CAR_Public/090420.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 76

                           Headlines

ACCESS BUSINESS: Faces Suit in Ga. Alleging WARN Act Violations
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: "Marsh" Settlement Pending Final Approval
BIMINI CAPITAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in Fla.
CCO HOLDINGS: Settlement of "Sjoblom" Suit Approved on Jan. 26
CHINA SHENGHUO: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in New York

EPL INTERMEDIATE: Amezcua Lawsuit Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Certification Bid in Santana Suit Due Aug. 15
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Anticipating Certification Bid for Labor Suit
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Labor Violations Suit in Calif. in Discovery
HEALTH BENEFITS: Bid to Dismiss Former Employee's Suit Pending

HEALTH BENEFITS: Settlement of FLSA Suit Pending Court Approval
INFOSONICS CORP: Securities Settlement Set for April 23 Hearing
IPAYMENT INC: Bid for Review of "Bruns" Suit Dismissal Due May 4
IPAYMENT INC: June 4 Fairness Hearing Set for "Aguilard" Deal
KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Law Firms Named as Lead Counsel in Mo. Suit

MCDONALD'S CORP: Calif. Franchises Face Labor Violations Lawsuit
MCKESSON CORP: July 23 Hearing Set For "N.E. Carpenters I" Deal
MOTOROLA INC: July 6 Hearing Set For Bluetooth Headset Agreement
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in Wash.
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Reaches $6M Settlement in "Michael Carr" Case

PROVIDENCE SELECT: Securities Suits v. MF Global Still Pending
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Faces Title IX Lawsuit in Connecticut
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Settles in California Discrimination Case
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE: Seeks Dismissal of Newspaper Carriers' Suit
VENEZUELA: Freedom Watch Files Fla. Suit v. Government Officials

VETERANS AFFAIRS: July 28 Hearing Set for $20M Suit Settlement
WELLS REAL: Certification Bid in Securities Suit Pending in Ga.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

ACCESS BUSINESS: Faces Suit in Ga. Alleging WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Access Business Services Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, alleging that the company did not pay wages as required
under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act, The Atlanta Business Chronicle reports.

The suit was filed by the law firm of Delong, Caldwell & Bridges
LLC for about 200 employees who were laid off on March 9, 2009.
It accuses Access Business Services owner Tyler Long with breach
of contract and failure to pay wages, according to The Atlanta
Business Chronicle report.

In a news release, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Esq., an attorney with
Delong, Caldwell & Bridges said, "The employees of Access
Business Services essentially had the rug pulled out from under
them and are now owed back wages, holiday and vacation pay.  The
200 employees affected by this layoff are also entitled to
health insurance and other benefits under ERISA law."

The lawsuit asks for three weeks of back pay for the workers,
The Atlanta Business Chronicle reported.

Access Business Services also operates under the names of U.S.
Work Alliance and owns the Testing Authority, Exam Services and
Access Payment services, reports The Atlanta Business Chronicle.


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: "Marsh" Settlement Pending Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.'s settlement with Nickey
Marsh, which will resolve the class action against the company's
subsidiary, USAgencies L.L.C., is pending final court approval.

In October 2002, the named plaintiff, Mr. Marsh filed suit in
the Fourth Judicial District Court of Louisiana against
USAgencies alleging that certain adjustments to the actual cash
value of his total loss automobile claim were improper.

In October 2003, the action was amended to a class action and
the court certified the class in August 2006.

On March 3, 2009, the company executed a settlement agreement
with the plaintiff which, subject to class notice and final
court approval, will resolve this proceeding.

Pursuant to the terms of the Acquisition Agreement between the
company and USAgencies, the selling parties are bound to
indemnify Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. from any and all
losses attendant to claims arising out of the Marsh litigation
out of a sum placed into escrow specifically for such purpose.

Addison, Tex.-based Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers.  The
company offers insurance directly to individual consumers
through retail stores in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas, Illinois,
Alabama, Florida, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas and
Wisconsin), including its franchised stores in Florida and
distributing its own insurance policies through 8,000
independent agents or brokers in 10 states (Louisiana, Texas,
Illinois, California, Michigan, Florida, Missouri, Indiana,
South Carolina and New Mexico).


BIMINI CAPITAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bimini Capital Management, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated class-action complaint is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On Sept. 17, 2007, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida by William Kornfeld
against the company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, Flagstone Securities, LLC and BB&T Capital
Markets alleging various violations of the federal securities
laws and seeking class action certification.

On Oct. 9, 2007, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida by Richard and Linda
Coy against the company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, Flagstone Securities, LLC and BB&T
Capital Markets alleging various violations of the federal
securities laws and seeking class action certification.

The cases have been consolidated, class certification has been
granted, and lead plaintiffs' counsel has been appointed.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the case on Dec. 22, 2008,
and plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition.  The
company's motion to dismiss is currently pending before the
court, 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.

Bimini Capital Management, Inc. -- http://www.biminicapital.com
-- formerly Opteum Inc., is primarily in the business of
investing in mortgage-backed securities.  Bimini Capital is
operating as a real estate investment trust (REIT).


CCO HOLDINGS: Settlement of "Sjoblom" Suit Approved on Jan. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class-action complaint entitled "Sjoblom v.
Charter Communications, LLC and Charter Communications, Inc."
received final approval from the court on Jan. 26, 2009,
according to CCO Holdings, LLC'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 Aug. 15, 2007, a class-action complaint was filed against
Charter in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, on behalf of both nationwide and state of Wisconsin
classes of certain categories of current and former Charter
technicians, alleging that Charter violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin wage and hour laws by failing to pay
technicians for certain hours claimed to have been worked.

According to the company's latest Form 10-K filing, while it
believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the
claims at issue, in order to avoid the cost and distraction of
continuing to litigate the case, the company reached a
settlement with the plaintiffs, which received final approval
from the court on Jan. 26, 2009.

CCO Holdings, LLC -- http://www.charter.com/-- through its
operating subsidiary, Charter Communications Operating, LLC,
operates broadband communications businesses in the United
States, with approximately 5.60 million customers at Dec. 31,
2007.  CCO Holdings Capital Corp. is wholly owned subsidiary of
CCO Holdings, and was established and exist solely as co-issuers
of the public debt issued with their parent companies.  Through
its hybrid fiber and coaxial cable network, the Company offers
traditional cable video programming (analog and digital, which
it refers to as video service), high-speed Internet access, and
telephone service, as well as, broadband services (such as
Charter OnDemand video service (OnDemand), high definition
television service, and digital video recorder (DVR) service).


CHINA SHENGHUO: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. has until April 12,
2009, to respond to the amended consolidated complaint in a
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in New York.

Putative class-action lawsuits have been asserted against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Only one
complaint, "Beni Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical
Holdings, Inc., Gui Hua Lan, Qiong Hua Gao, Gene Michael
Bennett, And Yunhong Guan, Index No. 08 CIV. 7422," has been
served on the company thus far.

The complaints allege, among other things, that certain of the
company's SEC filings and other public statements contained
false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the company's securities.

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each of the
actions seek an unspecified amount of damages under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

According to the company's Nov. 19 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, on Oct. 20, 2008, the company and counsel
to the plaintiff in the Varghese Action filed a stipulation with
the Court in which the parties agreed that the plaintiff may
file a consolidated, amended complaint within 60 days after the
entry of an order appointing and approving lead counsel, and
that the company's time to answer that complaint is extended
until 60 days after the filing of the consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 12, 2009, an amended complaint was served on the company
by new lead counsel for the class, consolidating the putative
class actions and bearing the caption, "Beni Varghese,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., et al., Index No.
1:08 CIV. 7422."  The defendants include the company, its
controlling shareholders, Lan's International Medicine
Investment Co., Limited, its chief executive officer, Gui Hua
Lan, its former chief financial officer, Qiong Hua Gao, and its
independent registered public accounting firm, Hansen, Barnett &
Maxwell, P.C.

By stipulation, the defendants currently have until April 12,
2009 to respond to the amended consolidated complaint, 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.

China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. is primarily
engaged in the research, development, production and marketing
of pharmaceutical, nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.
The company's core offering, Xuesaitong Soft Capsules, is a
pharmaceutical product developed to treat the symptoms of
cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.  This drug is
designed to invigorate the circulation of blood and improve
microcirculation.  Nearly all of Shenghuo's products are derived
from the medicinal herb Panax notoginseng, also known as Sanqi,
Sanchi or Tienchi.  Shenghuo's research and development efforts
focus on pharmaceutical products and over-the-counter (OTC)
products that are based on traditional Chinese medicines.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Amezcua Lawsuit Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Amezcua's purported class-action lawsuit against EPL
Intermediate, Inc. is subject to an automatic stay while the
company's appeal to the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration is pending.

On Oct. 18, 2005, Salvador Amezcua, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a purported class-action
complaint against EPL in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

Carlos Olvera replaced Mr. Amezcua as the named class
representative on Aug. 16, 2006.

This action alleges certain violations of California labor laws
and the California Business and Professions Code, based on,
among other things, failure to pay overtime compensation,
failure to provide meal periods, unlawful deductions from
earnings and unfair competition.

Plaintiffs' requested remedies include compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The court denied EPL's motion to compel arbitration, and the
company has appealed that decision.  This matter is subject to
an automatic stay while it is pending before the Court of
Appeal.

This case is presently in a preliminary phase, 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.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Certification Bid in Santana Suit Due Aug. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification in a purported class-action
suit filed on behalf of all assistant shift managers against EPL
Holdings, Inc. is due on Aug. 15, 2009.

In April 2007, Dora Santana filed a purported class action in
state court in Los Angeles County on behalf of all "Assistant
Shift Managers."

Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations including working off
the clock, failure to pay overtime, and meal break violations on
behalf of the purported class, currently defined as all
Assistant Managers from April 2003 to present.

Written discovery is completed on the limited issue of class
certification.

The Court has ordered that plaintiffs file their motion for
class certification no later than Aug. 15, 2009.

This case is in its preliminary phase, 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.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Anticipating Certification Bid for Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc. expects a motion for class certification
for a purported class-action lawsuit against the company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to be filed in April 2009.

On April 16, 2004, former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco Ramirez
and Javier Rivera filed the purported class action suit against
EPL on behalf of all putative class members composed of former
and current general managers and restaurant managers from April
2000 to present.  The suit alleges certain violations of
California labor laws, including alleged improper classification
of general managers and restaurant managers as exempt employees.

The requested remedies include compensatory damages for unpaid
wages, interest, certain statutory penalties, disgorgement of
alleged profits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs
as well as certain injunctive relief.

The court has lifted the stay on the class action pursuant to a
recent California Supreme Court decision.  The matter is now
proceeding in Superior Court, and the parties are conducting
limited discovery on the issue of class certification.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is expected to be
filed in April 2009, and briefing completed and a hearing set in
June 2009, 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.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Labor Violations Suit in Calif. in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc. continues to face a purported class-
action suit in California that was filed by a former assistant
manager of the company.

On May 30, 2008, former assistant manager Jeannette Delgado
filed a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of all hourly
(i.e. non-exempt) employees of EPL in state court in Los Angeles
County alleging violations of certain California labor laws and
the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods and unfair business practices.  By statute, the
purported class extends back four years to May 30, 2004.

The plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

This lawsuit was served on the company in early September 2008
and discovery has begun, 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.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


HEALTH BENEFITS: Bid to Dismiss Former Employee's Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Health Benefits Direct Corp.'s motion to dismiss a national
class-action complaint filed by a former employee of the company
in the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Broward County, Case
No. 062008 CA 042798 XXX CE, remains pending.

On Aug. 28, 2008, the plaintiff filed the complaint alleging
that the company breached a contract with employees by failing
to provide certain commissions and/or bonuses.

The complaint also contains claims for an accounting and for
declaratory relief relating to the alleged compensation
agreement.

The plaintiff purports to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of current and former insurance sales agents.

The plaintiff seeks payment from the company of all commissions
allegedly owed to him and the putative class, triple damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which has
not yet been heard by the 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.

Radnor, Pennsylvania-based Health Benefits Direct Corp. --
http://www.healthbenefitsdirect.com/-- engages in the direct
marketing and distribution of health and life insurance
products.  The Company operates though two segments, Telesales
and Atiam.


HEALTH BENEFITS: Settlement of FLSA Suit Pending Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a putative collective action filed by a former
employee of Health Benefits Direct Corp. alleging a violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is pending court approval.

On Aug. 7, 2008, a former employee of the company filed a
putative collective action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, case no. 08-CV-61254-Ungaro-
Simonton, alleging that the company and a co-defendant, who is
an officer of Health Benefits, unlawfully failed to pay overtime
to its insurance sales agents in violation of the FLSA.

Plaintiff purported to bring claims on behalf of a class of
current and former insurance sales agents who were classified as
non-exempt by the company and compensated at an hourly rate,
plus commissions ("Agents").

On Oct. 16, 2008, the Court conditionally certified a collective
action under the FLSA covering all Agents who worked for the
company within the last three years.

Plaintiff and all Agents who opt to participate in the
collective action seek payment from the company of compensation
for all overtime hours worked at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, costs, and interest.

On March 2, 2009, the parties reached an agreement to settle
this case.  That settlement will be submitted to the Court for
necessary approval, 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.

Radnor, Pennsylvania-based Health Benefits Direct Corp. --
http://www.healthbenefitsdirect.com/-- engages in the direct
marketing and distribution of health and life insurance
products.  The Company operates though two segments, Telesales
and Atiam.


INFOSONICS CORP: Securities Settlement Set for April 23 Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 23, 2009 fairness hearing in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California has been set for the
settlement in the consolidated class-action lawsuit "In Re:
InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV
1231."

Six securities action complaints, originally filed between June
and July 2006, were consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp.
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14,
2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of the
U.S. Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in
connection with the company's restatement announced June 12,
2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements and
accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with
VK Corp.

The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecified
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified
relief.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint.  In April 2008, the Court
issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' dismissal motion.

In June 2008, the Court dismissed without prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of first
quarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claims
against a certain individual defendant (Class Action Reporter,
June 27, 2008).

On Aug. 8, 2008, prior to defendants filing a motion to dismiss
or other responsive pleading to the third amended consolidated
complaint, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to resolve the case.

On Oct. 17, 2008, the parties entered a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the Securities Settlement) of the case,
which provides the securities class action settlement is
contingent on preliminary and final Court approval (after
appropriate notice), as well as settlement of the derivative
action against the company, among other contingencies, and
provides for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice of
the lawsuit, releases of the defendants, and a payment by the
Company or its insurer of $3.8 million to plaintiffs (inclusive
of any plaintiffs' attorneys fees, to be determined by the
Court). It is anticipated that the settlement payment will be
funded entirely by the Company's insurer.

The Securities Settlement further provides that defendants deny
any liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no
admission of any wrongdoing.

On Oct. 30, 2008, the Court took under submission without oral
argument the request for an order preliminarily approving the
Securities Settlement.

On Jan. 20, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying the
class, preliminarily approving the Securities Settlement,
providing for notice to the class, and setting a fairness
hearing on April 23, 2009.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the company's insurer funded the full
settlement payment, 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 suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-201-9150
Fax: 310-201-9160
e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
Latham and Watkins
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101-3375
Phone: 619-236-1234
Fax: 619-696-7419


IPAYMENT INC: Bid for Review of "Bruns" Suit Dismissal Due May 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPayment Inc. has until May 4, 2009 to file a petition for
review with the California Supreme Court in the matter tagged
"Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange Inc., et al, Case No. 00CC02450,
Orange County Superior Court, State of California."

This matter arises from a lawsuit filed in February 2000, by
plaintiff Dana Bruns on her own behalf and on behalf of a
purported class of persons in California who, during the five
years prior to filing the lawsuit, allegedly received fax
transmissions from third-party defendant Fax.Com and its
advertisers, including the company's subsidiary E-Commerce
Exchange, Inc. ("ECX").

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants sent "fax
blast" transmissions to telephone facsimile machines in
violation of the provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 ("TCPA") and seeks relief under the TCPA and/or
under California's Unfair Competition Act, Business &
Professions Code and for negligence, including for injunctive
relief, damages and monetary relief, attorney's fees and costs
of suit and other relief deemed proper.

The suit is coordinated under the caption "TCPA Cases," Los
Angeles County Superior Court, State of California, Case No.
JCCO 43500.

ECX tendered this claim in early 2000, to Farmer's Insurance
under a policy then in effect that provides up to $2,000,000 for
"covered" claims and the claim defense.  In April 2000, Farmers
agreed, subject to a reservation of rights, to assume the
defense of ECX in this litigation and has paid all costs of
defense since April 2000.

In December 2006, ECX and other defendants filed a Motion for
Mandatory Dismissal of this lawsuit, based on the failure to
bring the case to trial within five years after the action
commenced (pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure).  The
Court granted and issued an Order and Opinion on May 14, 2007.
Notice of Entry of Final Judgment dismissing the litigation with
prejudice was filed on June 26, 2007.  On Aug. 30, 2007,
plaintiff timely filed her Notice of Appeal and on Feb. 22,
2008, the Court of Appeal filed plaintiff's opening brief, which
was served on ECX, and subsequently, during calendar year 2008,
the parties filed all required briefs with the Appellate Court.

On Dec. 8, 2008, oral argument was presented on behalf of ECX to
the Appellate Court panel assigned to the case.  On March 23,
2009, the Appellate Court issued its opinion, voting 2 to 1, in
favor of the plaintiff and reversing the Trial Court Notice of
Entry of Final Judgment, and dismissing the litigation with
prejudice.

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, at this time, iPayment is consulting with
its counsel to determine whether to file for either a petition
for rehearing with the Appellate Court or a petition for review
with the California Supreme Court.  It has until April 7, 2009
to file a petition for rehearing and until May 4, 2009 to file a
petition for review with the California Supreme Court.  The
company continues to believe that the claims asserted against it
in this lawsuit are without merit, and that the Trial Court
properly granted the Motion to Dismiss and entered Final
Judgment dismissing the litigation with prejudice.

IPayment Inc. -- http://www.ipaymentinc.com/-- based in
Nashville, Tennessee, is a provider of credit and debit card-
based payment processing services to small merchants.


IPAYMENT INC: June 4 Fairness Hearing Set for "Aguilard" Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A June 4, 2009 settlement fairness hearing date has been set in
the matter styled "Robert Aguilard, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly situated v. E-Commerce
Exchange, Inc., A-1 Leasing LLC, and Duvera Billing Services,
Civil Action No. 05CC02794."

E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. ("ECX") is a subsidiary of Ipayment
Inc.

The lawsuit was filed in the State of California, Superior Court
of Orange County, on behalf of 10 named plaintiffs and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, as a "class action" and, as
amended, names ECX and third parties, A-1 Leasing, Duvera,
Applied Merchant Systems, Inc., Vandalay Venture Group, Inc. and
Michael Lauria as named defendants.

The plaintiffs allege a single cause of action for "unfair
competition" (pursuant to California Business and Professions
Code Sections 17200) arising out of certain alleged marketing
activities related to the credit card processing services
offered by ECX to merchants that included a lease or purchase of
a "payment gateway" allegedly marketed by ECX under the names
"Quick Commerce" and "Wonderpay."

The Action seeks an order certifying it as a "class action, a
declaratory judgment, an injunction, and an accounting,
restitution, disgorgement of defendants profits from the "unfair
competition" activities, interest, attorney fees and costs of
suit.

A cross-complaint was also filed against ECX and AMS, by Duvera
in February 2007, asserting six causes of action, including
negligence, contractual and equitable indemnity, specific
performance and seeking declaratory relief and damages according
to proof.  A-1 also filed a separate cross-complaint against
AMS.

In September 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle
on proposed terms for the settlement of plaintiffs' claims
against defendants, including dismissals with prejudice.  The
parties then executed a Stipulation of Class Action Settlement,
dated Jan. 9, 2009, which set forth the material terms of the
settlement of plaintiffs' claims in the subject Litigation
against defendants.

The company and the other defendants, A-1, Duvera, AMS, and
Lauria, also entered into a separate Settlement Agreement and
Mutual General Release, dated as of Jan. 15, 2009, which sets
forth the settlement understandings and agreements between the
various defendants.  Under the Defendants Settlement Agreement,
the cross-complaint filed by Duvera against the company (ECX)
and AMS will be dismissed with prejudice, and iPayment and each
of the other defendants will fully and finally settle and
release each and all other defendants with respect to the claims
asserted or that could have been asserted against each other in
connection with the matters alleged by the plaintiffs in the
Action.  The Defendants Settlement Agreement understandings are
conditioned on the proposed settlement of plaintiffs' claims
against Defendants being completed.

On March 5, 2009, the court gave preliminary approval to the
terms and conditions of the proposed Class Settlement Agreement
and ordered that notice of the proposed Class Settlement
Agreement is required to be mailed by April 17, 2009.  June 4,
2009 is the date set for the fairness hearing, at which time the
court is to consider final approval of the Class Settlement
Agreement.  The proposed Class Settlement Agreement will not be
fully effective and binding unless and until the court grants
final.  The Class Settlement Agreement is not an admission of
liability by the defendants and this summary of the Class
Settlement Agreement does not purport to be complete and is
qualified in its entirety by the Class Settlement Agreement,
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.

IPayment Inc. -- http://www.ipaymentinc.com/-- based in
Nashville, Tennessee, is a provider of credit and debit card-
based payment processing services to small merchants.


KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Law Firms Named as Lead Counsel in Mo. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP were named lead counsel in a securities
class-action lawsuit against KV Pharmaceutical Co., as part of a
judge's order consolidating three separate class actions against
the drugmaker, Law360 reports.

In the same order, Judge Carol E. Jackson of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri also named the Public
Pension Fund Group as lead plaintiffs, according to the Law360
report.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Calif. Franchises Face Labor Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four former workers at McDonald's Corp. restaurants in Monterey
County filed a purported class-action lawsuit claiming that they
were underpaid, given inadequate time for meals and rest, and
were victims of other violations of state labor law.

The suit was filed on April 13, 2009 in Monterey County Superior
Court in California against a number of companies that run
McDonald's franchises in Monterey, Salinas, Marina, Seaside,
Pacific Grove and Sand City.

The suit says up to 750 employees at the restaurants may have
been affected by unlawful wage practices over the past four
years.


MCKESSON CORP: July 23 Hearing Set For "N.E. Carpenters I" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on July 23, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "New England Carpenters
Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First DataBank, Inc. and
McKesson Corporation, (Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-11148-PBS),"
which concerns the pricing of more than 450 brand-name drugs.

Previously, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on Jan. 23, 2009, granted preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement in the New England Carpenters I civil
action against McKesson Corp. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 4,
2009).

On Aug. 7, 2008, the court issued its order denying plaintiffs
motion to certify a class made up of uninsured consumers who
paid "usual and customary" prices for prescription drugs from
Aug. 1, 2001 through the present, although the court did so
"without prejudice" to the plaintiffs renewing their motion at a
future date based on new facts developed in ongoing discovery.

Expert discovery is ongoing, and in connection with those
proceedings plaintiffs have produced a report which claims total
damages through March 15, 2005, for the third party payor class
and the consumer percentage co-pay class of US$5.6 billion,
inclusive of prejudgment interest.

As a subset of this total, the plaintiffs' report claims damages
for the respective certified class periods scheduled for trial
of US$3.7 billion for the third party payor class, and US$150
million for the consumer percentage co-pay class, both amounts
inclusive of prejudgment interest.

The certified third party payor and percentage co-pay consumer
class claims are based on alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

On Nov. 21, 2008, the company announced in a filing on Form 8-K
that an agreement had been entered into to settle all private
party claims relating to First DataBank Inc.'s published drug
reimbursement benchmarks, commonly referred to as Average
Wholesale Price.  The settled private party claims include the
action filed against the company in the New England Carpenters I
civil action, including the class of uninsured consumers who
paid usual and customary prices for prescription drugs.

That settlement, which is subject to preliminary and final
approval by the U.S. District Court, provides for a release by
all class members of the Company as to all matters alleged, or
which could have been alleged, in these private party actions.
The consideration for the settlement is $350 million, payable
into a settlement escrow in installments following preliminary
and final approvals of the settlement.  As a result, during the
third quarter of 2009, the company recorded a $350 million pre-
tax charge for its AWP-related private party actions.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement but has not yet set a hearing date regarding
final approval of the settlement, according to the company's
Jan. 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          McKesson Settlement Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 24607
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-877-625-9414
          e-mail: info@McKessonAWPSettlement.com
          Web site: http://www.mckessonawpsettlement.com/


MOTOROLA INC: July 6 Hearing Set For Bluetooth Headset Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on July 6, 2009 on 1:30 p.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "Bluetooth Headset
Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:07-ml-01822-DSF-E,"
which names Motorola, Inc.; Plantronics, Inc.; and GN Netcom,
Inc./"Jabra" as defendants.

The hearing will be held before Judge Dale S. Fischer, Roybal
Federal Building, Courtroom 840, 255 East Temple St., Los
Angeles, CA 90012.

In 2006, Motorola faced several class-action complaints in
several states over allegations that it has put the hearing of
consumers at risk, since its Bluetooth headsets exceed safe
decibel levels and it failed to warn customers of the potential
dangers (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007).

The suits allege that Motorola's headsets have volume controls,
which produce sounds exceeding 85 decibels, with sound often
peaking in excess of 100 decibels.  It contends that without
resorting to scientific testing, the consumer cannot determine
the decibel level of the sound being emitted from the headset.

In a 2006 test performed by the American Speech-Hearing-Language
Association, Motorola's H700 model headset produced decibel
levels of up to 106 decibels (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20,
2006).

The suits pointed out that that someone can develop hearing loss
if they are exposed to such levels between three and four
minutes a day.

Though the company sold the headsets with a booklet containing
safety information, the suit alleges that it "omitted and
concealed [from consumers] any safety information pertaining to
the headsets' propensity for causing noise-induced hearing
loss."  The suits add that the company also omitted information
about the headsets' decibel level.

The suits claim that users are often forced to turn up the
volume on the devices, due to the background noise that comes in
through the users' non-Bluetooth-connected ear.

"By design," the suits allege that the company "put consumers at
risk of suffering serious hearing loss when the headsets are put
to their normal and intended use." It goes on to allege that
"millions of consumers have had their hearing put at risk by
Motorola's headsets."

The suits seek:

      -- an award of unspecified damages to the class;

      -- a temporary restraining order to keep Motorola from
         selling, marketing or advertising the headsets without
         a detailed warning regarding potential hearing loss;
         and

      -- other unspecified damages.

In February, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, ordered that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, the
actions pending outside the Central District of California are
transferred to the Central District of California and with the
consent of that Court, assigned to the Honorable Dale S. Fischer
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The multidistrict litigation consolidates dozens of cases
brought forth by plaintiffs alleging that the headsets cause
hearing loss and Motorola failed to warn consumers of that
danger.

The suit is "Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 2:07-ml-01822-DSF-E," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Dale S.
Fischer, with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stephen M. Garcia
          David Michael Medby
          Garcia Law Firm
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Phone: 562-216-5270
          562-216-5270
          E-mail: sgarcia@lawgarcia.com or dmedby@lawgarcia.com

Representing defendants are:

          Terrence J. Dee P.C.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          Aon Center
          200 East Randolph Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-6636
          Phone: (312) 861-2099
          Fax: (312) 861-2200

               - and -

          Michelle Inouye Schultz
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
          Phone: (213) 680-8489
          Fax: (213) 680-8500


NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Insurance faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
claiming it sold health policies that paid less than legal
amounts, The Seattle Times reports.

The suit alleges that the company sold policies "unfairly and
deceptively," and without permission from the state's insurance
commissioner's office, reports The Seattle Times.

The suit refers to fixed indemnity plans that capped health
coverage at a certain amount rather than using a percentage that
allows payments to increase if health bills rise.

"Even though you think you're covered, you're not," Joshua
Welter of the Washington Community Action Network told the
newspaper.

Often offered through employers, "I would suspect some, if not
most, employers are similarly duped," attorney Eleanor
Hamburger, Esq. of Sirianni Youtz Meier, the firm that filed the
suit told The Seattle Times.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Reaches $6M Settlement in "Michael Carr" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Co. reached a $6 million settlement
for the purported class-action lawsuit "Michael Carr v.
Nationwide Life Insurance Co.," The Associated Press reports.

On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC, a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc., was named in a class-action lawsuit filed with
the Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio entitled, "Michael
Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company" (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 2, 2009).

The plaintiff claims that the total of modal payments that
policyholders paid per year exceeded the guaranteed maximum
premium provided for in the policy.

The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and unjust enrichment.

It also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement of
all amounts in excess of the guaranteed maximum premium and
attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. The court certified a class consisting of all
residents of the United States and the Virgin Islands who,
during the class period, paid premiums on a modal basis to NLIC
for term life insurance policies issued by NLIC during the class
period that provide for guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding
certain specified products.

Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate of NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of
NLIC; and any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the State of
Ohio who may hear the case.

The class period is from Feb. 10, 1990 through Feb. 2, 2006, the
date the class was certified.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On April 30, 2007, NLIC filed a motion for summary judgment.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the Court entered its ruling on the parties'
pending motions for summary judgment.  The Court granted NLIC's
motion for summary judgment for some of the plaintiffs' causes
of action, including breach of contract claims on all decreasing
term policies, plaintiff Carr's individual claims for fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and all unjust enrichment claims.

On May 16, 2008, the parties filed their briefs on NLIC's motion
for summary judgment on the voluntary payment doctrine or, in
the alternative, decertification.

Additional briefs were filed on June 20, 2008.  NLIC continues
to defend the lawsuit, according to National Financial Services,
Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


PROVIDENCE SELECT: Securities Suits v. MF Global Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Providence Select Fund, Limited Partnership's futures commission
merchant, MF Global Inc., continues to face proposed class
action securities suits, 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 March 6, 2008, and thereafter, four virtually identical
proposed class action securities suits were filed against MF
Global Ltd., certain of its officers and directors, and Man
Group plc.

The complaints allege that the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with MF Global Ltd.'s initial
public offering in July 2007, were materially false and
misleading to the extent that representations were made
regarding the company's risk management policies, procedures and
systems.

The allegations are based upon the company's disclosure of
$141.5 million in trading losses incurred in a single day by an
associated person in his personal trading account, which losses
the company was responsible to pay as an exchange clearing
member.

Providence Select Fund, Limited Partnership is engaged in the
business of speculative and high risk trade of commodity futures
and options selected by of one or more commodity trading
advisors pursuant to the terms of a Limited Partnership
Agreement.  From inception to June 2, 2008, NuWave Investment
Corp. was the sole commodity trading advisor of the Fund, after
which time a power of attorney was granted to Clarke Capital
Management, Inc. to serve as sole trading advisor.


QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Faces Title IX Lawsuit in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
     Players and the coach of the Quinnipiac University (QU)
volleyball team filed a lawsuit against QU, charging that the
school has failed to provide female students with equal
opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics
in clear violation of Title IX.  The legal complaint submitted
by the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut (ACLU-CT),
came after QU's historic failure to comply with Title IX was
exacerbated by it's recent decision to eliminate women's varsity
volleyball.

     "Title IX was enacted over 30 years ago and makes clear
that denying women equal access to athletics is a violation of
their civil rights. One only has to look at the impressive
performance of the University Connecticut women's basketball
team to appreciate the positive impact of title IX," said Andrew
Schneider, Executive Director of the ACLU-CT.  "We understand
these are tough economic times, but Quinnipiac shouldn't be
unfairly balancing their budget on the backs of women who are
already being discriminated against."

     The complaint asserts that QU has long offered male
students proportionately more opportunities than female students
to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics.  As
reported by QU, female students have only been afforded about
half of athletic participation opportunities, despite the fact
that women make up a larger percentage of the student body.

     On March 27, 2009, the ACLU-CT sent a letter to QU
President, John Lahey, requesting a dialog about continuation of
the volleyball program.  The letter highlighted QU's
shortcomings in Title IX compliance, "According to its own EADA
[Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act] reports the University
historically has had a female enrollment of around 62% but had a
female athletic participation rate of only 50%.  Given the
discrepancies between the University's EADA reports and its team
rosters, the actual numbers are likely even more disparate."

     The complaint requests the court block QU from cutting the
program while the issue is litigated.

     Women athletes on the QU volleyball team and incoming
students who committed to playing volleyball for QU this fall
have had their lives thrown into uncertainty.  In committing to
QU the new recruits closed the door to other university
admissions, financial aid, and scholarship opportunities.
Current players must decide whether to stay at QU, hoping the
team will survive, and risk not playing volleyball at the
collegiate level, or attempt to find a comparable program which
meets their academic and athletic needs. Given the late decision
by QU their options for playing next fall at another institution
are severely limited.

     "All Quinnipiac University students would benefit if
Quinnipiac stopped discriminating in its athletic program and
began offering female students the opportunities required by
Title IX," said Jon Orleans cooperating counsel for the ACLU-CT
from Pullman & Comley, LLC.  Kristen Galles of Equity Legal is
also serving as cooperating counsel on the case.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3b92

For more details, contact:

          Patrick Doyle (pdoyle@acluct.org)
          Phone: (860) 523-9146 x213

               - and -

          Andrew Schneider (aschneider@acluct.org)
          (860) 523-9146 x 219


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Settles in California Discrimination Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group and affiliated firms agreed to pay up
to $450,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the U.S
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Los Angeles that
alleges employees of the firms' nursing homes were directed not
to speak Spanish, The Los Angeles Times reports.

The lawsuit contended that the firms imposed an English-only
rule on Hispanic workers but not workers who spoke other
languages, such as Tagalog, according to The Los Angeles Times
report.

Under the settlement, Skilled Healthcare will pay $180,000 to 53
plaintiffs in the suit and offer English classes to them.  If
they complete the classes, they will be eligible to receive an
additional $2,500 each, The Los Angeles Times reported.

In addition, the firm told The Los Angeles Times that it would
provide anti-discrimination training at its facilities and hire
someone to monitor its compliance with the federal anti-
discrimination law.


TELEGRAM & GAZETTE: Seeks Dismissal of Newspaper Carriers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram & Gazette is seeking for the dismissal of a class-
action lawsuit in Massachusetts, claiming that the newspaper
broke state labor laws by classifying newspaper carriers as
independent contractors rather than employees, Lisa Eckelbecker
of The Telegram & Gazette.

The lawsuit, filed in January in Worcester Superior Court, seeks
unspecified damages for a class that may number several hundred
people, according to attorney James M. Galliher, Esq., who is
representing the former and current newspaper carriers,
according to The Telegram & Gazette report.

The plaintiffs in the case are Thomas G. Driscoll Jr., Arthur
Pace, Lyssa Boudreau and Neal Arsenault, all of whom are
identified as Worcester County residents and current or former
adult newspaper carriers, The Telegram & Gazette reported.

In a motion filed on April 16, 2009, the newspaper filed a
motion asking the court to dismiss the case, arguing that most
of the claims fail on legal grounds and that Mr. Driscoll's
claims come too late and are barred by the statute of
limitations.  The plaintiffs filed a motion opposing dismissal
and have asked for a hearing, reports The Telegram & Gazette.

For more details, contact:

          James M. Galliher, Esq.
          Bonville & Howard
          154 Prichard Street
          Fitchburg, Massachusetts 01420
          Phone: 1 (978) 345-4144 or 1 800 649-3500
          Fax: 1 (978) 345-2261
          Web site: http://www.bonvillelaw.com/


VENEZUELA: Freedom Watch Files Fla. Suit v. Government Officials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Watch a nonprofit group that advocates for ethics in
government filed for a purported class-action lawsuit against
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for alleged acts of terrorism
and human rights violations, including conspiring with Colombian
guerrillas, al-Qaida and the Taliban, The Associated Press
reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 15, 2009 on behalf of Venezuelan
journalist Ricardo Guanipa, according to the AP report.

Captioned, "Guanipa et al v. Chavez et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-
20999," the suit also listed as defendants, Nicolas Maduro
Moros, Tarek El Assaimi, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, Hugo Carvajal
Barrios, Henry Rangel Silva, and Venezuelan Vice-President Ramon
Alonso Carriale Rengifo.

According to the complaint, Mr. Guanipa worked for Radio Marti
in Venezuela and received death threats after investigating
government corruption.  Radio Marti is the U.S. government's
broadcast to Cuba, with the stated goal of providing an
alternative to the communist island's government-run media.  Mr.
Guanipa fled Venezuela and received political asylum in the U.S.
in 2005.  He now lives in Miami, reported The Associated Press.

The Associated Press reported that Freedom Watch is seeking
class-action status for the case in order to include other
individuals whom it alleges were also forced to flee Venezuela.


VETERANS AFFAIRS: July 28 Hearing Set for $20M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hold a
fairness hearing on July 28, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed
$20,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re: Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Data Theft Litigation, MDL No. 1796."

A notification program began in late March 2009, as ordered by
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to alert
veterans, spouses of veterans, and members of the military of a
proposed $20 million settlement reached with the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs and certain Department employees in their
official capacities in a class-action lawsuit about the theft of
computer equipment which was reported to contain personal
information (Class Action Reporter, March 25, 2009).

On May 3, 2006, computer equipment which was reported to contain
personal information of military veterans, spouses of veterans,
and military personnel, was stolen from the home of an employee
of Veterans Affairs.  The equipment was reported to contain
information such as names, social security numbers, and dates of
birth for up to 17.5 million individuals, as well as some
disability ratings.  The data did not include any health records
or financial information.  The computer equipment was later
recovered on June 28, 2006 by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, whose review of the equipment indicated that the
data had not been accessed.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Defendants violated federal law by not properly securing the
information.  The Defendants deny that they did anything wrong
and the settlement does not mean that any law was violated.

The Class includes all veterans, spouses of veterans, and
military personnel who had actual damages from May 3, 2006
through February 11, 2009 that were directly related to the
theft of computer equipment which was reported to contain
personal information from the home of a VA employee on May 3,
2006.  The Class also includes all representatives, heirs,
administrators, executors, beneficiaries, agents, and assigns of
Class Members.  Actual damages include out-of-pocket expenses
incurred as a direct result of the theft, including those that
were: used to protect or monitor personal or financial
information; or the result of physical symptoms of severe
emotional distress.  Out-of-pocket expenses may include, for
example, the purchase of credit monitoring to protect against
identity loss.  Any money remaining in the Settlement Fund after
paying Class Members, lawyers' fees, costs, and expenses will be
donated to the Fisher House Foundation, Inc. and The Intrepid
Fallen Heroes Fund, both veterans-related charities.

Notices informing Class Members about their legal rights are
scheduled to appear in consumer and military publications in the
United States leading up to a hearing on July 28, 2009, when the
Court will consider whether to grant final approval to the
settlement.

The Court has appointed John Murdock and Jeffrey Goldenberg,
Murdock, Goldenberg, Schneider & Groh, L.P.A. of Cincinnati,
Ohio; Douglas Rosinski and Donald Cockrill, Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. of Columbia, South Carolina; Marc
Mezibov, The Law Offices of Marc Mezibov of Cincinnati, Ohio;
Gary E. Mason, The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P. of Washington,
District of Columbia; and Mark Smilow, Weiss & Lurie of New
York, New York as Class Counsel to represent the Class.

Those affected by this settlement can send in a claim form to
ask for a payment, or they can ask to be excluded from, or
object to, the settlement and its terms. The deadline for
exclusions and objections is June 29, 2009. The deadline to file
a claim is November 27, 2009.

A toll-free number, 1-888-288-9625, has been established in the
case (called In Re: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Data
Theft Litigation, MDL No. 1796), along with a website,
http://www.VeteransClass.com,where notices, a claim form, and
the settlement agreement may be obtained.  Those affected may
also write to VA Settlement, PO Box 6727, Portland, OR 97228-
6727.


WELLS REAL: Certification Bid in Securities Suit Pending in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification in the matter, "In Re Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case
No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," is pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., is now known as
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a purported class action
and derivative complaint, "Washtenaw County Employees Retirement
System v. Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al.,"
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III and
Wells Capital, the General Partners; Wells Management, the
company's property manager; certain affiliates of WREF; the
directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly
served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of 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 contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

On April 9, 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the Internalization transaction.  On April 17,
the court granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
and the case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on
April 24.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate
the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, which contains
the same counts as the original complaint, with amended factual
allegations based primarily on events occurring subsequent to
the original complaint and the addition of a Wells REIT officer
as an individual defendant.

On July 9, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery related to an anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
Court dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended
complaint in their entirety.  The Court dismissed the remaining
two counts with the exception of allegations regarding the
failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT proxy statement details
of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.  The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the
internalization transaction.  On May 12, 2008, the defendants
answered and raised defenses to the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The defendants responded to the plaintiff's
motion for class certification on Jan. 16, 2009.  The plaintiff
filed its reply in support of its motions for class
certification on Feb. 19, 2009.

The parties are presently engaged in discovery, 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 suit is "In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         One Haverford Centre
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq. (mcates@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc. (HPY) between February 13, 2008 and February 23,
2009, inclusive.

     The lawsuit 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 lawsuit 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, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose:

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

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

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

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

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

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

     On January 20, 2009, 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 debt 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 30.12%, 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 80%, from its Class Period high of $27.19 per
share on September 19, 2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 5, 2009.




                            *********

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  * * *