CAR_Public/090408.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 8, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 69

                           Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: FlyersRights.org Dismayed at "Ray" Decision
BRITISH AIRWAYS: N.Y. Court Denies Motion in Lost Luggage Case
CVS CAREMARK: Consolidated Pharmacies' Antitrust Lawsuit Pending
CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Face Ala. Suits Over 1999 Settlement
GASOLINE RETAILERS: APA Joins Price-Fixing Litigation in Quebec

GOOGLE INC: Group Calls on DOJ to Intervene in Book Settlement
KANSAS CITY: Continues to Face Policyholders' Litigation
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Settlement of OSB Antitrust Suit Paid in 2008
MERRILL LYNCH: Reaches $75M Settlement for 401(k) Litigation
STIFEL FINANCIAL: To Defend ARS-Related Suit Pending in Missouri

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Settles Delaware Suit Over EA Buyout Offer
TYCO INT'L: N.M. Judge Issues ERISA-Related Ruling in Fraud Suit
VANGUARD GROUP: N.Y. Judge Nixes Suit Over Illegal Investments
WAHSINGTON MUTUAL: N.Y. Judge Halts Consumer Fraud Litigation
WELLS FARGO: Affiliates Still Face Civil Lawsuits Over ARS Sale

WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend Interchange Litigation in N.Y.
WELLS FARGO: "Lipetz" Securities Suit v. Wachovia Corp. Pending
WELLS FARGO: Municipalities' Suits Over Bid Practices Pending
WELLS FARGO: Settlement of RICO Suits v. Wachovia Okayed in Jan.
WELLS FARGO: Wachovia Faces 3 Suits Over Issuance of Securities

WELLS FARGO: Wachovia Faces 7 Suits Claiming ERISA Violations
XCEL ENERGY: Awaits Minn. Supreme Court Ruling on Hoffman Appeal
XCEL ENERGY: Comer Appeal Still Under Advisement in 5th Circuit
XCEL ENERGY: Deal in Texas-Ohio Energy Case Reached in Jan. 2009

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DEUTSCHE BANK: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
MORGAN STANLEY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit
REGIONS FINANCING: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: FlyersRights.org Dismayed at "Ray" Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
     FlyersRights.org, on April 6, 2009, expressed
disappointment over the federal district judge's dismissal of a
class action lawsuit filed by Cathy Ray of Fayette, Ark., who
brought suit for unlawful imprisonment for 9 1/2 hours by
American Airlines on a flight in Austin, Texas, on December 29,
2006.

     The suit is captioned, "Ray v. American Airlines, Inc. Case
No. 5:2008-cv-05025."

     In his April 2nd decision, U.S. district Judge Robert T.
Dawson of the Western District of Arkansas wrote that the court
was "sympathetic to the plaintiff," but ultimately ruled that
the airline has no duty to provide passengers with "a stress-
free environment."  He found that the named plaintiff had never
personally "told the pilots or the flight attendants that she
wanted to deplane" so there was no "willful detention."

     "The Arkansas judge also found that these stranding
situations are not controlled by Federal regulations.  So
Congress must legislate airline passengers' rights so that
individual judges can look to uniform rules when making rulings
in future cases rather than making up standards that are not
connected to reality on a case-by-case basis," said Ms. Hanni.

     "This decision only reinforces the need for Federal
legislation to create a 'bright line' standard for how long
passengers can be kept on stranded flights," said Kate Hanni,
director of FlyersRights.org.  Congress did not enact passengers
rights legislation last year but new legislation (H.R. 915, S.
213) is moving forward this year.

     FlyersRights.org is the leading national organization
fighting for a Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights, including a
"bright line" standard which would give passengers an option to
deplane after being stranded for three hours if the pilot
determined it were safe to do so.

     "Fighting for a 'Three Hour Option' remains our top
priority," said Hanni.  "We are hopeful that Congress will
decide that people need no longer be held against their will for
an unlimited amount of time on stranded aircraft by the
airlines."

For more details, contact:

          Kate Hanni (kate@flyersrights.org)
          FlyersRights.org
          Phone: 1-877-FLYERS6 or 707-337-0328
          Web site: http://www.flyersrights.org/


BRITISH AIRWAYS: N.Y. Court Denies Motion in Lost Luggage Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
     British Airways (LON:BAY) passengers attempting to hold the
airline accountable for losing an estimated one million pieces
of luggage received some good news when a District Court judge
ruled a nationwide class action lawsuit could move forward in
the United States court system.

     The ruling, issued by Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, denied
British Airways' motion to dismiss the consumer class action,
filed in 2007, which seeks to recover travelers' actual losses
rather than a $1,500 cap the airline uses to limit damages.  The
Court noted, and rejected "BA's extreme position" that it was
not responsible for actual losses for lost baggage unless its
mishandling rate was "worse than fifty percent."

     According to the suit, originally filed in Federal Court in
Seattle, British Air lost 23 bags per 1,000 passengers carried,
about 60 percent more than the industry average and twice as bad
as the worst U.S. carrier.

     International airlines typically cap liability for lost
luggage, citing The Montreal Convention, to which the United
States and 124 other countries are signatories.  That agreement
limits liability to $1,500 per passenger, but also waives that
limit if the airline acted recklessly, and with knowledge that
damage would probably result.

     "The judge's ruling puts international airline carriers on
notice that they cannot hide behind the Montreal Convention to
deny passengers the care and respect to which they are
entitled," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro and the attorney representing passengers.  "This
ruling affirms that the convention protects passengers from
airlines that demonstrate they don't care about passengers'
luggage."

     "Since we filed the complaint in September 2007, we have
been inundated with calls and e-mails from passengers who
experienced horrific treatment by British Air, in the way the
airline dealt with baggage, and how they dealt with passengers
searching for luggage," Berman continued.

     Media reports cite huge piles of lost luggage from British
Airways flights piled on London's Heathrow airport tarmac
subjected to rain, and was otherwise misrouted and mistreated.

     The suit also claims that despite an internal April 2007
report that the British Airlines overloaded its baggage-handling
system by nearly 25 percent, it failed to alert passengers to
the increasing complications posed by its flawed system.

     Additional reports indicate that the airline's backlog of
lost passenger baggage reached 20,000 pieces by March 2007, the
complaint states.  The amended complaint goes on to cite that
British Air workers claim that in reality the backlog neared
40,000 bags at that time.

     The suit seeks to represent American passengers who flew
internationally on British Air and who had luggage lost, damaged
or delayed between September 5, 2005 and September 5, 2007.

For more details, contact:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Fax: (206) 623-0594
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/


CVS CAREMARK: Consolidated Pharmacies' Antitrust Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries continue to
face a consolidated action styled "In Re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation," alleging antitrust violations.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark and its
subsidiaries Caremark Inc. (now known as Caremark, L.L.C.) and
AdvancePCS (now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.) have violated
applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail
pharmacy networks for client health plans.

Pennsylvania Litigation

In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action
against AdvancePCS in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief.  The claims were initially sent
to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies
and AdvancePCS.

Alabama Litigation

In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark, Caremark Inc., AdvancePCS (acquired by
Caremark in March 2004 and now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.) and
two prescription benefit management (PBM) competitors, seeking
treble damages and injunctive relief.  The case against Caremark
and Caremark Inc. was transferred to Illinois federal court, and
the AdvancePCS case was sent to arbitration based on contract
terms between the pharmacies and AdvancePCS.  The arbitration
was then stayed by the parties pending developments in
Caremark's court case.

Consolidated Action

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.

Caremark has appealed a decision which vacated the order
compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the
Bellevue case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson
Pharmacy case, remain pending.  The consolidated action is now
known as the "In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation."

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Face Ala. Suits Over 1999 Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corp. continues to face putative class-action suits
in Alabama, relating to a 1999 settlement of various securities
class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and other
defendants.

The company was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed
in October 2003, in Alabama state court by John Lauriello,
purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement.
Other defendants include insurance companies that provided
coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits.

The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in
compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003, by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark,
several insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in
the 1999 settlement.  This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed
class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene
in the Lauriello action.

In February 2008, the Lauriello trial court proceedings were
stayed pending an appeal by McArthur of certain rulings relating
to his complaint in intervention.

In September 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court entered judgment on
the appeal and in December 2008, the trial court lifted its stay
and returned the case to its active docket, 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.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


GASOLINE RETAILERS: APA Joins Price-Fixing Litigation in Quebec
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Mr. Simon Jacques of Quebec City, Mr. Marcel Lafontaine of
Victoriaville and the Automobile Protection Association (APA)
will appear before the Honourable Justice Dominique Belanger of
the Quebec Superior Court to obtain authorization to proceed
together in the class action filed earlier over price fixing in
gasoline retailing in Quebec.

     The plaintiffs wish to obtain authorization to represent
residents throughout Quebec in an action against oil companies
and the officers involved in gas price fixing.  This cartel came
to light in the summer of 2008 when the federal Competition
Bureau brought criminal charges in this matter against 13
individuals and 11 corporations in the province of Quebec.  To
date, 6 individuals and 3 corporations have pleaded guilty.  The
penalties assessed against the parties who pleaded guilty to
date total more than 2.6 million dollars, and jail time totals
44 months.

     Among the defendants targeted by the APA's motion to amend
are Ultramar, Esso, Shell, Couche-Tard, Canadian Tire, Provigo,
Irving, Olco and La Coop Federee which operates the Sonic gas
station chain.

     APA President George Iny stated that the penalties imposed
under the Competition Act are a small percentage of the profits
made by the cartel, and that the current Act does not provide an
effective means of restitution for consumers of gasoline – both
important reasons for APA's involvement in the case.

     The hearing at the Quebec City Courthouse, 300 boul. Jean-
Lesage, Quebec, was scheduled to begin on the morning of April
6, 2009.


GOOGLE INC: Group Calls on DOJ to Intervene in Book Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Google, Inc.'s proposed settlement with authors and
publishers raises antitrust concerns, Consumer Watchdog said on
April 6, 2009, and the nonpartisan, nonprofit group called on
the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene.

     In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and other
Justice officials Consumer Watchdog asked the department to seek
a delay of the settlement until a "most favored nation" clause
favoring Google is removed and the deal's "orphan works"
provision is extended to cover all who might digitize books, not
only Google.

"This settlement was negotiated by the parties in the suit and
there has been no opportunity to represent and protect the broad
interests of all consumers," said John M. Simpson, a consumer
advocate with Consumer Watchdog.  "This deal simply furthers the
relatively narrow agenda of Google, The Authors Guild and the
Association of American Publishers."

Read the letter here: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?3b1d.

     The proposed settlement announced last year creates the
nonprofit Book Rights Registry to manage book digital rights
issues.

Here are the deal's two most troubling aspects, Consumer
Watchdog said:

       -- A "most favored nation" clause guarantees Google the
          same terms that any future competitor might be
          offered.  Under the most favored nation clause the
          registry would be prevented from offering more
          advantageous terms to, for example, Yahoo! or
          Microsoft, even if it thought better terms would be
          necessary to enable either to enter into the digital
          books business and provide competition to Google.  It
          is inappropriate for the resolution of a class action
          lawsuit to effectively create an "anti-compete"
          clause, which precludes smaller competitors from
          entering a market.  Given the dominance of Google over
          the digital book market, it would no doubt take more
          advantageous terms to allow another smaller competitor
          to enter the market.

       -- The settlement provides a mechanism for Google to deal
          with "orphan works."  Orphan works are works under
          copyright, but with the rights holders unknown or not
          found.  The danger of using such works is that a
          rights holder will emerge after the book has been
          exploited and demand substantial infringement
          penalties.  The proposed settlement protects Google
          from such potentially damaging exposure, but provides
          no protection for others.  This effectively is a
          barrier for competitors to enter the digital book
          business.

     The most favored nation provision should be eliminated to
remove barriers of entry and the orphan works provision should
be extended to cover all who digitize books, Consumer Watchdog
said.

     The settlement is the result of a class action suit brought
against Google by The Authors Guild and The Association of
American Publishers.  Members of the class have until May 5 to
file objections.  A federal judge will review the settlement in
June.

Consumer Watchdog -- Http://www.consumerwatchdog.org -- formerly
the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization with offices in Washington, DC and
Santa Monica, Ca.


KANSAS CITY: Continues to Face Policyholders' Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City Life Insurance Co. is still facing litigation
pursued on behalf of purported classes of policyholders,
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 life insurance industry, including the company, has been
subject to an increase in litigation in recent years.  Such
litigation has been pursued on behalf of purported classes of
policyholders and other claims and legal actions in
jurisdictions where juries often award punitive damages, which
are grossly disproportionate to actual damages.

No specific details regarding the litigation were disclosed in
the company's latest Annual Report dated Feb. 27, 2009.

Kansas City Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.kclife.com/-- is a
financial services company. the company operates in the life
insurance sector of the financial services industry in the
United States. KCL primarily consists of three life insurance
companies: Kansas City Life Insurance Company (Kansas City Life)
the parent company, and wholly owned subsidiaries Sunset Life
Insurance Company of America (Sunset Life) and Old American
Insurance Company (Old American).


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Settlement of OSB Antitrust Suit Paid in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.'s settlement of a purported class-action
suit, captioned "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-
cv-00826-PD," was paid in 2008.

Initially, the company was named as one of a number of
defendants in multiple class action complaints filed on or after
Feb. 26, 2006, before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

These complaints were dismissed or consolidated into two
complaints under one caption, "In Re OSB Anti-Trust Litigation,
Master File No. 06-CV-00826 (PD)."

The first complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint filed on March 31, 2006, on behalf of plaintiffs who
directly purchased OSB (oriented strand board) from the
defendants from May 1, 2002, through the date the complaint was
filed (the direct purchaser complaint).

The second complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint, filed on June 15, 2006, on behalf of plaintiffs who
indirectly purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002,
through the date the complaint was filed (the indirect purchaser
complaint).

The plaintiffs in both amended and consolidated complaints moved
for and received class certification and sought treble damages
totaling approximately $4.8 billion alleged to have resulted
from a conspiracy among the defendants to fix, raise, maintain
and stabilize the prices at which OSB is sold in the U.S., in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.

The plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser complaint also seek
similar remedies under individual state anti-trust and
competition laws as well as consumer protection laws.

The company said that it believes that the claims asserted were
without merit, but after being ordered to settlement conference
by the judge in the cases, LP decided that in order to limit the
risks and costs associated with a prolonged trial schedule, it
would settle the direct and indirect lawsuits.

These settlements were accrued and paid in 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.

The suit is "In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-
CV-00826 (PD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com)
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300

Representing the defendants are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com)
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com)
         James H. Schink, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144
                312-861-2350

              - and -

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com)
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475


MERRILL LYNCH: Reaches $75M Settlement for 401(k) Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. reached a $75 million preliminary
settlement with participants in its 401(k) to cover losses
sustained in their retirement plans over the last several years,
Mark Bruno of InvestmentNews reports.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC of Washington, along with
Keller Rohrback LLP of Seattle, announced the proposed
settlement on April 6, 2009, according to InvestmentNews.

Marc Machiz, Esq. an attorney with Cohen Milstein, who is
representing Merrill workers in the class-action lawsuit, added
that a federal court will hold a hearing at the end of July to
determine if the payment will be approved.

He told InvestmentNews that the class notice will be going out
later this week to Merrill workers who participated in the
company’s 401(k), retirement accumulation plan, or stock
ownership plan between Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2008.  During
that time period, the value of Merrill's stock declined by more
than 80%.

InvestmentNews reported that the class-action suit was initiated
by participants in November 2007 to recoup some of the losses
they incurred for investing a portion of their retirement
savings in Merrill stock.  It alleged that the company should
have known that its stock was an imprudent investment option for
its plan participants.


STIFEL FINANCIAL: To Defend ARS-Related Suit Pending in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stifel Financial Corp. intends to defend all claims asserted in
a purported class action civil lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The civil lawsuit was filed on Aug. 8, 2008, seeking class-
action status for investors who purchased and continue to hold
auction rate securities (ARS) offered for sale between June 11,
2003 and Feb. 13, 2008, the date when most auctions began to
fail and the auction market froze.

The suit alleges misrepresentation about the investment
characteristics of ARS and the auction markets, 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.

Stifel Financial Corp. -- http://www.stifel.com/-- is a
financial services holding company.  The company provides
securities related financial services through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Stifel Nicolaus & Company, a retail and
institutional brokerage and investment banking firm; Century
Securities Associates, Inc. (CSA), an independent contractor
broker-dealer firm; Stifel Nicolaus Limited (SN Ltd), the
Company's international subsidiary, and Stifel Bank & Trust, a
retail and commercial bank.  The company operates in five
segments: Private Client Group, Equity Capital Markets, Fixed
Income Capital Markets, Stifel Bank and Other.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Settles Delaware Suit Over EA Buyout Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. entered into an agreement to
settle a shareholder lawsuit related to a failed buyout offer
from videogame company Electronic Arts, Inc., Chad Clinton of
Dow Jones reports.

The settlement doesn't provide for a payment of monetary damages
to the plaintiff or the purported class.  The company said it
plans to oppose any application by the plaintiff's counsel for
fees and expenses and expects any award of fees or expenses will
be covered by its existing insurance policies, according to the
Dow Jones report.

On March 7, 2008, Patrick Solomon, a stockholder of the company,
filed a purported class-action complaint with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company and
certain of its officers and directors (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 15, 2008).

The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly refusing to
explore premium offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire all
of the company's shares, enacting a bylaw amendment allegedly
designed to entrench the current board by preventing
stockholders from nominating and electing alternative directors,
agreeing to an amendment to a management agreement with
ZelnickMedia and issuing a proxy statement for the 2008 Annual
Meeting that allegedly contains misleading and incomplete
information.

The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
rescissory and other equitable relief and damages.

The plaintiff immediately moved for preliminary injunctive
relief, and the parties engaged in expedited discovery
proceedings.  However, several of the claims have been addressed
by the company's voluntary actions in issuing a supplemental
proxy statement, rescinding the notice by-law amendment,
granting additional time for any present or former stockholders
to nominate directors or propose business, and extending the
annual meeting date.

After the company took such measures, the plaintiff agreed to
withdraw his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and the
annual meeting went forward without difficulty (and without any
stockholders nominating directors or proposing business).

Discovery on the remaining claims is ongoing, according to the
company's Sept. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July
31, 2008.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TYCO INT'L: N.M. Judge Issues ERISA-Related Ruling in Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire ruled that Tyco International Ltd. can't rely
on an Employee Retirement Income Security Act provision that
shields fiduciaries against liabilities from retirement plan
losses stemming from beneficiaries' control over their assets,
in a class-action lawsuit that is part of multidistrict
litigation alleging a massive accounting fraud at Tyco, Law360
reports.

On April 3, 2009, Judge Barbadoro granted the plan participants'
motion for summary judgment that Tyco couldn't use the ERISA
provision, according to the Law360 report.


VANGUARD GROUP: N.Y. Judge Nixes Suit Over Illegal Investments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging investment manager The Vanguard Group Inc. and its
executives and affiliates illegally invested money in gambling
operations that were the subject of a government crackdown in
2006, Law360 reports.

On April 2, 2009, Judge Cote ruled that plaintiffs in the
proposed class-action litigation lacked standing to pursue
claims, according to the Law360 report.

Grant McCool of Reuters previously reported that dhareholders in
Vanguard funds sued the Vanguard Group Inc., accusing fund
managers of investing their money in illegal gambling businesses
before the government cracked down on them in 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 4, 2009).

The class-action lawsuit, according to the report, was brought
by Deanna McBrearty of New York, New York, and Marylynn Hartsel
of Boca Raton, Florida, before the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan.  The suit asserts claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks a jury trial,
compensatory and punitive damages.

Reuters notes that the lawsuit said "these unlawful investments
suffered significant losses when the government began arresting
principals of the gambling enterprises," but it did not provide
a specific amount.

Tom Sheridan, Esq., an attorney for the two plaintiffs, told
Reuters that the exact amounts would be revealed in the
discovery process, although he estimated that Vanguard's losses
exceeded $10 million.  "The investments by the plaintiffs are
not worthless, but they are less than they would have been if
the money had not been invested in offshore gambling companies,"
Mr. Sheridan said.

Specifically, the funds named as defendants in the lawsuit
include Vanguard International Equity Index Funds, Vanguard
European Stock Index Fund, Vanguard Horizon Funds and the
Vanguard Global Equity Fund.  Other defendants named in the
lawsuit are Alliance Bernstein LP, Acadian Asset Management LLC,
Marathon Asset Management LLP.

The suit said that Ms. McBrearty first purchased shares in
Vanguard European through her individual retirement account in
May 2005, the lawsuit said.  It also said that Ms. Hartsel
bought shares before July 1, 2006, for investment purposes.

The report recounts that the U.S. Government cracked down on
offshore betting companies in 2006 that included the arrests of
executives from British online companies such as Sportingbet and
BetOnSports Plc.  Large public companies lost billions of
dollars in market value and millions of customers when they shut
down their Web sites for sports betting, poker and other games
in the United States.

The lawsuit does not name any of the online sites, Reuters
relates.  The largest sites such as PartyGaming and Sportingbet
earned most of their money from the United States.  PartyGaming
suspended its U.S. business after President George W. Bush
signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act on Oct.
13, 2006.


WAHSINGTON MUTUAL: N.Y. Judge Halts Consumer Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Arthur Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York halted a consumer class-action fraud
lawsuit against Washington Mutual, Inc., saying it may be more
appropriate for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp to handle
claims against the failed savings and loan, Jonathan Stempel of
Reuters reports.

On April 6, 2009, Judge Spatt accepted the FDIC's argument that
the lawsuit should be halted, with the plaintiffs seeking
recovery through an administrative review process governing
claims against failed lenders.  The delay could last through
mid-September, the judge wrote, according to the Reuters report.

Reuters reported that the FDIC is acting as Washington Mutual's
receiver, having arranged a $1.9 billion sale of much of the
Seattle-based thrift's banking operations to JPMorgan Chase & Co
last Sept. 25.  Washington Mutual, the surviving holding
company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection a day later.
The thrift is by far the largest U.S. lender to fail.

The suit, captioned, " Cassese v. Washington Mutual Inc. Case
No. 05-2724," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York back in 2005.  It accused
Washington Mutual of assessing a variety of small, but allegedly
improper fees in connection with mortgage loans, including
charges for faxes, recording documents and payoff statements,
reports Reuters.


WELLS FARGO: Affiliates Still Face Civil Lawsuits Over ARS Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several purported civil class actions relating to the sale of
auction rate securities (ARS) are pending against various Wells
Fargo affiliated defendants.

No specific details regarding the class actions were disclosed
in 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.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is a
financial holding company and a bank holding company.  The
company is a diversified financial services company providing
retail, commercial and corporate banking services through
banking stores located in 39 states and the District of
Columbia.  It provides other financial services through
subsidiaries engaged in various businesses, principally
wholesale banking, mortgage banking, consumer finance, equipment
leasing, agricultural finance, commercial finance, securities
brokerage and investment banking, insurance agency and brokerage
services, computer and data processing services, trust services,
investment advisory services, mortgage-backed securities
servicing and venture capital investment.  The company operates
in three segments: Community Banking, Wholesale Banking and
Wells Fargo Financial. On Dec. 31, 2008, Wells Fargo acquired
Wachovia Corporation.


WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend Interchange Litigation in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Bank,
N.A. and Wachovia Corporation continue to defend a consolidated
action filed on behalf of merchants regarding interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Bank,
N.A. and Wachovia Corporation are named as defendants,
separately or in combination, in putative class actions filed on
behalf of a plaintiff class of merchants and individual actions
brought by individual merchants with regard to the interchange
fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card
transactions.

These actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

Visa, MasterCard and several banks and bank holding companies
are named as defendants in various of these actions.

The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against
defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard and their
member banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.

Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services
offered to merchants are anticompetitive.

Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other members of Visa, are
parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide
that they, along with other member banks of Visa, will share,
based on a formula, in any losses from certain litigation
specified in the Agreements, including the Interchange
Litigation, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is a
financial holding company and a bank holding company.  The
company is a diversified financial services company providing
retail, commercial and corporate banking services through
banking stores located in 39 states and the District of
Columbia.  It provides other financial services through
subsidiaries engaged in various businesses, principally
wholesale banking, mortgage banking, consumer finance, equipment
leasing, agricultural finance, commercial finance, securities
brokerage and investment banking, insurance agency and brokerage
services, computer and data processing services, trust services,
investment advisory services, mortgage-backed securities
servicing and venture capital investment.  The company operates
in three segments: Community Banking, Wholesale Banking and
Wells Fargo Financial. On Dec. 31, 2008, Wells Fargo acquired
Wachovia Corporation.


WELLS FARGO: "Lipetz" Securities Suit v. Wachovia Corp. Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities class-action suit, "Lipetz v. Wachovia
Corporation, et al.," is pending, according to Wells Fargo &
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 securities class action was filed on July 7, 2008,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
by purported Wachovia Corporation shareholders alleging
violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

An amended complaint was filed on Dec. 15, 2008.

Among other allegations, plaintiffs allege Wachovia's common
stock price was artificially inflated as a result of allegedly
misleading disclosures relating to the Golden West Financial
Corp. (Golden West) mortgage portfolio, Wachovia Corporation's
exposure to other mortgage related products such as
collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), control issues and
auction rate securities.

The defendants had until Feb. 27, 2009, to respond to the
complaint.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is a
financial holding company and a bank holding company.  The
company is a diversified financial services company providing
retail, commercial and corporate banking services through
banking stores located in 39 states and the District of
Columbia.  It provides other financial services through
subsidiaries engaged in various businesses, principally
wholesale banking, mortgage banking, consumer finance, equipment
leasing, agricultural finance, commercial finance, securities
brokerage and investment banking, insurance agency and brokerage
services, computer and data processing services, trust services,
investment advisory services, mortgage-backed securities
servicing and venture capital investment.  The company operates
in three segments: Community Banking, Wholesale Banking and
Wells Fargo Financial. On Dec. 31, 2008, Wells Fargo acquired
Wachovia Corporation.


WELLS FARGO: Municipalities' Suits Over Bid Practices Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class-action lawsuits filed by various municipalities
alleging damages caused by the competitive bid practices of
Wachovia Bank, N.A.'s municipal derivatives group are pending,
according to Wells Fargo & 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 Department of Justice and the SEC, beginning in November
2006, have been requesting information from a number of
financial institutions, including Wachovia Bank, N.A.'s
municipal derivatives group, generally with regard to
competitive bid practices in the municipal derivative markets.

Wachovia Bank says that it continues to fully cooperate with the
government investigations.

Wachovia Bank, along with a number of other banks and financial
services companies, has also been named as a defendant in a
number of substantially identical purported class actions, filed
in various state and federal courts by various municipalities
alleging they have been damaged by the activity which is the
subject of the governmental investigations.

A number of the federal matters have been consolidated for pre-
trial proceedings.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is a
financial holding company and a bank holding company.  The
company is a diversified financial services company providing
retail, commercial and corporate banking services through
banking stores located in 39 states and the District of
Columbia.  It provides other financial services through
subsidiaries engaged in various businesses, principally
wholesale banking, mortgage banking, consumer finance, equipment
leasing, agricultural finance, commercial finance, securities
brokerage and investment banking, insurance agency and brokerage
services, computer and data processing services, trust services,
investment advisory services, mortgage-backed securities
servicing and venture capital investment.  The company operates
in three segments: Community Banking, Wholesale Banking and
Wells Fargo Financial. On Dec. 31, 2008, Wells Fargo acquired
Wachovia Corporation.


WELLS FARGO: Settlement of RICO Suits v. Wachovia Okayed in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlements of two class-action lawsuits concerning
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) by a former Wachovia Bank, N.A. customer, Payment
Processing Center (PPC), were approved in January 2009,
according to Wells Fargo & 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.

PPC was a third party payment processor for telemarketing and
catalogue companies.

On April 12, 2007, a civil class-action suit, "Faloney et al. v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.," was filed against Wachovia Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by
a putative class of consumers who made purchases through
telemarketer customers of PPC.

The suit alleges that between April 1, 2005 and Feb. 21, 2006,
Wachovia Bank conspired with PPC to facilitate PPC's purported
violation of the RICO.

On Feb. 15, 2008, a second putative class-action suit, "Harrison
v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a putative class of
consumers who made purchases through telemarketing customers of
three other third party payment processors which banked with
Wachovia Bank.

This suit alleges that Wachovia Bank conspired with these
payment processors to facilitate purported violations of RICO.

On Aug. 14, 2008, Wachovia Bank reached agreements to settle the
Faloney and Harrison class action lawsuits.  The settlements
received approval from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 23, 2009.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is a
financial holding company and a bank holding company.  The
company is a diversified financial services company providing
retail, commercial and corporate banking services through
banking stores located in 39 states and the District of
Columbia.  It provides other financial services through
subsidiaries engaged in various businesses, principally
wholesale banking, mortgage banking, consumer finance, equipment
leasing, agricultural finance, commercial finance, securities
brokerage and investment banking, insurance agency and brokerage
services, computer and data processing services, trust services,
investment advisory services, mortgage-backed securities
servicing and venture capital investment.  The company operates
in three segments: Community Banking, Wholesale Banking and
Wells Fargo Financial. On Dec. 31, 2008, Wells Fargo acquired
Wachovia Corporation.


WELLS FARGO: Wachovia Faces 3 Suits Over Issuance of Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corporation faces three class action lawsuits relating
to its May 2007 issuance of trust preferred securities,
according to Wells Fargo & 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.

A purported class-action lawsuit, "Miller, et al. v. Wachovia
Corporation, et al.," was filed on Jan. 31, 2008, against
Wachovia Corporation, its board of directors and certain senior
officers in the New York Supreme Court for the County of Nassau,
relating to Wachovia Corporation's May 2007 issuance of trust
preferred securities.

The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of allegedly misleading
disclosures relating to the Golden West Financial Corp. mortgage
portfolio.

Wachovia Corporation removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the case was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff and, on the same day, was refiled in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Alameda County.

A similar case, "Swiskay v. Wachovia Corporation, et al.," was
filed on Dec. 19, 2008, in the same court.  The Swiskay case is
essentially identical to the Miller case except it includes
allegations relating to additional Wachovia preferred offerings.

On Jan. 21, 2009, a third case, Orange County Employees'
Retirement System, et al. v. Wachovia Corporation, et al., was
also filed in the same California Superior Court on behalf of
Orange County Employees' Retirement System and others.  The
complaint contains similar allegations to the Miller and Swiskay
cases, except it includes some additional individuals and non-
affiliated entities as defendants and adds claims relating to
additional issuances of preferred stock and debt securities.

Wells Fargo will file appropriate venue and other motions in
response to these actions.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is a
financial holding company and a bank holding company.  The
company is a diversified financial services company providing
retail, commercial and corporate banking services through
banking stores located in 39 states and the District of
Columbia.  It provides other financial services through
subsidiaries engaged in various businesses, principally
wholesale banking, mortgage banking, consumer finance, equipment
leasing, agricultural finance, commercial finance, securities
brokerage and investment banking, insurance agency and brokerage
services, computer and data processing services, trust services,
investment advisory services, mortgage-backed securities
servicing and venture capital investment.  The company operates
in three segments: Community Banking, Wholesale Banking and
Wells Fargo Financial. On Dec. 31, 2008, Wells Fargo acquired
Wachovia Corporation.


WELLS FARGO: Wachovia Faces 7 Suits Claiming ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company's subsidiary, Wachovia Corporation, faces
seven purported class actions filed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 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.

Seven purported class actions have been filed against Wachovia,
its board of directors and certain senior officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of employees of Wachovia and its affiliates who held shares of
Wachovia common stock in their Wachovia Savings Plan accounts.

The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA,
among other things, claiming that the defendants should not have
permitted Wachovia Corporation common stock to remain an
investment option in the Savings Plan because alleged misleading
disclosures relating to the Golden West Financial Corp. (Golden
West) mortgage portfolio, exposure to collateralized debt
obligations (CDOs) and other problem loans, and other alleged
misstatements made its stock a risky and imprudent investment
for employee retirement accounts.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is a
financial holding company and a bank holding company.  The
company is a diversified financial services company providing
retail, commercial and corporate banking services through
banking stores located in 39 states and the District of
Columbia.  It provides other financial services through
subsidiaries engaged in various businesses, principally
wholesale banking, mortgage banking, consumer finance, equipment
leasing, agricultural finance, commercial finance, securities
brokerage and investment banking, insurance agency and brokerage
services, computer and data processing services, trust services,
investment advisory services, mortgage-backed securities
servicing and venture capital investment.  The company operates
in three segments: Community Banking, Wholesale Banking and
Wells Fargo Financial. On Dec. 31, 2008, Wells Fargo acquired
Wachovia Corporation.


XCEL ENERGY: Awaits Minn. Supreme Court Ruling on Hoffman Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Supreme Court has yet to issue its decision on a
plaintiff's appeal in the purported consumer class-action suit,
"Hoffman vs. Northern States Power Co.," which seeks
discretionary review of the case filed against Northern States
Power Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Inc.

The complaint, filed on March 15, 2006, was brought on behalf of
NSP-Minnesota's residential customers in Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota for alleged breach of a contractual
obligation to maintain and inspect the points of connection
between NSP-Minnesota's wires and customers' homes within the
meter box.

The plaintiffs assert that NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an
increased risk of fire and that it is in violation of tariffs on
file with the Minnesota Power Utilities Commission.  Thus, they
seek injunctive relief and damages in an amount equal to the
value of inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was required
to perform over the past six years.

NSP-Minnesota filed a motion to dismiss the pleadings.  In
November 2006, the court issued an order denying NSP-Minnesota's
dismissal request.

On Nov. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by NSP-Minnesota, the
court certified the issues raised in NSP-Minnesota's original
motion as important and doubtful.

The certification permits NSP-Minnesota to file an appeal, and
it has done so.  Briefs have been filed, and oral arguments were
heard Oct. 24, 2007.

On Jan. 22, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that
the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine and
remanded the case to the district court for dismissal.

The plaintiffs have petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for
discretionary review, and on April 15, 2008, the court granted
the petition.

The matter has been briefed by both parties.

Oral argument took place on Nov. 4, 2008. It is unknown when a
decision will be issued, 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.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com
-- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.


XCEL ENERGY: Comer Appeal Still Under Advisement in 5th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the matter, "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co.," which names Xcel Energy, Inc. as a defendant,
remains under advisement in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.

In April 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of a purported class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Mississippi.

The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and utility
companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and alleges that
the defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and direct cause
of the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane
Katrina."

The plaintiffs allege, in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence and public and private nuisance
and seek damages related to the loss resulting from the
hurricane.

In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
against all the defendants on constitutional grounds.

In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Oral arguments
were presented to the Court of Appeals on Aug. 6, 2008.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the Court of Appeals notified the parties
that this matter was set for re-argument on Nov. 3, 2008.  No
explanation was given for the decision.

The Court of Appeals has taken the matter under advisement,
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 "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com)
          Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
          (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com)
          F. Gerald Maples, PA
          902 Julia Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Phone: 504-569-8732

               - and -

          Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net)
          Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com)
          Smith & Fawer
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-525-2200
          Fax: 504-525-2205


XCEL ENERGY: Deal in Texas-Ohio Energy Case Reached in Jan. 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement in principle was reached in January 2009,
in the purported class action captioned, "Texas-Ohio Energy vs.
CenterPoint Energy et al.," which names e prime, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Inc., as a defendant.

Twelve lawsuits have been commenced against e prime and Xcel
Energy, alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in
conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate
natural gas prices.

The initial gas-trading lawsuit, a purported class action
brought by wholesale natural gas purchasers, was filed in
November 2003, in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of California.  e prime is one of several defendants
named in the complaint.  This case is captioned, "Texas-Ohio
Energy vs. CenterPoint Energy et al."

In April 2005, Judge Pro granted defendants' motion to dismiss
in Texas-Ohio Energy based upon the filed rate doctrine.
Plaintiffs subsequently appealed this dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In September 2007, the
Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the lawsuit
to Judge Pro for consideration of whether any of plaintiffs'
claims are based upon retail rates not directly barred by the
filed rate doctrine.

In January 2009, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
principle in the Texas-Ohio Energy case.  The terms of the
settlement in principle will not have a material financial
effect upon Xcel Energy, 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.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com
-- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DEUTSCHE BANK: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces an April 27, 2009,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who acquired the
6.375% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank
Capital Funding Trust VIII (NYSE:DUA), the 6.625% Noncumulative
Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding
Trust IX (NYSE:DTT), and/or the 7.35% Noncumulative Trust
Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X
(NYSE:DCE) pursuant or traceable to materially false and
misleading registration statements and prospectuses issued in
connection with the October 2006, July 2007 and November 2007
offerings, respectively, of the securities.

     The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The complaint charges Deutsche Bank AG, certain of its
subsidiaries, its senior insiders and the investment banks that
underwrote the Offerings with violations of federal securities
laws.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statements issued in connection with the Offerings were false
and misleading and filed to disclose, among other things, that:

       -- 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;

       -- 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.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847


MORGAN STANLEY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and
Pond, Gadow & Tyler, P.A., on December 2, 2008, filed a class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Orange on behalf of their client the
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and similarly
situated purchasers of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates pursuant to or traceable to the false and
misleading March 14, 2006 Registration Statement and
accompanying prospectuses.

     On December 31, 2008, defendants filed a Notice of Removal,
removing the case from the Superior Court to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

     On March 6, 2009, the District Court for the Central
District of California transferred the action to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
where it is now pending as Case No. 09-02137.

     The class includes purchasers of the following
Certificates: Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL,
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-5AR, Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-5ARW, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan
Trust 2006-6AR, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7,
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-8AR, Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-9AR, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-10SL, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-11, Morgan
Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-12XS, Morgan Stanley Mortgage
Loan Trust 2006-13AX, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-
14SL, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-15XS, and Morgan
Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AX.

     The complaint alleges that on March 14, 2006, defendants
caused a Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC in
connection with and for the purpose of issuing billions of
dollars of Certificates.  The Certificates were issued pursuant
to the Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated
into one of the Registration Statements.  The Certificates were
supported by pools of mortgage loans.

     According to the complaint, the Offering Documents included
false statements and/or omissions about:

       -- the underwriting standards used by the loan
          originators;

       -- the standards and guidelines used by Morgan Stanley
          when evaluating and acquiring the loans;

       -- the appraisal standards used to value the properties
          collateralizing the loans, and the corresponding loan-
          to-value ratios of the loans;

       -- the credit enhancement supporting the loan
          securitization process; and

       -- the pre-established ratings assigned to each tranche
          of Certificates issued pursuant to the offering
          documents.

     Ultimately, the truth about the performance of the mortgage
loans that secured the Certificates began to be revealed to the
public, increasing the risk of the Certificates receiving less
cash flow in the future and the likelihood that investors would
not receive it on a timely basis.  The credit rating agencies
also began to put negative watch labels on the Certificates,
ultimately downgrading many.  As a result, the Certificates are
no longer marketable at prices near the price paid for them, and
the holders of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk
with respect to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be
received than the Offering Documents represented.

     The complaint alleges that Morgan Stanley, certain of its
officers and directors and the issuers and underwriters of the
Certificates violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of
all purchasers of the Certificates listed above.

For more information, contact:

          David R. Stickney, Esq. (davids@blbglaw.com)
          Timothy A. DeLange, Esq. (timothyd@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          Phone: (858) 793-0070
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com


REGIONS FINANCING: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP announces that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired the 8.875% Trust Preferred
Securities of Regions Financing Capital Trust III (NYSE: RF-PZ)
pursuant or traceable to a registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the April 2008 offering of the
Securities.

     The Complaint charges that Regions Financial Corporation
and certain of its officers, directors, auditors and
underwriters violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, defendants omitted the following material
facts from the Registration Statement issued in connection with
the Offering:

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

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

       -- Regions failed to properly account for goodwill;

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate; and

       -- Regions was not as well capitalized as represented.

     On January 20, 2009, Regions announced a loss for the
quarter and year ended December 31, 2008, including a loss for
the quarter ended December 31, 2008 of $9.01 per diluted share,
which was "largely driven by a $6 billion non-cash charge for
impairment of goodwill."  On this news, the price of the
Securities dropped significantly.

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

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  * * *