CAR_Public/090331.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, March 31, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 63

                           Headlines

ACER AMERICA: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Vista-Equipped Notebook
ALASKA: D.C. Judge Transfers Sarah Palin Juneteenth Litigation
AMERICAN INT'L: Directors Sued to Force Return of Total Bonuses
AVX CORP: Judge Says TCE Lawsuit Should Be Tried in State Court
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces $400M Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Ponzi Schemer

BLUE SHIELD: Fla. Court Dismisses Suit Alleging RICO Violations
CANYON COUNTY: ACLU Files Motion in Case Over Jail Conditions
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Canadian Courts OK $6.7M Price-Fixing Deal
EMAGEON INC: Settles Shareholders' Litigation Over Amicas Sale
HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Litigation by Madoff-Hit Investors

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: District Court Ruling in McClain Suit Pending
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Continues in ERISA Violations Suit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in New York Securities Suit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Settlement of Policyholder Suits OK'd in Feb.
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Policyholders' Suits Pending in U.S., Canada

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Putnam Funds' Investor Lawsuits Remain Pending
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Still Faces Suits Over Insurance with Lloyd's
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Suits Over ERISA Breach Remain Pending in Md.
MUSHROOM MARKET: Pa. Judge Denies Motions in Antitrust Lawsuit
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Tex. Court Dismisses Suit Over P.I.'s License

STANFORD GROUP: Tex. Investors' Lawsuits Temporarily Postponed
STANLEY CHAIS: Seeks Transfer of Calif. Suit Over Madoff Scandal
TRAVEL WEB SITES: Mich. Counties File Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
TRIPADVISOR LLC: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Mass. Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Alfred G. Yates Announces Stock Suit Filing
H&R BLOCK: Carey & Danis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ill.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Kahn Gauthier Announces Stock Suit Filing
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit

OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Suit
ROCHESTER FUND: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

ACER AMERICA: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Vista-Equipped Notebook
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACER America Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit over
its low-cost Aspire notebooks, claiming that the company pre-
installed Windows Vista on machines ill-equipped to run
Microsoft Corp.'s latest operating system, Cade Metz of Channel
Register reports.

The suit was filed on March 25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by Lora Wolph and Clay
Wolph.

The plaintiffs -- residents of Fostoria, Ohio -- seek damages
and relief from the world's third-largest computer maker after
purchasing a sub-$600 Aspire notebook that included Windows
Vista Premium and a gigabyte of shared system and graphics
memory, according to the Channel Register report.

In its official "recommended system requirements," Microsoft
recommends that an additional 128MB is required to run the
Premium incarnation of its latest desktop operating system.

According to the suit, "A notebook pre-installed with Vista
Premium requires access to at least 1GB of system RAM plus 128MB
of RAM dedicated to the graphics adaptor to run properly."  It
adds, "Acer's Defective Notebooks are inherently defective in
that they do not contain enough RAM to properly run Vista
Premium...despite being promoted and sold as a bundled product
of both a notebook computer and a premium operating system,"
reports the Channel Register.

The Channel Register reported that the plaintiffs purchased
their Acer Aspire 4520-5458 notebook at a Wal-Mart in April 2008
for about $568.36.  Shortly after purchasing, they discovered
that "their computer would not run properly and that it
experienced numerous 'crashes,' 'freezing,' and was operating
very slowly."

Some unnamed "computer professionals" told the Wolphs that extra
memory was needed to effectively run Vista Premium, so they
complained to Acer.

According to their suit -- which seeks class action status -- a
company support rep responded by pointing out that although
Microsoft recommended a 1GB requirement, the "minimum
requirement" is only 512MB.  Microsoft states that the Premium,
Business, and Ultimate editions of Vista will run on 512MB
systems, but with certain O.S. features disabled.

Eventually, the Wolphs shelled out an extra $157.40 for more
memory "so that their notebook would run as marketed,
advertised, promoted, warranted, and/or sold by Acer," reports
the Channel Register.

The suit is "Wolph et al v. ACER America Corporation, Case No.
3:09-cv-01314-MEJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Maria-Elena James,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. (mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com)
          Hausfeld, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-633-1908

          Jori Naegele, Esq. (jnaegele@gntlaw.com)
          Gary, Naegele & Theado, LLC
          446 Broadway
          Lorain, OH 44052-1797
          Phone: 440-244-4809
          Fax: 440-244-3462

          Alicia W. Roshong, Esq.
          28 Middle Avenue
          Huron, OH 44839
          Phone: 419-433-2525
          Fax: 419-433-9636

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. (dwarshaw@pswplaw.com)
          Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard
          Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: (818) 788-8300
          Fax: (818) 788-8104


ALASKA: D.C. Judge Transfers Sarah Palin Juneteenth Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton has issued an
order transferring the Sarah Palin Juneteenth lawsuit, brought
by America's Hot Musician judge Gregory Charles Royal, from
Washington, DC to Alaska (previously filed as 09-cv-0484-new
case number 1:09-cv-00428).

     Royal considers this a positive development because the
case, which was reviewed by the judge prior to transfer, was not
dismissed on the court's own motion as frivolous.

Characterizing the case the court wrote:

     "This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiffs
pro se complaint.  The Court will transfer this case to the
United States District Court for the District of Alaska
Plaintiff alleges that he is an African-American musical
performer, educator, and producer who has traveled to Alaska
while touring with the Duke Ellington Orchestra.  According to
plaintiff, a bill enacted by the Alaska legislature requires
that the Governor of Alaska issue a proclamation each year to
commemorate Juneteenth.  He alleges that Governor Palin not only
failed to issue a proclamation in 2007, but also refused to
issue a proclamation retroactively.  As a result of Governor
Palin's inaction, the activities of citizens and civil groups
which had celebrated Juneteenth were disrupted, resulting in
unrealized event revenues and event cancellations.  Plaintiff
demands a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages."

     Following the order, Royal filed a notice to the court of
his intent to amend the complaint to add "one or more co-
plaintiffs who are residents of Alaska", en route to seeking
class action status.

For a complete background on the case, visit:

     http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/03/prweb2246264.htm


AMERICAN INT'L: Directors Sued to Force Return of Total Bonuses
---------------------------------------------------------------
     On March 27, 2009, Freedom Watch announced the filing of a
class action lawsuit by shareholders of American International
Group, Inc. (AIG) to force the directors of the company to
themselves pay back the millions in illicit bonuses, dividends
and other perks they paid out to themselves and other officials
who destroyed the company's financial standing.

     The lawsuit, filed in the federal court in Los Angeles, is
wide reaching and will accomplish what Congress cannot, given
the patent illegality of its taxing scheme, which violates the
U.S. Constitution as it would tax ex post facto and
discriminately.

     Larry Klayman, the Chairman and General Counsel of Freedom
Watch, who represents the shareholders in their class action
suit, issued this statement:

     "Today, the American people, not the compromised ruling
elite in Washington, D.C., have begun a second American
Revolution to take the country back from the con men on Wall
Street, and on Pennsylvania Avenue - who under successive
administrations played a central role in the meltdown of the
U.S. financial system and economy.  Freedom Watch will not rest
until justice is done and it won't come from the Obama
administration, bent on deceiving the U.S. taxpayer that it
intends to clean up this corruption, all the while lining the
pockets of its friends at AIG with government bailout money, who
gave handsomely to have the President elected."

     The lawsuit also seeks to recover, from the directors, the
losses of the shareholders of the last many months and years, as
well as to make AIG whole under new leadership, without the use
of government money.

For more details, contact:

          Freedom Watch
          601 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 900, South Bldg.
          Washington, DC 20004
          e-mail: Klayman@FreedomWatchUSA.org
          Web site: http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/


AVX CORP: Judge Says TCE Lawsuit Should Be Tried in State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled
that a purported class-action lawsuit that claim AVX Corp.
ruined property values by polluting the groundwater in a Myrtle
Beach neighborhood should be tried in a South Carolina circuit
court, David Wren of The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News reports.

The class-action case involves about 200 people and seeks
unspecified financial compensation for property that owners say
is worthless because of the contamination from a degreaser
called trichloroethylene, also known as TCE, according to The
(Myrtle Beach) Sun News report.

The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News reported that AVX had wanted to try
the case in federal court along with a third lawsuit that
involves federal Superfund laws.  The company has indicated it
will appeal the decision.

Gene M. Connell Jr., Esq., a Surfside Beach lawyer represents
property owners in the class-action case, reports The (Myrtle
Beach) Sun News.

                         Case Background

On Nov. 27, 2007, a purported class-action lawsuit over the
alleged migration of certain pollutants from AVX Corp.'s South
Carolina factory to neighboring properties was filed in the
South Carolina State Court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12,
2009).

In essence, the suit claims that property value had been
negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants
from the company's property (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9,
2009).

The suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina.

For more details, contact:

          Gene M. Connell Jr.
          Kelaher, Connell & Connor, P.C.
          P.O. Box 14547
          1500 Us Hwy 17 N
          Surfside Beach, SC 29587-4547
          Phone: (843) 238-5648
          Web site: http://www.kccattorneysatlaw.com/


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces $400M Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Ponzi Schemer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America and the futures trading companies through which
alleged Ponzi schemer Nicholas Cosmo lost nearly $100 million
are facing a purported a $400 million class-action suit, David
Winzelberg of the Long Island Business News reports.

In the suit filed on March 26, 2009, Manhattan attorney Jacob
Zamansky, Esq, of Zamansky & Associates claims that the bank
"aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial
assistance" to the $380 million fraud federal prosecutors say
was perpetrated by Mr. Cosmo's company, Agape World, Inc.,
according to the Long Island Business News report.

The suit claims that the Bank of America branch in West
Hempstead assigned more than one bank employee to work out of
Mr. Cosmo's office in Hauppauge and supplied "bank equipment
and/or computer systems and direct access to the bank’s accounts
and systems," reports Long Island Business News.

"Our investigation revealed that the Bank of America had a
branch office at Agape," Mr. Zamansky told Long Island Business
News.

The Long Island Business News reported that the federal charges
against Mr. Cosmo allege that he lost nearly $100 million in
online futures trading and Zamansky claims the bank improperly
approved those transfers of funds.

The suit claims that the futures trading companies are also at
fault because Mr. Cosmo had been barred from associating with
the securities industry.  The suit says that the trading
companies should have also verified the "source and propriety"
of the millions that came from a convicted felon.

For more details, contact:

          Jacob Zamansky, Esq.
          Zamansky & Associates
          50 Broadway - 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 742-1414
          Fax: (212) 742-1177


BLUE SHIELD: Fla. Court Dismisses Suit Alleging RICO Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Blue Shield of
California and several other Blues plans alleging they inflated
profits by systematically short-changing payments to doctors,
Kathy Robertson of the Sacramento Business Journal reports.

On March 26, 2009, Judge Federico Moreno dismissed the case,
"Love v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association et al.," noting
that the complaint failed to provide sufficient evidence of a
conspiracy to constitute a violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), according to the
Sacramento Business Journal report.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2003, alleged the Blues
companies engaged in a conspiracy to inflate profits by
systemically "denying, delaying and diminishing payments to
physicians," the Sacramento Business Journal reported.


CANYON COUNTY: ACLU Files Motion in Case Over Jail Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho
asked a U.S. district court judge to order officials in Canyon
County, Idaho to immediately fix a number of serious problems
plaguing the Canyon County Jail in Caldwell that have left a
number of prisoners physically sick and that threaten the health
and safety of prisoners and staff.

     Today's motion seeking an immediate order comes a little
more than three months after the ACLU first filed a federal
class-action lawsuit challenging the indecent, cruel and
inhumane conditions at the Canyon County Jail.

     "The dangerous conditions that have been allowed to exist
are so hazardous to human life that they must not be tolerated
any longer," said Stephen Pevar, a senior ACLU attorney.  "It is
shameful that county officials have allowed such horrendous
conditions to persist."

     According to the motion, the jail has been overcrowded for
more than a decade, and in 2008, more than 20 prisoners a day
were forced to sleep on the floor due to lack of bed space.  In
addition, inspection reports from the Idaho Sheriff's
Association show that the jail is poorly ventilated and
unsanitary.  In October 2008, Sheriff Smith notified the County
Commissioners that a "large scale renovation" of the jail was
needed, including "deep sanitizing and cleaning" of the housing
unit, that sewer pipes inside the jail were leaking, and that
the jail has a host of other problems.  None of these problems
were fixed prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

     According to the ACLU's motion, numerous complaints about
the sanitary conditions of the detention center have been
submitted by prisoners in recent months, including one by a
prisoner with severe asthma who said the significant mold in her
housing area was placing her health "in grave danger."  Another
prisoner complained that there appear to be "insects breeding in
the stagnant water in the bathroom from the plugged floor drains
and cracked floor seals."  And a third complaint from a prisoner
highlighted the fact that a mattress is not sanitized before it
is issued to the next prisoner.  These complaints are consistent
with findings of the Idaho Sheriff's Association, which has
found the jail in violation of its standards.

     "The law couldn't be clearer that all prisoners in this
country have a constitutional right to live in sanitary
conditions," said Lea C. Cooper, staff attorney with the ACLU of
Idaho, who is co-counsel on the case.  "Simply put, county
officials are failing to uphold their constitutional obligations
by forcing prisoners to live in the kind of squalor that has
existed at the Canyon County Jail for years."

     The ACLU filed its federal lawsuit in January, but, due to
a technicality, needed to refile it earlier this month.  The
lawsuit charges that the jail is overcrowded and shower
facilities are teeming with toxic mold and rust.  The lawsuit
also charges that the detention center suffers from inadequate
ventilation and temperature control, inadequate sanitation, and
inadequate plumbing.

     "This case displays the need for us to move away from our
state's over-reliance on incarceration," said Monica Hopkins,
Executive Director of the ACLU of Idaho.  "Implementing policies
that emphasize alternatives to incarceration - especially for
first-time and non-violent offenders - would be both more humane
and fiscally prudent."

A copy of the motion for preliminary injunction is available at:
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/gen/39187lgl20090327.html.


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Canadian Courts OK $6.7M Price-Fixing Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian courts have approved a CDN6.7-million class-action
price-fixing settlement from Deutsche Lufthansa AG that will be
used against other airlines, The Canadian Press reports.

The B.C. Supreme Court has joined courts in Ontario and Quebec
to sanction the settlement, which is part of a larger class-
action lawsuit in the United States, according to The Canadian
Press report.

The Canadian Press reported that the German carrier has agreed
to pay US$85 million in an American claim and US$5.34 million
(CDN$6.7 million) in a Canadian settlement.  It will also help
prosecutors to build their case against dozens of airlines.

Air Canada and carriers such as Air France, British Airways,
Cathay Pacific Airways, Japan Airlines International, Korean Air
Lines and KLM have chosen not to settle.  The U.S. Justice
Department has imposed criminal fine totaling US$1.2 billion
against some of the airlines, reports The Canadian Press.

The class-action was filed in 2006 on behalf of Canadians who
bought air cargo shipping services between 2000 and 2006.  They
allege the airline imposed inflated surcharges resulting from
higher fuel and security costs, The Canadian Press reported.


EMAGEON INC: Settles Shareholders' Litigation Over Amicas Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emageon, Inc. settled a purported class-action lawsuit with
shareholders, paving the way to complete its sale to Boston-
based Amicas, Inc., Jimmy DeButts of the Birmingham Business
Journal reports.

The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.  However,
Emageon said in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing
that the settlement will allow its $39 million sale to Amicas,
Inc. to move forward.

The lawsuit, filed on March 11, 2009, alleged that the members
of Emageon’s board failed to maximize value for the company's
stockholders when negotiating and entering into the Amicas
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that Amicas aided
and abetted those purported breaches, according to the
Birmingham Business Journal report.

The Birmingham medical imaging firm said that the settlement is
subject to court approval. The company and the other defendants
said in the filing “the lawsuit is completely without merit,”
but it settled “to avoid costly litigation and eliminate the
risk of any delay to the closing” of the Amicas deal, reports
the Birmingham Business Journal.

The Birmingham Business Journal reported that Emageon, which
produces technology that helps doctors analyze images to
diagnose and treat patients, expects its Amicas deal to close by
the end of the second quarter of 2009.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Litigation by Madoff-Hit Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc, Ernst & Young, and PricewaterhouseCoopers
have been named as defendants in a $3 billion class-action
lawsuit filed in New York by investors in offshore hedge funds
who suffered losses in the Bernard Madoff scandal, according to
a report in The Observer, London.

The complaint is filed on behalf of investors in hedge funds
controlled by Thema International of Ireland, Primeo and Bank
Medici between March 1, 2001 and Dec, 10, 2008, according to a
report by Wealth Bulletin.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: District Court Ruling in McClain Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling in the matter styled, "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin
Industries, Case No. 9:97-cv-00063-HC," a race discrimination
lawsuit filed by present and former employees of the company, is
expected by the end of the second quarter of 2009.

An employee and a former employee of the company filed the class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas on March 7, 1997, alleging race discrimination.

Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas, in
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas, in August 1998.  In April
1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a
class for this case, which included all black employees employed
by the company from March 6, 1994, to the present.

The case was closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties
unsuccessfully attempted mediation.  Trial for this case began
in December 2003, but was postponed by the District Court and
was completed in October 2004.  The only claims made at trial
were those of discrimination in initial assignments and
promotions.

On Jan. 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions.  The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the
company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall,
together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%.

On Aug. 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back-
pay award for the class of affected employees would be $3.4
million -- including interest to Jan. 1, 2005 -- and provided a
formula for attorney fees that the company estimates will result
in a total not to exceed $2.5 million.

In addition to backpay with interest, the District Court
enjoined and ordered the company to cease and desist all
racially biased assignment and promotion practices and ordered
the company to pay court costs and expenses.

The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and
on Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

On April 3, 2007, the company appeared before the appellate
court in New Orleans for oral argument in this case.  The
appellate court subsequently issued a decision on Feb. 29, 2008,
that reversed and vacated the plaintiff's claim regarding the
initial assignment of black employees into the Foundry Division.

The appellate court also denied the plaintiff's appeal for class
certification in order to claim disparate treatment.  The
plaintiff's claim on the issue of the company's promotional
practices was affirmed but the backpay award was vacated and
remanded for recomputation in accordance with the opinion.

The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with
instructions to enter appropriate injunctive relief.  Finally,
the issue of the plaintiff's attorney's fees was remanded to the
district court for further consideration in accordance with
prevailing authority.

The plaintiff and the company subsequently filed requests for
rehearing with the court on March 20, 2008, in order to address
significant issues.

On April 10, 2008, the company was informed that the Fifth
Circuit had denied both requests for a rehearing.

At present, however, the district court will conduct further
proceedings on the injunctive relief to be entered, back pay and
plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees.

The Fifth Circuit's opinion to reverse and affirm portions of
the District Court's decision, together with the assignment of a
different judge for this case in the District Court (the trial
judge who wrote the trial court decision is deceased) prevents
the company from estimating the back pay or attorneys' fees
award at this time.

The District Court will interpret the Fifth Circuit's
instructions and take additional evidence to determine these
issues.

On July 2, 2008, the company filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the court
review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's petition
on Oct. 6, 2008.

The company, with the assistance of outside counsel, is
reviewing its appellate options at this time as well as its
position in future proceedings in the District Court.  At
present, however, pursuant to the court of appeal's mandate, the
District Court will conduct further proceedings on the
injunctive relief to be entered, back pay and plaintiffs'
request for attorneys' fees.  The Fifth Circuit's opinion to
reverse and affirm portions of the District Court's decision,
together with the assignment of a different judge for this case
in the District Court (the trial judge who decided the case is
deceased) prevented the company from estimating the back pay or
attorneys' fees before the commencement of proceedings in the
District Court.  The District Court will interpret the Fifth
Circuit's instructions and take additional evidence to determine
these issues.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a
hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the
parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to
conclude this litigation.  At the conclusion of the hearing
Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding
the issues of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive
relief.  Subsequently, the company has reviewed the plaintiff's
submissions which describe the formula and underlying
assumptions that support their positions on attorney fees and
damages.  After review of the plaintiff's submission to the
court the company continues to have significant differences
regarding legal issues that materially impact the plaintiff's
requests.

Additional court proceedings are scheduled and the company
expects the District Court to reach a decision by the end of the
second quarter of 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 "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No.
9:97-cv-00063-HC," filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Judge Judge Howell Cobb, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Morris J. Baller, Esq. (mjb@gdblegal.com)
          Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen
          300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-763-9800
          Fax: 1-510-835-1417

          Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq.
          (tbgstugar@cox-internet.com)
          Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter
          2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902
          Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902
          Phone: 936-560-6020
          Fax: 1-936-560-9578

Representing the company is:

          Christopher V. Bacon, Esq. (cbacon@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Phone: 713-758-2222
          Fax: 1-713-615-5014


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Continues in ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit in New York against Marsh &
McLennan Cos., Inc., alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, is still in discovery.

The purported class-action lawsuit is pending against MMC and
various current and former employees, officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries of an MMC retirement
plan.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that in light of the
alleged misconduct described in a lawsuit filed by the New York
Attorney General, the defendants knew or should have known that
the investment of the plan's assets in MMC stock was imprudent;
that certain defendants failed to provide plan participants with
complete and accurate information about MMC stock; that certain
defendants responsible for selecting, removing and monitoring
other fiduciaries did not comply with ERISA; and that MMC
knowingly participated in the other defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties.

The suit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
Discovery is underway in this matter, 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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in New York Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported securities class-action suit
against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., its subsidiary Marsh and
certain of their former officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs make factual allegations similar to those
asserted in a civil complaint filed in New York State court by
the New York State Attorney General in October 2004 ("NYAG
Lawsuit"), including that MMC artificially inflated its share
price by making misrepresentations and omissions relating to
Marsh's market service agreements and business practices.

The plaintiffs also allege that MMC failed to disclose alleged
anti-competitive and illegal practices at Marsh, such as "bid-
rigging" and soliciting fictitious quotes.

The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages.

MMC has responded to the complaint and discovery in this matter
is ongoing, 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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Settlement of Policyholder Suits OK'd in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the commercial and employee benefit
policyholder putative class-action lawsuits against Marsh &
McLennan Cos., Inc. was approved on Feb. 18, 2009.

Various putative class-action lawsuits purportedly brought on
behalf of policyholders were consolidated into two actions in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (one on
behalf of a purported class of "commercial" policyholders and
the second on behalf of a purported class of "employee benefit"
policyholders).

The actions alleged a variety of legal theories, including those
related to state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, federal and
state antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) theories, and sought a variety of
remedies, including unspecified monetary damages, treble
damages, disgorgement, restitution, punitive damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The court dismissed all of the federal antitrust and RICO claims
and all of the state law claims asserted in both actions, and
the plaintiffs appealed.

In June 2008, plaintiffs and the Marsh defendants entered into
an agreement to settle the commercial and employee benefit
policyholder putative class actions using the remainder
available from the $850 million fund created in connection with
the settlement of a civil complaint filed in New York State
court by the New York State Attorney General in October 2004
("NYAG Lawsuit").

The court approved the settlement on Feb. 18, 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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Policyholders' Suits Pending in U.S., Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. continues to face various lawsuits,
including class-action lawsuits, by policyholders in U.S. State
courts and in Canada.

Four class or representative actions on behalf of policyholders
are pending in state courts.  Nineteen actions instituted by
individual policyholders and others are pending in federal and
state courts relating to matters alleged in a civil complaint
filed in New York State court by the New York State Attorney
General in October 2004 ("NYAG Lawsuit").

Two putative class-action suits and an individual policyholder
action are pending in Canada, 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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Putnam Funds' Investor Lawsuits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class-action lawsuits by investors in certain
Putnam mutual funds are still pending against Marsh & McLennan
Cos., Inc.'s former business unit, Putnam Investments Trust.

Great-West Lifeco Inc. completed its purchase of Putnam in 2007.

One action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940.

The other action purports to assert derivative claims on behalf
of all Putnam Funds under Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act.

Both suits seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly
suffered by the Putnam Funds and their investors as a result of
purported market-timing and late trading activity in certain
Putnam Funds.

On Dec. 30, 2008, the court granted in part Putnam's motion for
summary judgment in the non-derivative action, and denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending resolution of
all summary judgment issues.  In the derivative action, the
court denied Putnam's motion for summary judgment, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Still Faces Suits Over Insurance with Lloyd's
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. continues to face lawsuits
purportedly brought on behalf of policyholders with respect to
insurance coverage placed with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
London.

In July 2007, two putative class actions against the company,
its subsidiary, Marsh Inc., certain insurers and other insurance
brokers purportedly brought on behalf of policyholders were
filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of
Florida and the Southern District of New York.

These actions relate to the same practices alleged in a civil
complaint filed in New York State court by the New York State
Attorney General in October 2004 ("NYAG Lawsuit"), but with
respect to insurance coverage placed with Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd's, London.

These actions have been transferred to the District of New
Jersey, 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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Suits Over ERISA Breach Remain Pending in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. and Putnam Investments Trust, which
was purchased by Great-West Lifeco Inc. from MMC, continues to
face two purported class-action lawsuits in Maryland, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Aside from MMC and Putnam, certain of the two companies' current
and former officers, directors and employees were named
defendants in the purported class action suits -- one brought by
participants in an MMC retirement plan and the other brought by
participants in a Putnam retirement plan -- which are generally
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The actions allege, among other things, that, in view of the
market-timing that was allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the
investment of the plans' funds in MMC stock and the Putnam Funds
was imprudent and constituted a breach of fiduciary duties to
plan participants.  Both actions seek unspecified damages and
equitable relief.

Following a September 2006 dismissal of the action regarding the
Putnam plan, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In June 2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and
remanded the case for further proceedings.  The action regarding
the MMC plan had been stayed pending the resolution of the
appeal, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MUSHROOM MARKET: Pa. Judge Denies Motions in Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas N. O'Neill of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania overseeing litigation alleging
a price-fixing conspiracy in the mushroom market has denied
summary judgment motions by defendants who argued they were
immune to antitrust charges, Law360 report.

On March 26, 2009, Judge O'Neill ruled that the defendants in
the consolidated class-action litigation were not exempt,
according to the Law360 report.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Tex. Court Dismisses Suit Over P.I.'s License
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., the largest provider of
photo enforcement systems for roads and highways in the U.S.,
announced that a Texas Federal Court has dismissed in its
entirety a class action lawsuit against the company seeking
damages for Redflex's alleged failure to maintain a private
investigator's license.

     On November 24, 2008, a group of plaintiffs filed a class
action lawsuit against Redflex in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  The class action
lawsuit alleges that Redflex was negligent in failing to
maintain a private investigator's license as purportedly
required by the Texas Occupations Code.  The plaintiffs sought
to recoup from Redflex the fines they paid after receiving
citations for running red lights.

     On March 24, 2009, United States District Court Judge
Michael Schneider, the judge overseeing the class action
lawsuit, ruled from the bench and issued a minute order
dismissing the plaintiffs' entire complaint against Redflex.  A
formal order dismissing the case has been issued.

     Judge Schneider concluded that the individual plaintiffs
and class representatives lacked standing to assert any claims
against Redflex.  Judge Schneider's opinion is consistent with
that of the Texas Private Security Bureau, the division within
the Texas Department of Public Safety charged with the
responsibility of administering and enforcing the licensing
provisions of the Texas Occupations Code.  This body recently
issued an advisory opinion concluding that companies
administering red light camera programs, such as Redflex, are
not required by Texas law to maintain a private investigator's
license.

     "This is a dual victory.  The ruling, together with the
Texas Department of Public Safety's, reinforces our belief that
our operations are fully consistent with Texas law," said Karen
Finley, president and CEO of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.
"Equally significant is that this ruling should dissuade other
suits of this nature."

     Red light camera programs have proven to decrease
drastically the incidence of red light running and collisions
all over the nation.  In a recent study conducted by Texas A&M
University's Transportation Institute, monitored intersections
have shown an overall 30 percent decrease in collisions and
dangerous right angle collisions were reduced by 43 percent.

For the full study, go to: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-
info/trf/final_report_rlc_1008.pdf.

For more details, contact:

          Shoba Vaitheeswaran
          Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.
          Phone: 623-207-2000
          e-mail: media@redflex.com
          Web site: http://www.redflex.com


STANFORD GROUP: Tex. Investors' Lawsuits Temporarily Postponed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three purported class-action lawsuits against Robert Allen
Stanford, the Stanford Group Co., and related individuals and
companies are being postponed until another federal court grants
permission for them to proceed, Examiner.com reports.

The three cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas are entitled,

       -- "Adams v. Stanford Group Company (case number
          4:09cv00474),"

       -- "Cohron v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. (case
          number 4:09cv00511)," and

       -- "Kyle v. Stanford International Bank Ltd. (case number
          4:09cv00525)."

On Feb. 16, 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filed a complaint (case number 3:09-cv-00298) against Mr.
Stanford, three of his companies, and two of the companies’
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.  The SEC has accused the Stanford defendants of
securities fraud, according to the Examiner.com report.

Examiner.com reported that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas froze the defendants' assets;
appointed a receiver, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, to control
the property; and took other steps to protect the assets of the
Stanford entities.  This order contained provisions that
restrain and enjoin creditors and other persons from filing or
continuing related lawsuits in other courts without permission
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The plaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuits -- who
purchased certificates of deposit or made other investments
through the Stanford companies -- filed their complaints four
days after Northern District case began.

On March 10, 2009 Judges Vanessa Gilmore and Keith Ellison
signed orders that abated or stayed the Adams and Cohron
lawsuits, respectively, until Judge David Godbey of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas grants
permission for the cases to proceed.  U.S. District Judge Lee
Rosenthal entered a similar order in the Kyle case two days
later, Examiner.com reported.

The three Houston lawsuits will, therefore, be postponed until
the Northern District grants relief from the restraining order
and injunction, Examiner.com reports


STANLEY CHAIS: Seeks Transfer of Calif. Suit Over Madoff Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Chais, a Beverly Hills money manager and philanthropist
who steered hundreds of millions of dollars into investments
overseen by Bernard L. Madoff, is seeking to move one of several
lawsuits against him from state court to federal court in Los
Angeles, Stuart Pfeifer of The Los Angeles Times reports.

Investors have filed at least three lawsuits against Mr. Chais,
82, accusing him of failing to properly safeguard their money
and of not disclosing that he was investing with the disgraced
New York swindler.

According to an investor lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior
Court that seeks class-action status, Mr. Chais collected
hundreds of millions of dollars and invested with Mr. Madoff.

The suit by Hancock Park investor Daphne Brogdon accuses Mr.
Chais of "breach of fiduciary duty" for failing to account for
how Mr. Madoff handled the investments.  She said the money was
from an individual retirement account she started at age 16, The
Los Angeles Times reported.

"On the one hand, you feel like a knucklehead for getting in it.
But a lot of people were in it who seemed to be doing well," she
tells The Los Angeles Times.

Reed Kathrein, Esq., a Berkeley attorney representing Brogdon
and other investors, told The Los Angeles Times that the
evidence at this point best supports a claim that Mr. Chais
failed to notice "red flags" Mr. that Madoff was operating a
massive Ponzi scheme.

According to her, Mr. Chais should have looked at where Mr.
Madoff was putting the money, "who was doing the audits, who was
the custodian, so then it would be safe.  The returns were
unrealistic.  It had the earmarks of a Ponzi scheme, which
sophisticated investors did realize."

Earlier this month, Mr. Madoff pleaded guilty in federal court
in Manhattan to 11 securities-related fraud counts related to
his $65-billion investment fraud that victimized an estimated
4,800 people, reports The Los Angeles Times.

Many of Mr. Madoff's victims invested through third parties such
as Mr. Chais.  Because Ms. Madoff's assets are tied up in
federal Bankruptcy Court and are worth only a fraction of the
loss, many victims are targeting money managers such as Mr.
Chais in an effort to recoup their losses.

Until his assets were obliterated in Mr. Madoff's fraud, Mr.
Chais had been known as a major philanthropist, giving millions
of dollars to Jewish charities here and abroad.  The Chais
Family Foundation -- which reported assets of $178 million in
2007 -- was wiped out in the Madoff fraud, his attorney said.

Chais attorney Eugene Licker, Esq. said his client had no
knowledge that Madoff, a former Nasdaq chairman, was running a
Ponzi scheme.  Instead, Chais was a victim like the other
investors, Mr. Licker, of the law firm Loeb & Loeb tells The Los
Angeles Times.

"My client lost virtually everything he had.  His kids and
grandchildren lost their entire investment.  Their losses are
staggering.  There can be no better evidence of what ought to be
obvious: He had no knowledge of the Madoff fraud," according to
Mr. Licker.

Mr. Chais' attorneys have sought to move Ms. Brogdon's lawsuit
from Superior Court to federal court in Los Angeles, a move that
ultimately could lead the case to be transferred to New York,
according to The Los Angeles Times report.


TRAVEL WEB SITES: Mich. Counties File Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calhoun County is one of four counties in Michigan filing a
class-action lawsuit against online travel Web sites, which the
counties claim have been underpaying hotel occupancy taxes,
Darby Prater of the Battle Creek Enquirer reports.

According to Calhoun County Treasurer Ann Rosenbaum, the county
collects taxes equal to 5 percent of a hotel's room rental, but
when customers book online at sites such as Hotels.com or
Travelocity.com, the booking company keeps part of that tax
revenue.

"Let's say you are willing to pay $90, but Orbitz got (the room)
for $60," Ms. Rosenbaum explained.  "The hotel pays the county
the 5 percent accommodation tax on the $60."

Calhoun County collected approximately $1 million in hotel
occupancy taxes in 2008, Ms. Rosenbaum tells the Battle Creek
Enquirer.

Calhoun, Ingham, Saginaw and Genesee counties filed the lawsuit
against 17 online travel companies and their affiliates in
Ingham County Circuit Court, according to the Battle Creek
Enquirer report.

Dwight Butt, president of the Greater Battle Creek/Calhoun
County Convention & Visitors Bureau, told the Battle Creek
Enquirer that he is confident the counties will win the lawsuit.

According to Mr. Butt, "No dollar amount has been listed (in the
suit).  It may be that during the course of the lawsuit a judge
may determine that an audit may be necessary to determine the
amount."

The Battle Creek Enquirer reported that the Greater Battle
Creek/Calhoun County Convention & Visitors Bureau receives a
portion of the occupancy tax money collected to fund operations.

"Other county (convention and visitors bureaus) have signed on,"
Mr. Butt tells the Battle Creek Enquirer.  "We think we're going
to win.  There was no cost involved for us to participate."

The Michigan counties are being represented by Lansing law firm
Kelley Cawthorne, reports Battle Creek Enquirer.


TRIPADVISOR LLC: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Mass. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Web content editors suing TripAdvisor LLC have amended their
class-action complaint to charge the Newton-based travel website
with retaliating by firing them after their lawsuit was filed,
Robert Weisman of The Boston Globe reports.

Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq., who is representing the
editors, estimated that hundreds of them were e-mailed by
TripAdivsor last week and in January and told their services
were no longer required.  Many were replaced by temporary
workers, Ms. Liss-Riordan tells The Boston Globe.

The original complaint, filed in July 2008, alleged the company
had misclassified them as independent contractors and not as
employees entitled to benefits under state law.  The editors
wrote articles and edited user-generated reviews of hotels and
restaurants, according to The Boston Globe report.

The Boston Globe reported that a scheduling conference for the
litigation has been set for May 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.

The amended complaint said TripAdvisor terminated an unspecified
number of Web content editors this year, though it rehired some
as employees.  It seeks unspecified damages and a declaratory
judgment that the editors should have been considered employees,
reports The Boston Globe.

By firing the editors, Mr. Liss-Riordan told The Boston Globe,
the company was tacitly admitting they should have been
classified as employees.  "This is an acknowledgment that they
had wrongly classified these people as independent contractors,"
she adds.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Alfred G. Yates Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC announces that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of American Express Company, between March 1, 2007
and November 12, 2008, inclusive.

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

     American Express is currently the world's largest issuer of
charge cards and credit cards as measured by purchase volume.

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

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements, among other things, misled investors by falsely
representing American Express's exposure to the riskiest credit
card holders and failed to disclose the Company's increasing
reliance on riskier credit card programs.

     On November 10, 2008, the Company won Federal Reserve
System approval to convert to a bank holding company, making it
eligible for government help under the Troubled Assets Relief
Program ("TARP").  The new American Express bank could qualify
for up to $3.5 billion of the Treasury Department's money-a
capital infusion required to save the Company from its riskier
endeavors.  As a result of the Company's shift to risky card
issuances, American Express stock has plunged approximately 65%
since March 2007.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

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


H&R BLOCK: Carey & Danis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Carey & Danis LLC filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of persons who purchased auction rate
securities from H&R Block, Inc., and H&R Block Financial
Advisors, Inc., between Aug. 26, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008 and who
continued to hold the securities as of Feb. 13, 2008.

     The class action lawsuit, "La Grave v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al., 08-cv-667," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.  The suit alleges that H&R Block,
Inc. and its subsidiary H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc.,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment
characteristics of auction rate securities and the auction
market in which the securities are traded.

     Auction rate securities are municipal or corporate debt
securities or preferred stocks that pay interest at rates set
through periodic auctions.  The instruments typically have long-
term maturity dates or no maturity date.

     The suit filed on Sept. 24, 2008 claims that, pursuant to
uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, H&R
Block offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as
highly liquid cash-management instruments and as suitable
alternatives to money market mutual funds.  On Feb. 13, 2008,
all of the major broker-dealers, including H&R Block, withdrew
their support for the auctions.  The suit claims that, as a
result, investors have been unable to liquidate their auction
rate securities.

     The lawsuit alleges that H&R Block failed to disclose the
following material facts about the auction rate securities it
sold to the class:

       -- The auction rate securities were not cash alternatives
          like money market funds but were instead complex long-
          term financial instruments with 30-year maturity
          dates.

       -- The auction rate securities were only liquid at the
          time of the sale because H&R Block and other broker-
          dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating
          the market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and
          stability.

       -- H&R Block and other broker-dealers routinely
          intervened in the auctions for their own benefit to
          set rates and to prevent all-hold auctions and failed
          auctions.

       -- H&R Block continued to market auction rate securities
          as liquid investments even after H&R Block and other
          broker-dealers determined that they would likely be
          withdrawing support for the periodic auctions and that
          a freeze of the auction rate securities market would
          result.

     Investors who purchased or acquired auction rate securities
from H&R Block between Aug. 26, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008, and who
continued to hold the securities as of Feb. 13, 2008, may
request appointment as lead plaintiff by the Court on or before
May 26, 2009.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members.  To be appointed, the Court
must conclude that the investor's claims are typical of other
class members' and that the investor will adequately represent
the class.  The investor's ability to share in any recovery is
not affected by the decision to serve as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact:

          Joseph P. Danis, Esq. (jdanis@careydanis.com)
          Michael J. Flannery, Esq. (mflannery@careydanis.com)
          Corey D. Sullivan, Esq. (csullivan@careydanis.com)
          Carey & Danis LLC
          Phone: 1-800-721-2519
          Web site: http://www.careydanis.com


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(No. 09-cv-01264), on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.
during the period between August 5, 2008 and February 23, 2009,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Heartland and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.  Heartland together with its subsidiaries
provides bank card payment processing services to more than
250,000 merchants and businesses nationwide.

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

     Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose:

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

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

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

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

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

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

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

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

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

     On this news, shares of Heartland declined $2.31 per share,
or 30.20%, to close on February 24, 2009, at $5.34 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.  During the Class Period, shares of
Heartland's common stock declined $21.84 per share, or
approximately 65%, from its Class Period high of $27.19 per
share on September 19, 2008.

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: 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


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Shuman Law Firm filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status 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., between January 30, 2007 and February
6, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
certain Insight Enterprises senior officers and directors knew
or recklessly disregarded that their public statements
concerning Insight Enterprises' 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 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 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 information, contact:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80203
          Phone: 866-974-8626
          Fax: 303-484-4886
          Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/


OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf all persons or entities who purchased or
held shares of the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund
(NASDAQ: OPCAX) (NASDAQ: OCABX) (NASDAQ: OCACX) offered by
OppenheimerFunds, Inc. in connection with its September 27,
2006, March 8, 2007 and October 31, 2007 offerings.

     The lawsuit alleges that OppenheimerFunds, along with other
defendants, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by
misrepresenting the Fund's investment strategy and omitting
material facts from the Registration Statements/Prospectuses
issued in connection with the Offerings.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges the Fund significantly
increased its risk in hopes of providing higher returns.  The
complaint alleges defendants concealed the Fund's increased
exposure in these excessively risky bets.

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


ROCHESTER FUND: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
shares of Rochester Fund Municipals from February 26, 2006
through October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer, which runs the
Fund, misled investors about the risks of investing in the Fund,
resulting in a more than 30% decline in the Fund's value.  The
lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares
(RMUNX), B Shares (RMUBX) and C Shares (RMUCX).

     The complaint further alleges that the Registration
Statements through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to
disclose that under certain circumstances Trusts which contain
Inverse Floaters, such as those employed by the Fund, may be put
to the Fund for repayment of principal.  This caused the Trusts
to be collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal
amount of the tendered securities.  Consequently, the Fund was
forced to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of
market conditions and accept prices significantly below the
values at which the bonds were carried on its books.

     Although this risk factor was always present wherever
inverse floaters were employed, it was not disclosed in any of
the Prospectuses, which were filed as part of Registration
Statements with respect to the sale of the Fund's shares.

     Plaintiff alleges that this lack of disclosure caused the
Fund's shares to trade at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

     On October 21, 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus
Supplement which disclosed the relevant risks associated with
the Fund's investment in Inverse Floaters.  As of October 21,
2008, the Fund's shares traded at $12.35 per share, down from
$18.00 per share at the beginning of the year.

For more details, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600


                            *********

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  * * *