CAR_Public/090416.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 74

                           Headlines

CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Ambac Securities Suit Pending
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Bid to Junk MAT Five Securities Suit Pending
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss "Leber" Complaint Pending
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Pursues Dismissal of American Home's Lawsuit
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Suits by AIG Investors & Shareholders Pending

COX RADIO: Faces Ga. Investors' Suit Over Proposed Acquisition
DAVIS WRIGHT: Faces Sunwest Investors' Litigation in Oregon
FRASER TIMBER: Faces Suit in Maine Alleging WARN Violations
INLAND WESTERN: Faces Amended Complaint Over Merger in Illinois
J.P. JEANNERET: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments

LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Final OK to Securities Suit Settlement
LOWE'S HOME: Faces Litigation in Ill. Alleging FACTA Violations
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Mass. Firm Files Lawsuit Over Madoff Fraud
MEDIACOM COMMS: Unit to File Motions on Verdict in "Ogg" Case
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Sued on Nev., Ariz. For Preying on Hispanics

NOVATEL WIRELESS: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Calif. Lawsuit
ROGERS INT'L: Bids to Dismiss "Lane" Suit Remain Pending in Ill.
ROGERS INT'L: Watkins' Lawsuit Remains Stayed Pending Lane Case
SIGNATURE ALUMINUM: Law Firms File WARN Violations Suit in Del.
SLM CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.

SURROGENESIS USA: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Calif.
TEXAS: Federal Court Dismisses Claims in Suit Over House Bill 4
WELLS FARGO: Faces Suit For Allegedly "Strong-Arming" Appraisers


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COACH INC: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MECHEL OAO: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Barroway Topaz Announces N.J. Suit Filing
WELLS FARGO: Bernstein Litowitz Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Ambac Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class-action
complaint in "In Re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation" remains pending, according to Citigroup Global
Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Citigroup Global Markets, along with numerous other firms, has
been named as a defendant in several lawsuits by shareholders of
Ambac Financial Group, Inc. for which Citigroup Global Markets
underwrote securities offerings.

These actions assert that Citigroup Global Markets violated
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements
contained in the registration statements and prospectuses issued
in connection with those offerings.

Several of these actions have been consolidated under the
caption In Re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, and in which a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed on Aug. 22, 2008.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 21,
2008.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), CGM is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The
General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets
Holdings Inc. ("CGMHI"), which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup").


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Bid to Junk MAT Five Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class-action
complaint filed in "In Re MAT Five Securities Litigation"
remains pending, according to Citigroup Global Diversified
Futures Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Several civil litigations have been filed against Citigroup and
related individuals and entities alleging violations of the
federal securities laws and Delaware state law in connection
with investments in MAT Five LLC.

The alleged class action lawsuits have been consolidated in the
Southern District of New York under the caption, "In Re MAT Five
Securities Litigation."

Similar related actions have been filed in California, Delaware
and New York state court.

Citigroup removed the New York state court action to federal
court and is responding to a motion for a preliminary injunction
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court action seeking to enjoin a
tender offer interest in MAT Five LLC.

A consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed in "In
Re MAT Five Securities Litigation" on Oct. 2, 2008.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 4,
2008.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), CGM is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The
General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets
Holdings Inc. ("CGMHI"), which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup").


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss "Leber" Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the purported class-action complaint
styled "Leber v. Citigroup, Inc., et al." is pending, according
to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'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 purported class-action complaint was filed against Citigroup
and its administration and investment committees, alleging that
defendants engaged in prohibited transactions and breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by authorizing or
causing the Citigroup 401(k) Plan to invest in Citigroup-
affiliated mutual funds and to purchase services from Citigroup-
affiliated entities.

The complaint was brought on behalf of all participants in the
Citigroup 401(k) Plan from 2001 through the present.

Citigroup and its administration and investment committees filed
a motion to dismiss the class action complaint on Aug. 29, 2008.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), CGM is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The
General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets
Holdings Inc. ("CGMHI"), which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup").


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Pursues Dismissal of American Home's Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class-action
complaint in "In Re American Home Mortgage Securities
Litigation" remains pending, according to Citigroup Global
Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'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 March 21, 2008, 19 putative class actions brought by
shareholders of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
were consolidated under the caption, "In Re American Home
Mortgage securities Litigation."

On June 3, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements contained in the registration statements
and prospectuses issued in connection with two offerings of
American Home Mortgage securities underwritten by Citigroup
Global Markets, among others.

Defendants, including Citigroup and Citigroup Global Markets,
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 12, 2008.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), CGM is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The
General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets
Holdings Inc. ("CGMHI"), which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup").


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Suits by AIG Investors & Shareholders Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. faces putative class-action suits
filed by American International Group, Inc. (AIG) investors and
shareholders, according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures
Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Beginning in October 2008, four putative class-action suits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York by AIG investors and shareholders.

These actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements contained in the registration statements
and prospectuses issued in connection with offerings of AIG debt
securities and common stock, some of which were underwritten by
Citigroup Global Markets.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), CGM is an affiliate of the General Partner.  The
General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets
Holdings Inc. ("CGMHI"), which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup").


COX RADIO: Faces Ga. Investors' Suit Over Proposed Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Cox Radio (NYSE:CXR) shares, on April 8,
2009, filed a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of all
persons who own the common stock of Cox Radio before the
announcement of the proposed acquisition in the United States
District Court of the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta
against Cox Radio, Inc., its board of directors, Cox Enterprises
and Cox Media.

     According to the complaint, on March 23, 2009, Cox
Enterprises, Inc., the majority stockholder of Cox Radio,
through its unit Cox Media Group, Inc, announced that it would
commence a cash tender offer of the outstanding publicly held
minority interest in Cox Radio for $3.80 per share in cash, or a
total payment of approximately $69.1 million, including fees and
expenses.

     The plaintiff alleges that Cox Enterprises seeks to acquire
the remaining Cox Radio publicly held shares on unfair terms and
without regard to the best interests of Cox Radio's public
shareholders or the intrinsic value of Cox Radio's stock.

     According to the complaint the tender offer leaves the
public stockholders of Cox Radio faced with an unfair coercive
Tender Offer and without a fully informed voluntary choice
whether to sell Cox Radio or seek appraisal.

     The plaintiff alleges that the board of Cox Radio caused to
be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 3, 2009 a Recommendation Statements which misstates
certain material facts and altogether omits others in order to
coerce shareholders into tendering their shares.

     The complaint accuses that the tender offer serves no
legitimate business purpose of Cox Radio but rather is an
attempt by the defendants to enable Cox Enterprises to benefit
unfairly from the transaction at the expense of Cox Radio's
public shareholders and Cox Enterprises has breached and will
breach their duty as controlling stockholder of Cox Radio by
engaging in improper overreaching in attempting to carry out the
tender offer.


DAVIS WRIGHT: Faces Sunwest Investors' Litigation in Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit filed by investors in Sunwest Management Inc., the
disgraced senior living operator, for violating Oregon
securities law, Wendy Culverwell of The Portland Business
Journal reports.

The lawsuit was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court and
names a series of Oregon limited liability corporations as
plaintiffs, who all invested in senior housing communities
controlled by Jon Harder and Sunwest Management.  It seeks to
represent approximately 1,200 Oregon investors as a class action
matter.

The suit accuses Davis Wright Tremaine and Timothy Dozois, a
partner in the firm, of misleading investors into thinking they
were buying into specific properties and that they would receive
rent payments from Sunwest, which managed the series of
allegedly independent properties, according to The Portland
Business Journal report.

The suit seeks compensation for damages from the loss of value
of Sunwest Management, once a $2 billion-plus company.  It also
seeks to hold Sunwest's lawyers accountable to investors for
misleading them about the nature of their investments.

The Portland Business Journal reported that the plaintiffs are
represented by Justine Fischer, Esq., a Portland attorney, and
two Washington, D.C., law firms, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC and the Law Office of Herbert Adelman.

They claim, "The defendants omitted material facts in connection
with their own statements to investors. Defendants and other
attorneys in Portland, Oregon also participated and materially
assisted in the unlawful sale of these securities through their
relationship with (Sunwest founder and controlling owner) Jon M.
Harder and his enterprise of closely related Oregon companies."

The suit accuses Davis Wright Tremaine of facilitating the
scheme by misrepresenting the "unitary" nature of the operation,
according to The Portland Business Journal report.

According to the suit, Davis Wright Tremaine and Mr. Dozois
prepared numerous documents that misled investors into thinking
they were buying into particular properties, including
memoranda, disclosure materials, tenancy in common agreements,
triple net lease documents, warranty deeds, operating
agreements, real property purchase agreements and escrow
instructions.

The suit claims, "The defendants and the Harder Enterprise did
not tell investors that revenue generated in connection with the
property they were investing in could be commingled and used to
help fund less profitable properties owned and operated by the
Harder Enterprise or would be loaned to less profitable
properties.  Investors also were not told that the Harder
Enterprise had engaged extensively in such commingling of funds
in the past and intended to continue do to so in the future,"
reports The Portland Business Journal.


FRASER TIMBER: Faces Suit in Maine Alleging WARN Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fraser Timber, Inc., and Fraser Papers, Inc. are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in Maine alleging that the
company violated federal law when it failed last month to give
workers at its lumber mills 60 days' notice that they would be
laid off, Judy Harrison of The Bangor Daily News reports.

The suit, captioned, "Nason v. Fraser Timber Limited et al.,
Case No. 1:2009-cv-00034," was filed on Jan. 28, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maine by Alan Nason, 50,
who worked at Fraser's lumber mill in Masardis until he was
terminated Jan. 2, 2009.

The plaintiff alleges that Fraser did not give employees 60 days
written notice as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, according to The Bangor Daily News
report.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status to cover all the
employees that Mr. Nason claims were laid off.  He is seeking
unpaid wages and benefits for the 60 days that Mr. Nason claims
he would have earned during the 60-day notice period.


INLAND WESTERN: Faces Amended Complaint Over Merger in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. faces an amended
class-action complaint by the City of St. Clair Shores General
Employees Retirement System in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a class-action complaint in
Illinois alleging violations of the federal securities laws and
common law causes of action in connection with the company's
merger with its business manager/advisor and property managers
as reflected in the company's Proxy Statement dated Sept. 10,
2007.

On June 12, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
named Madison Investment Trust as an additional plaintiff and
KPMG LLP, the company's Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm, as an additional defendant.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that:

   (i) the consideration paid as part of the merger was
       excessive;

  (ii) the Proxy Statement violated Section 14(a), including
       Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
       Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations
       that the Proxy Statement contained false and misleading
       statements or omitted to state material facts;

(iii) the business manager/advisor, property managers, certain
       directors, and other defendants breached their fiduciary
       duties to the class, and

  (iv) the merger unjustly enriched the business
       manager/advisor, property managers, and other defendants.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, (I)
certification of the class action; (ii) a judgment declaring the
Proxy Statement false and misleading; (iii) unspecified monetary
damages; (iv) nullification of the shareholder approvals
obtained during the proxy process; (v) nullification of the
merger and the related merger agreements with the business
manager/advisor and the property managers, and (vi) the payment
of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

According to its March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the company is currently advancing legal fees for
certain directors and a third party advisor as part of its
obligations pursuant to existing indemnity provisions.

Oak Brook, Ill.-based Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust,
Inc. is a self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT) that
acquires, manages and develops a diversified portfolio of real
estate, primarily multi-tenant shopping centers.  As of Dec. 31,
2008, its portfolio of operating properties consisted of 292
properties wholly-owned by the company and 13 properties of
which it owns between 5% and 98% (the consolidated joint venture
properties).


J.P. JEANNERET: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit filed by several people who are claiming that the
investment firm's lack of research into Bernard L. Madoff
investments cost them nearly $1 billion in pensions and savings,
Charley Hannagan of The Post-Standard - Syracuse.com reports.

The suit, captioned, "Morin et al v. J.P. Jeanneret Associates,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00305," was filed on April 2,
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York on behalf of Patrick Morin, James Willis, Daniel McGraw and
Theron Hogle.  It was brought by the Empire State Carpenters,
Ironworkers Local 6, and the Engineers Local Unions 17, 106,
410, 463, 545, and 832, according to The Post-Standard -
Syracuse.com report.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are J.P. Jeanneret
Associates, Inc., John P. Jeanneret, Beacon Associates
Management Corporation, Joel Danzinger and Harris Markhoff.

The plaintiffs allege that the investment firm and its owner,
John P. Jeanneret, failed in his duty under federal pension laws
to carefully manage the unions' pension, welfare and annuity
funds.

The suit alleges Mr. Jeanneret encouraged some local unions to
place some of their funds in Madoff investments.  Mr. Madoff has
admitted in federal court to running a scheme that cheated
investors out of $65 billion.  He is scheduled to be sentenced
in June, reports The Post-Standard - Syracuse.com.

The unions allege Mr. Jeanneret, and Beacon's owners encouraged
them to invest in several funds that, in turn, invested with Mr.
Madoff, according to The Post-Standard - Syracuse.com report.

According to the suit, Mr. Jeanneret and Beacon's owners did not
properly check out Madoff's operations on their own and failed
to heed warning signs reported in the investment trade press
that it was a scam.

The Post-Standard - Syracuse.com reported that the plaintiffs
have asked the court to award them all losses, including money
they would have earned had their funds been invested prudently,
all profits Mr. Jeanneret and Beacon earned form their plans,
interest and attorney fees and costs.


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Final OK to Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leadis Technology, Inc. anticipates that the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California will provide final
approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class
action suit in the second quarter of 2009.

On March 2, 2005, a securities class-action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Leadis Technology, Inc., certain of its officers and its
directors.

The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements in the company's registration statement
and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004 for Leadis' initial public
offering.

A similar additional action was filed on March 11, 2005.

On April 20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, the parties to this litigation
reached a tentative settlement of all claims.  The District
Court preliminarily approved the settlement in February 2009,
and the company anticipates that the District Court will provide
final approval of the settlement in the second quarter of 2009,
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.

Leadis Technology, Inc. -- http://www.leadis.com/-- designs,
develops and markets analog and mixed-signal semiconductor
products that enable and enhance the features and capabilities
of portable and other consumer electronic products.  The
company's product offerings include light-emitting diode (LED),
drivers, power management, touch technology and consumer audio
analog integrated circuits (ICs).


LOWE'S HOME: Faces Litigation in Ill. Alleging FACTA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A store of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. faces a purported class-
action suit claiming it neglected its duty to protect customers
from identity theft and credit card fraud under the Fair and
Accurate Transaction Act (FACTA), Amelia Flood of The St. Clair
Record reports.

The suit was filed by Doris J. Masters, represented by Brad
Lakin of LakinChapman in Wood River, on Oct. 2, 2008 in Madison
County Circuit Court, case number 2008-L-910.  Ms. Masters
claims the Glen Carbon Lowe's, located at 159 Whistle Stop Dr.,
negligently provided a receipt listing her entire credit card
number.

Under FACTA, merchants who accept credit and debit cards can
only print receipts showing the last five digits of a customer's
card.  The measure is meant to protect consumers from identity
theft as well as credit and debit card fraud, according to The
St. Clair Record report.

According to the 2003 law, stores had three years to update
their equipment to print the correct receipts.  Masters' suit
contends that the Lowe's "willfully violated this law and failed
to protect plaintiff (and others similarly situated)," because
it printed Ms. Masters' full 16 digit card number on Oct. 15,
2007, nearly a year after the grace period ended.

The suit contends the proposed class includes at least 100
people.  The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages between $100
and $1,000 per class member, punitive damages, court costs and
attorney's fees.

The St. Clair Record reported that on March 3, 2009, Ms. Masters
filed a stipulation that amended the defendant in the suit from
Lowe's Companies Inc. to Lowe's Homes Centers, Inc.  The change,
according to the stipulation, came because Lowe's Companies Inc.
did not own or operate the store in question but rather acted as
a holding company only.  Lowe's Companies Inc. is based in North
Carolina.

To date, only the plaintiff, Doris J. Masters, has filed papers
in the case set before Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla,
reports The St. Clair Record.


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Mass. Firm Files Lawsuit Over Madoff Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
filed a class-action lawsuit against a hedge fund controlled by
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. for placing all of the
fund's assets with Bernard Madoff, who is facing life in prison
for conducting a massive fraud, Beth Healy of The Boston Globe
reports.

According to the suit filed on April 15, 2009 in Massachusetts
Superior Court, the lead plaintiff is Lawrence J. Rothschild, a
Needham businessman who invested about $1.1 million with the Rye
Select Broad Market XL Fund.

The suit alleges that Rye did not explicitly say that it placed
all of its assets with Mr. Madoff, and that the firm's parent,
Tremont Partners Inc. (also part of MassMutual), ignored red
flags about Mr. Madoff's activities, according to The Boston
Globe.

Also named in the suit are MassMutual and several individuals
and businesses linked to the Springfield insurer.  Bank of New
York Mellon Corp. is named as well, as administrator of the
hedge fund, reports The Boston Globe.


MEDIACOM COMMS: Unit to File Motions on Verdict in "Ogg" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom LLC, one of Mediacom Communications Corporation's
wholly owned subsidiaries, intends to file motions with respect
to the verdict in a putative class action in favor of Gary and
Janice Ogg.

Mediacom LLC is named as a defendant in a putative class-action
lawsuit, captioned, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC,"
pending in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri,
originally filed in April 2001.

The lawsuit alleges that Mediacom LLC, in areas where there was
no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from landowners
to place the company's fiber interconnection cable
notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from
other third parties.

While the parties continue to contest liability, there also
remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.  Based on
a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim compensatory
damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal fees, prejudgment
interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could
increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.

The plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory of $42.0
million in compensatory damages.

Prior to trial, the company's experts estimated its liability to
be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to $2.3
million.  This estimate does not include any estimate of damages
for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.

On March 19, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary
and Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and
punitive damages of $35,000.  This verdict is not yet final,
according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mediacom Communications Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com- is
a cable television company serving smaller cities and towns in
the United States.  The company provides its customers with an
array of products and services, including video services, such
as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television (HDTV) and
digital video recorders (DVR); high-speed data (HSD), also known
as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service, and phone
service.


MORTGAGE LENDERS: Sued on Nev., Ariz. For Preying on Hispanics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several lawsuits were filed in Nevada and Arizona alleging that
Hispanics were targeted by a group of predatory mortgage lenders
who preyed on their limited abilities to read and speak English,
The Orlando Sentinel reports.

The suits, which seeks class-action status, named as defendants,
Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, GMAC
Mortgage, National City Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, CitiMortgage
Inc., HSBC Mortgage Corp., AIG, Guaranty Corp., Wells Fargo
Bank, Bank of America, PNC Financial Services Group Inc.,
Merrill Lynch, GE Money Bank, and the Mortgage Electronic
Registration System, according to The Orlando Sentinel report.

The lawsuits allege a nationwide conspiracy to defraud
borrowers, which also has impacted investors and the federal
government, reports The Orlando Sentinel.

The lawsuits claim it was the policy of major mortgage companies
to intentionally mislead Hispanic borrowers by not making the
legally required disclosures of information regarding the terms
of loans.  The attorneys representing the borrowers contend that
mortgage companies intentionally failed to have loan documents
translated into Spanish for Spanish-speaking borrowers, The
Orlando Sentinel reported.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Calif. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has denied a motion by Novatel Wireless, Inc. that sought for
the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit against the
San Diego wireless modem company, Jonathan Sidener of The San
Diego Union Tribune reports.

In general, the lawsuit alleges that the company's executives
engaged in insider trading and fraud as they sold nearly $29
million in stock in the weeks before word leaked out that the
company had lost its largest customer, Sprint, according to The
San Diego Union Tribune report.

Calling the stock sales "suspicious," Judge Marilyn Huff ruled
that the suit provided enough support for its allegations to
proceed.  In her ruling, Judge Huff also denied Novatel's motion
to dismiss the suit, originally filed in January.

The suit contends that while the Novatel executives were dumping
stock, they were engaged in a "fraudulent scheme" to prop up its
value.  It alleges that the company "made false and misleading
statements concerning Novatel's market share and financial
results, failed to disclose material information about its
contracts with Sprint, and failed to disclose that Novatel was
prematurely shipping products in order to meet or exceed Wall
Street expectations causing Novatel to improperly recognize
revenue," reports The San Diego Union Tribune report.

The suit, filed by lead plaintiffs Plumbers & Pipefitters Local
No. 562 and Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees pension
funds, alleges that insider trades were made by Novatel Chief
Executive Peter Leparulo, then-President George Weinert, Chief
Marketing Officer Robert Hadley, Senior Executive Vice President
and Chief Marketing Officer Slim Souissi and Senior Vice
President of Business Affairs and General Counsel Catherine
Ratcliffe, The San Diego Union Tribune reported.


ROGERS INT'L: Bids to Dismiss "Lane" Suit Remain Pending in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motions to dismiss the consolidated amended derivative and
class-action complaint remain pending, according to Rogers
International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Beeland Management Company L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
Allen D. Goodman, and James Beeland Rogers Jr. have been named
as defendants, and Rogers International as a nominal defendant,
in a class-action and derivative action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Steven
L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust
dated April 10, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Rogers International in terms of management
and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Rogers
International assets to Refco Capital Markets.  The suit seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of Rogers
International's limited partners.

Following the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Lanes
voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and
filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Walter Thomas Price was not
named as a defendant in the state court complaint.

The defendants successfully moved to have the case reassigned to
the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes'
suit in light of a related case pending in the Southern District
of New York.

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs certain
discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James
Rogers in the matter.  This personal jurisdiction dispute
between the plaintiffs and defendant Rogers is still ongoing.

On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
derivative and class action complaint.  The amended complaint
adds Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins as plaintiffs.

All defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The
court has entered a briefing schedule on these motions which
shall be completed by Dec. 4, 2008.

Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois
limited partnership that was established in May 2000.  It trades
a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts,
principally on recognized exchanges.  The Company's General
Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management
Company, L.L.C.


ROGERS INT'L: Watkins' Lawsuit Remains Stayed Pending Lane Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Rogers
International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership) remains
stayed, 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.

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
James Beeland Rogers, Jr., Robert Mercorella and Allen Goodman
have been named as defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal
defendant in a lawsuit filed by Connie M. Watkins and John V.
Watkins.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary obligations to the Partnership in causing or allowing
the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets.

The Watkinses seek judgment and other relief declaring the
defendants responsible for the loss of any Partnership assets,
or, alternatively, compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, the plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees and other
relief.

Following several status hearings, the Court set April 2, 2007,
for the Watkinses to file any further amendments to their
complaint, and May 15, 2007 for the defendants to respond.

On April 9, 2007, the case was stayed at the Watkinses' request
pending the resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in a
similar case filed by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as
Trustees of the Lane Family Trust, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

                         The Lane Case

The Lanes filed a class-action and derivative action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the
Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer
of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's
limited partners.

Following the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Lanes
voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and
filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.

The Defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in
light of the Watkinses' case pending in the Southern District of
New York.

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes certain discovery
related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers.

On May 4, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes leave to file an
amended complaint.  A status hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8,
2007.

The Watkins matter is stayed pending the resolution of personal
jurisdiction issues in the Lane case.

Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois
limited partnership that was established in May 2000.  It trades
a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts,
principally on recognized exchanges.  The Company's General
Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management
Company, L.L.C.


SIGNATURE ALUMINUM: Law Firms File WARN Violations Suit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP and Berger
& Montague, P.C. have filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, "McIntyre
v. Signature Aluminum, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-ap-
50889," on behalf of over 1,500 employees who were laid off by
the Defendants, Signature Aluminum, Inc., FKAWXP, Inc., Atlantic
Aluminum, LLC and Temroc Metal, Inc., in February 2009 and
thereafter without receiving the notice required under federal
law.  Mr. McIntyre was a maintenance mechanic at the Signature
Aluminum / Temroc Metals facility in Hamel, Minnesota.

     On April 3, 2009, the Defendants filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware.  The lawsuit claims that the
Defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WARN) Act which provides that employers must give
sixty days notice to employers prior to a plant closing or mass
layoff.  The lawsuit seeks sixty days wages and benefits in lieu
of the notice for Mr. McIntyre and all other laid-off employees
of Signature and its affiliates throughout the United States.

     "Signature Aluminum and the other Defendants appear to have
violated the WARN Act by failing to provide their employees
sixty days advance notice of the plant closings and mass
layoffs," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of
the attorneys for the plaintiffs.  Co-counsel for the
plaintiffs, Charles A. Ercole of Klehr, Harrison, Harvey,
Branzburg & Ellers, LLP, states, "Clearly, Signature Aluminum
had sufficient information 60 days prior to the layoff that it
could have given notice and allowed these employees to prepare
for this situation.  The employees are the last ones to know and
that is exactly what the WARN Act was meant to prevent."

     Former employees of Signature Aluminum, Inc., FKAWXP, Inc.,
Atlantic Aluminum, LLC and Temroc Metal, Inc. who were part of
these layoffs can obtain additional information by calling
Shanon Carson at (215) 875-4656 or Chuck A. Ercole at (215) 568-
6060, or by email at scarson@bm.net or cercole@klehr.com.  These
cases are being prosecuted by the Philadelphia law firms of
Berger & Montague, P.C. (http://www.bergermontague.com)and
Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP
(http://www.klehr.com).


SLM CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corp. -- a/k/a Sallie Mae -- continues to face a purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Stephen Burd of The New
America Foundation reports.

The suit, "In Re" SLM Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 08-1029" was filed on Jan. 31, 2008, and has been assigned
to Judge William H. Pauley, III (Class Action Reporter, March
12, 2008).

The case purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Common stock of the Company
between Jan. 18, 2007, and Jan. 3, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the named officers
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the class period, which statements allegedly had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

The complaint alleges that the defendants caused the Company's
results for year-end 2006 and for the first three quarters of
2007 to be materially misstated because the Company failed to
adequately accrue its loan loss provisions, which overstated the
Company's net income, and that the Company failed to adequately
disclose allegedly known trends and uncertainties with respect
to its non-traditional loan portfolio.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5.  The
Company was served on Feb. 5, 2008 and the case is pending.  A
class has not yet been certified in the above action.

The suit is "Burch v. SLM Corporation, Albert L. Lord, C.E.
Andrews, and Robert S. Autor, Case No. 1:2008-cv-01029," filed
with U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Judge William H. Pauley, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173


SURROGENESIS USA: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogenesis USA, and its escrow company, Michael Charles
Independent Financial Holding Group are facing a purported
class-action lawsuit over the surrogacy agency's abrupt closures
that left hundreds of thousands of client dollars unaccounted
for, Kimi Yoshino of The Los Angeles Times reports.

The suit was filed by dozens of aspiring parents and the women
they hired to be surrogate mothers on April 13, 2009 in Alameda
County Superior Court alleging breach of contract and fraud,
according to The Los Angeles Times report.

The plaintiffs claim that they gave Surrogenesis as much as
$100,000 each in exchange for assistance finding surrogate
mothers, The Los Angeles Times reported.

In some cases, surrogates midway through their pregnancies said
they had stopped receiving payments.  In one instance, a couple
sent the agency $90,000 one week before it closed its doors, and
were provided no services, Sherman Oaks attorney Ted Penny, Esq.
told The Los Angeles Times.

"The money is gone," according to Mr. Penny, who is representing
more than 60 couples.  "We know the bank at which the money was
being kept, and they say that the account is now empty," reports
The Los Angeles Times.


TEXAS: Federal Court Dismisses Claims in Suit Over House Bill 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
dismissed certain claims in the purported, class-action suit,
"Watson et al v. Hortman et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00081-TJW-CE,"
which alleges that Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Act of
2003 violates plaintiffs' constitutional rights, Michelle Massey
of The Southeast Texas Record reports.

On March 31, 2009, Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham, who is
handling pre-trial proceedings, submitted his finding that
plaintiffs did not plead viable Seventh Amendment, due process
or equal protection challenges to House Bill 4.  Judge T. John
Ward accepted Judge Everinham's recommendation.

The class-action suit was filed on Feb. 25, 2008.  It seeks to
nullify the tort reform act by arguing that the state's limits
on non-economic damages are unconstitutional, according to The
Southeast Texas Record report.

The Southeast Texas Record reported that Texans overhauled the
state civil justice system by adopting the comprehensive tort
reform bill, House Bill 4, regarding health care liability
claims in 2003.  The reforms include capping non-economic
damages like pain and suffering and loss of consortium at
$250,000.  There is no cap on economic losses like medical
expenses and lost income.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs and the potential
class they represent were seeking a declaration that the non-
economic damage cap violates constitutional provisions including
violation of Seventh Amendment, the Petition Clause of the First
amendment, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due
Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the rights
guaranteed by the Privileges or Immunities of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

Judge Everingham noted that the Seventh Amendment has not been
incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to state court
proceedings and does not apply in the context of a state court
suit, reports The Southeast Texas Record.

Further, Judge Everingham stated, "federal courts routinely hold
that statutory damage caps do not violate the Seventh Amendment,
largely because a court does not 'reexamine' a jury's verdict or
impose its own factual determination regarding what a proper
award might be."

The proposed class members would include all Texas individuals
injured because of negligent medical treatment since the
enactment of the reform measures and future injured individuals.
The named plaintiffs in the class action are also parties in
pending malpractice cases in state courts, The Southeast Texas
Record reported.

As defendants, the original lawsuit named physicians and health
care providers who seek to enforce the damage cap in underlying
state court cases.

The defendants argue the plaintiffs efforts are solely an
attempt to interrupt and disrupt ongoing state judicial
proceedings, reports The Southeast Texas Record.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Suit For Allegedly "Strong-Arming" Appraisers
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Two real-estate appraisers filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) and Rels Valuation, an
appraisal management service, claiming the two organizations
pressured and intimidated appraisers to deliver artificially
inflated home appraisal values to help close loans and increase
profits.

     The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco
under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act
(RICO), claims that beginning in 2004 Wells Fargo and Rels
colluded to punish appraisers who refused to inflate appraisals
by denying them future appraisal work.

     Rels is one of the largest appraisal management companies
in the country, acting as an intermediary between banks and
appraisers.  Appraisers, by law, are intended to be independent
and autonomous from the influences of others, but according to
the complaint are compelled to do the bidding of Rels, and
through them Wells Fargo.

     "We plan to show Rels effectively tells the appraisers what
they want to see in the valuation, and if they don't deliver,
they are locked out of future work," said Steve Berman, the
attorney representing the plaintiffs and managing partner of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

     According to Berman, Rels provides the appraiser with a
predetermined figure called the 'Borrower Estimated Value' and
expects the appraisers to deliver reports with values exceeding
the Rels-supplied figures.

     "We heard from appraisers who say that after providing
bona-fide appraisals that come in below what Rels wants, the
company contacts them and strongly suggests they reevaluate the
property," Berman noted.  "If an appraiser refuses, we contend
Rels simply refuses to use them again."

     Don Pearsall and Timothy Savage both claim Wells Fargo
tried to strong-arm each of them into inflating appraisal
values, violating the laws and regulations of the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).  The USPAP
rules clearly state an appraiser must not accept an assignment
that includes the reporting of predetermined opinions and
conclusions - something the lawsuit claims Rels does on a
regular basis.

     According to the compliant, Rels and Wells Fargo have given
appraisers predetermined comparable properties to base
appraisals, further compromising the appraisers' independence.

     Plaintiff Pearsall, a long-time appraiser, completed an
appraisal for Wells Fargo and Rels in 2007.  After submitting
his report, Rels asked that he alter the report to reflect the
company's desired views on the property.

     After refusing, the suit claims Rels blacklisted Pearsall,
stripping him of a large portion of his income.

     Timothy Savage, an appraiser in Vail, Colorado, also
submitted two appraisals to Rels in 2009, which the company
rejected, asking him to increase the appraisal values.  After
refusing, Savage received a letter from Rels informing him that
he is no longer included on the approved panel of appraisers,
the suit claims.

     "We've heard from appraisers across the country sharing
similar stories - bullied into inflating prices and blacklisted
when refusing," Berman added.  "Apparently the treatment that
both Tim and Don experienced is the same for hundreds, if not
thousands of appraisers."

     The lawsuit seeks to represent all state-licensed or state-
approved appraisers nationwide who've been removed as an
approved appraiser by Wells Fargo or Rels Valuation. The suit
asks for treble damages and is the first lawsuit filed on behalf
of appraisers against Wells Fargo and Rels.

For more details, contact:

          Steve Berman (Steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/appraisers


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COACH INC: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Coach, Inc. (NYSE:COH) publicly traded securities
during the period between January 23, 2007 and October 22, 2007.

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

     Coach engages in the design and marketing of accessories
and gifts for men and women in the United States and
internationally.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants reported strong growth for the Company and forecast
similar growth going forward.  However, defendants failed to
disclose that the Company's growth rate was, in fact,
unsustainable.  Then, on October 23, 2007, before the market
opened, Coach announced that although its fiscal first-quarter
profit rose 23%, traffic in its U.S. retail stores was weak and
the Company expected a slow-down in the coming holiday season.
As a result of this announcement, Coach's stock price dropped
$4.87 per share (or 12%) to close at $36.60 per share on October
23, 2007.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Coach publicly traded securities during the Class
Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 14, 2009.

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/coach/


MECHEL OAO: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud 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 the securities of Mechel OAO (NYSE: MTL)
between October 3, 2007 and July 25, 2008, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Mechel and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- Mechel had engaged in anticompetitive conduct by
          employing a discriminatory pricing policy for raw
          material sales between domestic and foreign steel
          firms;

       -- Mechel had engaged in monopolistic conduct by fixing
          and maintaining coking coal prices at artificially
          high levels and unreasonably refusing contracts,
          discovery of which would cause such conduct to cease
          and cause a significant decline in future revenue;

       -- the Company had used a sophisticated sales and
          distribution scheme involving wholly owned offshore
          trading companies to evade paying taxes on a portion
          of its revenue; and

       -- Mechel's financials were not prepared in accordance
          with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

     According to the Complaint, after Vladimir Putin called for
an investigation into Mechel's pricing policies on July 24,
2008, and, again, after Prime Minister Putin revealed, on July
28, 2008, the Company's evasion of taxes, the value of Mechel's
stock declined significantly.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 8, 2009.

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/


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Barroway Topaz Announces N.J. 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 New Jersey on behalf
of purchasers of the depositary shares of the 9% Junior
Subordinated Notes of Prudential, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's
June 2008 initial public offering of the Securities, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

     The Complaint charges Prudential and certain of its
officers, directors, underwriters and auditor with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.

     Prudential is a financial services company with operations
in the United States, Asia, Europe, and Latin America.

     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's goodwill associated with certain
          subsidiaries was more greatly impaired than the
          Company had disclosed;

       -- that the Company's asset-backed securities
          collateralized with subprime mortgages were more
          greatly impaired than the Company had disclosed;

       -- that defendants had not properly recorded losses for
          impaired assets;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
          and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
          relevant times.

     On or about June 24, 2008, the Company conducted the
Offering.  In connection with the Offering, the Company filed a
Prospectus Supplement, which forms part of the Registration
Statement, with the SEC.  The Offering was a financial success
for the Company, as it was able to raise over $920 million by
selling 36.8 million shares of the Securities to investors at a
price of $25 per share.  Beginning on February 4, 2009, the
Prudential began to announce write-downs of the Company's
goodwill associated with certain subsidiaries, as well as write-
downs associated with the Company's exposure to subprime
mortgages.

     Then, on February 19, 2009, a BusinessWire article revealed
that the Company's exposure to volatile credit and investment
market conditions was negatively impacting its investment
results, earnings performance and capital levels.  Additionally,
the article revealed that Prudential had above average exposure
to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities and
commercial mortgage-backed securities.  As a result of the
disclosures and adverse news, the price of the Securities
declined in value, closing on February 19, 2009 at $16.09.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 11, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          D. Seamus Kaskela, 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


WELLS FARGO: Bernstein Litowitz Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of New
Orleans Employees' Retirement System and similarly situated
purchasers of Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates pursuant and/or traceable to the false
and misleading July 29, 2005 Registration Statement and
Prospectus Supplements, October 20, 2005 Registration Statement
and Prospectus Supplements or the false and misleading September
27, 2006 Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements.

     The complaint alleges that on July 29, 2005, October 20,
2005 and September 27, 2006, defendants caused three
Registration Statements 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 Registration Statements and
their respective Prospectuses and Prospectus Supplements
included false statements and/or omissions about:

       -- the underwriting standards used by the loan
          originators;

       -- the standards and guidelines used 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.

     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 credit rating agencies also
put negative watch labels on the Certificates, ultimately
downgrading many.

     The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo, 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 issued pursuant to the
Registration Statements and Prospectus Supplements listed above.

     On March 27, 2009, the General Retirement System of The
City of Detroit filed a complaint alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against Wells Fargo and other defendants
on behalf of all purchasers of Wells Fargo Certificates issued
pursuant to Wells Fargo's September 27, 2006 Registration
Statement and Prospectus Supplements.  On March 31, 2009, the
City of Detroit published notice of its action to investors,
which provided a deadline to seek Lead Plaintiff status in that
case by June 1, 2009.

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


                            *********

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  * * *