CAR_Public/090326.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 60

                           Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid on Summary Judgment in Marcus Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Currency Conversion Suits Pending in Canada
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Amended Complaint in Merchants' Lawsuit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Final Approval of "Kaufman" Settlement Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Phase 2 of Trial in "Hoffman" Action Continues

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Faces Suits Over "Anti-Steering" Rules
AMERICAN SUZUKI: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Vehicle Warranties
ARBITRON INC: Institutional Investors File Suit Over PPM Rollout
BUFFALO ROCK: Ala. Court Certifies Class in FLSA Violations Suit
CHEVRON U.S.A.: New Evidence Surfaces in Ecuador Litigation

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Faces Ohio Suit Over Mileage-Award Fees
CV THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders Sue To Stop $1.4B Merger With GSI
DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches $14M Settlement for Calif. Lawsuit
EXTENDICARE REAL: Wash. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
NEW ENGLAND: Judge Nixes Football Fan's Suit Over Secret Tapings

STEEL DYNAMICS: Faces Third Securities Fraud Litigation in Ind.
STRONG FINANCIAL: Md. Judge Dismisses Some Claims in ERISA Case
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Truck Driving Graduates' Suit in TN
WAL-MART STORES: Larger Ninth Circuit Panel Reviews "Dukes" Case


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid on Summary Judgment in Marcus Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A  ruling on the motion for summary judgment in the antitrust
suit "The Marcus Corp. v. American Express Co., et al.," remains
pending.

Initially, several cases were filed against the company:

      -- "Cohen Rese Gallery et al. v. American Express Co.,
         et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed July 2003);

      -- "Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Co.,
         et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed August 2003);

      -- "DRF Jeweler Corp. v. American Express Co., et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed December 2003);

      -- "Hayama Inc. v. American Express Co., et al.,"
         Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed
         December 2003);

      -- "Chez Noelle Restaurant v. American Express Co., et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed January 2004);

      -- "Mascari Enterprises d/b/a Sound Stations v. American
         Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York (filed January 2004);

      -- "Mims Restaurant v. American Express Co., et al.,"
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed February 2004); and

      -- "The Marcus Corp. v. American Express Co., et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed July 2004).

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

Upon motion to the Court by the company, the venue of the Cohen
Rese and Italian Colors actions was moved to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2003.

Each of the above-listed actions (except for Hayama) is now
pending in the Southern District of New York, consolidated as
"In re American Express Merchants' Litigation."

                     Dismissal and Arbitration

On April 30, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss all the
actions filed prior to such date that were pending in the
Southern District of New York, and on March 15, 2006, such
motion was granted, with the Court finding the claims of the
plaintiffs to be subject to arbitration.

Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its dismissal.  That
request was denied.  The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's
arbitration ruling.

                       Hayama Litigation

In addition, during the pendency of the motion in the Southern
District of New York, the company had asked the California
Superior Court hearing the Hayama action referenced above to
stay that action pending resolution of such motion.

The company continues to request the California Superior Court
hearing the Hayama action referenced above to stay that action.
As of Feb. 27, 2009, the Hayama action has been stayed.

                    Marcus Corp. Litigation

The company also filed a motion to dismiss the action filed by
the Marcus Corp., which was denied in July 2005.

On Oct. 1, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification
of a class.

The company has opposed plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  In addition, each of the company and the
plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment in their favor.

A decision on the class certification motion and the summary
judgment motions is 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.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
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: Currency Conversion Suits Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amex Bank of Canada, a subsidiary of American Express Co.,
awaits the ruling of the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal, on two class-action suits relating to foreign currency
conversion transactions.

In May 2006, in the matter captioned, "Marcotte v. Bank of
Montreal et al.," (originally filed in April 2003) the Court
authorized a class action against Amex Bank of Canada, Bank of
Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce, Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada,
Laurentian Bank of Canada and Citibank Canada.

The action alleges that conversion commissions made on foreign
currency transactions are credit charges under the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act (the QCPA) and cannot be charged prior
to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA.

The class includes all persons holding a credit card issued by
one of the defendants to whom fees were charged since April 17,
2000, for transactions made in foreign currency before
expiration of the period of 21 days following the statement of
account.

The class claims reimbursement of all foreign currency
conversions, CDN$400 per class member for trouble, inconvenience
and punitive damages, interest and fees and costs.

The trial in the Marcotte action commenced in September 2008 and
was completed in November.

In November 2006, in a matter captioned, "Sylvan Adams v. Amex
Bank of Canada," filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District
of Montreal (originally filed in November 2004), the Court
authorized a class action against Amex Bank of Canada.

The plaintiff alleges that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of
Canada charged a foreign currency conversion commission on
transactions to purchase goods and services in currencies other
than Canadian dollars and failed to disclose the commissions in
monthly billing statements or solicitations directed to
prospective cardmembers.

The class, consisting of all Cardmembers in Quebec that
purchased goods or services in a foreign currency prior to
December 2003, claims reimbursement of all foreign currency
conversion commissions, CDN$1,000 in punitive damages per class
member, interest and fees and costs.

The trial in the Adams action commenced, and was completed, in
December 2008, after the conclusion of the trial in the Marcotte
action.  The parties are awaiting a decision from the court in
those two cases, 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
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 Amended Complaint in Merchants' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. faces an amended complaint in the
consolidated action tagged In Re: American Express Merchants'
Litigation, 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 company has been named in a number of purported class-action
suits in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between the company's charge cards and credit cards
in violation of various state and federal laws.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

Majority of these actions are now pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the
consolidated caption "In re American Express Merchants'
Litigation."

On April 30, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss all the
actions filed prior to such date that were pending in the SDNY,
and on March 15, 2006, such motion was granted, with the Court
finding the claims of the plaintiffs to be subject to
arbitration.  Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its
dismissal.  That request was denied.  The plaintiffs appealed
the Court's arbitration ruling.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the District Court.  The parties have requested
a conference with the District Court to discuss next steps in
light of the Second Circuit's ruling.

On Feb. 19, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in In Re:
American Express Merchants' Litigation.  The amended complaint
contains a single count alleging a violation of federal
antitrust laws through an alleged unlawful tying of: (a)
corporate, small business and/or personal charge card services;
and (b) Blue, Costco and standard GNS credit card services."

In addition, on Feb. 19, 2009, a new complaint making the same
allegations as made in the amended complaint filed in "In Re:
American Express Merchants' Litigation" was also filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  That
new case is captioned: Greenporter LLC and Bar Hama LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
American Express Company and American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc.

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: Final Approval of "Kaufman" Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. awaits final approval of the proposed
settlement resolving claims in a putative class-action lawsuit
captioned, "Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related
Services," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

In January 2009, the company signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to resolve the claims raised in the class-action
suit.

The proposed Settlement Class consists of "All purchasers,
recipients and holders of all gift cards issued by American
Express from Jan. 1, 2002 through the date of preliminary
approval of the Settlement, including without limitation, gift
cards sold at physical retail locations, via the internet, or
through mall co-branded programs."

The allegations in Kaufman revolve primarily around monthly
service fee charges, with the critical claim being that the
product violates consumer protection statutes because consumers
allegedly have difficulty spending small remaining amounts on
the Gift Cards.

The company is also a defendant in two other putative class
actions making allegations similar to those made in Kaufman:

   -- "Goodman v. American Express Travel Related Services,"
      pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
      District of New York, and

   -- "Jarratt v. American Express Company," filed in California
      state court in San Diego.

If the Kaufman settlement ultimately receives final approval,
all related gift cards claims and suits would also be released,
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: Phase 2 of Trial in "Hoffman" Action Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2 of the trial in the class action styled "Hoffman, et al.
v. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.," is
proceeding, 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.

In January 2006, in the matter captioned Hoffman, et al. v.
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., No.
2001-02281, Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Alameda, the Court certified a class action against TRS.

In a case management order dated April 8, 2008, the Court
defined two classes as follows:

     (1) all persons who obtained American Express charge cards
         governed by New York law with billing addresses in
         California who purchased American Express' fee based
         travel related insurance plans from Sept. 6, 1995,
         through Feb. 12, 2008, and

     (2) all persons who obtained American Express charge cards
         governed by New York law with billing addresses in
         states other than California who purchased American
         Express' fee based travel related insurance plans from
         Sept. 6, 1995, through Feb. 12, 2008.  The Court denied
         the plaintiff's motion to certify a class to pursue
         claims on behalf of persons who held American Express
         credit cards governed by Utah law.

Plaintiffs claim that American Express violated California and
New York law by allegedly billing customers for flight and
baggage insurance that they did not receive.  American Express
filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the case be
dismissed as a matter of law.  The summary judgment motion was
partially granted in July 2008, when the Court dismissed certain
claims against American Express including claims for punitive
damages.  Certain other claims survived summary judgment.  A
trial on the remaining claims began in November 2008.

The company prevailed in Phase 1 of that trial with the Court
ruling that the contract between the company and its cardmembers
was not ambiguous and that the company operated the air-flight
and baggage insurance program consistent with the contract.

Phase 2 of the trial continues.  In Phase 2 the Court will
decide whether: (1) the contract is unconscionable; (2) whether
the company violated California consumer protection laws; and
(3) whether the company violated New York consumer protection
laws.

In addition, a matter making related allegations to those raised
in the Hoffman case is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.  That matter, captioned,
"Environment Law Enforcement Systems v. American Express et
al.," has effectively been stayed pending the proceedings in the
Hoffman action.

On Oct. 30, 2008, a case making allegations similar to those
raised in the Hoffman case was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  That matter, captioned
Kass v. American Express Card Services, Inc, American Express
Company, and American Express Travel Related Services, was filed
as a putative class action on behalf of American Express credit
card holders.

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: Still Faces Suits Over "Anti-Steering" Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. continues to face antitrust class action
complaints challenging the company's "anti-steering" rules,
according to its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

In August 2005, a purported class-action lawsuit captioned,
"Performance Labs Inc. v. American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc. ("TRS"), MasterCard International
Incorporated, Visa USA, Inc. et al.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The action was
then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The complaint alleged that the company's policy prohibiting
merchants from imposing restrictions on the use of American
Express(R) Cards that are not imposed equally on other forms of
payment violates U.S. antitrust laws.

The suit sought injunctive relief.

TRS moved to dismiss the complaint.

In addition, the company learned that two additional purported
class actions that made allegations similar to those made in the
Performance Labs action had also been filed:

   (1) "518 Restaurant Corp. v. American Express Travel Related
       Services Company, Inc., MasterCard International
       Incorporated, Visa USA, Inc. et al.," filed in August
       2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
       of Pennsylvania, and

   (2) "Lepkowski v. American Express Travel Related Services
       Company, Inc., MasterCard International Incorporated,
       Visa USA, Inc. et al.," filed in October 2005, in the
       U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these actions sought injunctive relief.  The
518 Restaurant Corp. action was voluntarily withdrawn without
TRS ever having been served with the complaint.  The complaint
in the Lepkowski action was also never served.  The Lepkowski
and Performance Labs cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York for pre-
trial purposes in a larger multi-district litigation involving
other named defendants not affiliated with the company, and all
proceedings in the consolidated action were stayed pending the
filing of a consolidated amended complaint.  Such consolidated
amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2006, but the company
was not named in that action.  Other defendants, not affiliated
with the company, were named.

However, on April 18, 2006, Performance Labs, Inc., Joseph
Lepkowski, DDS d/b/a Oak Park Dental Studio, and Jasa Inc.,
filed an action in the SDNY against American Express Company and
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.  Other
merchants have since filed similar complaints, including, Animal
Land Inc., Rookies, Inc., Lopez DeJong Inc., Pranzo Inc., Gina
Kim-Park d/b/a Mille Fiore, and Parlor Corporation.

All these complaints challenge the company's "anti-steering"
rules as unlawful under the antitrust laws.  Originally,
plaintiffs sought only injunctive relief but have since amended
their complaint to also seek unspecified damages.

These plaintiffs have agreed that a stay would be imposed with
regard to their respective actions pending the appeal of the
Court's arbitration ruling.  Given the recent ruling of the
Second Circuit, the stay has been lifted, and American Express'
response to the complaint is due in April 2009.

Plaintiffs have also filed an amended complaint in the Lopez
DeJong case and proposed that the amended complaint would serve
as a "model for the First Consolidated Class Complaint" in all
these matters.

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 SUZUKI: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Vehicle Warranties
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Suzuki Motor Corp. and Shoals Suzuki face a purported
class-action lawsuit claiming that closing the Shoals dealership
is a breach of contract against customers who still have current
warranties or service contracts, Bernie Delinski of the Times
Daily reports.

The suit, filed in Lauderdale County Circuit Court, lists John
Burns and Jill S. Hearn as plaintiffs.  The two -- represented
by Florence attorney Harold G. Peck, Esq. -- have purchased
vehicles from the dealership that are under warranty.

The dealership suspended sales Jan. 28, 2009 at its Jackson
Highway and Hatch Boulevard location in Sheffield.  At the time,
company officials said the closure was temporary and that the
parts and service department would remain open.  The department
closed earlier this month, according to the Times Daily report.

Shoals residents who bought a Suzuki in Sheffield were forced to
go to the Huntsville dealership for service, but now that has
closed, as well.

The Times Daily reported that the suit also lists Varsity Suzuki
Inc., in Huntsville, and Charles Gary Linam, of Varsity Suzuki,
as defendants.  In addition, it includes as defendants anyone
who sold Suzuki automobiles, issued warranties, serviced the
warranties, and in any way participated in the sale, manufacture
or distribution of Suzuki automobiles and warranties.

The suit states the defendants issued various warranties,
including a "zero-dollar deductible, 100,000 mile/7 year power
train limited warranty on all new vehicles sold after Aug. 1,
2002."  It also states that defendants also issued new-vehicle
limited warranties "covering all components of the vehicles
supplied by Suzuki for 36 months/36,000 miles with no charge for
parts and labor," reports the Times Daily.

In general, the suit claims the warranties are part of the
consideration of the cost of the vehicles, and that failure to
provide warranty service could devalue the worth of the
vehicles.

The suit requests that Suzuki provide a list of vehicles sold by
Varsity and Shoals Suzuki, along with warranty and service
contracts.  It also demands that a judgment be rendered against
Suzuki for money received by defendants for prepaid warranty and
service work.

In addition, the suit also calls for Suzuki to be required to
provide the services, and that a common fund be set up to pay
for the terms of warranties and service.

According to the suit, the total membership of the class in the
class-action suit could number at least 8,000, reports the Times
Daily.


ARBITRON INC: Institutional Investors File Suit Over PPM Rollout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitron, Inc. is being sued by one of its institutional
investors for allegedly deceiving shareholders about the
likelihood of delays in the rollout of its Portable People Meter
service, a passive electronic measurement device for radio, Erik
Sass of MediaPost Publications.

The class-action suit, brought by the Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local Union #630 Pension Annuity Trust Fund, seeks damages for
Arbitron investors who bought stock during that period,
according to the MediaPost Publications report.

Arbitron, Inc. -- http://www.arbitron.com/-- is a media and
marketing information services firm primarily serving radio,
cable television, advertising agencies, advertisers, retailers,
out-of-home media, online media and, through its Scarborough
Research joint venture with The Nielsen Company (Nielsen),
broadcast television and print media.  The Company provides
radio audience estimates and related services in the U.S. to
radio stations, advertising agencies, and advertisers.  It also
provides software applications that allow its customers to
access its databases and enable its customers to more
effectively analyze and understand that information for sales,
management, and programming purposes.  In addition to its core
radio ratings services, Arbitron provides qualitative measures
of consumer demographics, retail behavior, and media consumption
in local markets throughout the U.S.


BUFFALO ROCK: Ala. Court Certifies Class in FLSA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
granted class-action status to the matter, "Sager v. Buffalo
Rock Co., Case No. 2:07-cv-01365-KOB," which was filed by an
employee against Birmingham-based Pepsi Cola bottler Buffalo
Rock Co., The Birmingham News reports.

The suit was filed on July 24, 2007 by Will Sager.  It alleges
violations of Fair Labor Standards Act that govern overtime pay
for work in excess of 40 hours per week (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 8, 2007).

Specifically, the suit alleges that Buffalo Rock failed to pay
overtime to some employees working in the sales and delivery
departments.

"Buffalo Rock knowingly, intentionally and willfully violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay plaintiffs and
all similarly situated employees the overtime compensation to
which defendant Buffalo Rock knew they were entitled," according
to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Birmingham
News.

The class might reach as high as 500 workers, a judge's ruling
reads, reports The Birmingham News.

The suit is "Sager v. Buffalo Rock Co., Case No. 2:07-cv-01365-
KOB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, Judge Karon O. Bowdre, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert J. Camp, Esq. (rcamp@cochranfirm.com)
         The Cochran Firm
         505 North 20th Street, Suite 825
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-244-1115
         Fax: 205-244-1171

Representing the defendant is:

          Ronald W. Flowers, Jr. (rflowers@burr.com)
          Burr & Forman LLP
          Southtrust Tower, Suite 3400
          420 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 251-3000
          Fax: 458-5100


CHEVRON U.S.A.: New Evidence Surfaces in Ecuador Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
     March 24, 2009 10:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time QUITO,
Ecuador -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- With judicial inspections in
Chevron's long-running environmental trial in Ecuador about to
end, new proof has emerged that the oil giant never touched the
majority of toxic waste pits that it certified as "clean" to
Ecuador's government in exchange for a legal release, said a
lawyer for the Amazon Defense Coalition.

     The new evidence will be turned over to prosecutors who
already have indicted two Chevron lawyers and seven former
government officials for criminal fraud relating to the
purported remediation, said Pablo Fajardo, the Ecuadorian lawyer
leading the class action lawsuit on behalf of 30,000 rainforest
residents.

     The purported remediation was performed by Texaco (now
Chevron) between 1995 and 1998 on pits that were mostly built in
the early 1970s.  The so-called clean-up was controversial from
the start, with Amazon residents claiming toxic pits were
covered with dirt for cosmetic purposes, allowing contaminants
to continue leaching into the soil and groundwater to this day.
Texaco also received the release before any work was done.

     The release has no bearing on the claims of the 30,000
residents bringing the civil suit, as they did not sign off on
it, said Fajardo.  But it does provide evidence of an underlying
fraud that proves the remediation never really occurred, despite
Chevron's claims today to the court and its public relations
materials.

     Texaco was the exclusive operator of several large oil
fields in Ecuador's Amazon from 1964 to 1990. Chevron bought
Texaco in 2001 and will bear any liability in the case.

     In any event, the so-called release and remediation are now
haunting Chevron in an even bigger way with new evidence that
Texaco never even touched the majority of pits it certified as
cleaned, said Fajardo.  The final four inspections of 101
ordered by the court will be finished this week, clearing the
way for a final decision on $27 billion in damages.

     "Some pits Chevron covered with dirt for cosmetic purposes
and called them remediated," said Fajardo.  "We now know there
are many more pits that Chevron never even touched but counted
as remediated in its certification to the government."

     "It is just unbelievable that a sophisticated American oil
company could think it would get away with this," added Fajardo.
"This took a high level of sophisticated planning and clearly
could not have been done without the cooperation of corrupt
Ecuadorian government officials."

     A report by Texaco sub-contractor Woodward Clyde, the U.S.-
based company that did the clean-up, clearly indicates that the
results fell far short of what Texaco claimed at the time and
what Chevron continues to maintain today.

According to the Woodward-Clyde report:

    * Texaco agreed under its contract with Ecuador's government
to "remediate" only 130 of its 356 well sites to obtain a legal
release from government claims. At the 130 wells sites, it
identified the existence of 250 unlined waste pits, which were
used to permanently dump toxic sludge when wells were drilled
a violation of customary industry practice and environmental
laws in both the U.S. and Ecuador.

    * Of the 250 waste pits identified, Texaco actually touched
only 162 of them. Texaco claimed the other 88 pits were being
"used" by the local community, despite the fact they were filled
with toxic oil sludge. (No evidence has ever been produced by
Texaco or Chevron that any pit was actually being "used" by the
local community other than what its engineers claimed at the
time.)

    * The 88 pits were designated "No Further Action" based on a
"visual" inspection of the pit. No soil or water sampling was
done to determine if the pit was actually contaminated with
hydrocarbons a clear violation of scientific protocol and of
Texaco's legal obligations under its clean-up contract with the
government.

    * Even worse for Chevron, the 250 pits identified was a
gross undercount. During the trial, the court found 379 pits at
the same 130 sites or 129 more pits than Texaco had claimed at
the time that it was obligated to remediate.

    * Texaco thus moved dirt at only 43% of the 379 pits that it
was obligated to "remediate" even though it received credit for
cleaning all 379 pits to receive its legal release, according to
Fajardo.

     In September of last year, the two Texaco lawyers who
negotiated and supervised the clean-up -- American Ricardo Reis-
Veiga and Ecuadorian Rodrigo Perez Pallares -- were hit with a
criminal indictment for lying about the remediation results.
Seven key government officials with whom they worked closely at
the time were also indicted.

     Both Reis Veiga and Perez Pallares continue to work for
Chevron. Both have played instrumental roles in supervising
Chevron's defense in the current civil trial where their
previous conduct relating to the remediation is at issue.

     The lawsuit charges that Texaco dumped more than 18 billion
gallons of toxic waste into Amazon waterways and abandoned more
than 900 large waste pits gouged out of the jungle floor,
creating one of the worst oil-related environmental catastrophes
in the world.  The $27 billion in damages is more than the
company's record-breaking profits in 2008.

     More than 62,000 chemical sampling results are in evidence.
The court expert found the sampling results prove that 100% of
the inspected sites, which cover an area roughly the size of
Rhode Island, show illegal levels of toxic hydrocarbons in the
soil.

     A final decision by Judge Juan Nunez is expected later this
year.

For more details, contact:

          Karen Hinton (Karen@hintoncommunications.com)
          Amazon Defense Coalition
          Phone: 703-798-3109


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Faces Ohio Suit Over Mileage-Award Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Airlines, Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Ohio for raising the number of miles needed to earn a
free trip and then charging $75 to book the flight, The
Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit was filed on March 23, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio by David Simon under the
caption, "Simon v. Continental Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv-
00631-KMO."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Simon tried to book a flight in
January from Los Angeles to Cleveland for 25,000 miles, which
was the number of miles needed to earn an economy-class round
trip within the lower 48 states when Simon joined the airline's
OnePass frequent-flier program several years ago, reports The
Associated Press.

The airline demanded 50,000 miles even though reservations
officials said there were empty seats on some flights, according
to Mr. Simon's lawyer, who described his client as a semiretired
man in his 60s who "travels a fair amount."

The Associated Press reported that Mr. Simon eventually found a
flight for 25,000 miles on Northwest Airlines, a partner of
Houston-based Continental, but he was charged $75 because he
booked the flight within three weeks of travel.

"There is no justification for the charge, and there is nothing
in the fine print authorizing it," said Mr. Simon's lawyer, Joel
D. Joseph, Esq.

The lawsuit charges Continental with levying an illegal penalty,
breach of contract and unjust enrichment, according to The
Associated Press report.

The suit is "Simon v. Continental Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:09-
cv-00631-KMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Joel D. Joseph, Esq. (joeldjoseph@gmail.com)
          9935 South Santa Monica Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: 310-922-1856
          Fax: 310-271-6893


CV THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders Sue To Stop $1.4B Merger With GSI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of CV Therapeutics, Inc. have filed a proposed
class-action lawsuit in a California state court to stop the
company from carrying out a proposed $1.4 billion merger with
Gilead Sciences, Inc., which they say unjustly enriches the
company's founder and directors, Law360 report.

The suit was filed on March 19, 2009 in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara by plaintiff Superior
Partners, according to the Law360 report.


DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches $14M Settlement for Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for $14 million, settled a decade-
long class-action lawsuit that led the U.S. Supreme Court in
2005 to establish standards for loss causation in securities
fraud suits, Law360 reports.

On March 23,2009, the plaintiffs asked the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California to approve an agreement
settling claims against Dura, which is now part of Elan Corp.,
according to the Law360 report.

Starting in January 1999, several class-action suits were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California against Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and various then
current or former officers of Dura (Class Action Reporter, March
12, 2007).

The actions, which allege violations of the federal securities
laws, were consolidated and sought damages on behalf of
purchasers of Dura Pharmaceuticals securities between April 15,
1997 and Feb. 24, 1998.

On June 6, 2006, the U.S. District Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to
dismiss.  On July 21, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint seeking to cure their pleading problems.

The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss in
response to the amended complaint.  A hearing on the defendants'
motion was originally scheduled to take place on Dec. 4, 2006.

However, by order of the court on Nov. 28, 2006, the court
deemed the motion submitted on the papers and determined that no
oral argument was necessary.

The parties currently await a final ruling on the defendants'
motion, according to Elan Corp., plc's Feb. 28 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 99 cv 0151L (NLS)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.


EXTENDICARE REAL: Wash. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     MARKHAM, ONTARIO -- (Marketwire - March 24, 2009) --
Extendicare Real Estate Investment Trust ("Extendicare REIT")
(TSX: EXE.UN) announced that, for the second time in less than a
month, a federal district court judge has dismissed a class
action lawsuit against Extendicare Health Services, Inc.,
Extendicare Homes, Inc., and Fir Lane Terrance Convalescent
Center, Inc. (collectively "Extendicare"), three wholly owned
U.S. based subsidiaries of Extendicare REIT.

     The court found that the undisputed evidence demonstrated
that the plaintiffs could not prove their supposed claims
against Extendicare, and accordingly, it issued a final judgment
in Extendicare's favor and ordered the case closed.

     The lawsuit was originally filed on August 20, 2008, in
Washington state court, but later removed to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.  The suit
asserted a claim under Washington's Consumer Protection Act and
was premised upon an allegation that Extendicare had
misrepresented the quality of its services to the residents of
its Washington skilled nursing facilities.  Plaintiffs brought
the action on behalf of all current and former residents for the
period 2004 through 2008.

     The Honorable John C. Coughenour found that the plaintiffs
were not misled by any of Extendicare's representations, and
that none of the plaintiffs suffered any actually injury.  This
decision comes on the heals of a similar March 4, 2009 decision
in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota lawsuit was brought by the same
plaintiffs' lawyers, and consisted of virtually the same claims.
In that case, the Honorable Donovan W. Frank similarly
determined that the lawyer-driven complaint "failed to identify
any solid ground on which the Plaintiff could stand in this
litigation."

     From the outset, Extendicare viewed both of these lawsuits
as little more than an attempt by plaintiffs' lawyers to
pressure Extendicare into settlement and generate attorneys'
fees.  Both Judge Coughenour's and Judge Frank's recent
decisions vindicate Extendicare's position.

     Extendicare remains committed to continuing to provide
quality care to its residents.

Extendicare REIT -- http://www.extendicare.com/-- is a leading
North American provider of long-term and short-term senior care
services through its network of owned and operated health care
facilities.  It employs 39,100 qualified and experienced staff
dedicated to helping people live better through a commitment to
quality service that includes post-acute care, rehabilitative
therapy and home health care services.  Its 266 senior care
facilities in North America have capacity for approximately
30,000 residents.


NEW ENGLAND: Judge Nixes Football Fan's Suit Over Secret Tapings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
a New York Jets fan's putative class-action suit over the New
England Patriots' secret videotaping of rival coaches' signals,
Charles Toutant of the New Jersey Law Journal reports.

The suit, captioned, "Mayer v. Belichick, et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-04671-GEB-TJB," was filed on Sept. 28, 2007 by Carl J. Meyer,
alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) ACT.

The plaintiff, a Jets season ticket-holder, sued the Patriots,
coach Bill Belichick, and the NFL over the team's surreptitious
videotaping of the Jets' coaching signals during a game on Sept.
9, 2007.  NFL security confiscated a video camera and its tape
from a Patriots employee on the team's sideline, according to
the New Jersey Law Journal report.

On Sept. 14, 2007, after an internal investigation, the NFL
fined Coach Belichick $500,000, and the Patriots $250,000, for
violating league rules, which state that "no video recording
devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches'
booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game."

Mr. Mayer, a solo lawyer in Princeton had claimed that the
videotaping "violated the contractual expectations and rights of
New York Jets ticket-holders who fully anticipated and
contracted for a ticket to an honest match played in compliance
with all laws, regulations and NFL rules," reports the New
Jersey Law Journal.

He claimed tortious interference with contractual relations and
violations of the state Consumer Fraud Act, Deceptive Business
Practices Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

Mr. Mayer sought statutory, punitive and compensatory damages,
restitution, equitable relief and attorneys' fees on behalf of
fellow season ticket-holders.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an amended complaint,
filed on Aug. 18, 2008, claimed that another Patriots employee
was discovered videotaping Green Bay Packers coaching signals
during a November 2006 game.

On March 23, 2009, Chief Judge Garrett Brown, Jr. dismissed the
suit, holding that tickets carry no guarantee that teams will
abide by National Football League rules, according to the New
Jersey Law Journal report.

Judge Brown further said, "Plaintiff's subjective expectations
regarding how the game would be played and what decisions the
respective coaches would make, right or wrong, even if these
actions constituted 'cheating,' was not anything that he either
received license to or contracted for."

Ticket-holders are entitled to enter the stadium and watch what
transpires, but nothing more, Judge Brown said, adding, "there
is no remedy at law where the ticket-holder has been granted
admission and subsequently complains about the quality, or here,
the 'honesty,' of the conduct of the event."

In his ruling, Judge Brown cited cases from New Jersey and other
jurisdictions holding that the seller of tickets to an
entertainment event "does not contract to provide the spectacle,
only to license the plaintiff to enter and view whatever event
transpires," the New Jersey Law Journal reported.

The suit is "Mayer v. Belichick, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-04671-
GEB-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Carl J. Mayer, Esq.
          Mayer Law Group
          56 Battle Road
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (609) 921-0253

               - and -

          Bruce Ira Afran, Esq. (bruceafran@aol.com)
          Bruce I. Afran, Attorney-At-Law
          10 Braeburn Drive
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (609) 924-2075

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert J. Del Tufo, Esq. (rdeltufo@skadden.com)
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 735-3880

               - and -

          Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq. (orlofsky@blankrome.com)
          Blank, Rome, LLP
          301 Carnegie Center
          3rd Floor
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: 609-750-2646


STEEL DYNAMICS: Faces Third Securities Fraud Litigation in Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a class-action
lawsuit against Steel Dynamics Inc. (SDI), accusing the
steelmaker and certain of its officers of securities law
violations, Scott Robertson of the American Metal Market
reports.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, is the third known lawsuit to be filed
against Fort Wayne, Ind.-based company, according to the
American Metal Market report.

On March 23, 2009, Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Indiana on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Steel
Dynamics, Inc. (Nasdaq:STLD) for the period from Jan. 27, 2009
through March 11, 2009, (Class Period), seeking damages for
violation of the federal securities laws (Class Action Reporter,
March 25, 2009).

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


STRONG FINANCIAL: Md. Judge Dismisses Some Claims in ERISA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Frederick Motz of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland dismissed on March 23, 2009 some claims
against Strong Financial Corp. and others in a multidistrict
class-action suit over employee retirement fund investments,
Law360 reports.

Plaintiffs in case have reached a settlement with Strong
Financial Corp., its subsidiaries and its founder, leading the
judge to dismiss some claims against the company and stay the
rest, while the litigation continues, according to the Law360
report.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Truck Driving Graduates' Suit in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Co., Inc. faces a purported class-action in
Tennessee over that was brought on behalf of 5,000 graduates
purported to have had their licenses revoked, Tom Bailey, Jr. of
Memphis Commercial Appeal reports.

The suit against the Millington truck-driving school was filed
on March 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by Michael D. Ham, Jemonia L. Ham,
Dennis R. Wolf. and Francis Wolf.  Memphis attorney Frank
Watson, Esq., filed the suit on behalf of the four drivers, who
are from Connecticut and Illinois.

The federal lawsuit claims the drivers have suffered damages
totaling at least $5 million.  It also seeks class-action status
and estimates that about 3,700 drivers in other states are
affected.

Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that students paid $3,900 to
take a 23-day course preparing them to pass Tennessee testing
for a commercial driver's license.

The academy though had a special arrangement with Tennessee
Department of Safety.  Swift driving instructors could also be
"third-party testers" on behalf of the state, and administer
driving skills tests.  Swift even housed a Tennessee driver's
license testing center at its truck terminal in Memphis,
according to the Memphis Commercial Appeal report.

Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that federal and state agents
raided the academy and terminal in February 2008.  The state
immediately ended Swift's status as a third-party tester.  The
Department of Safety has never explained what the academy did
wrong.

However, the lawsuit charges that the driving school broke state
and federal regulations between 2005 and 2008 by not
administering the driving test in an effort "to save time and
money."

"... While the student drivers were in the training mode of the
program (and hence practicing maneuvering), defendant Swift's
employees falsely filled out paperwork reflecting that the
student drivers had conducted and passed the skills test," the
suit states, according to the Memphis Commercial Appeal report.

The suit is "Ham et al v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case
No. 2:2009-cv-02145," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge S. Thomas Anderson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Frank L. Watson, III, Esq. (fwatson@watsonburns.com)
          Watson Burns, LLC
          11 South Idlewild Street
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Phone: 901-578-3528
          Fax: 901-578-2649


WAL-MART STORES: Larger Ninth Circuit Panel Reviews "Dukes" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
An 11-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit heard arguments on whether a gender-discrimination
lawsuit against retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. can proceed
as the largest class-action lawsuit in history, Josh Richman of
the Oakland Tribune reports.

On March 24, 2009, the appeals court panel heard an hour of
arguments on whether an estimated 1.5 million women who are
current and former employees of the world's largest private
employer can proceed as one in claiming they received less pay
and were denied promotions in comparison to men, according to
the Oakland Tribune report.

Attorney Theodore Boutrous, Esq. of Los Angeles, representing
the Arkansas-based company, argued that U.S. District Judge
Martin Jenkins, of San Francisco, erred by applying the wrong
standard when he certified the case as a class action in 2004,
reports the Oakland Tribune.

Mr. Boutrous said a suit so massive -- in which so many
plaintiffs are seeking both back pay and punitive damages that
could total in the billions while also involving an individual
determination for each case -- can't be tried as a class action
without trampling the company's right to defend itself.

However, attorney Brad Seligman, Esq., from the Berkeley-based
Impact Fund, representing the plaintiffs, said there's nothing
wrong with letting his clients prove the company "approved of
and acquiesced for years" to a pattern and practice of its
regional management allowing gender discrimination in pay and
promotions, "to show the common operating procedure was
discrimination."  The fact that there's not a "one-size-fits-
all" remedy for all the class members doesn't mean the lawsuit
can't proceed as a class action, he argued, according to the
Oakland Tribune report.

Steve Painter of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette previously
reported that the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit had ruled that a larger panel of judges will reconsider
whether a gender discrimination case against Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. should be certified as a class-action suit (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 19, 2009).

                        Case Background

The purported class-action suit, captioned, "Dukes v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.," was commenced in June 2001 and was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  It
was brought on behalf of all past and present female employees
in all of the company's retail stores and warehouse clubs in the
U.S.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments.  It seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be
subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female associates.

The company believes that the district court's ruling is
incorrect.

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's petition for discretionary review
of the ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of
Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's
certification order.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the
decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court.  On
Dec. 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of
February 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion.   As a result,
Wal-Mart's Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.

Wal-Mart filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8,
2008.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Mar 24, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Notice is
hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. ("Insight Enterprises"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:NSIT), between January 30, 2007 and
February 6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Insight Enterprises and certain of
the Company's current and former executive officers with
violations of federal securities laws.

     Insight Enterprises provides brand-name information
technology hardware, software and services to large enterprises,
small-to medium-sized businesses, and public sector institutions
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia-
Pacific.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Insight Enterprises'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 the following:

       -- that the Company was improperly accounting for trade
          credits;

       -- that, as a result, the Company misstated its financial
          results during the Class Period;

       -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial
          statements were materially false and misleading at all
          relevant times.

     On February 9, 2009, Insight Enterprises shocked the market
when it revealed that the Company's management and the Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors had determined that Insight
Enterprises would have to restate its previously reported
earnings as a result of its historical accounting treatment of
aged trade credits.

     The Company further disclosed that the restatement
pertained to the release of certain aged trade credits from its
balance sheet to its statement of earnings prior to the complete
release of the underlying liabilities under applicable legal
requirements.

     Insight Enterprises announced that it expects to restate
financial statements included in the Company's most recently
filed Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended December
31, 2007, and in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the
first three quarters of fiscal year 2008.

     On this news, shares of Insight Enterprises declined $2.85
per share, more than 48%, to close on February 9, 2009, at $3.05
per share on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Subsequently, the Company further disclosed that on March
19, 2009, the Company received an informal inquiry from the
Securities and Exchange Commission requesting certain documents
and information relating to its historical accounting treatment
of aged trade credits.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.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  * * *