CAR_Public/090413.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 71

                           Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Facing Antitrust Suits Over Tying Deal
BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Defends Claim by Former Lirax Shareholder
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Trims Shareholder Litigation
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Lawsuits by Retailers in Colorado
DISH DBS: Defends Antitrust Suit Over Bundled Channel Offerings

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Murray Frank Announces Class Period Expansion
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Ill. Judge Allows "Abbott" Lawsuit to Proceed
MASCO CONTRACTOR: Checks For $8.5M Deal To Arrive On April 15
MECHEL OAO: Faces Shareholders' Litigation in N.Y. Federal Court
NORTHERN TRUST: Berger & Montague Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit

SAMSON RESOURCES: Faces Suit in Colorado Over Royalty Payments
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Court Rules Sales Reps Not Exempt from FLSA
STATE STREET: La. Firm Files Mass. Suit Over "Reckless" Lending
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Campbell" Suit in California
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Canadian Consumer Litigation

TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Diamond" Consumer Fraud Suit
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Suits Over Merger
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Wenzel Consumer Suit in Calif.
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Schlessinger Seeks to Amend Lawsuit
UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers Amended Suits Pending

UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Purchasers' Lawsuit in California
UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Suit Over Filters Sale in Ontario
UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Suit Over Filters Sale in Quebec


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUSTIN CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Barroway Topaz Announces Stock Suit Filing


                           *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Facing Antitrust Suits Over Tying Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company continues to face purported antitrust
class-action suits concerning the company's charge cards, credit
cards and debit cards, according to American Express Credit
Account Master Trust's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

American Express has been named in a number of purported class-
action suits in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful
antitrust tying arrangement between American Express' charge
cards, on the one hand, and its credit cards and debit cards, on
the other, in violation of various state and federal laws.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

With the exception of one case pending in California, the cases
have been consolidated under the caption "In re American Express
Merchants' Litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

American Express filed a motion to dismiss all of the actions
that were filed in the Southern District of New York prior to
April 30, 2004, and, with respect to the case pending in
California, to stay the action pending resolution of the motion
to dismiss.

On March 15, 2006, the Court granted American Express' motion,
with the Court finding the claims of those merchants whose card
acceptance agreement contained an arbitration clause to be
subject to arbitration.  That decision has been appealed.

American Express also filed a motion to dismiss an action filed
in the Southern District of New York in July 2004, which motion
was denied in July 2005. On Oct. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs in such
action filed a motion seeking certification of a class, which
American Express has opposed.  Each of American Express and the
plaintiffs also have moved for summary judgment in their favor
in such action.

American Express Credit Account Master Trust was established in
1996, by American Express Company for the purpose of ongoing
funding and contingent funding of all U.S. lending receivables.
American Express is a global payments and travel company.  Its
principal products and services are charge and credit payment
card products, and travel-related services offered to consumers
and businesses around the world.


BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Defends Claim by Former Lirax Shareholder
----------------------------------------------------------------
BluePhoenix Solutions Ltd. intends to defend the putative class
action claim filed by a former shareholder of Liraz Systems
Ltd., with the Tel Aviv, Jaffa District Court.

In July 2003, the former Liraz shareholder filed an application
with the Tel Aviv, Jaffa District Court to approve a claim filed
by him against the company, as a class action.

The claim relates to the acquisition of Liraz shares, which the
company completed in March 2003.

The shareholder alleges that the share price the company paid to
Liraz's shareholders in the tender offer and in a subsequent
mandatory purchase was lower than the fair price of Liraz
shares.

The maximum amount of the claim is approximately $8.7 million in
the aggregate.

Under Israeli law, the court's approval is required for the
plaintiff to represent all of the shareholders of Liraz who sold
their shareholdings to the company pursuant to the tender offer
and the mandatory acquisition.  The plaintiff has applied for
such approval in the lawsuit.

Based on its analysis of the statement of claim, including an
evaluation of the fair value of the Liraz shares, and the price
paid for Liraz in a previous transaction immediately prior to
the tender offer, the company says that the allegations in this
proceeding are without merit, according to its March 31, 2009
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

BluePhoenix Solutions Ltd. -- http://www.bphx.com- develops and
markets value driven enterprise information technology (IT)
modernization (EIM), solutions that enable companies to automate
the process of modernizing and upgrading their mainframe and
distributed IT infrastructure.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Trims Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mariana Pfaelzer of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California dismissed claims of insider
trading against all but one former executive of Countrywide
Financial Corp., The Associated Press reports.

The judge allowed the allegations contained in a shareholders
lawsuit to remain against Countrywide's former chairman and
chief executive, Angelo Mozilo, according to the AP report.

The class-action lawsuit alleged that Mr. Mozilo sold $478
million in shares between 2004 and 2008, representing a 656
percent increase over the dollar value of his stock sales during
the previous four years.

However, in a ruling issued on April 6, 2009, Judge Pfaelzer
said the lawsuit failed to demonstrate that former Chief
Operating Officer Stanford Kurland and other top executives
illegally traded stock, reports The Associated Press.

The judge said some of Mr. Mozilo's modifications to his
automatic stock sale plan were "unusual."

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Mozilo illegally increased his automatic
sale plan three times in late 2006 and 2007 after Countrywide
started to buy millions of dollars worth of its own shares,
propping up the company's share price, The Associated Press
reported.

The complaint also said Mr. Mozilo lied during a July 2007
Countrywide earnings call when he said he was only selling
options with expiration dates.

The Associated Press reported that the plaintiff's 435-page
complaint explains how Countrywide, which was bought by Bank of
America Corp., shifted away from traditional fixed-rate
mortgages toward riskier loans, such as subprime and adjustable
rate mortgages.  It claims the change created more risk for
shareholders, who lost money when the company's stock price
dropped in 2007.


DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Lawsuits by Retailers in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corp. continues to defend several class-action lawsuits
filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal courts,
according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the company's retailers.

The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts declare certain
provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the
company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to
award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs,
and other compensation.  The company has asserted a variety of
counterclaims.

The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of
the state court action.

The company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all
counts and against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them
to respond to the company's motion.  The state court granted
limited discovery, which ended during 2004.  The plaintiffs
claimed the company did not provide adequate disclosure during
the discovery process.  The state court agreed, and denied the
company's motion for summary judgment as a result.

In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class
certification motion and in January 2009, the state court
entered an order excluding certain evidence that the company can
present at trial based on the prior discovery issues.  The state
court also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss the company's
counterclaims.

DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding
company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to
subscribers through its Dish Network segment.  The Company is
based in Englewood, Colo.


DISH DBS: Defends Antitrust Suit Over Bundled Channel Offerings
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corp. continues to defend an antitrust action filed by
a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers, according
to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite
subscribers filed an antitrust action against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC
Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney
Company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to
bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the
ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

The company filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied in
July 2008.

DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding
company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to
subscribers through its Dish Network segment.  The Company is
based in Englewood, Colo.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Murray Frank Announces Class Period Expansion
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP who represents shareholders of
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (NYSE:HPY) announces expansion
of the Class Period to include all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Heartland securities between February 13,
2008 and February 23, 2009, inclusive.

     Previously, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey (No. 09-cv-01264), on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc. during the period between August 5, 2008 and
February 23, 2009, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, March 31,
2009).

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

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

     Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose:

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

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

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

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

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

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Ill. Judge Allows "Abbott" Lawsuit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois allowed the lawsuit
captioned, "Abbott v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Case No. 06-cv-
0701-MJR," to proceed as a class-action case, Fred Schneyer of
planadviser.com reports.

The suit involves employees challenging the fee levels in
Lockheed Martin Corp.'s 401(k) plans.  The plaintiffs are five
Lockheed employees who are 401(k) employees.

In general, the lawsuit claims that the company didn't properly
monitor plan fees and that it did not properly administer the
Stable Value Fund in the retirement programs, according to the
planadviser.com report.

The planadviser.com reported Judge Reagan ruled that as many as
100,000 employees could be part of the class in the excessive-
fee fiduciary breach suit.

The judge also refused Lockheed claims to dismiss three of the
plaintiff's original claims that the defendants committed a
fiduciary breach by:

       -- not making sure participants did not suffer adversely
          by excessive overall fees;

       -- failing to prudently administer the Stable Value Fund
          as an investment option; and

       -- imprudently diluting returns in the company stock
          funds by unnecessarily holding cash or holding
          excessive amounts of cash in the funds.

Even though plaintiffs had asked all three issues be approved to
be part of the class action, Judge Reagan only certified the
first two, according to his ruling, reports planadviser.com.

According to Reagan, because the company stock funds were
unitized, a small employee group was able to day trade, which,
as the court pointed out, lowered the returns for other
participants.  The fund had to hold surplus cash to fund the day
traders' activities, the court said, which put the day traders'
financial status at odds with that of non-day traders.  That
difference made a class certification inappropriate, according
to Judge Reagan, reports planadviser.com.

Dropped from the case entirely were fiduciary breach claims that
the company did not monitor revenue-sharing payments as well as
a claim that Lockheed improperly offered a retail fund instead
of an institutionally priced fund, planadviser.com reported.


MASCO CONTRACTOR: Checks For $8.5M Deal To Arrive On April 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
Checks for the $8.5-million settlement of a purported class-
action suit by thousands of mostly Latino workers who accused
Masco Contractor Services, Inc., and its California units,
Western Insulation and Schmid Insulation Contractors of
violating California's wage and hour laws are set to arrive to
qualified California immigrant workers on April 15, 2009, Scott
Sabatini of Legal Newsline reports.

Joanna Lin of The Los Angeles Times previously reported that
Masco, and its California units, settled for $8.5-million the
purported class-action lawsuit.

The workers, most of whom did not belong to a union, installed
insulation, rain gutters and fireplaces, Todd Jackson, one of
several attorneys representing the more than 3,100 employees
tells The Los Angeles Times.

In general, the suit alleged that defendants failed to pay the
workers for a full day's work when warranted.

The settlement was approved on March 9, 2009 by Judge Dale
Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Workers represented in the lawsuit include current and former
California installers who worked for Western Insulation and
Schmid Insulation at any time from Oct. 13, 2002, to Sept. 30,
2008, and who worked for Masco between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30,
2008.

Affected workers do not have to file any claim forms and will
begin receiving settlement checks by mail in mid-April,
attorneys said.  Workers who have changed their address since
their time of employment or who have questions about the
settlement can call (888) 546-7439.


MECHEL OAO: Faces Shareholders' Litigation in N.Y. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mechel OAO faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by
shareholders accusing the company of not keeping investors up to
date on a damaging 2008 antitrust probe and of making false
financial statements, Reuters reports.

The U.S.-listed mining and metals company was investigated in
Russia for coking coal price-fixing and the Russian government
fined Mechel and imposed a 15 percent price cut on the company.
Its stock peaked above $58 last Monday before sinking as low as
$2.56 in January, according to the Reuters report.

The plaintiffs, led by shareholder Dean Frederick, accused
Mechel of not disclosing enough information about its behavior,
the investigation, the fines or the threat to future revenue,
and that its "financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times."

The suit was filed on April 8, 2009.  It was brought on behalf
of those who bought the stock between Oct. 3, 2007 and July 25,
2008.


NORTHERN TRUST: Berger & Montague Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     On March 30, 2009, Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all 401(k) and
pension plans that invested or maintained investments between
January 1, 2007 and the present in any collective trusts managed
or operated by The Northern Trust Company or Northern Trust
Investments, N.A., where such Collective Trusts engaged in the
practice known as "security lending."  The lawsuit is captioned,
"Diebold v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A., et al. (Civil
Action No. 1:09-cv-01934)."

     The lawsuit alleges that the Northern Trust Defendants
engaged in breaches of fiduciary duties established by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as well
as other ERISA violations, when they recklessly engaged in
"securities lending" for their own benefit.  They did so in a
manner that involved imprudent and unreasonable risk of loss to
the 401(k) and pension plans whose funds they managed in the
Collective Trusts.  The complaint alleges that the 401(k) and
pension plans suffered large financial losses as a result of
these securities lending practices.

     The practice of securities lending involves the temporary
"loan" of a stock (or other security) by its long-term owner -
here, the Collective Trusts - who then secured the loan with
collateral.  The collateral is supposed to be invested in safe,
short-term, liquid instruments; however, the complaint alleges
that the Northern Trust Defendants instead chose investments
that were illiquid, highly-leveraged and unduly risky, including
mortgage-backed securities and other securitized debt
instruments that were inappropriate investments for retirement
plans.  The complaint further alleges that the fees and other
compensation the Northern Trust Defendants collected in
connection with their securities lending activities violated
ERISA.

For more details, contact:

          Todd Collins, Esq. (tcollins@bm.net)
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq. (scarson@bm.net)
          Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. (enoteware@bm.net)
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3040; (215) 875-4656; (215) 875-3051
          Fax: (215) 875-4604


SAMSON RESOURCES: Faces Suit in Colorado Over Royalty Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samson Resources Co. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
in Colorado that was filed by a local landowner known as LLH
Operations LLLP and the estate of Mary B. Fassett for allegedly
skimping on royalty payments from the natural-gas wells that the
company's operates, Joe Hanel of The Durango Herald reports.

The claim was filed in state court in La Plata County, but at
Samson's request it was transferred on March 25, 2009 to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption, "LLH Operations LLLP et al v. Samson Resources Company,
Case No. 1:2009-cv-00673."

The lawsuit claims Samson historically deducted the cost of
getting gas to market from its royalty payments - something it's
not supposed to do.  Samson recently stopped deducting the costs
from royalty payments, but according to the lawsuit, it has not
refunded past deductions, reports The Durango Herald.

The Durango Herald reported that the plaintiffs want the judge
to give them permission for a class-action lawsuit so that other
Samson royalty owners could share in the judgment if they win in
court.  According to the lawsuit, there are more than 200 Samson
royalty owners.

The suit is "LLH Operations LLLP et al v. Samson Resources
Company, Case No. 1:09-cv-00673-WDM-KMT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Walker D.
Miller, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          George Robert Miller, Esq. (miller@marattys.com)
          Miller, Argo & Robbins, LLC
          101 West 11th Street #112
          Durango, CO 81301
          Phone: 970-247-1113
          Fax: 970-259-2690

          Thomas D. Kitch, Esq.
          Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, LLC
          P.O. Box 997
          Wichita, KS 67201
          Phone: 316-267-7361

               - and -

          Thomas P. Dugan, Esq. (tpdugan@dugan-law.com)
          Dugan & Associates, PC
          900 Main Avenue #A
          Durango, CO 81301
          Phone: 970-259-1770
          Fax: 970-259-1882

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles A. Armgardt, Esq. (carmgardt@modrall.com)
          Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.
          P.O. Box 2168
          500 4th Street, N.W. #1000
          Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168
          Phone: 505-848-1800
          Fax: 505-848-1891


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Court Rules Sales Reps Not Exempt from FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has
ruled in favor of plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit,
"Kuzinski et al v. Schering-Plough Corporation, Case No. 3:2007-
cv-00233," which alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Jim Edwards of BNET reports.

Specifically, the court declared that sales reps for Schering-
Plough may be entitled to back pay for the unpaid overtime they
have worked.

The court ruled that reps are not the kind of sales people who
are "exempt" from the FLSA, and thus a case demanding overtime
pay for extra hours worked can go forward.  The case is a
potential class-action suit affecting all Schering sales reps,
according to the BNET report.

The complaint was filed by four former and current Schering
reps, Eugene Kuzinski, Marc Campano, Jerry Harris, and Shawn
Jones.  Mr. Kuzinski had worked for Schering for 20 years,
ending in 2006, BNET reported.


STATE STREET: La. Firm Files Mass. Suit Over "Reckless" Lending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Orleans law firm of Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley
Willis & Swanson LLP filed a purported class-action suit in
Massachusetts against State Street Corp.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on April 7, 2009, under the caption, "Fishman
Haygood Phelps Walmsley, Willis & Swanson, L.L.P. v. State
Street Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-10533-PBS."

The suit is alleging the institutional money manager used funds
from its clients' retirement plans to engage in reckless
securities lending that lost the plans hundreds of millions of
dollars over the past year, according to a report by Law360.

The suit is "Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley, Willis & Swanson,
L.L.P. v. State Street Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-
10533-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Matthew P. McCue (mmccue@massattorneys.net)
          Law Office of Matthew P. McCue
          179 Union Avenue
          Framingham, MA 01702
          Phone: 508-620-1166
          Fax: 508-820-3311


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Campbell" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and TicketsNow.com, Inc. face a
purported class action complaint filed on March 23, 2009,
asserting causes of action under California's Business and
Professions Code and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The class-action complaint filed against Ticketmaster
Entertainment and TicketsNow is styled, "Campbell v.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and TicketsNow.com, Inc., Case
No. CV09-1968 (PSG) (United States District Court, Central
District of California)."

The lawsuit alleges that Ticketmaster and TicketsNow committed
unfair business practices by, among other things, "redirecting"
consumers from Ticketmaster.com to TicketsNow.com.

Plaintiff purports to represent a nationwide class consisting of
"all persons who were redirected from Ticketmaster.com to
TicketsNow.com and purchased tickets above face value from
TicketsNow.com."

Plaintiff seeks disgorgement and restitution on behalf of the
class and attorneys fees and costs, according to the company's
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Canadian Consumer Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries
face putative consumer class-action complaints filed in Canada.

In February 2009, five putative consumer class-action complaints
were filed in Canada against TNow Entertainment Group, Inc.,
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster Canada Ltd., and
Premium Inventory, Inc.

All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and
causes of action: each plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Ticketmaster Canada or TicketsNow
from early February 2007 to the present.

Each proposed class purports to extend to United States as well
as Canadian consumers.

The complaints allege in essence that Ticketmaster Entertainment
and Ticketmaster Canada conspired to divert a large number of
tickets for resale through the TicketsNow website at prices
higher than face value in violation of Ontario's Ticket
Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the Amusement
Act of Alberta, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.

Each lawsuit seeks $500 million in compensatory damages and $10
million in punitive damages on behalf of the class, according to
the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Diamond" Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketsnow.com, Inc. faces
a purported consumer class-action complaint in California,
according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported class-action complaint asserting
several causes of action under the federal antitrust laws as
well as California and New York consumer protection laws was
filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment and TicketsNow.

The complaint is styled, "Diamond v. Ticketmaster Entertainment,
Inc. and Ticketsnow.com, Inc., Case No. CV 09-0912 (CBM) (United
States District Court, Central District of California)."

The lawsuit alleges that Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully
attempted to monopolize and/or have monopolized the market for
secondary tickets and deceived consumers by, among other things,
selling large quantities of tickets to TicketsNow's ticket
brokers, either prior to or at the time that tickets for an
event go on sale, thereby forcing consumers to purchase tickets
at significantly marked-up prices on TicketsNow instead of
Ticketmaster.com.

The plaintiff seeks actual damages or restitution in an amount
to be determined at trial and attorneys fees and costs.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Suits Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and and its Board of Directors
face two putative securities class-action lawsuits filed in
California Superior Court, according to the company's March 31,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suits are captioned:

   -- McBride v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
      BC407677 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
      County), filed on Feb. 13, 2009; and

   -- Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
      Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. BC408228
      (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County), filed
      on Feb. 20, 2009.

The plaintiff in the McBride case alleges that the Live Nation
transaction (the "Transaction") delivers insufficient value to
Ticketmaster Entertainment stockholders; that the board failed
to adequately consider alternative transactions; and that
Ticketmaster Entertainment insiders benefit disproportionately
from the Transaction.  Among other things, the complaint seeks
an injunction against the consummation of the Transaction and
compensatory damages for Ticketmaster Entertainment
stockholders.

The second putative class-action suit, Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit, was filed against Ticketmaster
Entertainment and the members of its Board of Directors in the
same Los Angeles court in which the McBride complaint was filed.
The focus of this case is the alleged failure of Ticketmaster
Entertainment to obtain the highest price and on alleged
insufficiencies in the deal protections.  Also included is a
disclosure claim, which alleges that Ticketmaster Entertainment
wrongfully failed to disclose certain antitrust-related
schedules with the merger agreement, which the plaintiff alleges
makes it difficult for stockholders to assess certain provisions
of the merger agreement.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Wenzel Consumer Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action lawsuit styled "Wenzel v. Ticketmaster
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CV 09-01234 (GHK)," is pending in
the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

On Feb. 20, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. in the Central District
of California. Plaintiff purports to represent a nationwide
class of consumers consisting of "all persons who inadvertently
purchased tickets from TicketsNow.com as a result of deceptive
and unfair business practices engaged in by Ticketmaster
Entertainment between Jan. 1, 2005 to the present and who were
damaged thereby."

The plaintiff claims that Ticketmaster Entertainment violated
California's Business and Professions code by redirecting
consumers from Ticketmaster.com to Ticketsnow.com, thereby
engaging in false advertising and an unfair business practice by
deceiving consumers into inadvertently purchasing tickets from
TicketsNow for amounts greater than face value.

The plaintiff claims Ticketmaster Entertainment has been
unjustly enriched by this conduct and seeks compensatory
damages, a refund to every class member of the difference
between face value and the amount paid to TicketsNow, an
injunction preventing Ticketmaster Entertainment from engaging
in further unfair business practices with TicketsNow, and
attorney fees and costs, according to the company's March 31,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Schlessinger Seeks to Amend Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in "Curt
Schlessinger et al. v. Ticketmaster, No. BC304565," is pending,
according to Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.'s March 31, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Oct. 21, 2003, a purported representative action was filed in
California state court, challenging Ticketmaster Entertainment's
charges to online customers for UPS ticket delivery.

The complaint alleged in essence that it is unlawful for
Ticketmaster Entertainment not to disclose on its website that
the fee it charges to online customers to have their tickets
delivered by UPS contains a profit component.

The complaint asserted a claim for violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code and sought
restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i) the
total UPS delivery fees charged by Ticketmaster Entertainment
in connection with online ticket sales during the applicable
statute of limitations period, and (ii) the amount Ticketmaster
Entertainment paid to UPS for that service.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended class-action
and representative-action complaint alleging (i) as before, that
Ticketmaster Entertainment's website disclosures in respect of
its charges for UPS ticket delivery violate Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code, and (ii) for the first
time, that Ticketmaster Entertainment's website disclosures in
respect of its ticket order-processing fees constitute false
advertising in violation of Section 17500 of the California
Business and Professions Code.  On this latter claim, the
amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of the
entire amount of order-processing fees charged by Ticketmaster
Entertainment during the applicable statute of limitations
period.

On Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which Ticketmaster Entertainment opposed.  On
Sept. 25, 2006, Ticketmaster Entertainment filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, which the plaintiffs opposed.  On
Nov. 21, 2006, Ticketmaster Entertainment requested that the
court stay the case pending the California Supreme Court's
decisions in two cases (In re Tobacco II Cases, 142 Cal. App.
4th 891, and Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano), 141 Cal.
App. 4th 290) that present issues concerning the interpretation
of Proposition 64 that are directly pertinent to both of the
pending motions.  The plaintiffs opposed Ticketmaster
Entertainment's request.  On Nov. 29, 2006, the court ordered
that the case be stayed pending the California Supreme Court's
ruling on the two cases.

On July 11, 2007, the court lifted its stay of the action for
the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with
their motion for class certification.  The parties thereafter
submitted supplemental briefing in support of their respective
positions and argued the motion at a September 20 hearing.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice.
The court also issued an order staying the action for an
additional 180 days or until the California Supreme Court issues
a ruling in the Tobacco II and Pfizer appeals.  Oral argument in
the Tobacco II case took place on March 3, 2009.

On Feb. 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint, which purports to add the allegation
that Ticketmaster Entertainment's order processing fees are
unconscionably high.  Ticketmaster Entertainment opposed the
motion on March 16, 2009.  The hearing is scheduled for April 1,
2009.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, --
http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing
company.  It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide,
providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and
distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-
commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet
and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales
outlets and 17 call centers worldwide.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers Amended Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the U.S. direct and indirect purchasers'
amended purported class-action complaints, which name United
Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories Inc., as defendant, remain pending.

According to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the class actions allege conspiracy
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1,
related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.

                   Direct Purchaser Litigation

As of March 15, 2009, the company and Champion have been named
as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed
in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the
Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of
Illinois, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission
filters.

Eight of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but those plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Carlyle
from each of those actions without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a
defendant in 13 virtually identical actions originally filed in
the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the
District of New Jersey.

All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket
filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of
their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present.

Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an
injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees.

On Nov. 26, 2008, all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  This complaint names Champion
as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United
Components.  The complaint is styled as a putative class action
and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including
statutory treble damages, an injunction against future
violations, costs and attorney's fees.  On Feb. 2, 2009,
Champion filed its answer to the direct purchasers' Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

                 Indirect Purchaser Litigation

United Components and Champion were also named as two of
multiple defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in
the District of Connecticut, the Northern District of
California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect
purchasers of aftermarket filters.

Two of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions
voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named in three
similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of California.

These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law.

They are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all
persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters
manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the
defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any
time between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present; with the exception of
three complaints, which each allege a class period from Jan. 1,
2002 to the present, and one complaint which alleges a class
period from the "earliest legal permissible date" to the
present.

The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages,
an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of
profits, costs and attorney's fees.

On Dec. 1, 2008, all of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
except Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America
("GASDA"), filed a Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.
This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but
it does not name United Components.  The complaint is styled as
a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust,
consumer protection and unfair competition law.  The indirect
purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble
damages, penalties and punitive damages where available, an
injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits,
costs and attorney's fees.  On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the
other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.  On that same date,
Champion, United Components and the other defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint.

                            JPML Order

On Aug. 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and indirect
purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings
before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.

Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all
defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009.

The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed
until after it rules on the motions to dismiss.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Purchasers' Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc. faces a putative class-action lawsuit filed
by purchasers in the Superior Court of California, for the
County of Los Angeles, according to the company's March 31, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Jan. 12, 2009, Champion, but not United Components, was named
as one of ten defendants in an action filed in the Superior
Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of
aftermarket filters.

On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of
removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, and then subsequently requested that the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer this case to the
Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Suit Over Filters Sale in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related
to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of 14
defendants in a class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario,
Canada.

This action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference
with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the
Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket
filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14
defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and
$15 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter
proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Suit Over Filters Sale in Quebec
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related
to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of
five defendants in a class action filed in Quebec, Canada.

This action alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good
faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related
to the sale of aftermarket filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five
defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages
and $1.0 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter
continue as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended Dec., 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUSTIN CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
(http://www.csgrr.com/cases/austincapital/)filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of institutional investors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of investors in Austin Capital Management Ltd. hedge
funds during the period between January 2, 2005 and December 11,
2008, seeking to recover losses resulting from Austin Capital's
placement of significant amounts of investor money into funds
managed by Bernard Lawrence Madoff and his firm.

     The action includes a sub-class of those employee benefit
plans which invested with Austin Capital during the Class
Period, asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for breach of fiduciary duty.

     The complaint charges Austin Capital, its investment
managers and its outside auditors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and ERISA.

     Austin Capital is a limited partnership that oversees hedge
fund investment portfolios for individual and institutional
clients.

     The complaint alleges that Austin Capital placed
significant amounts of investor money into funds managed by
Madoff and his firm.  Madoff has now been charged with running
what may be the largest Ponzi scheme ever.  Unknown to investors
in its funds, Austin Capital had invested approximately 7.5% of
its funds in Madoff-managed investments.

     This was contrary to the duties Austin Capital had to its
investors of good faith and fair dealing and contrary to the
representations Austin Capital had made regarding its processes
for selecting fund managers.  As a result of defendants'
breaches and false statements, Austin Capital investors made
additional investments in Austin Capital and/or held interests
they would have redeemed.

     Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all
investors in Austin Capital hedge funds during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

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


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Barroway Topaz Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
announces that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq:
NSIT) between April 22, 2004 and February 6, 2009 inclusive.

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

     Insight provides brand-name information technology
hardware, software, and services to large enterprises, small to
medium-sized businesses, and public sector institutions in North
America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific.

     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 committed errors in the manner in
          which it accounted for certain aged trade credits;

       -- that the Company's financial statements were not
          prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
          Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          financial statements were materially false and
          misleading at all relevant times.

     On February 9, 2009, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it would be restating previously reported
earnings because management had identified errors in the way it
historically accounted for certain aged trade credits.  Upon the
release of this news, the Company's shares declined $2.85 per
share, or 43.8 percent, to close on February 9, 2009 at $3.05
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

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


                            *********

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  * * *