CAR_Public/090401.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 64

                           Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: N.Y. Court Denies Class Certification Motion
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Eastbourne Capital Comments on Del. Suit
BANK OF BERMUDA: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Bernard Madoff Fraud
COMCAST OF OREGON: Court Certifies Class in Late Fees Lawsuit
CONNECTICUT: Attorneys Sue Governor, State Officials Over CSF

ELRON ELECTRONIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of 1999 Lawsuit
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles N.J. Securities Fraud Suit For $13M
FOUR SEASONS: Lawsuit on Tipping Goes to Hawaii Supreme Court
GEORGIA: Federal Judge Allows Sex Offenders' Suit to Proceed
HILLENBRAND INC: Judge Denies Class Status for Antitrust Suits

KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Defective Drywalls
MERCK & CO: Briefing on Appeal to Certification Ruling Complete
MERCK & CO: Certification Bid in "Martin-Kleinman" SuitPending
MERCK & CO: Securities & ERISA Multidistrict Litigation Ongoing
MERCK & CO: Several Vioxx Product Liability Suits Still Pending

MERCK & CO: Suit Over Medicaid Expenditures for Vioxx Pending
MERCK & CO: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint in Vioxx Suit
MERCK & CO: Vioxx-Related Class Lawsuit in Calif. Still Pending
MERCK FROSST: Canadian Court Overturns VIOXX Class Certification
OKLAHOMA: Hearing in Lawsuit v. DHS Postponed until May 5, 2009

ST. JOHN HEALTH: Reaches $13.6M Settlement in Nurses' Litigation
TORONTO HYDRO: Evacuated Residents File Suit Over Explosion
UBS AG: New York Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suits


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CITIGROUP INC: Dostart Clapp Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
ING GROEP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Brower Piven Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Colo. Lawsuit


                           *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: N.Y. Court Denies Class Certification Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied a motion for class certification in a suit over alleged
illegal tying and anti-competitive pricing by American Express
Co., though the court left the door open for the issue to be
renewed after a motion for summary judgment by AmEx is resolved,
Law360 reports.

The suit is entitled, "The Marcus Corp. v. American Express Co.,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05432-GBD-THK," which was filed in July
2004.  The plaintiffs in the case seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

AmEx filed a motion to dismiss the litigation.  The court denied
that motion in July 2005 (Class Action Reporter, March 26,
2009).

On Oct. 1, 2007, The Marcus Corp., a Milwaukee-based movie
theater and hotel chain that filed the proposed class-action
case, filed a motion seeking class certification.

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

A decision on the class certification motion and the summary
judgment motions is pending, according to the company's Feb. 27,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Eastbourne Capital Comments on Del. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Eastbourne Capital Management, L.L.C. commented on the
class action lawsuit filed late last week in Delaware's Court of
Chancery against Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMLN) and
its entire Board of Directors by Amylin shareholder, San Antonio
Fire & Police Pension Fund, seeking to invalidate "poison put"
provisions in Amylin's credit agreements and to require the
Amylin Board to remove the obstacle posed by those provisions to
the election of directors nominated separately by Eastbourne and
by funds affiliated with Carl Icahn. Eastbourne has notified
Amylin of its intention to seek the election of five nominees to
Amylin's Board of Directors.  Eastbourne currently owns
approximately 12.5% of Amylin's outstanding shares.

     Rick Barry, Eastbourne Founder and Portfolio Manager said,
"We applaud San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and are
encouraged that another thoughtful institutional shareholder has
come forward and taken the initiative to seek to enforce the
legal rights of all Amylin shareholders.  We believe the
lawsuit, which has enormous merit and raises important issues
beyond this contest, serves the best interests of all
shareholders.

     "As should be clear from our last letter to Amylin's Board,
we believe that, since this year there are two separate
shareholder slates, the Company's 'poison puts,' unless they are
neutralized, threaten to tilt the electoral playing field in
favor of the incumbent board by effectively precluding not
merely the election of a new majority on the Board, which
Eastbourne is not seeking, but, as a practical matter, the
election of any shareholder-nominated directors at all.

     "Intentionally or not, these type of provisions, which are
agreed to by management without shareholder approval, embedded
in voluminous credit agreements and often not otherwise
disclosed, deprive shareholders of the substantive right to
freely nominate directors; essentially subjecting that right to
board approval or delegating it altogether to creditors.  We
think that any board's fiduciary duties, particularly its duty
of loyalty, would lead it to use all of its powers to lift this
constraint on a basic shareholder right, and not to condone its
operation to stifle an open election and protect the continued
reign of incumbent directors. We cannot imagine what rationale
directors could advance to support such a failure to act other
than to preserve themselves in office.

     "We had hoped that the Amylin Board would come to a similar
conclusion and respond positively to our request that they take
action to dispel the cloud cast by the Company's "poison puts"
and that resorting to the courts would not be necessary.  We
believe that the Board's failure to do so will be viewed by our
fellow shareholders as stark evidence of the current Amylin
Board's approach to corporate governance. We encourage other
shareholders to continue to speak out and support change on the
Board."

Eastbourne Capital -- https://www.eastbournecapital.com -- is a
West Coast-based registered investment advisor that employs an
investment philosophy based on intensive research, a long-term
outlook and a belief in working alongside portfolio companies to
enhance shareholder value.


BANK OF BERMUDA: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Bernard Madoff Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of Bermuda is among several offshore companies and
individuals that face a purported securities fraud class-action
lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors in four hedge
funds who allegedly lost more than $3 billion in the Bernard
Madoff fraud, The Royal Gazette reports.

The suit is captioned, "Perrone et al v. Benbassat et al., Case
No. 1:09-cv-02558-UA," and was filed on March 19, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
Fabian Perrone, a resident of Argentina, and Chia-Hung Kao, a
resident of Taiwan.

The bank's subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg
(Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd., described as the administrator
and registrar of the Primeo Fund; Bank of Bermuda (Luxembourg)
SA, described as the custodian of the Primeo Fund for a portion
of the Class Period), along with two Cayman-domiciled hedge
funds - Primeo Fund and Herald Fund; James E O'Neill, a former
managing director of Bank Austria (Cayman Islands) (now
UniCredit Bank); Cayman Islands resident Michael Wheaton, and
British Virgin Islands-domiciled investment adviser BA Worldwide
Fund Management Ltd. were all listed as defendants in the case,
The Royal Gazette reported.

In addition, the lawsuit also named as defendants Ernst & Young,
whose Cayman office allegedly audited one of the funds, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers, according to The Royal Gazette report.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Johnson Bottini, LLP
          655 West Broadway
          Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 230-0063
          Fax: (619) 233-5535

               - and -

          Brian Philip Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com)
          Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
          New York, NY 10016-1101
          Phone: 212-681-1818
          Fax: 212-682-1892


COMCAST OF OREGON: Court Certifies Class in Late Fees Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Baldwin of Multnomah County Circuit Court granted
class-action status to a consumer fraud lawsuit against Comcast
of Oregon, Inc. for its practice of billing late fees in Oregon.

The suit captioned, "Martin v. Comcast, Case No. 0407-07245,"
was filed in 2004 and claims that Comcast illegally charged TV
cable service late fees in Oregon.

According to attorney David Sugerman, Esq., who is representing
the plaintiffs, each consumer was hit for only a $6.00 late fee.
But those $6.00 late fees add up when you hit hundreds of
thousands of consumers over the years.

Under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the class can
recover the money, together with interest and attorney fees.

A copy of the class certification order is available at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?3aec

For more details, contact:

          Paul & Sugerman, PC
          520 SW 6th Ave.
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: 503.224.6602
          Fax: 503.224.2764
          e-mail: contact@pspc.com
          Web site: http://www.pspc.com/


CONNECTICUT: Attorneys Sue Governor, State Officials Over CSF
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several prominent Connecticut lawyers filed a purported class-
action lawsuit that seeks to prevent Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the
state treasurer and comptroller, from seizing $2 million from
the legal profession's Client Security Fund, Thomas B. Scheffey
of the Connecticut Law Tribune reports.

The plaintiffs charge that it would violate the constitutional
separation of powers between the branches of government if the
cash-strapped state took money that's supposed to compensate
clients victimized by dishonest lawyers.

The suit states that the fund transfer is expected on April 1,
2009.  It is supported with legal opinions from former acting
Supreme Court Chief Justice David M. Borden and Peter Costas, a
former president of the Connecticut Bar Association, reports the
Connecticut Law Tribune.

The legal relief is needed, according to a complaint filed on
March 30, 2009 in Hartford Superior Court, "to prevent the
Illegal Expropriation by Defendants."

The Connecticut Law Tribune reported that named as defendants in
the case are Republican Gov. Rell and two Democrats, state
Treasurer Denise L. Nappier and Comptroller Nancy Wyman.

The Client Security Fund is administered by a volunteer group of
judges, lawyers and lay people, and money for the fund comes
from a fee paid by each licensed Connecticut attorney and judge.
More than $13 million has been paid out since the Judicial
Branch took over administration of the fund in 1999.

The purported class bringing the action consists of about 30,000
lawyers and judges, magistrates and trial referees who have paid
into the fund, which has a $110 annual assessment for all those
admitted to practice in the state, The Connecticut Law Tribune
reported.

The four-count complaint alleges the budget "mitigation" move is
a violation of separation of powers.  The fund is entirely under
the control of the Judicial Branch, and any attempt to
confiscate it is unconstitutional as an intrusion of the
Executive Branch that would cause irreparable harm, according to
the lawsuit, reports the Connecticut Law Tribune.

The process is also a violation of due process, and, as to the
state treasurer, a breach of trust and a breach of a bailment,
according to the suit, a copy of which was obtained by the
Connecticut Law Tribune.

The complaint was drafted by Stamford lawyer Ernest Teitell, of
Silver, Golub & Teitell. The plaintiffs are a veritable who's
who of top Connecticut practitioners: Jacob D. Zeldes, William
R. Davis, Charles A. Deluca, William F. Dow III, Kathryn Emmett,
William F. Gallagher, Hugh F. Keefe, Kathleen L. Nastri, Hubert
J. Santos, Hope C. Seeley, Matthew Shafner and Frederic S. Ury,
according to Connecticut Law Tribune report.


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of 1999 Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. (NASDAQ:ELRN) (TASE:ELRN),
announced that, further to its announcement on January 25, 2009
regarding the dismissal by the District Court of Haifa of an
application to certify a purported claim as a class action filed
in November 1999 against, among others, Elron and certain of its
officers, including former officers, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal with the Supreme Court in Jerusalem against the District
Court of Haifa's dismissal decision.

     The allegations raised in the purported class action relate
to the period prior to the sale of Elron's holdings in Elbit
Imaging Ltd., (formerly known as Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd.)
(the parent company of Elscint and formerly an affiliated
company) in 1999.  The plaintiffs are claiming compensation for
damages sustained due to an alleged failure of Elbit Imaging to
effect a tender offer for Elscint shares, as well as due to
other allegations.

Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. -- http://www.elron.com a
member of the IDB Holding group, is a leading Israel-based
technology holding company directly involved in the long-term
performance of its group companies.  Elron identifies potential
technologies, creates strategic partnerships, secures financing,
and recruits highly qualified management teams.  Elron's group
companies currently comprise a diverse range of publicly-traded
and privately held companies primarily in the fields of medical
devices, information & communications technology, clean
technology and semiconductors.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles N.J. Securities Fraud Suit For $13M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies, Inc. agreed to pay $13.7 million to settle a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit alleging the
company deceived investors with sanguine reports shortly after
emerging from bankruptcy in 2004, Law360 reports.

The settlement, submitted on March 27, 2009 for approval by
Judge Mary L. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, creates a $13.7 million settlement fund to
resolve the case, according to the Law360 report.

                         Case Background

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former
stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately
filed purported class action complaints against the company and
certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations
of certain federal securities laws (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
11, 2009).

The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004, and May 17, 2005.

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20 (a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and
misleading public statements made during this period by the
company and its officers.  The complaints did not specify an
amount of damages sought.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva
Partners and Jarman cases under the caption "Aviva Partners v.
Exide Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC)."

On March 24, 2006, Judge Cooper appointed as co-lead plaintiffs:

     * the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
       Fund, and

     * Lakeway Capital Management.

The judge also appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as co-lead
counsel for the putative class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint in which they reiterated their original claims
but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who purchased
the company's stock between May 5, 2004, and May 17, 2005.

On June 22, 2006, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints.  The court has
granted this request but permitted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint, which they did.

The defendants again moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but
this time, the Court denied this request.

Discovery in the lawsuit is proceeding and is expected to
continue throughout the remainder of 2008.  No trial date has
been set in this matter.

On Jan. 8, 2009, the Company and Plaintiffs' Court-appointed
representatives (Lead Plaintiffs) reached an agreement in
principle to settle this litigation (Proposed Settlement). Any
payment under the Proposed Settlement would be made by the
Company's insurers and would have no material impact on the
Company's financial statements or results of operations.

The Proposed Settlement is subject to execution of a definitive
agreement between the Company and Lead Plaintiffs and approval
by Lead Plaintiffs' Board of Trustees.  The Proposed Settlement
is also subject to Court approval, and the Court has ordered
Plaintiffs to file their motion for preliminary approval of the
Proposed Settlement on or before Feb. 27, 2009.  Assuming
preliminary Court approval is obtained, notice to members of the
class would be issued, and the company anticipates that a final
approval hearing would take place in the latter half of calendar
2009.  Upon final approval of the Proposed Settlement by the
Court this litigation will be dismissed in its entirety, with
prejudice.  Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the
company and the former officers continue to deny the allegations
in Plaintiffs' complaints, according to its Feb. 4, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Mary L. Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq. (procco@lawssb.com)
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: 973-775-8997

Representing the defendants is:

         Edward T. Kole, Esq. (ekole@wilentz.com)
         Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs.
         90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 - Box 10
         Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
         Phone: 732-636-8000


FOUR SEASONS: Lawsuit on Tipping Goes to Hawaii Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against Four Seasons Hotel Ltd.
that tests a fairly new Hawaii law attempting to prevent hotels
and restaurants from keeping gratuities intended for workers is
going to the Hawaii Supreme Court, Andrew Gomes of The Honolulu
Advertiser reports.

Judge Helen Gillmor of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii recently heard arguments in the lawsuit, "Davis et al
v. Four Seasons Hotel Limited, Case No. 1:2008-cv-00525."

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 21, 2008 by banquet workers Daryl
Dean Davis, Mark Apana, Elizabeth Valdez Kyne and Earl Tanaka.
It seeks class-action status to represent all employees affected
by service charge practices at the hotels.

It is one of at least nine similar lawsuits against major hotel
companies in Hawaii attempting to recover gratuities for
hundreds of employees under a nine-year-old state law, reports
The Honolulu Advertiser.

However, defense lawyers for Four Seasons argued that employees
can't sue under the law because legislators placed the act
within an area of consumer protection statutes as opposed to
labor and wage statutes.

The law was enacted in 2000 from legislation titled A Bill for
an Act Relating to Wages and Tips of Employees.  As initially
drafted, the purpose of House Bill 2123 was to strengthen
Hawaii's wage and hour law to protect employees from having
gratuities withheld by or credited to their employers, according
to The Honolulu Advertiser report.

The House Committee on Labor and Public Employment though
concluded that language in the bill would confuse employees and
employers by redefining gratuity rules so they no longer match
federal law, so the focus of the bill was shifted to more of a
consumer protection measure.

The Honolulu Advertiser reported that the law as enacted
requires that hotels and restaurants distribute service charges
for food or beverage service to employees, or clearly disclose
to customers if the service charges don't entirely go to
employees.  It was included as a miscellaneous provision in a
section of statutes on unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Four Seasons argued that employees can't sue under an unfair
competition statute, and said doing so would be an improper and
unprecedented expansion of this part of state law not directed
by the Legislature.

The Boston law firm representing the plaintiff, Pyle Rome
Lichten Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, said the Four Seasons argument
is incredible because the statute was enacted with a clear aim
of protecting employees, reports The Honolulu Advertiser.

Wayne Yoshigai, Esq., a local attorney representing Four
Seasons, said the law as written is vague about who -- customers
or employees -- should receive proceeds from any violation of
the law.

Mr. Yoshigai added that even if employees are granted standing
to sue under the law, Four Seasons plans to defend against the
suit on other merits, The Honolulu Advertiser reported.

Four Seasons had asked Judge Gillmor to dismiss the case on
grounds that employees can't sue under the law, but the judge
instead referred the case to the state's highest court.  Judge
Gillmor ruled that it is more appropriate for the Hawaii Supreme
Court to rule on the issue of interpretation of state law,
according to The Honolulu Advertiser report.


GEORGIA: Federal Judge Allows Sex Offenders' Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Clarence Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia has allowed a class-action lawsuit,
on behalf of 16,000 registered sex offenders challenging
Georgia's restrictions on them, to proceed, The Associated Press
reports.

In addition, Judge Cooper on March 30, 2009, also issued a
preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a provision to
prevent offenders from volunteering at churches, according to
the AP report.

The Associated Press reported that the state wanted the judge to
declare the class-action suit unmanageable. However, Judge
Cooper allowed it to proceed in "subclasses."

The subclasses include offenders seeking to overturn a provision
against them living within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop;
those who want to volunteer at places of worship; and those who
were convicted before the July 1, 2006 law but were put on the
sex offender registry, reports The Associated Press.


HILLENBRAND INC: Judge Denies Class Status for Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
     On March 26, 2009, Kenneth M. Hoyt, United States District
Judge in the Southern District of Texas (Houston), ruled in
support of the memoranda and recommendations of U.S. Magistrate
Judge Calvin Botley, and denied class certification in two
previously disclosed antitrust lawsuits against Batesville
Casket Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand,
Inc.

     As previously reported, a self-styled consumer advocacy
group, the Funeral Consumers Alliance, and several consumers who
had purchased Batesville caskets had filed a purported class-
action lawsuit against Batesville Casket Company, Hill-Rom
Holdings and three of Batesville's funeral home customers,
alleging that the defendants violated antitrust laws. A related
lawsuit was filed by four current and former independent casket
retailers, alleging similar violations.

     "We are pleased with the rulings in these lawsuits, which
are a major step forward in the court's recognizing the
legitimacy of our century-old policy of selling only through
licensed funeral homes," said Kenneth A. Camp, Hillenbrand's
president and chief executive officer.

     The plaintiffs in both cases now have the option to
petition the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit no later than April 9, 2009, for leave to appeal Judge
Hoyt's decision.

Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.HillenbrandInc.com-- is the
holding company for Batesville Casket Co., a leader in the North
American death care industry through the sale of funeral
services products, including burial caskets, cremation caskets,
containers and urns, selection room display fixturing and other
personalization and memorialization products.


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Defective Drywalls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., along with several other
firms, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Florida
alleging defective drywall manufactured in China has caused
damage to potentially thousands of homeowners across the
country, Tara E. McLaughlin of The Naples Daily News.

The suit captioned, "Morris-Chin et al v. Knauf Plasterboard
Tianjin Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-20796-JLK," was filed
on March 27, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Miami residents Janet Morris-Chin and
Dajan Green.

It alleged Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., several other Knauf
companies (Knauf Gips KG, Knauf Plasterboard (WUHU) Co. Ltd.,
and Knauf Plasterboard (Dongguan) Co. Ltd.), and Knauf Tianjin's
distributor, Rothchilt Int'l, Ltd. should be held responsible
for defective drywall that made its way into a dozen or more
states -- enough to build 60,000 homes, reports The Naples Daily
News.

The suit says homes are rendered uninhabitable because of
noxious gases escaping from the drywall.  The gases appear to
corrode home electronics and other fixtures, according to The
Naples Daily News report.

The Naples Daily News reported that the Florida Department of
Health has said that testing identified several sulfur-based
gases emanating from Knauf Tianjin drywall and two other Chinese
manufacturers although they are not yet prepared to make a
health risk determination.

The department has logged more than 150 complaints from southern
Florida residents, dozens of whom live in Lee and Collier
counties, who said their homes reek of rotten eggs, copper
fixtures and electrical wiring corroded and air conditioning
coils failed repeatedly.  Some have also complained of allergy-
like symptoms that fade when they leave their homes, reports The
Naples Daily News.

The suit is "Morris-Chin et al v. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co.
Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-20796-JLK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge James
Lawrence King, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark Blumstein, Esq. (mark@blumsteinlaw.com)
          The Blumstein Law Firm
          18305 Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 402
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Phone: 305-356-7547
          Fax: 305-356-7539

          Victor Manuel Diaz, Jr., Esq. (Vdiaz@podhurst.com)
          Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
          City National Bank Building
          25 W Flagler Street
          Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130-1780
          Phone: 305-358-2800
          Fax: 305-358-2382

          Jacob Joseph Givner, Esq. (jgivner@hlglawyers.com)
          Givner & Jaroslawicz
          1177 Kane Concourse
          Suite 232
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Phone: 305-867-6470
          Fax: 305-867-6474 (fax)

               - and -

          David Henry Lichter, Esq. (dlichter@hlglawyers.com)
          Higer Lichter & Givner LLP
          18305 Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 402
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Phone: 305-933-9970
          Fax: 305-933-0998


MERCK & CO: Briefing on Appeal to Certification Ruling Complete
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on Merck & Co., Inc.'s appeal from the class
certification decision in the lawsuit purportedly brought on
behalf of individual purchasers or users of Vioxx claiming
reimbursement of alleged economic loss is complete.

On June 12, 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of
Missouri plaintiffs, seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket
costs relating to Vioxx.  The plaintiffs do not allege any
personal injuries from taking Vioxx.

The company filed a petition for interlocutory review on June
23, 2008, which was granted on July 30, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

During the pendency of the appeal, discovery is proceeding in
the lower court, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Certification Bid in "Martin-Kleinman" SuitPending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification in the putative consumer class
action styled, "Martin-Kleinman v. Merck," remains pending.

On July 29, 2005, a New Jersey state trial court certified a
nationwide class of third-party payors (such as unions and
health insurance plans) that paid in whole or in part for the
Vioxx used by their plan members or insureds.

The named plaintiff in that case sought recovery of certain
Vioxx purchase costs (plus penalties) based on allegations that
the purported class members paid more for Vioxx than they would
have had they known of the product's alleged risks.

On March 31, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate
Division, affirmed the class certification order.

On Sept. 6, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the
certification of a nationwide class action of third-party
payors, finding that the suit does not meet the requirements for
a class action.  Claims of certain individual third-party payors
remain pending in the New Jersey court, and counsel purporting
to represent a large number of third-party payors have filed
additional such actions.  Judge Higbee lifted the stay in these
cases and the cases are currently in the discovery phase.  A
status conference with the court took place in January 2009 to
discuss scheduling issues in these cases, including the
selection of early trial pool cases.

The New Jersey Superior Court heard argument on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in Martin-Kleinman v. Merck,
which is a putative consumer class action, on Dec. 5, 2008,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Securities & ERISA Multidistrict Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The multidistrict litigation captioned "Merck & Co., Inc.,
Securities Derivative and ERISA Litigation (MDL No. 1658), Case
No. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB," is ongoing.

Initially, various putative class-action lawsuits were filed in
federal court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
against the company and certain current and former officers and
directors.

The suits have been transferred to the multidistrict litigation
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under
the caption "Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB," and consolidated
there for all purposes.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain
of the company's current and former employees who are
participants in certain of its retirement plans for breach of
fiduciary duty.

On July 11, 2006, Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the ERISA
complaint.  In October 2007, the plaintiffs moved for
certification of a class of individuals who were participants in
and beneficiaries of the company's retirement savings plans at
any time between Oct. 1, 1998, and Sept. 30, 2004, and whose
plan accounts included investments in the Merck Common Stock
Fund and Merck common stock.  That motion is pending.

On April 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to
Supplement the Amended Complaint to add allegations relating to
Vytorin and seeking to add additional defendants, including
Richard T. Clark and additional members of the Board of
Directors.  The court denied the motion in May 2008 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

On Feb. 9, 2009, the Court denied the October 2007 motion for
certification of a class as to one count and granted the motion
as to the remaining counts.  The Court also limited the class to
those individuals who were participants in and beneficiaries of
the company's retirement savings plans who suffered a loss due
to their investments in Merck stock through the plans and who
did not execute a settlement releasing their claims, according
to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and ERISA
Litigation, (MDL No. 1658) Case No. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Judge Stanley R. Chesler, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul B. Brickfield, Esq. (pbrickfield@bricdonlaw.com)
          Brickfield & Donahue
          70 Grand Avenue
          River Edge, NJ 07661
          Phone: 201-488-7707

               - and -

          Irma Lois Bradley-Klein, Esq.
          Lemmon Law Firm, LLC
          650 Poydras St. Suite 2335
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 985-783-6789
          Fax: 985-783-1333

Representing the defendants are:

          Edward Cerasia II, Esq. (ecerasia@proskauer.com)
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          One Newark Center, 18th floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5211
          Phone: 973-274-3200

               - and -

          John N. Poulous, Esq. (poulos@hugheshubbard.com)
          Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
          101 Hudson St. Suite 3601
          Jersey City, NJ 07302-3918
          Phone: 201-536-9220


MERCK & CO: Several Vioxx Product Liability Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to face several purported class-
action lawsuits, alleging personal injury and economic loss with
respect to the purchase or use of Vioxx.

Initially, several individual and putative class-action suits
were filed against the company in state and federal courts. All
such actions filed in federal court are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Eldon E. Fallon.

A number of such actions filed in state court are coordinated in
separate coordinated proceedings in state courts in New Jersey,
California and Texas, and the counties of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and Washoe and Clark Counties, Nevada (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company had been served or was aware
that it had been named as a defendant in approximately 10,800
lawsuits, which include approximately 26,800 plaintiff groups,
alleging personal injuries resulting from the use of Vioxx, and
in approximately 242 putative class actions alleging personal
injuries and/or  economic loss.

Of these lawsuits, approximately 8,850 lawsuits representing
approximately 22,050 plaintiff groups are or are slated to be in
the federal multidistrict litigation and approximately 165
lawsuits representing approximately 165 plaintiff groups are
included in a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey Superior
Court before Judge Carol E. Higbee.

On Feb. 3, 2009, Judge Fallon dismissed the master personal
injury/wrongful death class action master complaint and the
medical monitoring class action master complaint in the MDL,
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.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Suit Over Medicaid Expenditures for Vioxx Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. Inc. continues to face a purported class-action suit
containing similar allegations to suits filed by (or on behalf
of) governmental entities that were seeking the reimbursement of
alleged Medicaid expenditures for Vioxx or statutory penalties
tied to such expenditures, 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 purported class-action suit was filed by Santa Clara County,
California, on behalf of all similarly situated California
counties.  It has been transferred to the multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana before Judge Eldon E. Fallon, and has not
experienced significant activity to date (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 3, 2008).

The actions alleges that the company misrepresented the safety
of Vioxx and seek:

   (i) recovery of the cost of Vioxx purchased or reimbursed by
       the state and its agencies;

  (ii) reimbursement of all sums paid by the state and its
       agencies for medical services for the treatment of
       persons injured by Vioxx;

(iii) damages under various common law theories; and/or

  (iv) remedies under various state statutory theories,
       including state consumer fraud and/or fair business
       practices or Medicaid fraud statutes, including civil
       penalties.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint in Vioxx Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. expects to file a motion to dismiss the fifth
amended class action complaint in the consolidated Vioxx
securities lawsuits, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company and various current and former officers and
directors are defendants in various putative class actions and
individual lawsuits under the federal securities laws and state
securities laws ("Vioxx Securities Lawsuits").

All of the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits pending in federal court
have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for
inclusion in a nationwide MDL ("Shareholder MDL").  Judge
Chesler has consolidated the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits for all
purposes.

The putative class action, which requested damages on behalf of
purchasers of cmpany stock between May 21, 1999 and Oct. 29,
2004, alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees.

The complaint also asserted claims under Section 20A of the
Securities and Exchange Act against certain defendants relating
to their sales of Merck stock and under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain defendants based
on statements in a registration statement and certain
prospectuses filed in connection with the Merck Stock Investment
Plan, a dividend reinvestment plan.

On April 12, 2007, Judge Chesler granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed Judge
Chesler's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  On Sept. 9, 2008, the Third Circuit issued an opinion
reversing Judge Chesler's order and remanding the case to the
District Court.

On Sept. 23, 2008, Merck filed a petition seeking rehearing en
banc, which was denied.  The case was remanded to the District
Court in October 2008, and plaintiffs have filed their
Consolidated and Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint.

Merck filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court on Jan. 15, 2009.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Vioxx-Related Class Lawsuit in Calif. Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported Vioxx-related class-action lawsuit that was brought
on behalf of California third-party payors and end-users against
Merck & Co., Inc., remains pending.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed in California state
court.  It is seeking class certification of California third-
party payors and end-users.

The parties are engaged in class certification discovery and
briefing (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

The court heard oral argument on the class certification issue
on Feb. 19, 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.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK FROSST: Canadian Court Overturns VIOXX Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. has learned that the Court of
Appeal for Saskatchewan has issued a decision allowing Merck's
appeal and quashing an order of the Court of Queen's Bench that
had certified a class proceeding on behalf of Canadian residents
of all provinces except Quebec who purchased or ingested VIOXX.

     The three-Justice panel of the Court of Appeal concluded
unanimously that the lower court had erred in finding that the
plaintiffs had established an identifiable class, in defining
common issues, and in holding that a class action represents the
preferable procedure for resolving the claims.  In her opinion
for the Court, Madam Justice Smith concluded, "It is my view
that this action vastly over-reaches what is reasonably
manageable in a class action in a fair and efficient way."

     "In short," wrote Madam Justice Smith, "the diversity of
claims sought to be asserted, combined with the lack of clarity
of what facts are alleged in relation to each, present
insurmountable challenges, in my view, to the identification of
issues which are common to all claims and therefore to all
members of the class."

     "We are pleased that the Court of Appeal agreed with us
that the court below erred in certifying this action as a
class," said Maurice Laprairie, Q.C. of MacPherson, Leslie &
Tyerman LLP, Saskatchewan counsel for Merck Frosst and Merck &
Co., Inc. "We argued against the creation, and later expansion,
of a class, because each plaintiff's case is unique and depends
on an individual set of facts."

     "The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously over
the coming years, and we are confident that the courts will
decide these cases based on sound science," said Neil
Finkelstein, of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Canadian national
counsel for Merck Frosst and Merck & Co., Inc.

     The evidence will show that Merck acted responsibly - from
researching VIOXX prior to approval in clinical trials involving
almost 10,000 patients - to monitoring the medicine while it was
on the market - to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine in
September 2004.

Merck Frosst Canada, Ltd. -- http://www.merckfrosst.com-- is a
research-driven pharmaceutical company.  Merck Frosst discovers,
develops and markets a broad range of innovative medicines to
improve human health.  The Merck Frosst Centre for Therapeutic
Research, one of the largest biomedical research facilities in
Canada, has the mandate to discover new therapies for the
treatment of respiratory diseases, inflammatory diseases,
diabetes and osteoporosis.


OKLAHOMA: Hearing in Lawsuit v. DHS Postponed until May 5, 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing that had been scheduled for March 30, 2009 in a
purported class-action lawsuit which seeks reform of the
Oklahoma's child-welfare system has been postponed until May 5,
2009, David Harper of The Tulsa World reports.

Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma made the scheduling change for the
hearing, which was scheduled for the court to hear arguments on
whether to permit class-action status for the case, according to
The Tulsa World report.

The Tulsa World reported that the postponement occurred after an
unopposed motion was filed explaining that one of the key
attorneys in the case is dealing with a family medical crisis.

The Daily Oklahoman previously reported that Children's Rights,
a New York-based child advocacy organization, joined several
prominent Oklahoma law firms and an international firm in filing
a class-action suit against Oklahoma's Department of Human
Services (Class Action Reporter, March 11, 2009).

The suit accuses DHS of repeatedly subjecting children in state
custody to extreme abuse and neglect.  It asks the judge to
impose far-reaching reforms on the state system.

"Oklahoma has long maintained one of the most dangerous and
badly mismanaged child welfare systems in the nation, and
thousands of children have suffered under nightmarish conditions
for years as a result," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive
director of Children's Rights.

"It is disgraceful that we have to seek a federal court order to
force the state to begin fixing problems that it should have
addressed many years ago. But it is clear that this is the only
way to protect Oklahoma's abused and neglected children and
that is what this lawsuit is about."

Children's Rights is asking the judge to declare the lawsuit a
class action so the attorneys can represent all of the more than
10,000 children in state care.

For more details, contact:

          Marcia Robinson Lowry
          Children's Rights
          330 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10001


ST. JOHN HEALTH: Reaches $13.6M Settlement in Nurses' Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. John Health System, a seven-hospital system based in Warren,
Mich., agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $13.6 million
that alleged hospitals in Detroit conspired to keep wages for
nurses artificially low, Jay Greene of Crain's Detroit Business
reports.

The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the Crain's
Detroit Business report.

"St. John Health believes it acted appropriately and lawfully,
and strongly denies the allegations in the lawsuit, including
the allegation that nurse wages have been adversely affected,"
said St. John in a statement issued on March 30, 2009, Crain's
Detroit Business reported.

The St. John statement added that the settlement is intended "to
avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction of
burdensome and protracted litigation," according to Crain's
Detroit Business.

Crain's Detroit Business reported that other local hospital
systems that are part of the lawsuit and have not settled
include Detroit Medical Center, Henry Ford Health System,
Oakwood Healthcare System, Trinity Health and William Beaumont
Hospitals.

                        Case Background

In 2006, the law firms of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll and
James & Hoffman have filed a federal class action on behalf of
nurses against six Detroit, Mich.-area hospitals for alleged
conspiracy to suppress wages (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21,
2006).

The hospital systems are:

      -- Bon Secours/Cottage Health Services,
      -- Detroit Medical Center,
      -- Henry Ford Health System,
      -- McLaren Health Care Corp,
      -- Oakwood Healthcare, and
      -- Saint John Health Partners.

Defendants are accused of deliberately, secretly and
systematically exchanging information about the wages they pay
their nurses, in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs named in the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, are Pat Cason-Merendo, who
works at the Detroit Medical Center's Rehabilitation Institute
of Michigan in Detroit, and Jeffrey Suhre of the St. John
system's Providence Hospital and Medical Center in Southfield.

They seek compensation for lost wages and damages.  An estimated
$340 million is allegedly owed for 16,800 registered nurses
working full-time since 2002 at the six hospitals.

The suit is "Cason-Merendo et al. v. Detroit Medical Center et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-15601-GER-MKM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E.
Rosen with referral to Judge Mona K. Majzoub.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen F. Wasinger, Esq. (sfw@sfwlaw.com)
          Stephen F. Wasinger (Royal Oak)
          26862 Woodward Avenue, Suite 100
          Royal Oak, MI 48067-0958
          Phone: 248-414-9942


TORONTO HYDRO: Evacuated Residents File Suit Over Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Residents of an east Toronto building that was evacuated after
an electrical explosion in March have filed a class-action
lawsuit against Toronto Hydro, Josh Wingrove of Globe and Mail
reports.

The Globe and Mail reported that a pair of explosions at 3650
Kingston Road on March 19, 2009 forced out residents of the
building.  Emergency crews at the time said there were no
injuries.

However, four residents filed a statement of claim against
Toronto Hydro, which owns the transformer where the explosion
occurred, saying smoke from the explosion damaged some tenants'
lungs, reports the Globe and Mail.

It alleges Toronto Hydro failed to operate its equipment safely,
and is claiming $30-million in total damages.  The allegations
though haven't been proven in court, according to the Globe and
Mail report.


UBS AG: New York Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed putative class-action lawsuits seeking damages against
UBS AG over allegations of securities fraud in the auction rate
securities market, Grant McCool of Reuters reports.

According to a ruling issued by Judge Lawrence McKenna, the
plaintiffs had no claim because they were part of agreements
with state and federal regulators and law enforcement in August
2008 in which UBS agreed to buy back the ARS, a type of risky
debt whose market collapsed in February 2008, according to the
Reuters report.

The first lawsuit was filed in March 2008 after the market froze
and before UBS agreed to buy back the auction rate securities,
reports Reuters.

Judge McKenna wrote, "Given that plaintiffs have availed
themselves of the relief provided in the Regulatory Agreement,
plaintiffs cannot now allege out of pocket damages."  The judge
added, "When plaintiffs elected to have UBS buyback their ARS at
par value, they received a full refund of the purchase price."

Reuters reported that auction rate securities are long-term
debts whose rates are set at periodic auctions.  The credit
crisis of 2007 put increasing pressure on the ARS market and by
February 2008 the market froze after UBS and other brokerages
stopped supporting the auctions.

Plaintiffs were left holding ARS that were illiquid.  They paid
$25,000 per share and have been paid back $25,000 per share plus
interest or dividends on the securities, the judge noted,
reports Reuters.

Several lawsuits were filed against UBS in New York and
consolidated.  The ruling grants a UBS request to the court to
dismiss them all.

The judge said the plaintiffs may plead within 20 days,
according to the Reuters report.

The case is "In Re UBS Auction Rate Securities Litigation 08-
2967, 08-3082, 08-4353, 08-5251" in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), Reuters reports.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CITIGROUP INC: Dostart Clapp Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     On March 24, 2009, Dostart Clapp Gordon & Coveney, LLP
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Southern District of California, on behalf of all persons
who participated in the Voluntary FA Capital Accumulation
Program (FA CAP) of Citigroup, Inc. and its subsidiary,
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. d/b/a Smith Barney against
Citigroup, certain directors of Citigroup, the administrator of
the FA CAP, and John Does 1-30 alleging fraud pursuant to
Sections 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 771(a)(2)]
and 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)],
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-
5], Sections 201-204 and 221-222 of the California Labor Code,
Sections 16600 and 17200 et seq. of the California Business &
Professions Code, and the California common law (the "Class").

     The case name is styled, "Brecher and Short v. Citigroup,
Inc., et al."

     Under the FA CAP, participants used their earned wages to
acquire restricted or deferred common stock (CAP Shares) or a
stock option ("CAP Option" and, collectively with CAP Shares,
the "Securities") of Citigroup pursuant to a prospectus.

     As detailed in the Complaint, Citigroup sold the Securities
to employees in order to allow employees to have a percentage of
their annual compensation paid in the form of awards of
restricted common stock.  The Offering Documents incorporated
Citigroup's annual financial results as well as any future
filings made with the SEC under Section 13(a), 13(c), 14 and
15(d).

     The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents, however,
included untrue statements of material fact and omitted material
information, namely, that:

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

       -- the Company failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

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

       -- Citigroup was not as well capitalized as represented
          and would have to raise additional billions by selling
          equity in the Company to the U.S. government in order
          to prevent its total collapse; and

       -- the Company caused its structured investment vehicles
          to imprudently issue billions of dollars worth of
          commercial paper and short term notes based on false
          and misleading statements.

For more details, contact:

          James F. Clapp, Esq. (jclapp@sdlaw.com)
          Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq. (mlauinger@sdlaw.com)
          Dostart Clapp Gordon & Coveney, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, California 92122
          Phone: (858) 623-4200


DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons
who acquired the 7.60% Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche
Bank Contingent Capital Trust III (NYSE:DTK) pursuant or
traceable to a materially false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the February
2008 offering of the Securities.

     The complaint charges Deutsche Bank AG, certain of its
subsidiaries, its senior insiders, its auditors and the
investment banks that underwrote the Offering with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.

     DB is an investment bank headquartered in Frankfurt am
Main, Germany, and has offices in the United States.

     The complaint alleges that in February of 2008, DB
consummated the Offering pursuant to the false and misleading
Registration Statement, selling 70 million shares of the
Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of $1.75 billion.  The
Registration Statement incorporated DB's financial results for
2007 and statements in the Company's 2006 Annual Report on Form
20-F filed with the SEC.

     After the Offering, on January 14, 2009, DB issued a press
release announcing disappointing fourth quarter 2008 financial
results, including a loss after taxes of EUR4.8 billion,
reflecting market conditions that severely impacted results in
the sales and trading businesses, "most notably in Credit
Trading including its proprietary trading business, Equity
Derivatives and Equities Proprietary Trading."  As a result of
this disclosure, the price of the Securities fell dramatically.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statement were:

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

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

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

       -- the Company was not as well capitalized as
          represented.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
who acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offering.

For more details, contact:

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


ING GROEP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Kohn, Swift,
& Graf, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who acquired the 8.5% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital
Securities of ING Groep N.V. [NYSE:IGK] pursuant to a
registration statement and June 2008 Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's June 2008 offering of the
Securities against ING, its senior insiders, the investment
banks that underwrote the Offering and ING's auditor pursuant to
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C.
77k, 77l(a)(2) and 77o].  The case name is styled, "Emery v. ING
Groep N.V., et al."

     As detailed in the Complaint, ING sold the Securities at
$25 per share for proceeds of approximately $1.7 billion.  The
Offering Documents incorporated ING's financial results for 2007
as well as quarterly reports through March 2008.

     The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents, however,
omitted material information, namely, 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 and
          prevented the Company from properly reporting the
          value of its assets; and

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

     After the Offering, ING announced EUR2 billion in
impairment charges associated with its exposure to bad loans,
mortgage-related securities and other "pressurized" assets,
causing the price of the Securities issued in the Offering to
decline.

     As a direct and proximate result of the conduct engaged in
by each of the defendants in issuing materially false and
misleading Offering documents, plaintiff and the other members
of the Class have sustained substantial damage in connection
with the purchase of the securities issued pursuant to or
traceable to the Offering Documents.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Brower Piven Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. during
the period between January 30, 2007 and February 6, 2009,
inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that it had
misstated its financial results during the Class Period due to
its having improperly accounted for trade credits.

     According to the complaint, on February 9, 2009, after the
Company revealed that it expects to restate financial statements
included in the Company's most recently filed Annual Report on
Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31, 2007, and in the
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first three quarters of
fiscal year 2008, the value of Insight's stock declined
significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Colo. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado against Oppenheimer Rochester National
Municipals Fund (NASDAQ: ORNAX) (NASDAQ: ORNBX) (NASDAQ: ORNCX)
on behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B
and/or Class C shares of the Fund pursuant to various
Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued by the Fund
beginning with the registration statement and prospectus issued
on or about September 27, 2006 and through disclosure of the
truth about the Fund on October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint alleges that the Fund and certain of its
trustees and officers and also Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., and
Oppenheimer Funds Distributor, Inc. violated sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits materially false and
misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in The Fund.

     According to the complaint, during the Class Period the
Fund concealed various risks in the way the Fund's investments,
including, but not limited to, risks associated with the Fund's
use of derivative type instruments called "inverse floaters" and
the Fund's over concentration of investments in illiquid
securities in violation of its cap of 15% in such securities by
investing an inordinate amount of its portfolio in illiquid
tobacco bonds and ordinary municipal bonds/notes that could turn
illiquid quickly.

     According to the Fund's registration statement and
prospectuses, the Fund would invest no more than 15% of its
assets in illiquid securities, which are securities that do not
trade in any active market and are riskier because the Fund may
not be able to sell the securities at the desired price, if at
all.  The complaint alleges that contrary to its
representations, the Fund invested 25% of its holdings in
illiquid tobacco bonds.

     In addition, the Fund failed to disclose that as much as
20% of its assets were invested in derivative instruments known
as "inverse floaters" which, under certain conditions, could
(and did) effectively force the Fund to sell securities from its
portfolio regardless of market conditions.  In or around October
2008, the Fund filed a prospectus supplement alerting investors
of the true risks of its investments -- the same risks that
existed in 2006, 2007, and throughout 2008.  By October 2008,
however, those risks had already manifested, dealing substantial
losses to investors.

     As a result of the Funds disclosures in October 2008, the
Fund lost approximately 40% of its net asset value.  The Fund
was crowned "The Biggest Loser in its Category last year" by
Fund analyst Morningstar, Inc., as reported in a January 29,
2009 article by Thompson Reuters PLC, after losing 49% percent
of its value in 2008 due to, among other reasons, its investment
in tobacco bonds.

For more information, contact:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: 800-660-7843 or 845-356-2570


                            *********

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  * * *