CAR_Public/090330.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 62

                           Headlines

ALABAMA: Official, Corporations Face Litigation Over PACT Losses
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Successfully Defends Against N.Y. Lawsuit
CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: Morris Polich Helps Obtain $256.52M Judgment
DELL INC: Denies Allegations in California Discrimination Suit
ELI LILLY: Continues to Face Zyprexa Suits in U.S. and Canada

ELI LILLY: Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Remains Pending in Ind.
ING GROEP: Faces Another Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Arizona
J. ARON: Faces $150M Litigation by Oklahoma Oil, Gas Producers
KRAFT GLOBAL: Faces Water, Air Pollution Lawsuit in Indiana

LOS ANGELES: Faces Probation Officers' Overtime Wage Litigation
LOUISIANA PACIFIC: TrimBoard Settlement for Homeowners to Expand
MEDIACOM COMMS: Mo. Jury Awards $44T To Plaintiffs in "Ogg" Case
MOUNT CLEMENS: Nurses' Lawsuit to Improve Staffing Moves Forward
PARTNER COMMS: Faces Subscribers' Litigation in Israeli Court

PFIZER INC: End-Payor Plaintiffs Drop Claims in Neurontin Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Court Allows "Light Cigarettes" Suit to Proceed
TIDEWATER MARKETING: Faces Suit Over Unredeemable Gas Vouchers
WYETH: Appeal to Vacated Order in Engineers' Union Suit Pending
WYETH: April 1 Certification Hearing Set for "Swanston" Action

WYETH: Briefing on Appeal in Section 340B Suit Set for 2Q 2009
WYETH: Consolidated Antitrust Suit by Protonix Purchasers Stayed
WYETH: Hormone Therapy Personal Injury Litigation Still Ongoing
WYETH: Motion to Dismiss Pristiq-Related Litigation Pending


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Johnson Bottini Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Stock Suit Filing


                           *********

ALABAMA: Official, Corporations Face Litigation Over PACT Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two individuals who bought into Alabama's Prepaid Affordable
College Tuition (PACT) Program filed a purported class-action
lawsuit against the state and several corporations over the
program's steep losses, Marie Leech of The Birmingham News
reports.

The PACT trust fund has lost almost half its value since mid-
2007.  At their current value, the fund's assets are sufficient
to refund the money paid into it but far short of the amount
needed to pay participants' tuition in the coming years,
according to The Birmingham News report.

The lawsuit, filed on March 19, 2009 in Calhoun County Circuit
Court, lists Allen R. Hudson and Nina H. McGinnis as the
plaintiffs.  It was filed by Anniston-based lawyer Donald W.
Stewart, Esq., and is seeking class-action status.

The Birmingham News reported that State Treasurer Kay Ivey,
chairman of the PACT Program, is the lead defendant.  Other
defendants are several corporations that plaintiffs say
participated in the crisis:

       -- Callan Associates;
       -- Intech Investment Management;
       -- Rumbline Advisors;
       -- C.S. McKee LP;
       -- Earnest Partners;
       -- Turner Investment Partners;
       -- Acadian Asset Management;
       -- Principal Global Investors;
       -- Western Asset Management Co.; and
       -- Sterne, Agee and Leach.

According to the lawsuit, "Due to the defendants' collective
negligence, wantonness, breach of contract and/or failure to
properly administer, invest and/or manage the investments
relevant to the PACT plan, the plaintiffs ... will be unable to
attend college as the PACT plan intended."

At the beginning of the month, Ms. Ivey sent letters to
participants in the state's PACT Program warning that the trust
fund backing the program had suffered steep losses, reports The
Birmingham News.

The fund, which lost 46 percent of its value over 18 months,
remains invested mostly in stocks.  Valued at $899 million in
2007, it was worth $484 million at the end of 2008.

The Birmingham News reported that the trust fund was financed by
payments from parents and grandparents who bought prepaid
tuition contracts.  Officials have said the state may refund
participants' original investments instead of honoring the
contracts and paying students' tuition.

PACT officials have said the program's assets were not insured
or backed by the state, despite explicit guarantees in many
contracts that participants' tuition would be paid.

The lawsuit states that Mr. Hudson bought a PACT contract in
October for Emma L. Hathaway for a lump-sum payment of $24,149.
Emma's projected college enrollment date is 2026.  It also
states Mr. Hudson and Ms. McGinnis bought a PACT contract in
December for Stevie A. Graves for a lump-sum payment of $22,031.
Stevie's projected college enrollment date is 2025, according to
The Birmingham News report.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Successfully Defends Against N.Y. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed with prejudice shareholder class actions
filed between June and August 2005 against Authentidate Holding
Corp., a worldwide provider of secure Health Information
Exchange and workflow management services, and certain current
and former directors and former officers.  The Company has no
information as to whether plaintiffs intend to appeal this
decision.

     "We are pleased that the Court has dismissed this action in
favor of Authentidate," stated Ben Benjamin, President of
Authentidate Holding Corp.  "Authentidate's Board of Directors
and management team will continue to concentrate their time and
resources on developing the Company's business."

Authentidate Holding Corp. -- http://www.authentidate.com/is a
worldwide provider of secure Health Information Exchange and
workflow management services.  The Company's software and web-
based services enable healthcare organizations and other
enterprises to increase revenues, improve productivity and
reduce costs by eliminating paper and manual work steps from
clinical, administrative and other processes and enhancing
compliance with regulatory requirements.  The web-based services
are delivered as Software as a Service (Saas) to customers.
These solutions incorporate rules-based electronic forms,
intelligent routing, transaction management, electronic
signatures, identity credentialing, content authentication and
automated audit trails.  Both web and fax based communications
are integrated into automated and trusted workflow solutions.
The Company has offices in the United States and Germany.  In
the United States, Authentidate offers its patent pending
content authentication technology in the form of the United
States Postal Service(R) Electronic Postmark(R) (EPM).


CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: Morris Polich Helps Obtain $256.52M Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Morris Polich & Purdy LLP successfully represented
plaintiffs against one of the nation's leading credit counseling
firms and its founders for non-compliance with the Credit Repair
Organizations Act (CROA) and other claims.

    Cambridge Credit Counseling, Inc. misleadingly claimed to
consumers that it was a non-profit organization, but those
claims have now been adjudged false and fraudulent.  The
$256,527,000 class action judgment against John and Richard
Puccio and several other entities related to the credit
counseling organization issued following summary judgment being
entered against the defendants by United States District Court
Judge Michael A Ponsor of the Massachusetts District.

     Advertisements for credit counseling have bombarded viewers
and listeners of the Internet, TV, and late-night Radio for the
past ten years: "Are you in debt? We are a non-profit
organization that will negotiate with your creditors to lower
your interest rates and improve your credit."  Such a claim,
according to David J. Vendler, a partner at Morris Polich &
Purdy LLP, is common of credit counseling organizations. "What
consumers never knew was that the majority of these "non-profit"
debt counseling entities were a sham, and were really operated
as for-profit commercial enterprises," says Vendler.

     The case "Zimmermann v. Cambridge Credit Counseling, Inc.,"
was originally filed in 2003, and was initially dismissed on the
defendants' Rule 12 motion on the ground that the credit
counseling entity could not be held liable under the CROA due to
its non-profit 501(c)(3) status.  In a case of first impression
nationwide, however, the First Circuit reversed, holding that
credit repair companies are not automatically excluded from the
definition of a "credit repair organization" simply because they
are organized as non profit tax exempt entities.  The court held
that, in order to be immune from suit under the CROA, the
defendant must prove that it actually operates in a manner
consistent with both of those statuses.

     The named plaintiffs were a Virginia couple who paid
approximately $1,000 in 2002 for a customized debt management
program with Cambridge Credit Counseling Corporation.  "The
success rates for debt management plans are terrible," Vendler
says, "yet Congress nonetheless chose to make credit counseling
a requirement to filing bankruptcy as part of the new Bankruptcy
Reform Act."

     After several months on the Cambridge debt management
program, the Zimmermanns owed more money to creditors, and had
worse credit scores, than before they contacted Cambridge.  They
sued the company, its owners John and Richard Puccio, as well as
several related entities for violations of the CROA, alleging
that Cambridge's non profit status was a sham, and that John and
Richard Puccio had, through a complex series of corporate
maneuvers, personally made millions from America's most
vulnerable consumers, i.e. those already severely overburdened
by debt, who are willing to do and pay almost anything to avoid
bankruptcy.

     The Zimmermanns' case is not the only class action suit
handled by Vendler and Morris Polich & Purdy.  A similar case
alleging nonprofit fraud in the credit counseling industry was
settled for approximately $35,000,000 (with the FTC as a co-
plaintiff) in 2005.  The main defendant in that case was Andris
Pukke, a convicted felon, who founded Ameridebt, Inc.,
Debticated Consumer Counseling, Inc. and several other
ostensibly "non-profit" tax exempt credit counseling entities.

     There have been Congressional hearings regarding such
rampant abuses in the credit counseling industry, and the IRS
has revoked the tax-exempt status of many credit counseling
agencies, but the actual consumers/victims have seen little
relief.  While Vendler is sure that the full amount of the
judgment will never be satisfied, he is confident that consumers
will be reimbursed for at least a portion of their losses. Also,
because of the injunctive relief that was entered as part of the
judgment, he is sure that the perpetrators of this fraud will
never be allowed to repeat it.

     Morris Polich & Purdy LLP was co-counsel in both cases with
the Charlottesville, Virginia office of Michie Hamlett Lowry
Rasmussen & Tweel PLLC, as well as Charlottesville attorney
Gregory Duncan.  Massachusetts attorney Steven G. Hennessy also
represents plaintiffs in the Zimmermann case.

For more details, contact:

          David Vendler, Esq.
          Polich & Purdy LLP
          Phone: (213) 417-5100
          Web site: http://www.mpplaw.com


DELL INC: Denies Allegations in California Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc. denied allegations in a lawsuit that accuses it of
discriminating against women and older workers, saying that it
had treated employees unfairly and said no layoffs were made on
the basis of age or sex, Agam Shah of IDG News Service reports.

In a recent filing, the company said that the layoffs were
consistent with Dell's business needs and not targeted at
particular employees, the company said in a court filing on
March 18. Dell announced in May 2007 that it planned to lay off
8,800 workers, or about 10 percent of its workforce, as part of
its efforts to cut costs, according to the IDG News Service
report.

Antone Gonsalves of InformationWeek previously reported that
Dell, Inc. is denying allegations that massive layoffs at the
computer maker have unfairly targeted women and employees over
40 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2008).

The allegations stem from a class-action lawsuit filed on Oct.
29, 2008 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of
California by four women, all former senior employees in Dell's
human resources department.  The suit is captioned, "Chapman et
al v. Dell Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-04945-MHP."

In addition to discrimination in layoffs, the plaintiffs claim
Dell systemically discriminates in blocking women across the
company from entering the top ranks, according to
InformationWeek.

The four senior HR women, namely Mildred J. Chapman, Angela
Hopkins, Julia M. Mahaffey and Bethany Riches, accuse the
world's second largest computer manufacturer of systemic
discrimination in blocking women across the company from
breaking into the top ranks of what a Dell male Vice President,
Michael Summers, calls the "old boy networks in Dell" (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 31 ,2008).

The plaintiffs, who as HR specialists are intimately familiar
with the company's employment practices, seek to change Dell's
discriminatory policies regarding pay, job placement, promotion,
and termination.

The lawsuit demands $500 million in damages for a class of
thousands of current and former Dell female managers and
executives, and older employees disproportionately affected by
the company's mass layoffs in 2007 and 2008.

InformationWeek reports that the plaintiffs are claiming that
Dell engineered layoffs of more than 8,000 employees, singling
out women and older employees.  As a result, Dell's upper-
management ranks have swelled to about 80% male.

The suit claims each of the plaintiffs lost more than $1 million
in projected salary increases, promotion grants, and short- and
long-term incentive awards, according to the InformationWeek
report.

The plaintiffs allege that chief executive Michael Dell, along
with others on the 14-member executive leadership team and other
senior male executives, carried out or assisted in the
discriminatory acts described in the complaint.

The four plaintiffs and the class are represented in this matter
by Steven L. Wittels, David W. Sanford, and Janette Wipper, who
head teams of lawyers from Sanford Wittels & Heisler's San
Francisco, Washington, D.C. and New York City offices.

On Nov. 3, 2008, Dell denied the allegations.  A Dell spokesman
told InformationWeek "We believe the claims in the suit are
without merit."  The spokesman added, "Dell does not tolerate
discrimination in any aspect of employment and will vigorously
defend any claim that we are not acting in accordance with the
law or our policies."

The suit is "Chapman et al v. Dell Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-04945-
MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of
California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Thomas Marc Litton, Esq. (tmlitton@gmail.com)
          Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP
          120 Montgomery Street
          Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone:  415-421-4770
          Fax: 415-421-4784


ELI LILLY: Continues to Face Zyprexa Suits in U.S. and Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. continues to face several purported class-
action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over the side effects and
marketing of Zyprexa.

                         U.S. Lawsuits

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide
class action suits on behalf of all consumers and third-party
payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or will
make payments for their members or insured patients being
prescribed Zyprexa.

These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit,
which is brought under certain state consumer protection
statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund
of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Two additional lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of
New York in 2006 on similar grounds.

In 2007, The Pennsylvania Employees Trust Fund brought claims in
state court in Pennsylvania as insurer of Pennsylvania state
employees, who were prescribed Zyprexa on similar grounds as
described in the New York cases.

In general, these lawsuits allege that the company inadequately
tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and
improperly promoted the drug.

In September 2008, Judge Weinstein certified a class consisting
of third-party payors, excluding governmental entities and
individual consumers.  The company appealed the certification
order, and Judge Weinstein's order denying Eli Lilly's motion
for summary judgment, in September 2008.

The Pennsylvania case is set for trial in October 2009.

                       Canadian Lawsuits

In early 2005, the company was served with four lawsuits seeking
class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took
Zyprexa.

One of these four lawsuits has been certified for residents of
Quebec, and a second has been certified in Ontario and includes
all Canadian residents, except for residents of Quebec and
British Columbia.

The allegations in the Canadian actions are similar to those in
the litigation pending in the U.S., 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.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an
animal health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes
its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S.,
Puerto Rico and 25 other countries.  Eli Lilly and company's
products are sold in approximately 135 countries.  The company
also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in
animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food
production.  Its principal products include Neurosciences
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products and Other
pharmaceuticals.


ELI LILLY: Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Remains Pending in Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit filed against Eli Lilly and Co. in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for
alleged racial discrimination remains pending.

The suit was filed in April 2006 by several workers of the drug
company who allegedly experienced racial discrimination.  Three
former and one current Eli Lilly employee alleged that the
company paid black employees less than their white counterparts,
passed them over for promotions and verbally abused them.

The alleged discrimination dates back to 2003.  One of the
plaintiffs is Cassandra Welch, who was fired in mid-2004 for an
unrelated reason.

The suit is seeking class action on behalf of more than 1,000
black employees.  It is asking unspecified damages, lost
compensation and an order enjoining Lilly against future
discrimination.

The other plaintiffs are current sales representative, Sheryl A.
Davis of Memphis, Tennessee; and two former sales reps, Jarmaine
Bromell of Philadelphia and Raynard Tyson of North Carolina.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs amended their original
complaint to add 50 new plaintiffs, as well as the national and
local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People.

Under the current schedule, the plaintiffs are to file their
class certification motion in 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.

The suit is "Welch et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, Case No. 1:06-
cv-00641-RLY-VSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Judge Richard L. Young, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joshua Rose, Esq. (daver@roselawyers.com)
          Terri N. Marcus, Esq.
          David L. Rose, Esq.
          Rose & Rose, P.C.
          1320 19th St., N.W., Suite 601
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-331-8555
          Fax: 202-331-0996

Representing the defendants is:

          Ellen E. Boshkoff, Esq. (ellen.boshkoff@bakerd.com)
          Baker & Daniels
          300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-237-1266
          Fax: 317-237-1000


ING GROEP: Faces Another Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep NV faces another purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit alleging that the Dutch financial services giant
deceived the public about its parlous mortgage-related
exposures, Law360 reports.

The complaint, lodged on March 23, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, was filed by
Murray, Frank & on behalf of investors who purchased billions of
dollars of securities from the company, according to the Law360
report.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially false and misleading registration statement,
prospectuses, and other documents (Class Action Reporter, March
27, 2009).

These documents failed to disclose risks that:

       -- defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage-
          related securities, were impaired to a much larger
          extent than the Company had disclosed;

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

       -- The Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting the
          value of its assets; and

       -- ING was not as well capitalized as represented, and,
          notwithstanding the billions of dollars raised in the
          Offerings, the Company would have to raise an
          additional EUR10 billion by selling equity in the
          Company to the Dutch government.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of class members.

For more information, contact:

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


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Enterprises, Inc. is facing several purported class-
action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona alleging securities fraud violations, Stephen Taub of
CFO.com reports.

The computer products reseller is being sued by shareholders in
Arizona federal court.  At least four law firms have announced
the filing of class-action lawsuits on behalf of investors who
purchased securities between Jan. 30, 2007, and this Feb. 6,
2009, according to the CFO.com report.

One such complaint was filed by the Izard Nobel LLP.  The law
firm announced on March 25, 2009, that a lawsuit seeking class
action status had been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased the
securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. between January 30, 2007
and February 6, 2009, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, March
27, 2009).

The Complaint charges that Insight and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false statements.

Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- Insight was improperly accounting for trade credits;

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

       -- Insight lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

       -- as a result, the Company's financial statements were
          materially false and misleading.

On Feb. 9, 2009, Insight revealed that it would restate its
previously reported earnings as a result of its historical
accounting treatment of aged trade credits.

Insight also 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 Dec. 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 fell $2.85
to close at $3.05 per share.

For more details, contact:

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


J. ARON: Faces $150M Litigation by Oklahoma Oil, Gas Producers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Oklahoma suppliers owed money by SemGroup LP filed a
federal class-action lawsuit seeking nearly $150 million from J.
Aron & Co., a Goldman Sachs subsidiary which ultimately bought
that oil and gas from the bankrupt Tulsa energy company, Rod
Walton of Tulsa World reports.

The suit, entitled, "IC-CO Inc. et al v. J. Aron & Company, Case
No. 6:09-cv-00122-RAW," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma on March 25, 2009 by IC-CO
Inc., W.E.O.C., Inc. and Reserve Management, Inc., which own
wells in Oklahoma.

The complaint alleges that J. Aron & Co. is also responsible for
SemGroup's lack of payment to producers. J. Aron originally owed
$434 million to SemGroup for oil and gas purchases, but has
agreed to pay only $89.8 million, according to court records,
copies of which were obtained by Tulsa World.

The producers charge that J. Aron holds another $345.6 million
in unpaid oil and gas production from SemGroup.  The petitioners
allege that they personally suffered almost half of those
damages, reports the Tulsa World.

According to the complaint, a cop of which was obtained by Tulsa
World, "As a direct and proximate cause and result of the
wrongful acts of J. Aron, the class has suffered a cumulative
loss of approximately $143,126,088."

SemGroup LP reportedly owes as much as $1 billion to oil and gas
producers for production it picked up on credit in the month
before its July 22, 2008, bankruptcy petition.  The privately
held Tulsa firm sought Chapter 11 protection in Delaware after
piling up debts that also included $2.4 billion in lost margins
on oil futures trades, according to reports.  Producers
nationwide have sought repayment from SemGroup LP through the
Delaware bankruptcy case, according to the Tulsa World report.


KRAFT GLOBAL: Faces Water, Air Pollution Lawsuit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Global Foods Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit that was filed by Attica, Indiana homeowners who are
alleging that the water and air pollution in the area is hurting
property values and risking their health, The Journal and
Courier reports.

The chemicals are from a nearby, now-defunct Radio Materials
Corp. factory, which Kraft acquired through mergers.  The
lawsuit alleges that chemicals found are known to cause cancer,
according to The Journal and Courier report.

The suit was filed on March 25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana by Susan Stoll, Patrick
Stoll, Mary Bowles and Charles Bowles.

The suit is "STOLL et al v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Case No.
1:09-cv-00364-LJM-DML," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Judge Larry J. McKinney,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Cory Stephen Brundage, Esq. (cb@brundagelaw.com)
          1700 One American Square
          Box 82053
          Indianapolis, IN 46282-0003
          Phone: (317) 639-4875
          Fax: (317) 639-4882


LOS ANGELES: Faces Probation Officers' Overtime Wage Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Timothy Bentley, on March 25, 2009, filed a federal court
lawsuit on behalf of himself and all Los Angeles County
Probation Officers alleging that he worked overtime hours
without getting paid.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to
stop the County from engaging in this unlawful practice and
monetary compensation.  Mr. Bentley is represented by noted
civil rights law firm Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman, LLP.

     The lawsuit alleges:

     "The probation officers are essential to the County's
ability to deter crime.  Yet, the County requires many officers
to maintain more than double the standard case load, leading to
unreasonable hours without pay.  We believe this violates the
law."

     "The probation officers are essential to the County's
ability to deter crime.  Yet, the County requires many officers
to maintain more than double the standard case load, leading to
unreasonable hours without pay.  We believe this violates the
law.

     "The probation officers are essential to the County's
ability to deter crime.  Yet, the County requires many officers
to maintain more than double the standard case load, leading to
unreasonable hours without pay.  We believe this violates the
law.

     Timothy Bentley, a 17-year veteran Probation Officer for
the Los Angeles County Probation Department, filed the
Collective Action Law Suit in Federal Court on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated probation officers for overtime
wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Under this
federal law, employees may sue collectively, providing them with
a mechanism for legal recourse similar to class action law
suits.

     The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles (Timothy Bentley v.
County of Los Angeles, Central District of California, Case No.
CV09 2063 JSL (CWK)), alleges that Los Angeles County failed to
pay overtime wages to its Probation Officers within the Suitable
Placement Division for the past three years.  The complaint
seeks both a preliminary injunction to stop the County from its
unlawful practice as well as monetary damages for all employees
covered under the law suit.

     The lawsuit states, "In order for Plaintiff to reasonably
manage his caseload without having to work overtime, he should
have had approximately 30 to 40 cases.  Between October 2006 and
November 2007, Plaintiff had a case load between approximately
70 to 90 active cases.  The Probation Department, makes it a
practice to overload its PO's with so many cases that it is
impossible for a PO to accomplish their job duties without
working substantial overtime.  Thus, Plaintiff and other PO's
spend considerable hours working overtime at home, after work
hours and on the weekends to keep up with their caseload.  Yet,
the Probation Department does not pay these PO's for the
overtime they worked."

     V. James DeSimone of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris &
Hoffman, LLP, attorneys for Mr. Bentley said: "The probation
officers are essential to the County's ability to deter crime.
Yet, the County requires many officers to maintain more than
double the standard case load, leading to unreasonable hours
without pay.  We believe this violates the law."

For more details, contact:

          V. James DeSimone
          Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP
          Phone: (310) 396-0731
          Web site: http://www.losangelesemploymentlawyer.com


LOUISIANA PACIFIC: TrimBoard Settlement for Homeowners to Expand
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Justin Lucey of Lucey Law firm and Paul Dominick of Nexsen
Pruet law firm, in 2008, reached a class action settlement (Case
No. 2:05-1515-PMD) in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina Charleston Division with Louisiana Pacific for
compensation to home owners and others for damaged TrimBoard on
their structures.

     The plaintiff alleged that the TrimBoard was unsuitable for
exterior use, and that it often failed prematurely due to water
absorption, resulting in swelling or decay.

     Many homeowners were negatively impacted by this defective
product, including a loss in overall resale value of their
homes, and a second class action to include residents outside of
Charleston County, SC, is now pending.

     TrimBoard is a manufactured or composite wood trim product,
sometimes referred to as medium density fiberboard, which is
used as trim on the exterior of structures.  It comes in
different widths, and is often used as trim around windows and
doors, at corners of structures as corner board, as or over the
band board at the base of the first floor, as fascia or soffit
near the roof line, and/or as decorative trim on columns, rail
posts, and along porches or stair stringers.  It was sold to
customers as "easier to use" and "more durable" than other trim
products, despite the fact that Louisiana Pacific was aware of
its defective nature, particularly with installations in coastal
South Carolina, which is recognized as being in a severe weather
belt.  The product was commonly used during periods of rapid
neighborhood development in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

     Prior to the settlement in Charleston County, Louisiana
Pacific would inspect the house, deny any product defect, blame
the installer, and then offer a small "policy" settlement for
some damaged wood, at $5.00 or so per foot of damaged board.

     If a homeowner has TrimBoard on their structure, the
settlement provides for compensation of $17 per foot for partial
replacement of damaged TrimBoard or $14 per foot for complete
replacement of damaged TrimBoard, less attorney fees of one-
third.  The settlement also provides for a greater amount of the
TrimBoard to be eligible for compensation.

     The Charleston County settlement received final court
approval in January and class counsel is now attempting to
secure similar benefits for the rest of the state in a second
class action pending in the same court.

For more details, contact:

          Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A.
          415 Mill Street
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 849-8400 or (843) 720-1736
          Web site: http://www.lucey-law.com/LPTrimClaims.html
                    http://www.nexsenpruet.com


MEDIACOM COMMS: Mo. Jury Awards $44T To Plaintiffs in "Ogg" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Clay County, Mo. jury has ordered cable television provider
Mediacom Communications Corp. to pay a Missouri farming couple
almost $44,000 in damages for installing cable on their property
without permission, The Associated Press reports.

The case, entitled, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC,"
has been certified a class action that could cover up to 1,400
people in Missouri, according to The Associated Press.

Middletown, N.Y.-based Mediacom told AP that it plans to appeal
the verdict.  It argued it didn't need to get permission from
Gary and Janice Ogg in 1999 because it had permission from a
state highway commission and an electric utility that already
held rights of way on their property, reports The Associated
Press.

The Associated Press reported that the Missouri Court of Appeals
ruled in 2004 that those easements weren't binding on the Oggs
and that the company should have gotten separate permission from
them.

Mediacom LLC, one of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries, is
named as a defendant in the putative class action, captioned,
"Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC," pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, by which the plaintiffs
are seeking class-wide damages for alleged trespasses on land
owned by private parties.

The lawsuit was originally filed in April 2001.  It alleges that
Mediacom LLC, in areas where there was no cable franchise,
failed to obtain permission from landowners to place its fiber
interconnection cable notwithstanding the possession of
agreements or permission from other third parties.

An order declaring that this action is appropriate for class
relief was entered in April 2006.

While the parties continue to contest liability, there also
remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.  Based on
a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claimed compensatory
damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal fees, prejudgment
interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could
increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.  The
plaintiffs have recently proposed an alternative damage theory
of $40.0 million in compensatory damages.

On July 23, 2008, Mediacom LLC filed a motion to strike the
expert testimony presented by plaintiffs in its first damage
theory and another motion to preclude plaintiffs' presentation
of the second alternative damage theory.

A trial date of Nov. 3, 2008 was set for the claim by the class
representatives, Gary and Janice Ogg, but has been postponed
until Jan. 26, 2009.

In the interim, motions to strike testimony from plaintiff's
experts and the recently restated theory that plaintiff's
espouse were argued before the court.

Mediacom LLC has tendered the lawsuit to the company's insurance
carrier for defense and indemnification.  The carrier has agreed
to defend Mediacom LLC under a reservation of rights, and a
declaratory judgment action is pending regarding the carrier's
defense and coverage responsibilities.

Mediacom Communications Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com-- is
a cable television company serving smaller cities and towns in
the United States.  The company provides its customers with an
array of products and services, including video services, such
as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television (HDTV) and
digital video recorders (DVR); high-speed data (HSD), also known
as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service, and phone
service.


MOUNT CLEMENS: Nurses' Lawsuit to Improve Staffing Moves Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
     A landmark lawsuit filed by registered nurses in Detroit
over efforts by hospitals in their area to conspire to hold down
wages for nurses-even in the face of a chronic shortage of
nurses willing to work in acute care hospitals-will move forward
after a federal judge rejected attempts to have the case
dismissed.

     Judge Gerald Rosen of the U. S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan rejected arguments from Mount
Clemens General Hospital that the nurses' suit has no merit and
ordered the case to go forward.

     "This puts us one step closer to giving direct care nurses
a more powerful voice about how our profession deals with the
chronic shortage of nurses working in hospitals.  Nurses, our
patients, and their families will all be better off when nurses'
hard work is valued and more nurses can remain in their
careers," said Cathy Glasson, RN, of the Nurse Alliance of SEIU.

     According to a report by the Institute for Women's Policy
Research, over 1.2 million nursing positions will need to be
filled nationally over the next five years. The report shows
that the shortage is due in part to artificially low wages
caused by collusion among hospital employers.

     A growing body of research has linked nurse staffing to the
quality of patient outcomes in hospitals.

     Nurses filed lawsuits in 2006 against hospitals in Albany,
Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, and San Antonio after research showed
that nurses' real wages are not rising despite ongoing shortages
of staff nurses in hospitals.  Nurses assert that hospitals are
colluding to hold down wages instead of boosting pay to recruit
and retain enough nurses to provide higher quality care.

     The Nurse Alliance of SEIU has played a leading role in
supporting empirical research that has exposed the national
problem of employer collusion around nurse wages, shown the link
between wage levels and the shortage of bedside nurses, and
demonstrated the importance of staffing levels for improving
patient care.

     With more than 84,000 nurses in 23 states, the Nurse
Alliance of SEIU is one of the largest nurse organizations in
the country.  Through the Nurse Alliance, nurses are uniting
across the country to pursue any and all solutions to bring
nurses back to the bedside and raise the standard of care, from
enforcement of existing laws, to calling for new legislation
protecting nurses and patients, to giving nurses a voice in the
delivery of patient care.


PARTNER COMMS: Faces Subscribers' Litigation in Israeli Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Partner Communications Company Ltd. (TASE:PTNR), a leading
Israeli mobile communications operator, was served on March 24,
2009 with a lawsuit requesting certification as a class action,
filed against Partner in the District Court of Haifa.

     The claim alleges that Partner should not have charged its
subscribers for various different services in certain
circumstances.

     If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total
amount claimed from Partner is estimated by the Plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS 1,250,000,000.

     Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and at this
preliminary stage is unable to evaluate the probability of
success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if
any, with any degree of certainty.


PFIZER INC: End-Payor Plaintiffs Drop Claims in Neurontin Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Five end-payor plaintiffs, including Vista HealthPlan Inc., have
voluntarily dismissed all claims against Pfizer, Inc. in a
consolidated class-action suit that accused the pharmaceutical
giant of a scheme to delay generic competition for the epilepsy
drug Neurontin, Law360 reports.

Vista HealthPlan, a painters union and three individual consumer
plaintiffs lodged stipulations of voluntary dismissal on March
24, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, according to the Law360 report.


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Allows "Light Cigarettes" Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on March 16, 2009
that Massachusetts smokers can use a consumer protection law to
sue Philip Morris, Inc. for the way it marketed Marlboro Lights,
The Associated Press reports.

The ruling means a class-action lawsuit brought by smokers who
claim deceptive marketing can move forward, reports the
Associated Press.

The suit, launched way back in 1998, claimed that Philip Morris
engaged in deceptive marketing since Marlboro Lights did not in
fact deliver lowered tar and nicotine to smokers (due to their
tendency to puff harder and longer on the less potent
cigarettes), Michael Krauss at Point of Law reported.

The Massachusetts court found it to have been validated by the
Good decision, according to the Point of Law report.

But Philip Morris publicly claimed that the statutory suit could
not produce the desired consumer damages.  "Potential class
members generally have no claim for damages because each of them
paid the same price for Marlboro Lights as they would have paid
for [higher-tar] Marlboros.  In addition, many of these
potential class members have continued to smoke Marlboro Lights
[even after the company ceased using the phrase "lower tar and
nicotine" on packages in 2003] despite their claims," argues
Altria associate general counsel Murray Garnick, reports Point
of Law.


TIDEWATER MARKETING: Faces Suit Over Unredeemable Gas Vouchers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Marketing Global Consultants and retailers BOTK LLC
and Big O Tires are facing a national class-action lawsuit that
was filed by a Dayton, Ohio resident who was unable to redeem
$500 in gas vouchers, Diane C. Lade of the South Florida Sun-
Sentinel reports.

Cincinnati attorney Saba Alam said her firm is looking at other
merchants, including some in Florida, as possible defendants,
according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that Tidewater, a
marketing and redemption center, operated under multiple names,
including GasolineRedemption.com and Freebeegas.com.

Distributors would purchase certificates from Tidewater,
reselling them to retailers for use in giveaways.  Certificate
holders then paid Tidewater a $5 enrollment fee and submitted
$100 in gas receipts monthly in exchange for free gas cards,
reports the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

For more details, contact:

          Saba Alam, Esq. (salam@statmanharris.com)
          Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC
          441 Vine Street Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 621-2666
          Fax: (513) 345-1756 or 513-587-4477
          Web site: http://www.statmanharris.com


WYETH: Appeal to Vacated Order in Engineers' Union Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An interlocutory appeal to the vacated order in "International
Union of Operating Engineers, et al. v. AstraZeneca PLC, et al.,
No. MON-L-3136-06, Super. Ct., Monmouth Cty., NJ," is set for
arguments in the first quarter of 2009, according to Wyeth's
Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The lawsuit is one of the two private class-action suits filed
on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries who make co-payments and
private health plans and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) plans that purchase drugs based on Average Wholesale
Price (AWP).

In 2008, the plaintiff announced that it would not proceed with
the case.  The court dismissed the case without prejudice but
vacated that order four months later when plaintiffs' counsel
attempted to substitute in two new union plaintiffs.

Defendants were granted leave to file an interlocutory appeal of
the vacation order by the New Jersey Appellate Division.  That
appeal will be argued in the first quarter of 2009.

Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery,
development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of
products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer
Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health).
Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products.
Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience
therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products,
gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology
therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments,
immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer
Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy
remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and
personal care items sold over-the-counter.  Principal Animal
Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite
control and growth implants.


WYETH: April 1 Certification Hearing Set for "Swanston" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing has been set for April 1, 2009,
in a private class action, Swanston v. TAP Pharmaceuticals
Products, Inc., et al., No. CV2002-004988, Sup. Ct., Maricopa
Cty., Ariz., which names Wyeth as a defendant.

The private class action was filed on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries who make co-payments, as well as private health
plans and ERISA plans that purchase drugs based on AWP.

The Swanston case is a putative statewide class action.

The parties have been engaged in motion practice attempting to
determine the extent to which the defendants, claims and drugs
in this matter overlap those in the Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) proceeding, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery,
development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of
products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer
Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health).
Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products.
Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience
therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products,
gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology
therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments,
immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer
Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy
remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and
personal care items sold over-the-counter.  Principal Animal
Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite
control and growth implants.


WYETH: Briefing on Appeal in Section 340B Suit Set for 2Q 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the interlocutory appeal in the putative class-
action lawsuit, "County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., et
al., No. C 05 3740-WHA, U.S.D.C, N.D. Cal.," will take place
during the second quarter of 2009, before the the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Wyeth is one of numerous defendants named in the putative class
action lawsuit allegedly filed on behalf of entities covered
under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 256b.

Section 340B requires that certain pricing discounts be provided
to charitable institutions and provides methods for the
calculation of those discounts.

Plaintiff alleges that each defendant violated these statutory
pricing guidelines and breached the Pharmaceutical Pricing
Agreement that it entered into with Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, to which the applicable plaintiff is not a
party.

The complaint seeks an accounting, damages for breach of
contract as a third-party beneficiary and unjust enrichment
damages. Plaintiff requests a judgment requiring defendants to
disclose their Best Prices (as defined under the Medicaid Drug
Rebate statute) and Section 340B ceiling prices and injunctive
relief.

On Feb. 14, 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss all four of plaintiff's causes of action but allowed
plaintiff 15 days to attempt to replead its California False
Claims Act cause of action with more specificity. Plaintiff did
so, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which
was dismissed by the court in its entirety without leave to
amend on May 17, 2006.  Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint, which motion was denied on July
28, 2006, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  The sole issue on appeal was whether
covered Section 340B entities are "intended third-party
beneficiaries" of the Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreements between
the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and each
of the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers.  The Ninth
Circuit ruled that covered Section 340B entities are such
beneficiaries and therefore have the right to sue for
reimbursement of allegedly excess payments; they were not,
however, entitled to challenge as false or inaccurate the
reported Average Manufacturer Prices (AMP) reported to HHS for
each drug.

Upon remand, the district court entered a protective order
precluding discovery into the calculation of defendants' AMPs,
but then sua sponte certified the question of the scope of
allowable discovery for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth
Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit has now accepted that appeal, and
briefing will take place during the second quarter of 2009,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery,
development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of
products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer
Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health).
Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products.
Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience
therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products,
gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology
therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments,
immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer
Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy
remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and
personal care items sold over-the-counter.  Principal Animal
Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite
control and growth implants.


WYETH: Consolidated Antitrust Suit by Protonix Purchasers Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust class-action case filed by purchasers
of Protonix, which names Wyeth as a defendant, remains stayed
pending resolution of the underlying patent litigation.

The company is a named defendant, along with its marketing
partner on Protonix, Altana Pharma AG (since acquired by Nycomed
GmbH), in a lawsuit filed in federal court in New Jersey, by two
direct purchasers of Protonix, purporting to represent a
putative class of direct purchasers of Protonix.  The suit is
captioned "Dik Drug Company, et al. v. Altana Pharma AG, et al.,
Civil Action No. 07-5849 (JLL/CCC), U.S.D.C., D.N.J."

Plaintiffs allege that the company and Altana have violated the
federal antitrust laws by engaging in a scheme to block generic
competition to Protonix, including procuring the patent that
covers the active ingredient in Protonix, pantoprazole, by fraud
on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and wrongfully listing
the patent in the Orange Book. Plaintiffs further allege that
the Company and Altana instituted baseless patent infringement
litigation against two potential generic competitors to keep a
lower-priced substitute from the market. The complaint seeks
treble damages, declaratory relief and costs, including
attorneys' fees.

In addition, two actions have been brought against the company,
Altana and Nycomed by indirect purchasers of Protonix,
purporting to represent putative national classes of indirect
purchasers of Protonix. The actions are styled: "Fawcett v.
Altana, et al., Civil Action No. 07-6133 (JLL)," and "Painters'
District Council No. 30 v. Altana, et al., Civil Action No. 07-
6150 (JLL)."  Both actions have been filed in federal court in
New Jersey.

Plaintiffs in these actions allege various violations of federal
and state antitrust laws, as well as violations of various state
consumer protection statutes. These plaintiffs allege that
defendants engaged in a course of anticompetitive conduct
intended to secure an unlawful monopoly through procurement of
an unenforceable patent and to extend that alleged unlawful
monopoly by preventing entry of generics.  The complaints seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, as well as
restitution, disgorgement, constructive trust and unjust
enrichment.

All three antitrust cases have been consolidated and stayed
pending resolution of the underlying patent litigation,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery,
development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of
products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer
Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health).
Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products.
Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience
therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products,
gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology
therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments,
immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer
Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy
remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and
personal care items sold over-the-counter.  Principal Animal
Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite
control and growth implants.


WYETH: Hormone Therapy Personal Injury Litigation Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation, including class-action lawsuits, alleging injury as
a result of the plaintiffs' use of one or more of Wyeth's
hormone or estrogen therapy products, including PREMARIN and
PREMPRO, is ongoing.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was defending approximately
8,700 actions brought on behalf of approximately 10,800
plaintiffs in various federal and state courts throughout the
United States (including, in particular, the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Philadelphia Court
of Common Pleas) for personal injuries, including claims for
breast cancer, stroke, ovarian cancer and heart disease,
allegedly resulting from their use of PREMARIN or PREMPRO.

The plaintiffs have dismissed the putative province-wide
personal injury class action pending in Alberta, Canada,
"Alcantara v. Wyeth, et al., No. 0601-00926," Court of Queens
Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, Canada.  A
putative Canadian nationwide personal injury class action
remains pending in a British Columbia court.

Of the 31 hormone therapy cases alleging breast cancer that have
been resolved after being set for trial, 24 now have been
resolved in the Company's favor (by voluntary dismissal by the
plaintiffs (14), summary judgment (6), defense verdict (3) or
judgment for the Company notwithstanding the verdict (1)),
several of which are being appealed by the plaintiffs.  Of the
remaining seven cases, four such cases have been settled; one
resulted in a plaintiffs' verdict that was vacated by the court
and a new trial ordered (which plaintiffs have appealed); and
two (Rowatt and Scroggin) resulted in plaintiffs' verdicts that
the Company is appealing.  Additional cases have been
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs before a trial setting.
Additional trials of hormone therapy cases are scheduled for
2009.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company has recorded $174.3 million in
insurance receivables relating to defense and settlement costs
of its hormone therapy litigation.  The insurance carriers that
provide coverage that the Company contends is applicable have
either denied coverage or have reserved their rights with
respect to such coverage.  The Company believes that the denials
of coverage are improper and intends to enforce its rights under
the terms of those policies, according to the company's Feb.
26,2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery,
development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of
products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer
Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health).
Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products.
Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience
therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products,
gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology
therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments,
immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer
Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy
remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and
personal care items sold over-the-counter.  Principal Animal
Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite
control and growth implants.


WYETH: Motion to Dismiss Pristiq-Related Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the putative class-
action suit styled, "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System, et al. v. Wyeth, et al., No. 07-CV-10329, U.S.D.C.,
S.D.N.Y." remains pending.

On Nov. 14, 2007, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed
alleging that the Company and Robert Essner, the Company's
former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, made
false and/or misleading statements about the safety of Pristiq
and failed to disclose hepatic and cardiovascular events seen in
the Pristiq clinical trials, all in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the 1934
Act.

Plaintiff claimed to have purchased Wyeth securities during the
alleged class period (Jan. 31, 2006 through July 24, 2007) and
to have been damaged by the drop in the Company's share price
following the announcement of the FDA's approvable letter for
Pristiq for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) on July
24, 2007.

In April 2008, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which,
inter alia, named several additional employee defendants and
shortened the class period by approximately six months (the new
class period beginning on June 26, 2006).

A motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint has been filed and is
awaiting a decision from the court, according to the company's
Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Wyeth -- http://www.wyeth.com-- is engaged in the discovery,
development, manufacture, distribution and sale of a line of
products in three primary businesses: Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(Pharmaceuticals), Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (Consumer
Healthcare), and Fort Dodge Animal Health (Animal Health).
Pharmaceuticals includes branded human ethical pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology products, vaccines and nutrition products.
Principal Pharmaceuticals products include neuroscience
therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition products,
gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines, oncology
therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia treatments,
immunological products and women's healthcare products. Consumer
Healthcare products include analgesics, cough/cold/allergy
remedies, nutritional supplements, and hemorrhoidal, asthma and
personal care items sold over-the-counter.  Principal Animal
Health products include vaccines, pharmaceuticals, parasite
control and growth implants.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Johnson Bottini Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
    Johnson Bottini, LLP, on March 5, 2009, filed a class action
lawsuit in United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) during the period January
23, 2009 through February 27, 2009, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that on January 23, 2009, the Company's
Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, stated unequivocally that GE
would maintain its quarterly $.31 per share dividend, having
sufficient cash on hand and cash flow to achieve that goal.  In
direct contradiction to Immelt's assurance, on February 27,
2009, GE announced it was cutting the dividend to $.10 per
share.  The next day, GE shares fell from $8.51 per share to
$7.60 per share. Shockingly, Mr. Immelt sold over 52,000 shares
of GE stock at $11.10 per share and other officers of the
Company sold over 380,000 shares at that same price during the
short Class Period.

     Mr. Immelt then repurchased 50,000 shares after the
announcement at between $7.51 and $8.30 per share.  As a result,
Mr. Immelt and the other officers allegedly violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing false and misleading statements and selling their
personally held GE shares at inflated prices based on those
statements.

For more information, contact:

          Frank A. Bottini, Esq. (frankb@johnsonbottini.com)
          Derek Wilson, Esq. (derekw@johnsonbottini.com)
          Johnson Bottini, LLP
          Phone: 619-230-0063


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC ("KGS") announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc.
between January 30, 2007 and February 6, 2009, inclusive.

     Insight and certain of its executive officers are charged
with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements during the
Class Period.

     On February 9, 2009, Insight shocked investors when it
revealed that it would have to restate previously reported
earnings as the result of improperly accounting for trade
credits.  Insight expected to restate for the year ended
December 31, 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008.  On this
news, Insight shares fell $2.85 per share, almost 50%, to close
at $3.05 per share on February 9, 2009.  Thereafter, the Company
disclosed that the SEC has requested documentation related to
its historical treatment of trade credits.

     No class has yet been certified in this action.

For more details, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100


                            *********

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  * * *