CAR_Public/090407.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 68

                           Headlines

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Ninth Circuit Revives Price-Fixing Lawsuit
CINTAS CORP: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Mich. Cases
CITIGROUP INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
DANNON CO: Working to Settle Several Lawsuits Over Yogurts
DEL WEBB: Nev. Court OKs $27.2M Settlement of Plumbing Complaint

ENERGY TRANSFER: Tex. Court Nixes Suit Over NYMEX Manipulation
F. KORBEL: Settles Workers' Overtime Suit in Calif. for $750,000
FISERV INC: Faces Colorado Suit Over Madoff-Related Investments
ILD TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Faces Fla. Suit Over "Crammed" Charges
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Faces "Tsereteli" Lawsuit Over Trust Securities

MCGRAW-HILL COS: Motion to Dismiss "Reese" Suit Pending in N.Y.
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Public Employees Bid to Remand Securities Suit
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Securities Suit v. Goldman Sachs, et al Pending
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Securities Suit v. Merrill Lynch et al Pending
MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend Boilermaker-Blacksmith Suit v. Trusts

MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend "Gearren" Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y.
MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend IBEW Local 103's Suit in California
MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend Lawsuit Over Fannie Mae Securities
MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend New Jersey Carpenters' Suits in N.Y.
OKLAHOMA: Several Residents File Lawsuits over Tar Creek Buyout

PFIZER INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Consolidated Neurontin Lawsuit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Judge Approves $1M Deal on Serio Suit
SHOSHANNA'S MATCHES: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging DSL Violations


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Barroway Topaz Sues over Purchasers' Claims
REGIONS FINANCING: Stull Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Ninth Circuit Revives Price-Fixing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived a class-
action lawsuit accusing Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO), Chevron
Corp. and several other refiners of conspiring to fix gasoline
prices during the mid-1990s, Ronald D. White of The Los Angeles
Times reports.

The ruling stems from a suit filed by William O. Gilley on
behalf of other wholesale buyers of the cleaner-burning fuel
that since 1996 has been required in California.

Attorneys for Mr. Gilley contend that the defendants had
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting the supply of
gasoline to raise prices and keep them high, according to The
Los Angeles Times report.

A federal judge dismissed the case in 2002, arguing that Mr.
Gilley was precluded from re-litigating claims from a 1996 case
that had determined no such conspiracy existed.

On April 3, 2009, two members of the three-judge appeals panel
ruled that the Mr. Gilley case (William O. Gilley En v. Atlantic
Richfield, 06-56059) explored a new area: whether the total
effect of production-sharing agreements entered into
individually by refiners could squeeze supply, reports The Los
Angeles Times.

The panel also ruled that the lower court had erred in not
allowing the plaintiffs to argue that there could have been an
anti-competitive effect on pricing even without evidence of
collusion.

The Los Angeles Times reported that judges Stephen S. Trott and
Richard R. Clifton wrote in sending the case back to the lower
court, "It had to be concluded that the district court erred in
not allowing Gilley to aggregate the agreements to demonstrate
their anti-competitive effects."  The appeals court also noted
that the lower court judge might be correct in thinking "the
prospects of Gilley actually proving the allegations . . . to be
highly improbable."  Judge Consuelo M. Callahan dissented.

The North County Times previously reported that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered a lower court to review
a San Diego class action lawsuit against all of the state's
petroleum refiners, which accuses them with violating antitrust
laws.  The appeals court reversed a summary dismissal of the
case nearly two years ago by U.S. District Court Judge Barry
Moskowitz, which thus remanded the case for a new hearing (July
1, 2005).

According to San Diego attorney Timothy Cohelan, Esq. the suit
is arguing that the practice of sharing motor fuels among
refiners to make up for production shortfalls is a violation of
the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act because it discourages price
competition as a means of distributing market shares among
supposedly unrelated companies.

Mr. Cohelan, who filed the case in 1998 on behalf of San Diego
Chevron dealer William O. Gilley and all brand-affiliated
gasoline dealers in the state, told the North County Times,
"When branded refiners have these agreements, what we
essentially have is a trust, an organized cartel, and a
marketplace that is anticompetitive."  Though Mr. Gilley has
since passed away, Mr. Cohelan was quick to point out that his
estate remains the lead plaintiff.

The agreements attacked by the suit are arrangements between
refiners to make motor fuels available to one another to cover
shortfalls.  Mr. Cohelan told the North County Times that the
prices at which the products are traded allow the companies to
buy gasoline, for example, from a competitor and sell it at the
same price they would charge for gasoline produced by their own
refinery, but without losing profit.  He also said, "When you
look at the output and price behavior, we can show the court
that the result has been a restraint of trade."

In a normal competitive marketplace, reduced output from one
competitor's factory becomes an opportunity for another
competitor to increase factory production and sell to a greater
number of consumers, thus increasing both market share and
profit at the first competitor's expense.

However, Mr. Cohelan argues that the agreements between refiners
prevent that kind of competition saying, "The challenge in this
case is that it doesn't allege there has been a conspiracy.  But
it alleges that these contract agreements have allowed the
competitive environment in California to deteriorate."

Previously, the lawsuit was dismissed on a motion by the
defendants for summary judgment, a decision by a judge that the
conditions to move the case forward have not been met, so it is
thrown out.  The recent decision by the three-judge panel of the
appeals court, following oral arguments in March, sent the case
back to the district court, where the plaintiffs will try again
to convince Judge Moskowitz that they have enough evidence to
prove their case and the defendants will try again to convince
him otherwise.


CINTAS CORP: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Mich. Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Cintas Corporation (Nasdaq: CTAS) announced a significant
victory in two class action employment discrimination lawsuits,
"Mirna E. Serrano vs. Cintas Corporation (Case No. 04-CV-
40132)," and "Blanca Avalos vs. Cintas Corporation (Case No. 06-
CV-12311)."

     Judge Sean Cox of the Eastern District of Michigan Southern
Division issued an Order rejecting the plaintiffs' bids for
class certification in nationwide and Michigan hiring
discrimination lawsuits alleging that Cintas had discriminated
against female and minority applicants who sought service sales
representative positions at hundreds of Cintas facilities across
the country.

     The court agreed with Cintas that the plaintiffs' evidence
did not demonstrate any common, class-wide discriminatory impact
or pattern of discrimination.  The court also found the
plaintiffs' efforts to rebut Cintas' commitment to diversity
"entirely unpersuasive," stating, "Cintas has presented sincere
attempts to achieve greater diversity in its company."

     "This is an important vindication for Cintas.  Diversity is
one of our top corporate initiatives," said Scott Farmer, Chief
Executive Officer of Cintas Corporation and chairman of the
company's Diversity Committee.

     "We are pleased that the court acknowledged Cintas'
continued commitment to diversity and inclusion, as both a smart
business practice and a way to maximize the talents of our
employee-partners."

     Cintas Corporation believes this litigation was a failed
attempt by the labor union, UNITE HERE, to falsely portray the
company and its commitment to diversity as part of its six year
old corporate campaign.

     A large component of the campaign is finding potential
legal claims against Cintas.  UNITE's hand-picked counsel sought
out original named plaintiff, Blanca Avalos, as well as other
representative plaintiffs.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com--
provides highly specialized services to businesses of all types.
Cintas designs, manufactures and implements corporate identity
uniform programs, and provides entrance mats, restroom supplies,
promotional products, first aid and safety products, fire
protection services and document management services to
approximately 800,000 businesses.  Cintas is a publicly held
company traded over the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol
CTAS, and is a Nasdaq-100 company and component of the Standard
& Poor's 500 Index.


CITIGROUP INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Citigroup, Inc. 8.50% Non-Cumulative
Preferred Stock, Series F (NYSE:C-M), on April 3, 2009, filed a
proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who acquired depositary shares of Citigroup, Inc.
8.50% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series F (NYSE:C-M)
pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
May 2008 initial public offering of the preferred series F
shares of Citigroup over alleged securities laws violations by
Citigroup, Inc, certain of its officers and directors, the
underwriters of the Offering of the preferred Series F and
Citigroup's auditor.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Citigroup, certain of its officers and directors, the
underwriters of the Offering and Citigroup's auditor violated
the Securities Act of 1933.

     It is the second securities class action on behalf of
certain preferred shares against Citigroup.  Citigroup was
already hit by a proposed securities class action on behalf of
Citigroup 8.125% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series AA,
pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus to issued in connection with the
Company's January 2008 offering of the Company's Preferred Stock
on March 13, 2009.

     The complaint filed on April 3, 2009, alleges defendants
consummated the Offering of the preferred Series F pursuant to
the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus
selling 81.6 million shares of the Securities at $25 per share,
for proceeds of over $2 billion.  The Registration Statement
incorporated Citigroup's financial results for 2007 and the
first quarter of 2008.  Citigroup ultimately announced huge
multi-billion dollar writedowns associated with its exposure to
subprime mortgages, related bonds called collateralized debt
obligations, and commercial real estate loans and investments,
as well as loans to companies with low credit ratings, causing
the price of the Securities to decline, so the lawsuit.

For more details, contact:

          Trevor Allen
          Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
          Phone: +1-(858)-779-1554
          Fax: +1-(858)-605-5739
          e-mail: mail@shareholdersfoundation.com
          Web site: http://www.ShareholdersFoundation.com


DANNON CO: Working to Settle Several Lawsuits Over Yogurts
----------------------------------------------------------
The Dannon Co. is quietly working on a settlement of complaints
filed by consumers questioning the health-benefit claims made on
behalf of its Activia and DanActive yogurts, Noreen O'Leary of
Adweek reports.

In a March 31, 2009 filing with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Dannon attorney David Ackerman, Esq. of
law firm Bingham McCutchen, asked the court to stay a pending
complaint against Dannon filed there.  He stated: "The parties
to this and other similar cases have reached a tentative
nationwide class-action settlement contingent upon the
occurrence of several events," Adweek reported.

In January 2008, Tim Blood, a partner with Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins, filed the initial plaintiff's suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

That suit was brought on behalf of Los Angeles resident Patricia
Wiener.  It seeks class-action status and demands Dannon issue
consumer refunds.  Mr. Blood has said the amount Dannon owes
consumers could be as much as $300 million, according to the
Adweek report.

Adweek reported that Ms. Wiener claimed financial injury due to
deceptive advertising -- based on a lack of clinical proof to
support marketing assertions -- that she said convinced her to
buy the product.  Dannon was able to charge a 30 percent premium
because of those perceived benefits, according to her lawyers at
CSGR&R.

Others suit have followed since.  In the March 31 court filing,
Dannon's attorney referenced the action brought by Joan
Wegrzyniak on Dec. 8, 2008 in New Jersey as well as "three other
similar cases" filed last year in Ohio, Florida and, the most
recent, in Arkansas on Jan. 9, 2009, reports Adweek.

For more details, contact:

          Timothy G. Blood
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway
          Suite 1900
          Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/


DEL WEBB: Nev. Court OKs $27.2M Settlement of Plumbing Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge Timothy C. Williams sanctioned a $27.2
million settlement from Del Webb Communities and its Coventry
Homes subsidiary in a class-action lawsuit regarding faulty
plumbing, Jeff Pope of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The judges' approval finalizes the preliminary settlement the
two builders agreed to in November 2008 and provides partial
compensation to replace Kitec plumbing systems in 6,617 homes in
the valley built by Del Webb or Coventry.

The settlement would cover about 75 percent of the total costs,
Bill Coulthard, Esq., whose firm Harrison, Kemp, Jones and
Coulthard represents the thousands of valley owners whose houses
were built with the Kitec system since 1995, The Las Vegas Sun
says.

The difference would be made up from Del Webb's portion of the
already approved $90 million settlement from Kitec-maker IPEX,
reports The Las Vegas Sun.

The settlement also provides at least partial reimbursements to
homeowners who paid out-of-pocket to replumb rather than waiting
for the court action to be resolved, according to Mr. Coulthard.

The suit continues to seek damages from about 30 other builders
and about 10 plumbers who installed Kitec as subcontractors.
Mr. Coulthard told The Las Vegas Sun that his firm is in talks
with several of the builders in an attempt to avoid going to
trial in May.

The Las Vegas Sun reported that the focus of the lawsuit is on
the brass fittings in the plumbing system.  The fittings
corrode, causing the zinc in the brass to build up in the pipes.
The buildup could restrict water flow and eventually cause
breaks.

IPEX issued a recall on the brass fittings in 2005.  The company
denies liability and has claimed that Southern Nevada's mineral-
rich water is to blame for failures because the fixtures don't
have the same problem elsewhere, according to The Las Vegas Sun
report.

For more details, contact:

          Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP
          Wells Fargo Tower
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
          Seventeenth Floor
          Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
          Phone: 702-385-6000
          Fax: 702-385-6001
          Web site: http://www.kempjones.com/


ENERGY TRANSFER: Tex. Court Nixes Suit Over NYMEX Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
dismissed a putative class-action lawsuit against Energy
Transfer Partners LP that accuses the energy pipeline and
natural gas firm of illegally manipulating the price of natural
gas futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange,
Law360 reports.

Final judgment was entered on March 25, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas according to
the Law360 report.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, alleges that the company engaged in
intentional and unlawful manipulation of the price of natural
gas futures and options contracts on the New York Mercantile
Exchange, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2008).

It further alleges that during the class period from Dec. 29,
2003, to Dec. 31, 2005, the company had the market power
manipulate index prices, and that it used this market power to
artificially depress the index prices at major natural gas
trading hubs, including the Houston Ship Channel, in order to
benefit the company's natural gas physical and financial trading
positions and intentionally submitted price and volume trade
information to trade publications.

The action asserts that the unlawful depression of index prices
by the company manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas
futures and options contracts to artificial levels during the
class period, causing unspecified damages to the plaintiff and
all other members of the putative class who purchased or sold
natural gas futures and options contracts on NYMEX during the
class period.

Initially, two class-action lawsuits were filed against the
company.  Following the consolidation order, the plaintiffs who
had filed the two earlier cases filed a consolidated complaint.
The plaintiffs have requested certification of their
consolidated suit as a class action, unspecified damages, court
costs and other appropriate relief.

On Jan. 14, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated suit on the grounds of failure to allege facts
sufficient to state a claim.

On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
class action complaint.  In response to this new pleading, on
May 5, 2008, the company filed yet another motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On June 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a response
opposing the company's motion to dismiss, according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2008.

The suit is "Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-03349," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, with Judge Keith P. Ellison,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com)
          Labaton & Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-883-7527

          Craig Briskin, Esq. (cbriskin@findjustice.com)
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-822-5100
          Fax: 202-822-4997

               - and -

          Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          1910 Ice Cold Storage Building, 104 21st St Moody Ave.
          Galveston, TX 77550
          Phone: 409-762-5393
          Fax: 409-762-0538

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps
          1000 Louisiana, Ste. 6800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-655-5160
          Fax: 888-329-2286


F. KORBEL: Settles Workers' Overtime Suit in Calif. for $750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
F. Korbel & Bros. Inc. has agreed to pay $750,000 to hundreds of
current and former employees to settle a federal class-action
lawsuit filed by workers who say they didn't get proper breaks,
weren't paid overtime or were required to work off the clock,
Lori A. Carter of The Press Democrat reports.

In March 2008, the champagne and brandy giant was named in a
class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California alleging that it:

     -- cheats its workers of overtime,
     -- makes them work off the clock,
     -- pays less than minimum wage,
     -- denies them legally required rest breaks,
     -- refuses to itemize wage statements, and
     -- violates other Labor Code rules.

The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that workers say
Korbel was put on notice that its policies are illegal but
continued them anyway (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2008).

The lawsuit is a class-action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to vindicate rights afforded the class
by Federal and California law.

The action is brought on behalf of a class of non-exempt
employees employed by, or formerly employed by defendant, to
secure and vindicate rights afforded them by:

     -- the Agricultural Workers Protection Act,

     -- the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Section
        201 et seq.,

     -- California Labor Code Section 200 et. Seq., and

     -- California Business and Professions Code Section 17200
        et. seq.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant violated AWPA, FLSA and the
         California Labor Code and Wage Orders as a result of
         the allegations described in this complaint;

     (b) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by compensating plaintiffs
         and other class members at hourly wage rates below the
         minimum wage rate;

     (c) whether defendant violated AWPA or FLSA and California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by compensating plaintiffs
         and other class members at rates below the required
         overtime rate;

     (d) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to provide daily
         rest periods to plaintiffs and other class members for
         every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and
         failing to compensate said employees one hours' wages
         in lieu of rest periods;

     (e) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to provide
         required meal periods to plaintiffs and other class
         members and failing to compensate said employees one
         hours' wages in lieu of meal periods;

     (f) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to, among other
         things, maintain accurate records of plaintiffs' and
         other class members' earned wages and work periods,
         itemize all hours worked and wages earned, and
         accurately maintain other records pertaining to
         plaintiffs and the other class members;

     (g) whether defendant violated AWPA and the California
         Labor Code and Wage Orders by failing to pay all earned
         wages due and premium wages due and owing at the
         time that the employment of any class members,
         including plaintiffs were terminated;

     (h) whether defendant violated section 17200 et seq. of the
         Business and Professions Code by the actions contained
         in the complaint;

     (i) whether defendant failed to pay class members,
         including plaintiffs, statutory penalties pursuant to
         California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203;

     (j) whether plaintiffs and other class members are entitled
         to damages, restitution, statutory penalties, premium
         wages, declaratory, injunctive and declaratory relief,
         attorneys' fees, interest, and costs, and other relief
         pursuant to Federal and California Labor Code and Wage
         Orders, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et
         seq.; and

     (k) whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief under AWPA
         for the claimed violations of the working arrangement
         and failure to pay wages due.

The plaintiffs ask:

     -- that the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class with the named plaintiffs
        appointed as class representatives;

     -- for the plaintiffs' attorneys to be named class counsel;

     -- for compensatory damages in an amount according to proof
        with interest;

     -- for a declaratory judgment that each of the defendant
        violated the plaintiffs' and the class members' rights
        under AWPA, FLSA, California Labor and Business and
        Professions Code;

     -- that defendant be ordered and enjoined to make
        restitution to the class due to their unfair
        competition, restitutionary disgorgement;

     -- that defendant be enjoined from continuing the unlawful
        course of conduct, alleged;

     -- for premium pay, wages, and penalties;

     -- for attorneys' fees, interest and costs of suit;

     -- for liquidated damages;

     -- for restitution and damages; and

     -- for all other relief provided by the AWPA, FLSA, the
        California Labor Code, and California Business and
        Professions Code.

The suit is "Juan Ruiz et al v. F. Korbel & Bros. Inc.," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

For more information, contact:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq. (StanM@Mallisonlaw.com)
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq. (HectorM@Mallisonlaw.com)
          Marco A. Palau, Esq. (MPalau@Mallisonlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Mallison & Martinez
          1042 Brown Avenue, Suite A
          Lafayette, CA 94549
          Phone: (925) 283-3842
          Fax: (925) 283-3426


FISERV INC: Faces Colorado Suit Over Madoff-Related Investments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fiserv, Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by clients who are alleging
their money was invested in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme
without their knowledge, Jessica Papini of Dow Jones Newswires
New York.

The suit was filed on April 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado by Jacob Zamansky, Esq. of Zamansky
& Associates.  It was brought on behalf of 800 investors who are
hoping to recover up to $1 billion.  The suit is seeking class-
action status, according to the Dow Jones Newswires New York
report.

"This case is about Fiserv's violation and breach of its most
fundamental and core duty as custodian to hold and safeguard
assets entrusted to it," the suit alleges.

Fiserv, a technology provider, sold its Fiserv Investment
Support Services unit to TD Ameritrade two years ago.  The unit
included around 300,000 retirement and custodial accounts,
reports Dow Jones Newswires New York.

The complaint alleges that while Fiserv was the "designated
'custodians' for their pension and IRA accounts, that
designation was pure fiction. From beginning to end, Mr.
Madoff's firm held and controlled the actual custody of their
pension and IRA accounts, and their underlying cash."  It
alleges that investors only realized the day Mr. Madoff was
arrested last December that their money had been handed over to
Mr. Madoff's firm, Dow Jones Newswires New York reported.

The Dow Jones Newswires New York reported that the suit also
questions Fiserv's relationship with Mr. Madoff.  Investors
didn't realize that since the late 1990s, Fiserv, through its
subsidiaries, initially Fiserv Trust Co. and later NTC and Trust
Industrial Bank, was the exclusive custodian and trustee for any
customer of Madoff Securities who invested through a pension or
IRA, the suit alleges.

"Whenever a potential Madoff investor sought to invest or roll
over their IRA accounts with his firm, Madoff directly or
through one of his confederates, strictly mandated that the
investor use the IRA custodial services of Fiserv, which had a
monopoly over all Madoff Securities' accounts held in IRAs,"
according to the suit, a copy of which was obtained by Dow Jones
Newswires New York.

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
          Web site: http://www.zamansky.com/


ILD TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Faces Fla. Suit Over "Crammed" Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ILD Telecommunications Inc. and TelSeven are facing a purported
class-action lawsuit in Florida claiming that telephone bills
are "crammed" with unwanted and unapproved charges, Richard
Prior of the St. Augustine Record reports.

The suit was filed by Steven R. Browning, Esq. and Galen D.
Bauer, Esq., attorneys with Spohrer, Dodd in Jacksonville who
are representing Duval County resident William A. Eyler III and
"all others similarly situated," according to the St. Augustine
Record report.

It is pending court certification as a class-action lawsuit.  It
would include all Florida residents and businesses with a land
line phone who did business with the defendants from March 14,
2004, to the present.

The St. Augustine Record reported that the case was originally
filed in St. Johns County about a year ago, but the defendants
moved the case to federal court.  Later, U.S. District Judge
Timothy J. Corrigan in Jacksonville ruled that the suit is a
state matter and remanded it to St. Johns.

The plaintiff claims that the two Ponte Vedra Beach businesses
have been charging directory assistance fees without telephone
customers' knowledge or approval.

According to the suit, a copy of which was obtained by the St.
Augustine Record, TelSeven has been buying blocks of toll-free
numbers that are one digit off from numbers that are "frequently
called by consumers, such as government agencies or major
corporations."

Customers who misdial one of those toll-free numbers are
"commonly and unwittingly connected to a number owned by
(TelSeven)," the suit claims.

"A recorded message instructs the consumer to dial a short
combination of numbers to reach the number they originally
intended to dial," the suit continued. " ... (I)f the consumer
dials the combination of numbers as instructed by the recording,
they are connected to the number they originally intended to
dial, and assessed charges by the unauthorized vendor
(TelSeven)," according to the suit

ILD Telecommunications is described in the lawsuit as an
"aggregator."  The business collects billing data from TelSeven
and forwards it to the consumer's local telephone company, which
puts it on the monthly bill, Mr. Bauer tells the St. Augustine
Record.

When the local company gets a subscriber's check, it deducts its
own charges and a fee for handling the add-on.  The balance goes
to the aggregator, which subtracts its fee.  The remainder goes
to the "so-called vendor, TelSeven," according to Mr. Bauer.

Ilona Olayan, director of marketing for ILD would not comment on
the suit.  She, however told the St. Augustine Record that ILD
is a payment processor that offers bill-to-phone payment
services to more than 200 merchants.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Faces "Tsereteli" Lawsuit Over Trust Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. faces a putative class-action suit
entitled, "Tsereteli v. Residential Asset Securitization Trust
2006-A8, et al.," in the New York State Supreme Court, New York
County.      

On Nov. 20, 2008, the class action was filed in New York State
Supreme Court, asserting Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 claims against the Trust, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Moody's and the company with
respect to mortgage-backed securities issued by the Trust.

On Dec. 8, 2008, Defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint is stayed pending
the selection of a lead plaintiff, 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 McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Motion to Dismiss "Reese" Suit Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the
purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Reese v. Bahash, Case
No. 1:2007cv01530," which was filed against certain officials of
McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., is pending with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The putative shareholder class-action lawsuit was filed on Aug.
28, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia against Robert Bahash, the chief financial officer of
the company, alleging claims under the federal securities laws
and state tort law concerning Standard & Poor's ratings,
particularly its ratings of subprime mortgage-backed securities.
Mr. Bahash was not served with the complaint.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the District Court in the case entered an
order appointing a lead plaintiff and permitting plaintiffs to
amend the complaint on or before April 16, 2008.

On April 7, 2008, the District Court granted the application of
the lead plaintiff to extend the deadline for its amendment of
the complaint to May 7, 2008.

An amended complaint was filed alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  The company and another individual was
named as additional defendants.

The Amended Complaint asserts, among other things, that the
defendants failed to warn investors that problems in the
structured finance market, particularly the sub-prime lending
market, would negatively affect the company's financial
performance.  Service of the Amended Complaint was thereafter
effectuated.

On June 18, 2008, in response to a Consent Motion filed on
behalf of the company and the individual defendants, the
District Court entered an order transferring the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the District Court denied Lead Plaintiff's
motion to lift the discovery stay imposed by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act in order to obtain documents
S&P submitted to the SEC during the SEC's examination.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on Feb. 3, 2009 and expects that motion to be fully
submitted by May 4, 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 McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Public Employees Bid to Remand Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi seeks to
remand its putative class-action suit against The McGraw-Hill
Cos., Inc., Moody's and various Morgan Stanley trusts.

On Dec. 2, 2008, a putative class action was filed in California
Superior Court entitled, "Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi v. Morgan Stanley, et al.," asserting Section 11 and
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 claims
against the company, Moody's and various Morgan Stanley trusts
relating to mortgage-backed securities issued by the trusts.

On Dec. 31, 2008, defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On Jan. 30, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to remand and, on the
same date, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the action
to the Southern District of New York, 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 McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Securities Suit v. Goldman Sachs, et al Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. faces a putative class-action lawsuit
filed on Feb. 6, 2009, in the District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The action is entitled, "Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al."

The lawsuit asserts Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 claims against the company,
Moody's, Fitch and Goldman Sachs relating to mortgage-backed
securities, 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 McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Securities Suit v. Merrill Lynch et al Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action entitled, "Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch et al.," is pending,
according to The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company has been named as a defendant in a putative class-
action suit filed in February 2009, in the District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The suit asserts Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 claims against Merrill Lynch,
various issuing trusts, the company, Moody's and others relating
to mortgage-backed securities.

The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend Boilermaker-Blacksmith Suit v. Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. intends to defend against a putative
class-action suit filed in the District Court for the Southern
District of New York, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
certain issuances of mortgage-backed securities.

The action entitled, "Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension
Trust v. Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Securities 2006 AR1 Trust,
et al," was filed on Jan. 29, 2009.

The Complaint asserts claims against the trusts that issued the
securities, the underwriters of the securities and the rating
agencies that issued credit ratings for the securities.

With respect to the rating agencies, the Complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1933.

Plaintiff seeks as relief compensatory damages for the alleged
decline in value of the securities, as well as an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, 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 McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend "Gearren" Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. intends to defend against a putative
shareholder class-action suiut entitled, "Patrick Gearren, et
al. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.," in the District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 10, 2008, the putative shareholder class-action suit
was filed against the company, its Board of Directors, its
Pension Investment Committee and the administrator of its
pension plans.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties to participants in the company's Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) plans by allowing participants to
continue to invest in company stock as an investment option
under the plans during a period when plaintiffs allege the
company's stock price to have been artificially inflated.

The Complaint also asserts that defendants breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA by making certain material misrepresentations
and non-disclosures in plan communications and the company's
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

An Amended Complaint was filed Jan. 5, 2009.

The company has not yet answered or responded to the Amended
Complaint, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the SEC for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend IBEW Local 103's Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. intends to defend against a putative
class-action siut styled, "IBEW Local 103 v. IndyMac MBS, Inc.,
et al.," in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County.

The action was filed on Jan. 20, 2009, asserting claims under
the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of certain issuances of mortgage-backed securities.

The Complaint asserts claims against the trusts that issued the
securities, the underwriters of the securities and the rating
agencies that issued credit ratings for the securities.

With respect to the rating agencies, the Complaint asserts a
single claim under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1933.

Plaintiff seeks as relief compensatory damages for the alleged
decline in value of the securities, as well as an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, 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 McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend Lawsuit Over Fannie Mae Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. intends to defend against a putative
class-action suit involving Federal National Mortgage
Association's securities, 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.

On Sept. 26, 2008, a putative class action was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, titled, "Kramer v.
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), et al.,"
against a number of defendants including the company.

The central allegation against the company is that Standard &
Poor's issued inappropriate credit ratings on certain securities
issued by defendant Federal National Mortgage Association in
alleged violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1933.

The plaintiff seeks as relief compensatory damages, as well as
an award of reasonable costs and expenses, and attorneys fees.

On Oct. 27, 2008, the company removed this case to the U.S.
District Court, District of New Jersey.

The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation has transferred
19 lawsuits involving Fannie Mae, including this case, to Judge
Lynch in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York for pretrial purposes.

The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: To Defend New Jersey Carpenters' Suits in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. intends to defend against purported
class-action suits by the New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund
and the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In May and June 2008, three purported class-action lawsuits were
filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, naming
the company as a defendant.

The named plaintiff in one action is New Jersey Carpenters
Vacation Fund and the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund is the
named plaintiff in the other two.

All three actions have been successfully removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The first case relates to certain mortgage-backed securities
issued by various HarborView Mortgage Loan Trusts, the second
relates to certain mortgage-backed securities issued by various
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trusts, and the third case relates to
an offering by Home Equity Mortgage Trust 2006-5.

The central allegation against the company in each of these
cases is that Standard & Poor's issued inappropriate credit
ratings on the applicable mortgage-backed securities in alleged
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

In each, plaintiff seeks as relief compensatory damages for the
alleged decline in value of the securities as well as an award
of reasonable costs and expenses.

Plaintiff has sued other parties, including the issuers and
underwriters of the securities, in each case as well, 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 McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.


OKLAHOMA: Several Residents File Lawsuits over Tar Creek Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits have been filed over the federal buyout of homes and
businesses in the Tar Creek Superfund Site, which is in Ottawa
County, northeastern Oklahoma, near the border with Kansas, The
Associated Press reports.

About Fifty-six present and former residents of the area are
plaintiffs in a Tulsa County lawsuit against two Tulsa appraisal
companies, according to the AP report.

The Associated Press reported that a second lawsuit was filed in
Ottawa County District Court by three people against the Lead-
Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust, which oversees
the voluntary buyout.  That lawsuit seeks to form two class-
action suits.

One class would consist of residents whose property allegedly
was undervalued by the trust.  The second would be of residents
whose buyout payments were reduced because they received money
from their private insurance carrier or from the Federal
Emergency Management Authority after a May 10 tornado, reports
The Associated Press.

Tar Creek residents are being offered a fair-market value for
property that has been devalued because it's located in a 40
square-mile area where lead and zinc mining took place for
decades, The Associated Press reported.


PFIZER INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Consolidated Neurontin Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Faith S. Hochberg of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed a consolidated class-action
lawsuit accusing Pfizer Inc. of a scheme to use patent
litigation to delay generic competition for the epilepsy drug
Neurontin, after the end-payor plaintiffs voluntarily dropped
their claims against the pharmaceutical giant, Law360 reports.

Judge Faith S. Hochberg tossed a total of 17 cases on April 2,
2009 against Pfizer and its a wholly-owned subsidiary, Warner-
Lambert, according to a Law360 report.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Judge Approves $1M Deal on Serio Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey approved a $1 million settlement in a
long-standing class-action suit by a group of former Prudential
Financial, inc. advisers over whether they had been denied
deferred compensation benefits, Fred Schneyer of planadviser.com
reports.

In an order approving the deal, Judge Falk noted that an out-of-
court disposition of the case,captioned, "Serio v. Wachovia
Securities LLC, D.N.J., No. 06-4681," was best because it would
avoid meeting a potentially unsympathetic jury angry at Wall
Street over the nation's financial downturn.

Judge Falk wrote, "[M]any of the Class Members are high income
individuals in the financial services sector for whom a jury may
have little sympathy given the current economic crisis facing
our country."  The judge further wrote, "Therefore, plaintiffs
could face the prospect that a jury would not sympathize with
their case and thus either find no liability or severely limit
any damages awarded to the class," reports planadviser.com.

Judge Falk also asserted that the deal is fair and reasonable,
and the fact that only two members of the class-action lawsuit
objected means the settlement had widespread support among the
plaintiffs.

According to the ruling, the MasterShare Plan was introduced by
Prudential in 1999.  It was a deferred compensation program
allowing Prudential employees to invest pre-tax earnings through
payroll deductions in shares of the Prudential Stock Index Fund
at a 25% discount of the purchase price of Prudential
securities, according to the court.

Fred Schneyer of planadviser.com reported that the shares of
Prudential stock were deposited into a customer account
established for each employee and the stock would vest three
years after purchase.  Prudential also offered enhanced premium
shares in the Prudential Stock Index Fund, which were
contributions made by Prudential that considered the employee's
and the company's performance, the court said.

The plaintiffs were Prudential financial advisers who were
transferred to Wachovia Securities on June 30, 2003, as part of
a deal between the two companies.

According to Judge Falk, each plaintiff ended employment with
Wachovia Securities in 2004, and they now allege they were
constructively terminated by Wachovia Securities due to
"deplorable" and "impossible" working conditions.  They claim
they were not paid all benefits they were owed under the
MasterShare Plan, reports planadviser.com.

Under the terms of the settlement, financial advisers who
contributed in the MasterShare Plan will receive 4% of their
wage contributions.  Financial advisers who contributed to the
Wachovia plan will receive 3% of their wage contributions.  The
settlement further provides that if the $1 million is not
sufficient to make the 4% and 3% payments to the advisers, all
class members will receive a pro rata reduction of the funds
they would have received, according to the planadviser.com
report.


SHOSHANNA'S MATCHES: Faces Suit in N.Y. Alleging DSL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shoshanna's Matches and its owner Shoshanna Rikon face a
purported class-action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York alleging violations of the
state's Dating Service Law, Cityfile reports.

According to the lawsuit, captioned, "Nava Sheena v. Rikon
Associates, LLC, d/ba/ Shoshanna's Matches," Ms. Rikon -- who
bills herself as the "New York City's No. 1 Jewish Matchmaker"
-- charged clients thousands of dollars a year for her services,
even though New York's Dating Service Law sets limits on the
amount a "social referral service" can charge.  Plus Ms. Rikon
wouldn't give refunds to dissatisfied customers or guarantee a
minimum number of introductions, Cityfile reported.

Nava Sheena, a former client of the company says she's located
more than 500 other people who also claim they were overcharged
by Ms. Rikon, according to the Cityfile report.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Barroway Topaz Sues over Purchasers' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of
Heartland Payment Systems' securities between February 13, 2008
and February 23, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Heartland and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Heartland provides bank card payment processing services to
merchants in the United States.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

       -- that the Company was in imminent danger of having the
          security of its processing system breached;

       -- that the Company had not taken the proper steps to
          secure its systems;

       -- that further, it was likely that the Company would not
          be aware such a breach occurred until weeks or months
          later;

       -- that the Company had been notified of a potential
          breach in its security system;

       -- that as a result, the Company would face significant
          costs related to, among other things, liability and
          the implementation of proper measures; and

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

     On January 20, 2009, the Company shocked investors when it
disclosed for the first time that it was the victim of a
security breach within its processing system in 2008.  The
Company stated that it found evidence of an intrusion the
previous week and notified federal law enforcement agencies.
Heartland stated that it immediately took a number of steps to
further secure its systems.  Then, on January 22, 2009,
Bloomberg published an article about the breach.  The article
stated that the breach may have involved 100 million accounts,
which would be double the size of the largest such theft in
history.  Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares
declined $5.93 per share, or 42.03 percent, to close on January
22, 2009 at $8.18 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     On February 24, 2009, the Company announced disappointing
quarterly financial results in an earnings press release.
Additionally, the Company announced that it was cutting its
dividend 72 percent, and further warned that it could face
losses due to the security breach.  Later that day, during an
earnings conference call, defendants disclosed that the Company
was under investigation by the SEC, the United States Department
of Justice, the United States Federal Trade Commission, and the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  Upon the release of
this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.31 per
share, or 30.20 percent, to close on February 24, 2009 at $5.34
per share, also on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com


REGIONS FINANCING: Stull Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers and acquirers
of 8.875% Trust Preferred Securities of Regions Financing
Capital Trust III (NYSE: RF-PZ) pursuant or traceable to a
materially false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2008 offering of
the Securities.

     The complaint charges Regions Corp., certain of its
officers and directors, its auditor, and the underwriters of the
Offering with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

     Regions Corp. provides consumer and commercial banking,
trust, securities brokerage, mortgage and insurance products and
services.

     The complaint alleges that in April 2008, Regions Corp.
consummated the Offering pursuant to a false and misleading
Registration Statement, selling 13.8 million shares of the
Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of $345 million.  The
Registration Statement incorporated Region Corp.'s financial
results for 2007.  On January 20, 2009, Regions Corp. issued a
press release announcing a loss for the quarter and year ended
December 31, 2008, including a loss for the quarter ended
December 2008 of $9.01 per diluted share, which was "largely
driven by a $6 billion non-cash charge for impairment of
goodwill."  As a result of that disclosure, the price of the
Securities declined significantly.

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

      -- Regions Corp. failed to properly record provisions for
         loan losses;

      -- the Company failed to properly account for impaired
         assets;

      -- the Company failed to properly account for goodwill;

      -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
         prevent it from improperly recording provisions for
         loan losses, improperly accounting for impaired
         assets, and improperly accounting for goodwill; and

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

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

For more details, contact:

         Aaron Brody, Esq.
         Stull, Stull & Brody
         6 East 45th Street
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 1-800-337-4983
         Fax: 212/490-2022
         e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
         Web site: http://www.ssbny.com


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *