Texas, who sold
a pair of Sansui SP-2000 speakers on eBay for $200 in December
2005.

Mr. Malone is representing all customer sellers of eBay who are
and have been required to honor all payment methods encompassed
by PayPal in respect of sales and purchases on eBay.com since
2002.

Specifically, the suit alleges:

     (1) eBay leverages its monopoly in the on-line auction
         market by requiring that sellers utilize an on-line
         payment system that imposes needless and
         supracompetitive fees on them;

     (2) eBay has economic power in the on-line auction market
         sufficient to restrain competition in respect of
         payment methods;

     (3) eBay's coercion has achieved or has the dangerous
         probability of achieving monopoly power in the market
         for on-line payment systems for use in on-line
         auctions; and

     (4) the amount of commerce is substantial.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) the definition of the relevant product and geographic
         markets;

     (b) whether defendant has sufficient economic power in the
         tying market to restrain appreciably competition in the
         tied product market;

     (c) whether defendant uses coercion in the market for on-
         line auctions to monopolize (or attempt to monopolize)
         the market for on-line payment systems for use in on-
         line auctions;

     (d) whether the amount of commerce affected is substantial;

     (e) antitrust impact; and

     (f) whether the practices are ongoing.

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the
class, prays for judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure on behalf of the class, defined herein,
        declaring plaintiff to be an adequate representative of
        that class, declaring plaintiff's counsel to counsel to
        the class;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally monopolized and maintained a monopoly in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay illegally attempted to monopolize a market in
        violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade in
        violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 2;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Profession Code
        Section 16720 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay violated California Business and Professions Code
        Section 17200 et seq.;

     -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period
        eBay was unjustly enriched;

     -- awarding judgment against eBay, in an amount to be
        proved at trial, treble the amount of damages suffered
        by the members of the class to their business and
        property interests, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and
        interest as allowable by law, for eBay's violations of
        the Sherman Act and applicable California law;

     -- enjoining eBay from continuing with its anticompetitive
        behavior (including the tie and the monopoly maintenance
        of the on-line payment services market) in violation of
        the Sherman Act;

     -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class
        such other relief that the court may consider necessary
        or appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the
        markets affected by eBay's unlawful conduct; and

     -- granting such other relief as the court may deem just
        and proper.

                  "Farmer" Litigation Background

"Farmer" is a class-action complaint filed on April 23, 2007 by
Ann Farmer and Todd Van Pelt.  It alleges that eBay possesses
monopoly power in the online auction market, estimating it
controls over 90 percent of the market in part due to the
"network effect," according to a report by Ina Steiner of
AuctionBytes.com.

The complaint goes on to cite eBay's alleged anti-competitive
activities, saying the company acquires its competitors; forces
sellers to use PayPal; and blocks competitor Google from online
auctions.

It alleges that, as a result, actual and potential competition
has been restrained and that eBay sellers who accept PayPal
"have paid or are likely to pay artificially inflated and supra
competitive fees."

The consolidated suit is "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael McShane, Esq. (mmcshane@audetlaw.com)
         Audet & Partners LLP
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-568-2555
         Fax: 415-568-2556

Representing the defendants is:

         Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
         Phone: (415) 984-8947


ECOLAB INC: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Wage Hour Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab, Inc. continues to face several class-action lawsuits
involving wage hour claims, 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.

An arbitration decision in conjunction with a settlement was
rendered on Sept. 24, 2007, concerning two California class-
action lawsuits involving wage hour claims affecting former and
current employees of the company's Pest Elimination Division.

If upheld, the company will pay approximately $27.4 million,
plus post-award interest in settlement of the cases.

The company has appealed the decision and thereby the
settlement.  The company has fully accrued for this award and
the related interest as of Dec. 31, 2008.

One other wage hour lawsuit has been certified for class-action
status.  The company has completed an analysis and established
an accrual for this claim in accordance with SFAS 5.

Ecolab, Inc. -- http://www.ecolab.com/-- develops and markets
products and services for the hospitality, foodservice,
healthcare and industrial markets.  The company provides
cleaning and sanitizing products and programs, as well as pest
elimination, maintenance and repair services primarily to hotels
and restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities, quick-
service (fast food and other convenience store) units, grocery
stores, commercial and institutional laundries, light industry,
dairy plants and farms, food and beverage processors, and the
vehicle wash industry.  The company operates in three business
segments: U.S. Cleaning & Sanitizing segment, U.S. Other
Services segment, and International segment.


EXXON MOBIL: Remanded Suit Over Crude Oil Damage Claims Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded consolidated lawsuit of the punitive damage claims
against Exxon Mobil Corp. due to crude oil release is ongoing in
the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A number of lawsuits, including class actions, were brought in
various courts against Exxon Mobil Corporation and certain of
its subsidiaries relating to the accidental release of crude oil
from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989.

All the compensatory claims have been resolved and paid.  All of
the punitive damage claims were consolidated in the civil trial
that began in 1994.

On June 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the $2.5
billion punitive damage award previously entered by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Circuit
Court with an instruction that punitive damages in the case may
not exceed a maximum amount of $507.5 million.

Exxon Mobil Corp. recorded an after-tax charge of $290 million
in the second quarter of 2008, reflecting the maximum amount of
the punitive damages.

The parties have filed briefs in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on the issue of post-judgment interest and recovery of
costs.

Exxon Mobil Corp. recorded an after-tax charge of $170 million
in the third quarter of 2008, reflecting its estimate of the
resolution of those issues, according to the company's Feb. 27,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Exxon Mobil Corp. -- http://www.exxonmobil.com/-- through its
divisions and affiliates is engaged in the exploration for, and
production of, crude oil and natural gas, manufacture of
petroleum products and transportation and sale of crude oil,
natural gas and petroleum products.  ExxonMobil is a
manufacturer and marketer of commodity petrochemicals, including
olefins, aromatics, polyethylene and polypropylene plastics and
a wide variety of specialty products.  It also has interests in
electric power generation facilities.  Affiliates of ExxonMobil
conduct research programs in support of these businesses.  Exxon
Mobil Corporation has several divisions and affiliates, many
with names that include Exxon Mobil, Exxon, Esso or Mobil.  The
company operates in three segments: Upstream, Downstream and
Chemicals.


HOLLAND & KNIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Arthur Nadel's Hedge Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holland & Knight LLP faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
Florida in connection with the case of Sarasota hedge fund
manager Arthur Nadel, who is accused of defrauding investors out
of hundreds of millions of dollars, Brian Neill of The Bradenton
Herald reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on March 20, 2009 by Michael J. Sullivan on
behalf of the Michael J. Sullivan IRA Account.

It alleges that the law firm, one of the state's largest,
handled prepared paperwork for investments made to Nadel's hedge
funds, but left out critical information about the funds and
their administrators, according to The Bradenton Herald report.

Mr. Nadel is being housed in a jail in New York City and is
charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of securities
fraud for what authorities allege was a Ponzi scheme.

Mr. Sullivan's suit maintains that Holland & Knight should have
revealed Mr. Nadel was once disbarred as a lawyer for financial
improprieties and an employee of his was not a CPA, reports The
Bradenton Herald.

"When these memorandums were prepared and distributed, had (the
investors) known this obviously some different decisions would
have been made," according to John Coleman, Esq., an attorney
with the Tampa law firm Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns,
which filed the suit.  "They failed to give investors adequate
information."

The suit maintains that Holland & Knight staff had that
information available to them, but chose not to disclose it.

It states, "During the entire time of H & K's involvement as
counsel for the Nadel Funds and other related entities, Mr.
Nadel had been running a Ponzi scheme, and even a cursory review
of the financial records of the Nadel Funds would have disclosed
the existence of the Ponzi scheme.  Holland and Knight failed
themselves to uncover this scheme, although reasonable inquiry
would have done so."

Mr. Sullivan, a resident of Illinois, states in the suit that he
was unaware of Mr. Nadel's disbarment or financial improprieties
ongoing at the funds.  He had more than $1.8 million invested in
Mr. Nadel's funds, according to the suit.

The Bradenton Herald reported that the suit seeks judgment for
damages and attorney and court costs.  It also seeks a jury
trial.

The suit is "Sullivan v. Holland & Knight LLP et al., Case No.
8:09-cv-00531-EAK-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Guy M. Burns, Esq. (Guyb@jpfirm.com)
          Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
          403 E Madison St. - Ste. 400 (33602)
          P.O. Box 1100
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Phone: 813/225-2500
          Fax: 813/223-7118


HOLLINGER INT'L: June 11 Hearing Set for $37.5M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a fairness hearing on June 11, 2009 for the proposed
$37,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Hollinger
International, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No. 04-C-0834."

Sun-Times Media Group, Inc., formerly Hollinger Inc., entered
into an agreement to settle securities class actions pending
against it and a number of its former directors and officers in
the U.S. and Canada, and an agreement to settle litigation over
its directors and officers insurance coverage (Clas Action
Reporter, Aug. 2, 2007).

The securities class-action settlement will resolve the claims
asserted against the Company, a number of its former directors
and officers, certain affiliated companies, and the Company's
auditor, KPMG LLP.

Sun-Times Media is facing a consolidated class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entitled, "In re Hollinger International Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 04C-0834," and similar actions that have been
initiated in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada.

The Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Kenneth Mozingo,
and Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund
initiated purported class actions against the company in
February and April 2004, asserting claims under federal and
Illinois securities laws and claims of breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting in breaches of fiduciary duty.

On July 9, 2004, the court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes.  The consolidated action is "In re Hollinger
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834," (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006).

For more details, contact:

          Hollinger Claims
          c/o Valley Forge Admin. Svcs
          One Aldwyn Center, 3rd Flr.
          P.O. Box 220
          Villanova, PA 19085-0220
          Phone: 877-965-3300 or 610-520-0866
          Fax: 610-520-0854
          e-mail: info@hollingerclaims.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Cancer-Causing Content in Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
     CHICAGO, March 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Some of the nation's
largest child-product companies including Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE: JNJ), Proctor and Gamble (NYSE: PG) and Kimberly Clark
(NYSE: KMB) are the target of a nationwide class-action lawsuit
by parents after a study revealed that many of the companies'
products including baby shampoo and lotions contain potentially
cancer-causing chemicals including formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane.

     The suit, filed March 19 in the U.S. District Court in
Chicago, will represent parents or other consumers who purchased
any of an extensive list of products, if the court certifies the
action.

     The findings were part of a study conducted by nonprofit
organization, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which tested
commonly used baby products and found alarmingly high amounts of
carcinogens, with 61 percent of the tested products containing
both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane and 82 percent containing
formaldehyde at levels of at least 54 parts per million.

     Chicago-area residents Gabrielle Clow, parent of two young
children, and Channing Hess, parent of three children became
concerned when they learned of the study's findings and filed
the suit.

     "Parents are frightened by these findings, and rightly so,"
said Steve Berman, attorney representing the plaintiffs and
managing partner of Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.
"I can't imagine any parent covering their infant with a baby
lotion that lists 'formaldehyde' on the label along with
'natural fragrance.'"

     Both parents use a variety of the products in question and
say they would have never selected them had they known the
potential risk.  None of the manufacturers list the probable
cancer-causing chemicals as ingredients on product labels.

     According to the report, manufacturers say the levels of
the potentially cancer-causing toxins are so small that they do
not pose a risk to the public, and are within government
guidelines.

     "What the industry doesn't recognize is that parents may
use any number of these products with their kids, and we are
concerned that the cumulative effect of the toxins could pose a
health risk," Berman noted.

     The study states that the probable carcinogenic ingredients
are not added in manufacturing, but likely occur as the
ingredients break down over time.

     Berman noted that the manufacturers had an obligation to
warn consumers to allow them to make an informed decision.

     The defendants include Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Gerber Products Company, The Proctor and Gamble
Company, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Expanscience Laboratories
Inc. doing business as Mustela, and Limited Brands Inc.  The
suit claims the defendants breached implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness; acted in violation of product
liability laws; were negligent in design, manufacture and
marketing of the products, and violated various unfair and
deceptive trade practice acts.

     The suit calls for medical monitoring of children and
others who used the product to measure the long-term health
risks from exposure to the potential carcinogens.

     A complete list of the products and manufacturers in
question and links to the report's findings can be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com.

For more details, contact:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan (beth@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (708) 776-5600


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: June 16 Hearing Set for $1M Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
will hold a fairness hearing on June 16, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., for
the proposed $1,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-07-
1254-RAJ."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard A. Jones
at the U.S. Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington.
  
On Jan. 8, 2009, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. announced the
settlement of a putative securities class-action lawsuit, "In re
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-07-
1254-RAJ," (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009).

The Company has agreed to pay in settlement US$1 million, which
is to be funded out of insurance proceeds.  The settlement must
be approved by the Court.

The case alleged that the Company misrepresented certain facts
that resulted in the artificial inflation of the price of
Northwest Biotherapeutics publicly-traded common stock between
April 17, 2007 and July 18, 2007.

The Company disputes the allegations of the lawsuit, and denies
that there was any such misrepresentation or that the shares of
Northwest Biotherapeutics common stock were artificially
inflated.

Nevertheless the Company is settling the lawsuit to avoid
potentially expensive and protracted litigation.

The suit is "Michael C. Rosenblat, et al. v. Northwest
Biotherapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-01254," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bridget A. Baker-White, Esq. (bridgetbw@igc.org)
          Smith & Lowney PLLC
          2317 e. John St.
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Phone: 206-860-4102

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave.
          Ste. 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

Representing the defendants are:

          Dane H. Butswinkas, Esq. (dbutswinkas@wc.com)
          Williams & Connolly LLP
          725 Twelfth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-434-5110

               - and -

          Michael D. Hunsinger, Esq.
          (mike_hunsingerlawyers@yahoo.com)
          The Hunsinger Law Firm
          100 South King Street, Ste. 400
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-624-1177
          Fax: 206-624-1178


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Appeals Court Upholds Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California appeals court denied an appeal by shareholders of
Peregrine Systems, Inc. that sought to revive a securities
class-action suit against former executives of the software
maker, Law360 reports.

On March 20, 2009, California's Court of Appeal for the Fourth
Appellate District upheld a judge's order denying the
shareholders' bid for additional discovery time and granting
summary judgment in the defendants' favor, according to the
Law360 report.

Bruce V. Bigelow of the Union-Tribune previously reported that
San Diego Superior Court Judge Joan M. Lewis dismissed a lawsuit
against former Peregrine Systems Inc. board members and
executives, including John Moores (Class Action Reporter, May
15, 2007).

The court concluded that federal law prohibits state courts from
hearing shareholder lawsuits seeking to recover damages for more
than 50 shareholders.  To further support her decision, Judge
Lewis stressed that federal authority is paramount in securities
class actions, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
"Merrill Lynch v. Dabit."

San Francisco lawyer Robert C. Friese, appointed as Peregrine's
litigation trustee in 2003, had argued that the suit should be
exempted from federal law.  He said it was originally brought by
a trust created in 2003, directed by a federal bankruptcy judge
to pursue claims against Peregrine's former directors and
executives.

The lawsuit stems from the 2002 financial collapse of the
company that resulted in eight former executives and others
pleading guilty to securities fraud and other federal charges.

The suit, which was filed by lawyers for the trust, alleges
extensive insider trading by certain former executives and board
members, including Mr. Moores (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12,
2006).

Attorney John Quinn, representing the Mr. Moores, commended the
court's decision.  Attorney Friese plans to appeal it.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Robert C. Friese, Esq.
          Shartsis Friese LLP
          18th Floor 1 Maritime Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 421-6500 (Ext: 244)
          Fax:  (415) 421-2922

Representing the defendant is:

          John Quinn, Esq.
          Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St. 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 443-3000
          Fax: (213) 624-0643


UNITED STATES: Court to Notify Veterans on $20M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, March 23 /PRNewswire/ -- A notification program
began today, as ordered by the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia, to alert veterans, spouses of
veterans, and members of the military of a proposed $20 million
settlement reached with the United States Department of Veterans
Affairs and certain Department employees in their official
capacities (together called the "Defendants") in a class action
lawsuit about the theft of computer equipment which was reported
to contain personal information.

     On May 3, 2006, computer equipment which was reported to
contain personal information of military veterans, spouses of
veterans, and military personnel, was stolen from the home of an
employee of Veterans Affairs.  The equipment was reported to
contain information such as names, social security numbers, and
dates of birth for up to 17.5 million individuals, as well as
some disability ratings.  The data did not include any health
records or financial information.  The computer equipment was
later recovered on June 28, 2006 by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, whose review of the equipment indicated that the
data had not been accessed.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Defendants violated federal law by not properly securing the
information.  The Defendants deny that they did anything wrong
and the settlement does not mean that any law was violated.

     The Class includes all veterans, spouses of veterans, and
military personnel who had actual damages from May 3, 2006
through February 11, 2009 that were directly related to the
theft of computer equipment which was reported to contain
personal information from the home of a VA employee on May 3,
2006.  The Class also includes all representatives, heirs,
administrators, executors, beneficiaries, agents, and assigns of
Class Members.  Actual damages include out-of-pocket expenses
incurred as a direct result of the theft, including those that
were: used to protect or monitor personal or financial
information; or the result of physical symptoms of severe
emotional distress.  Out-of-pocket expenses may include, for
example, the purchase of credit monitoring to protect against
identity loss.  Any money remaining in the Settlement Fund after
paying Class Members, lawyers' fees, costs, and expenses will be
donated to the Fisher House Foundation, Inc. and The Intrepid
Fallen Heroes Fund, both veterans-related charities.

     Notices informing Class Members about their legal rights
are scheduled to appear in consumer and military publications in
the United States leading up to a hearing on July 28, 2009, when
the Court will consider whether to grant final approval to the
settlement.

     The Court has appointed John Murdock and Jeffrey
Goldenberg, Murdock, Goldenberg, Schneider & Groh, L.P.A. of
Cincinnati, Ohio; Douglas Rosinski and Donald Cockrill,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. of Columbia,
South Carolina; Marc Mezibov, The Law Offices of Marc Mezibov of
Cincinnati, Ohio; Gary E. Mason, The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P. of
Washington, District of Columbia; and Mark Smilow, Weiss & Lurie
of New York, New York as Class Counsel to represent the Class.

     Those affected by this settlement can send in a claim form
to ask for a payment, or they can ask to be excluded from, or
object to, the settlement and its terms. The deadline for
exclusions and objections is June 29, 2009. The deadline to file
a claim is November 27, 2009.

     A toll-free number, 1-888-288-9625, has been established in
the case (called In Re: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Data
Theft Litigation, MDL No. 1796), along with a website,
http://www.VeteransClass.com,where notices, a claim form, and
the settlement agreement may be obtained.  Those affected may
also write to VA Settlement, PO Box 6727, Portland, OR 97228-
6727.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Kirby McInerney Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Mar 23, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Kirby
McInerney LLP announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.
("Heartland" or the "Company") (NYSE:HPY) between August 5, 2008
and February 23, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The lawsuit charges Heartland and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     Heartland, together with its subsidiaries, provides bank
card payment processing services to more than 250,000 merchants
and businesses nationwide.

     The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects.

     Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose:

       -- that the Company's safety and security measures
          designed to protect consumers' financial records and
          data from security breaches were inadequate and
          ineffective;

       -- that the Company's payment processing system had been
          infected with malware as early as May 2008;

       -- that defendants were made aware of a potential breach
          of Heartland's payment processing network;

       -- that, as a result of the above, the Company faced
          liabilities associated with the breach and increasing
          costs associated with implementing appropriate
          security measures;

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at
          risk of losing customers; and

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

     On January 20, 2009, Heartland revealed that the Company's
payment processing network had been breached by malicious
software, exposing tens of millions of debit cardholders to
fraud.  As consumers used their debit cards, so-called "sniffer
software" had been capturing, among other things, card numbers,
expiration dates and cardholder names.  According to an article
published that same day in The New York Times, the breach
occurred as early as May 2008.

     On this news, shares of Heartland declined $1.26 per share,
or 8.16%, to close on January 20, 2009, at $14.18 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.  Over the next two days, shares of
Heartland further declined $6.00 per share, or an additional
42.31%, to close on January 22, 2009 at $8.18 per share.

     On February 24, 2009, Heartland again shocked investors
when it reported earnings for the 2008 fiscal year and fourth
quarter.  The Company posted a lower-than-expected quarterly
profit and disclosed that it might incur losses from the recent
security breach of its system and that the Company could not
estimate the amount of losses that might be incurred in
connection with the security breach.

     On this news, shares of Heartland declined $2.31 per share,
or 30.12%, to close on February 24, 2009, at $5.34 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.  During the Class Period, shares of
Heartland's common stock declined $21.84 per share, or
approximately 80%, from its Class Period high of $27.19 per
share on September 19, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Francisco Loya (floya@kmllp.com)
          Steven Cohn, Esq.
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 888-529-4787
          Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/


OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     March 23, 2009 07:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time -- SAN
FRANCISCO -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP
(http://www.girardgibbs.com/opcax.asp)has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors of the Oppenheimer California
Municipal Bond Fund (the “Fund”) (NASDAQ: OPCAX) (NASDAQ: OCABX)
(NASDAQ: OCACX) who purchased shares of the Fund on or after
September 27, 2006.

     The complaint charges OppenheimerFunds Inc. and certain of
its affiliates, officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940,
alleging that the Fund's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses made false and misleading statements of material
fact about the Fund's investment objectives and strategies.

     The class action, entitled, "Lowe v. Oppenheimer California
Municipal Fund et al., Case No. 09-cv-1243," is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

     The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements and
Prospectuses failed to disclose that the Fund:

       -- deviated from its investment objective of seeking
          interest income consistent with the preservation of
          capital by over-concentrating its holdings in higher-
          risk, lower-quality instruments and engaging in
          excessive leverage and borrowing strategies;

       -- increased its concentration of limited types of
          investments, thus failing to spread and reduce risk;
          and

       -- violated its industry concentration policy by
          investing more than 25% of its holdings in the real
          estate development industry including so-called "dirt
          bonds"—land development bonds whose proceeds are used
          to finance the infrastructure requirements of new real
          estate development.

     As a result, the Fund's performance fell and the share
price collapsed.  The Fund presently trades in the range of
$6.00 per share.

For more information, contact:

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/opcax.asp


STEEL DYNAMICS: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Mar 23, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) – Roy
Jacobs & Associates has commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Steel Dynamics, Inc.
("STLD" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:STLD) for the period from
January 27, 2009 through March 11, 2009, (the "Class Period"),
seeking damages for violation of the federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that STLD and certain of its officers
and directors violated 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 for their positive earnings
          guidance for Q1 2009; and

       -- Defendant Bates engaged in unusual insider selling of
          his own STLD shares, realizing proceeds of in excess
          of $30 million at prices far higher than the STLD
          current trading price.

     On March 11, 2009, the defendants unexpectedly revised
first quarter 2009 guidance and admitted that the Company would
suffer a significant loss instead of a profit, and further
revised guidance downward for the remainder of 2009.  As a
result, the price of STLD's common stock dropped 15% to close at
$7.25, on greatly increased trading volume.

For more details, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          e-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.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  * * *