CAR_Public/090421.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 21, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 77

                           Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Certification of Ross Suit Applied March 24
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Faces Remaining Claims in Labor Suit
AEROFLUX INC: June 30 Hearing Set for Shareholders' Suit Deal
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suits Over July 23 Oil Spill Pending in La.
BJ'S WHOLESALE: "Caissie" Suit for Overtime Compensation Pending

BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Has Yet to Issue Written Ruling
COMPREHENSIVE CARE: $325,000 Award in Merger Suits Paid in Jan.
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces FLSA Violations Litigation in New Jersey
GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations
GENERAL MOTORS: Calif. Court Approves Saturn VTi Suit Settlement

IMAGINASIAN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
NEW MOTION: Disputing Allegations Over Marketing Practices
PARK WEST: Faces Mich. Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Sales of Artwork
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Pursuing Bid to Add Individuals Into Deal
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Labor-Related Suit Still in Discovery Stage

SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in South Dakota
SMITH & NEPHEW: Discrimination Claims v. Unit Settled in 2008
TICKETRESERVE INC: Faces Customers' Lawsuit Over NFL Tickets
TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
UNITED RENTALS: Amended Complaint in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit

VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Suit v. VRM I Set for June Trial
VESTIN REALTY: June Trial Set for Contract Breach Suit v. VRM II
WALGREEN CO: Plumbers and Steamfitters' Suit Pending in Illinois


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COACH INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Litigation
DEUTSCHE BANK: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Suit Filing
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Announces Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Certification of Ross Suit Applied March 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification motion in a consolidated securities fraud
suit against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. was submitted on March 24,
2009, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, on behalf of a purported class of all persons
who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the
company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005.

The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et
al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as
defendants the company's officers.

In September and October of 2005, five other purported class-
action suits were filed against the company and other defendants
with the same court.

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class-actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was
filed on Aug. 14, 2006.  On Oct. 13, 2006, all the defendants
moved to dismiss that complaint.

On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss.  On
Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the
material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their
purported class.  After briefings and argument, the motion was
submitted on March 24, 2009.

The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00819-EAS-TPK)," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Edmund A. Sargus presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         (kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com)
         Maguire & Schneider
         250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip Albert Brown, Esq. (pabrown@vssp.com)
         Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease
         52 East Gay Street
         Columbus, OH 43216-1008
         Phone: 614-464-6400
         Fax: 614-464-6400

         Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq. (rsugarman@keglerbrown.com)
         Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter
         65 E State Street, Suite 1800
         Columbus, OH 43215-4294
         Phone: 614-462-5400
         Fax: 614-462-5422

              - and -

         Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq. (mrs@mcnamaralaw.us)
         McNamara and McNamara
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-228-6131


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Faces Remaining Claims in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. are
continuing to litigate the remaining claims in a class-action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, according to the company's March 27, 2009
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed by Lisa Hashimoto on June 23, 2006.  She,
along with several other plaintiffs, alleged on behalf of a
putative class of California store managers employed in
Hollister and Abercrombie stores that they were entitled to
receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California
wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21,
2006.  The parties engaged in discovery.

On Dec. 10, 2007, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle certain claims
in the action.

The agreement resulted in a written Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement, effective as of Feb. 7, 2008, settling all claims of
Hollister and Abercrombie store managers who served in the
stores from June 23, 2002, to April 30, 2004 (Class Action
Reporter, June 30, 2008).

On June 23, 2008, the Superior Court approved that proposed
partial settlement.  The partial settlement does not affect
claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing
on April 30, 2004.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


AEROFLUX INC: June 30 Hearing Set for Shareholders' Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court in the State of New York, County of Nassau
will hold a fairness hearing at 11:00 a.m. on June 30, 2009 for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re: Aeroflex, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation (Index No. 003943/2007)."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Justice Ira B.
Warshawsky in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Nassau, IAS Part 12, 100 Supreme Court Drive, Mineola, New
York 11501.

In March 2007, four separate plaintiffs filed putative class-
action lawsuits in the Supreme Court, State of New York, County
of Nassau concerning the proposed acquisition of the Company by
entities directly and indirectly owned by an investment group
consisting of investment entities affiliated with General
Atlantic LLC and Francisco Partners II, L.P. pursuant to a
merger agreement dated March 2, 2007.

The plaintiffs have since moved to consolidate the four putative
class actions.  They seek, among other things, an order of the
court that would prevent the consummation of the merger and
direct defendants to obtain a transaction in the best interest
of the shareholders.

On April 23, 2007, plaintiff Jack Trugman filed an amended
putative class action complaint, generally alleging that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving
a transaction that benefits themselves, to the detriment of the
Company's stockholders, and that the Company, General Atlantic
LLC and Francisco Partners II, L.P. aided and abetted the
directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

On the same day, defendants:

      -- moved to dismiss Mr. Trugman's amended complaint for
         failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
         granted, and

      -- filed their opposition to Mr. Trugman's application for
         expedited discovery.

On May 3, 2007, the Court denied Mr. Trugman's application for
expedited discovery.  A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss
has been set for May 10, 2007.

By order entered May 10, 2007, the Court consolidated the four
shareholder actions pending in Nassau County under the case
name, "In re: Aeroflex Shareholders Litigation, Case No. 07-
003943."

On that same day, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
-action complaint in the consolidated case and requested a
conference with the Court to schedule a hearing for a
prospective motion to enjoin the special meeting of stockholders
of the Company to be held on May 30, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the Court set a hearing date of May 24, 2007.
The Court also stayed discovery by plaintiffs until further
order of the Court, according to the company's May 15, 2007 Form
8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

For more details, contact:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
         Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suits Over July 23 Oil Spill Pending in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Commercial Lines, Inc., is facing several purported
class-action lawsuits over an incident at the Mississippi River
that resulted in an oil discharge, according to the company's
March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company has been notified that it has been named as a
defendant in the following class action lawsuits, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana against the company and American Commercial Lines LLC
(ACLLLC), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the company:

       * "Austin Sicard et al. on behalf of themselves and
         others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime
         (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D.
         Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc.
         and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots
         Association, Case No. 08-4012," filed on July 24,
         2008;

       * "Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on
         behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs.
         Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co.
         Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American
         Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge
         Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007," filed
         on July 24, 2008;

       * "George C. McGee, and Sherral Irvin, and all others
         similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.,
         Whitefin Shipping Co., Ltd., DRD Towing Co, LLC,
         American Commercial Lines, LLC and New Orleans Baton
         Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4025,"
         filed on July 25, 2008;

       * "Bernadette Glover, on behalf of herself and all
         others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime
         (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, DRD
         Towing Company, LLC, and American Commercial Lines,
         Inc., Case No. 08-4031," filed on July 25, 2008;

       * "James Roussell, Daniel Hingle, and Prince Seals on
         behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
         vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping
         Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American
         Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge
         Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4058," filed
         on July 29, 2008;

       * "James Joseph, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.,
         Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company,
         LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New
         Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case
         No. 08-4059," filed on July 29, 2008;

       * "Jefferson Magee and Acy J. Cooper, Jr. vs. American
         Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co., LLC, M/V Mel
         Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping
         Co. Ltd. and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4055,"
         filed on July 29, 2008;

       * "Vincent Grillo and Anthony Buffinet vs. American
         Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co., LLC, M/V Mel
         Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping
         Co. Ltd. and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4060,"
         filed on July 29, 2008;

       * "Donetta Cheramie vs. American Commercial Lines, Inc.,
         D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, M/V Mel Oliver in rem, M/V
         Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd. And Laurin
         Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4317," filed on Aug. 29, 2008;
         and

       * "Tri Native Contractors, Inc., Russell Easley d/b/a K
         and R Pipeline Services and Brandon Cavallier v.
         American Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co. LLC, M/
         V Mel Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin
         Shipping Co. Ltd., and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No.
         08-4505," filed on Sept. 30, 2008.

These claims stem from the incident on July 23, 2008, involving
one of ACLLLC's tank barges that was being towed by DRD Towing
Company, L.L.C., an independent towing contractor.

The tank barge was involved in a collision with the motor vessel
Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the
Mississippi River in the New Orleans area.  It was carrying
approximately 9,900 barrels of # 6 oil.  The tank barge was
damaged in the collision and partially sunk, while there was no
damage to the towboat.  There were no injuries reported to the
crews of either vessel in the incident.

The Timtomara incurred minor damage.  The amount of oil
discharged from the barge is unknown at this time.

The actions include various allegations of adverse health and
psychological damages, destruction and loss of use of natural
resources, and seek unspecified economic and compensatory
damages for claims of negligence, strict liability, trespass,
nuisance, and claims under Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

American Commercial Lines, Inc. -- http://www.aclines.com/-- is
a marine transportation and service company.  ACL provides barge
transportation and related services, and manufactures barges,
towboats and other vessels, including ocean-going liquid tank
barges.  Barge transportation accounts for the majority of the
Company's revenues, and includes the movement of grain, coal,
steel, liquids and other bulk products in the U.S.  ACL operates
in two primary business segments: transportation and
manufacturing.  ACL's transportation segment includes barge
transportation operations in North America, and domestic
fleeting facilities that provide fleeting, shifting, cleaning
and repair services at various locations along the inland
waterways.  The manufacturing segment constructs marine
equipment for external customers, as well as for the company's
transportation segment.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: "Caissie" Suit for Overtime Compensation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action complaint styled, "Caissie v. BJ's
Wholesale Club, Inc., Case No. 3:08cv30220," is pending,
according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

In November 2008, BJ's was sued in federal court in
Massachusetts in a purported class action brought on behalf of
"current and former department and other assistant managers," in
which plaintiffs principally alleged that they have not been
compensated for overtime work as required under federal and
Massachusetts law.

The Complaint seeks unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and
benefits; liquidated, consequential, punitive and multiple
damages; interest, costs, and attorneys fees; as well as various
forms of equitable relief.

BJ's filed its answer to the Complaint on Feb. 25, 2009.

BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. -- http://www.bjs.com/-- is a
warehouse club operator in the eastern United States.  BJ's
revenues are derived from the sale of a range of food and
general merchandise items, the sale of gasoline and from
membership fees.


BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Has Yet to Issue Written Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to provide Bodisen Biotech, Inc. the written decision
granting the company's initial motion to dismiss in relation to
a consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against it and its
management

In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight
purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and certain of
its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.

The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations
about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal
controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York
Global Group.

The eight actions are:

      1. "Stephanie Tabor v. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13220 (filed November 2006),"

      2. "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13254 (filed November 2006),"

      3. "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13454 (filed November 2006),"

      4. "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         13567 (filed November 2006),"

      5. "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13739 (filed December 2006),"

      6. "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006),"

      7. "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         15179 (filed December 2006)," and

      8. "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No.
         06-15399 (filed December 2006)."

The plaintiffs have not specified an amount of damages they
seek.  In 2007, the Court consolidated each of the actions into
a single proceeding.

In October 2008, the New York Federal Court presiding over the
eight consolidated class-action lawsuits against Bodisen and its
management granted the Company's initial motion to dismiss the
cases.

In addition, the court has notified Bodisen that it also granted
the Company's second motion to dismiss, which challenged the
subject matter jurisdiction of the court over about 40% of the
class and thus sought to reduce the number of potential class
plaintiffs significantly.

The court has not provided the company this written decision,
however, Bodisen Biotech hopes to receive it soon, according to
the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
         The Rosen Law Firm, PA
         Phone: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Judd Burstein, Esq. (jburstein@burlaw.com)
         Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P.
         1790 Broadway
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 974-2400
         Fax: 212-974-2944


COMPREHENSIVE CARE: $325,000 Award in Merger Suits Paid in Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The $325,000 award to the plaintiffs' counsel involved in class-
action suits that were filed against Comprehensive Care Corp. in
connection with the company's now mutually terminated Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Hythiam, Inc., was paid in January 2009.

Initially, the company and nine current and former board members
were named as defendants in two class action complaints filed by
two shareholders on Jan. 23, 2007, and Feb. 1, 2007,
respectively.

In the similar complaints, filed in the Chancery Court of
Delaware, the plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive and other
equitable relief to prevent Hythiam from acquiring 49.95% of the
company's outstanding common shares that it does not currently
own (either directly or through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Healthcare Investment Partners, LLP [Woodcliff]) from the
remaining minority shareholders.

The plaintiffs allege that the consideration proposed to the
minority shareholders by Hythiam is inadequate, through coercive
means, without fair process and through material misleading
information.

On May 25, 2007, the parties mutually terminated the Agreement
and Plan of Merger.  The plaintiffs' counsel has acknowledged
that the lawsuits are now moot and has agreed to dismiss them.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their
case without prejudice, with the court reserving jurisdiction
for their fee application.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the company requested that the court dismiss
the case with prejudice, and not allow legal fees to be awarded
to the plaintiffs' counsel.

On June 19, 2008, the Chancery Court awarded $325,000 in fees
and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel.

The award was paid in January 2009, from funds provided by a
claim against the company's directors' and officers' insurance
policy, according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Comprehensive Care Corp. -- http://www.compcare.com/--
primarily through its wholly owned subsidiary, Comprehensive
Behavioral Care, Inc., provides managed care services in the
behavioral health and psychiatric fields.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces FLSA Violations Litigation in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A franchise of Domino's Pizza, Inc. at 60 Main St., in the
borough, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit by two New
York City men who are claiming that it violated state and
federal wage laws by failing to pay them overtime, Ken Serrano
of mycentraljersey.com reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 8, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey by Ping Chen and Jian Yang under
the caption, "Chen et al v. Domino's Pizza, Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:2009-cv-00107."   Aside from Domino's Pizza, other
defendants named in the suit are: Domino's Pizza, LLC, A Slice
Above The Rest, Inc., A Slice Above The Pie, Inc., Dunka Slice,
Inc., Marci Hawkins, Yoke Lan Lee, and John Doe.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs worked from 60 to 70 hours
a week and were paid from $350 to $400, plus tips for the work
week.  The work entailed delivering and making pizzas,
buffalo wings and sauces, folding pizza boxes, working in the
stock room, taking orders over the phone, and cleaning the
kitchen and restroom at the business, the suit states.

The suit alleges that employees told both men at times to punch
in several hours after they started work.  It generally alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"They were not paid minimum wage, they were not paid overtime
and illegal deductions were taken from their pay," Darnley
Stewart, Esq. of New York, one of the attorneys for the men
tells mycentraljersey.com.

The men are seeking unpaid overtime and money for the cost of
maintaining their cars and purchasing and cleaning their
uniforms.


GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Gap, Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits in which
plaintiffs allege that the company violated federal and state
wage and hour and other laws.

The plaintiffs in some actions seek unspecified damages or
injunctive relief, or both.

These actions are in various procedural stages, and some are
covered in part by insurance.

No specific details regarding the pending lawsuits were
disclosed in the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

The Gap, Inc. -- http://www.gapinc.com/-- is a global specialty
retailer offering clothing, accessories and personal care
products for men, women, children and babies under the Gap, Old
Navy, Banana Republic, Piperlime and Athleta brands.  The
company operates stores in the United States, Canada, the United
Kingdom, France, Ireland and Japan.  It also has franchise
agreements with unaffiliated franchisees to operate Gap and
Banana Republic stores in many other countries worldwide.


GENERAL MOTORS: Calif. Court Approves Saturn VTi Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California, on April 16, 2009, granted final approval of a
settlement in a class-action lawsuit against General Motors
(Cause No. 07-CV-02142).  The lawsuit alleged that Saturn VTi
transmissions were defective.

     "This settlement offers more relief to class members, in
terms of dollars per person, than any other class action
settlement that this firm knows of," said Rob Schmieder, head of
the complex-litigation department at LakinChapman, LLC.

     The class consists of all persons who are residents of the
United States and who purchased a new or used 2002, 2003, 2004
or 2005 model year Saturn VUE or 2003 or 2004 model year Saturn
ION equipped with a continuously variable VTi transmission.
Certain automobile dealers and people who sued GM seeking
damages for alleged personal injury or property damage in
connection with a VTi transmission are excluded from the class.

     "Saturn Vue and Ion owners can rejoice," said Brad Lakin,
Managing Partner of LakinChapman LLC.  "This is a tremendous
settlement that provides Class Members, amongst other relief,
the ability to get reimbursed thousands of dollars, in most
cases, for out-of-pocket expenses incurred to replace their
transmission," Lakin said.

     The benefits available to Class Members offer reimbursement
for past and future expenses.

     Settlement benefits include:

       -- reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses relating to
          the previous repair, replacement, or inspection of Vti
          transmissions,

       -- reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses based on a
          previous trade-in of a Class Vehicle with VTi
          transmission failure; and

       -- reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses relating to
          the future repair, replacement, or inspection of Vti
          transmissions.

     To be reimbursable, the expense must be incurred within
125,000 miles of the original retail sale or lease of the
vehicle and within certain time limitations.

     One Hurricane Katrina survivor and class member, Joy Boggi
of Louisiana said, "At the time I needed to pay to replace the
VTi transmission in my 2004 Saturn Vue, I was just getting my
head above water from the financial status I was in from
Hurricane Katrina.  Once I was told it would cost me over $4,500
to replace the transmission, I felt financially drained and
emotionally spent.  There were times I would just cry about the
financial and emotional distress I was under due to money needed
to replace the transmission.  The settlement provides great
financial relief, and I am ecstatic about the settlement."  Ms.
Boggi and thousands of other Saturn Vue and ION owners will get
reimbursed for transmission replacements and other benefits
under the settlement.

For more details, contact:

          Bradley M. Lakin
          Wood River, Illinois
          Phone: (618) 208-4240 or (866) 839-2021
          Fax: (618) 254-0193
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/


IMAGINASIAN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imaginasian Entertainment, Inc. faces a purported class-action
lawsuit in New York, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Anime News Network reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 9, 2009 in he U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under the caption, "Cha et al
v. Imaginasian Entertainment, Inc et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-
01120."

It was filed by 10 employees laid off by the company in late
2008.  The employees are: Jumi S. Cha, Tricia Lee, Daniel
DeLorenzo, Calene Chun, Jasmine Jiamin Chen, Cyril Vladamir
Chapateu, Carmelo Tino Calabria, Gregory Chang, James Paul
Matison, and Mariko Zervos.

The plaintiffs are alleging that they were not paid up to four
months' worth of back pay.  Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, the former employees are seeking US$250,000 in unpaid
wages, a figure that may grow if additional plaintiffs join the
suit.  Nearly all of the plaintiffs were laid off between
October and December of 2008, when the company shed over 75% of
its workforce, according to the ANN report.

The suit names ImaginAsian Entertainment and three key
shareholders in the company, namely Augustine Hong, Adam Ware,
and J. Edward Lee, as defendants.  Troy Kessler, Esq., the
plantiffs' Long Island-based attorney, tells ANN that
shareholders are personally responsible for employee pay under
New York state and federal law.


NEW MOTION: Disputing Allegations Over Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Motion, Inc. is disputing allegations concerning the
company's marketing practices associated with some of its
services billed and delivered via wireless carriers.

The company is named in two class action lawsuits, in Florida
and California, involving these allegations.

In one of these matters, the company has received a Summary
Judgment on its Motion to Dismiss related to a number of the
allegations made in the original complaint.

The company has accrued for the related costs through purchase
accounting in the amount of $0.275 million in connection with
these matters, according to the company's March 26, 2009 Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

New York-based New Motion, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/--
doing business as Atrinsic, Inc., is a digital advertising and
entertainment network in the United States.  Atrinsic is
organized around two divisions: Networks, which offers service
online marketing and distribution, and Entertainment that offers
its content direct to users.


PARK WEST: Faces Mich. Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Sales of Artwork
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park West Gallery, Inc. is facing a purported class-action suit
that accuses it of dealing in fraudulent sales of artwork aboard
cruise ships and violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Mike Martindale of The Detroit News reports.

The lawsuit was filed on April 13, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Joseph Bohm and
John Lee of New York state, against Park West Gallery of
Southfield, PWG Florida, Vista Fine Art/Park West at Sea, Park
West CEO Albert Scaglione and "1-100 John Does" employed as
auctioneers.  Captioned, "Bohm et al v. Park West Gallery,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-11392," it was filed by
attorney E. Powell Miller, Esq.

Messrs. Bohm and Lee allege they bought $25,000 in artwork from
Park West on Caribbean cruises in 2002 and 2004.  In 2008, the
pair said they contacted 40 galleries to try to resell the art
but no one responded.  The lawsuit alleges the amount in
controversy likely exceeds $5 million and a class in excess of
100 people, according to The Detroit News reports.

The lawsuit claims the auctions are part of racketeering
activity in which participants engage in a fraudulent scheme to
auction "low-value, forged or worthless artwork" and sell
"phony" appraisals to support the value of the art, The Detroit
News reported.

The gallery has been in business for 40 years and has held
auctions on eight cruise lines and 80 ships, featuring works of
Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso and Rembrandt, according to the
lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by The Detroit News.


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Pursuing Bid to Add Individuals Into Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc.'s motion requesting a California court
to include certain individuals in the $7.5-million settlement of
a class-action lawsuit against the company that relates to how
the company classified certain employees under California
overtime laws is still pending.

Initially, in 2001, two similar class-action lawsuits were filed
against the company.  These lawsuits were consolidated into one
action.

The consolidated action involves the issue of whether current
and former employees in the general manager and assistant
manager positions who worked in the company's California
restaurants during specified time periods were misclassified as
exempt and deprived of overtime pay.  It also asserts claims for
alleged missed meal and rest breaks.

In addition to unpaid overtime, these cases seek to recover
waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees
that these former employees purport to represent.

On March 19, 2007, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the class action representatives to settle the
matter.

Although the company denies the allegations underlying the
consolidated action, it has agreed to the proposed settlement to
avoid significant legal fees, other expenses and management time
that would have to be devoted to pursue a victory in litigation.

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and
court approval, provides for a settlement payment of $7.5
million in the aggregate (including attorneys' fees and costs,
fees for administering the settlement and any employer taxes).

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
March 23, 2007.  The settlement agreement was then approved on a
final basis by the court in June 2007.

The total settlement amount is payable in three installments.
The first $2.5 million installment was paid on Aug. 31, 2007.
The second $2.5 million installment is due on or before Dec. 28,
2008.  The third and final installment of $2.5 million is due on
or before June 28, 2010.

The company recently learned that approximately 160 current and
former employees who qualified to participate as class members
in this class action settlement were not included in the
settlement list approved by the court, and some number of these
individuals may file claims to participate in the class action.

It has filed a motion requesting the court to include these
individuals in the approved settlement and to provide that their
claims are payable out of the aggregate settlement payment, as
the company believes the parties intended when they reached a
settlement.  The matter has not yet been resolved, according to
the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 28, 2008.

Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns,
operates and franchises restaurants.  As of March 25, 2008, the
company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants,
three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that
offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and
fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas
inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico.  The company
has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of
Nevada, Inc., and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc.  Its restaurants
are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah.
The company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kid's
Meals.


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Labor-Related Suit Still in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit in a California state court,
alleging that Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. failed to provide former
employees with certain meal and rest period breaks and overtime
pay is still in the pre-class certification discovery stage.

The lawsuit was filed on March 24, 2005, by a former employee of
the company.  The parties moved the matter into arbitration, and
the former employee amended the complaint to claim that he
represents a class of potential plaintiffs.

The amended complaint alleges that current and former shift
leaders who worked in the company's California restaurants
during specified time periods worked off the clock and missed
meal and rest breaks.

This case is still in the pre-class certification discovery
stage, and no class has been certified, according to the
company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 28, 2008.

Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns,
operates and franchises restaurants.  As of March 25, 2008, the
company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants,
three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that
offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and
fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas
inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico.  The company
has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of
Nevada, Inc., and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc.  Its restaurants
are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah.
The company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kid's
Meals.


SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in South Dakota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Siouxland Urology Associates P.C. Faces a purported class-action
lawsuit for allegedly exposing patients to blood-borne
infectious diseases, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on April 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Dakota by Theresa Kinney, Katherine
Moir, Gloria Todd, James Peters and William P. Collins, under
the caption, "Kinney et al v. Siouxland Urology Associates P.C.
et al., Case No. 4:2009-cv-04051."

The federal complaint was filed in Sioux Falls against Siouxland
Urology Center in Dakota Dunes and its owners: Drs. John A.
Wolpert, David D. Howard, Patrick M. Walsh, Kenneth E. McCalla,
Timothy G. Kneib, and Craig A. Block, according to the AP
report.

The center sent letters on April 13, 2009 to more than 5,000
patients telling them that single-use products such as saline
solution bags and tubing were used on more than one patient
before being discarded, which created a minimal risk of exposure
to HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, reports The Associated
Press.


SMITH & NEPHEW: Discrimination Claims v. Unit Settled in 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
The claims in a class action lawsuit filed against Smith &
Nephew plc's subsidiary, The Smith & Nephew Group, for
discriminatory practices were settled in 2008.

In 2006 and 2007, a number of charges were filed with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Memphis,
Tennessee, alleging that the Group's employee hiring, training
or promotion practices were discriminatory.

A class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Memphis in
September 2006, with the same allegations.

In 2008, the EEOC dismissed the claims filed with it, and the
claims in the lawsuit were settled for an amount that will be
paid in full by the Group's employment practices insurer.

No further details regarding the class action lawsuit were
disclosed in the company's March 27, 2009 Form 20-F filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

London-based Smith & Nephew plc -- http://global.smith-
nephew.com/master/6600.htm -- is a global medical devices
company engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of
medical devices in the sectors of orthopedic reconstruction,
orthopedic trauma and clinical therapies, endoscopy and advanced
wound management.  It has four business segments:
reconstruction, trauma and clinical therapies, endoscopy and
advanced wound management.


TICKETRESERVE INC: Faces Customers' Lawsuit Over NFL Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------
The Ticketreserve, Inc., d/b/a FirstDIBZ.com, a forward ticket
Web site, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit from eight
disgruntled customers who accuse FirstDIBZ of allegedly reneging
on thousands of dollars worth of "DIBZ" payments surrounding
tickets for the recently completed NFL playoffs and Super Bowl,
Alfred Branch Jr. of The Ticket News reports.

The alleged payments were the subject of the massive scam that
nearly felled the company over the winter, for which FirstDIBZ
tried to settle by paying reparations to dozens of aggrieved
customers, according to The Ticket News report.

While FirstDIBZ has said it has tried to make good on as many of
the payments to customers as possible, the company has been
dogged continually by reams of complaints the last couple of
months from brokers and fans for more supposed fraudulent
orders, unresponsive customer service and not making full and
complete restitution.  The company claimed it had fallen victim
to a massive scam where DIBZ orders were illegally sold by a few
hustlers, and then those orders were resold by unsuspecting
customers, reports The Ticket News.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on March 20, 2009 by Andrew Duffy,
George Adams, Gregg Harder, Christopher Jackman, Jason Lee, Jose
Ordaz, Vincent Ruggiero and Sohail Shah under the caption,
"Duffy et al v. The TicketReserve, Inc., Case No. 1:2009-cv-
01746."

The plaintiffs claim that FirstDIBZ "allowed fraudulent sellers
to conduct transactions in the uDIBZ marketplace, and users,
consumers, subscribers, and customers of FirstDIBZ.com were
detrimentally affected and suffered economic damages."  The
company also was told by customers "that the uDIBZ marketplace
was vulnerable to fraudulent activity in the Fall of 2008, when
hundreds of fraudulent DIBZ for the Chicago Cubs and Chicago
White Sox to advance to the World Series were sold on the uDIBZ
marketplace," The Ticket News reported.

According to the lawsuit, "On and before January 2009, Defendant
had knowledge that FirstDIBZ.com was vulnerable to fraudulent
sellers entering the marketplace.  Despite this knowledge,
Defendant failed to employ reasonable and available procedures
and safeguards to protect the users, consumers, subscribers, and
customers of FirstDIBZ.com from fraud."

The Ticket News reported that throughout the lawsuit, the
plaintiffs detail the painful amounts of money they allegedly
lost as a result of the scam and FirstDIBZ's subsequent inaction
on their behalf.

The lawsuit also said that the company "has purposefully
retained monies due to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and has
failed to refund monies that are rightfully Plaintiffs and Class
Members.  Upon information provided by Plaintiffs and Class
members, Defendant has and intends to continue depriving
Plaintiff and Class members of their money for periods exceeding
45 days without payment of any interest," The Ticket News
reports,

The plaintiffs are seeking "compensatory damages, interest and
allowable costs of suit," but a specific amount is not
disclosed, reports The Ticket News.


TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed against
TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. -- formerly Axonyx, Inc.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February
2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from June 26, 2003, through and including Feb. 4, 2005.

Director and former Axonyx chief executive officer, Dr. M.
Hausman, and current Axonyx CEO Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named
as defendants in the lawsuits.  These suits were consolidated
into a single class action in January 2006.

The plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III
Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design
and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase
III Phenserine trial to show efficacy.

They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the
alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the company's shares during the class period.

On April 10, 2006, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The company filed its answer to that
complaint on May 26, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 26, 2006, and was submitted to the
court for a decision in September 2006.  The motion to dismiss
is still pending.

No further developments in the matter were reported by the
company in its March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Thomas P. Griesa, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Evan Jay Kaufman, Esq. (ekaufman@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

              - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
          240 Mineola Blvd.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-741-4977

Representing the defendants are:

         May Orenstein, Esq. (morenstein@brownrudnick.com)
         Sigmund Samuel Wissner-Gross, Esq.
         (swissnergross@brownrudnick.com)
         Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP
         Seven Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-209-4800
                212-209-4930
         Fax: 212-938-2804


UNITED RENTALS: Amended Complaint in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of United Rentals Inc. have filed a second amended
complaint in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit accusing
the company and two of its executives of misrepresenting facts
about a failed buyout deal, in an attempt to address
deficiencies a judge found in the original pleading, Law360
reports.

Previously, Law360 reported that Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S.
District Court of the District of Connecticut dismissed a
proposed securities fraud class-action lawsuit related to a 2007
buyout deal gone bad between United Rentals Inc. and Cerberus
Capital Management LP, saying the plaintiffs failed to meet the
pleading standards established by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2009).

Subsequent to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 announcement that
affiliates of Cerberus had notified the company that they were
not prepared to proceed with the purchase of the company on the
terms set forth in a merger agreement, three putative class-
action lawsuits were filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 8, 2008).

The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits sought to sue on behalf of
a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's securities between Aug. 29, 2007, and Nov. 14,
2007.

The lawsuits named as defendants the company, its directors and
certain of its officers and alleged, among other things, that
the named plaintiff and members of the purported class suffered
damages when they purchased or otherwise acquired securities
issued by the company, as a result of false and misleading
statements and material omissions relating to the contemplated
merger with affiliates of Cerberus, contained in:

       -- proxy materials that the company disseminated and
          filed with the SEC in anticipation of the Oct. 19,
          2007 special meeting of stockholders; and

       -- certain of the company's filings with the SEC and
          other public statements.

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiff in each action
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder; and against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaints in these actions sought unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, expenses and fees.

On Feb. 7, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions and appointing the Institutional Investor Group,
consisting of First New York Securities, L.L.C. and Omni
Partners LLP, as lead plaintiffs for the purported class.

The actions are now consolidated under the caption, "Vincent
DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al."

On March 24, 2008, pursuant to a schedule approved by the Court,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which,
among other things:

       -- amended the purported class period to include
          purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities
          from July 23, 2007, to Nov. 14, 2007;

       -- dropped as defendants one of the company's officers
          and all but one of the company's directors;

       -- named as additional defendants Cerberus, certain of
          its affiliates, its chief executive officer and one of
          its managing directors; and

       -- withdrew the previously asserted claim under Section
          14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder.

On May 16, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in this action.  Briefing with
respect to those motions is complete, according to the company's
Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Vincent DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-01708-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet C. Hall, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. (rcappucci@Entwistle-Law.com)
          Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
          280 Park Ave., 26th Fl. West
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-894-7200
          Fax: 212-894-7272

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          David J. Elliott, Esq. (djelliott@daypitney.com)
          Day Pitney LLP
          242 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-1212
          Phone: 860-275-0100
          Fax: 860-275-0343

               - and -

          Alan R. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@kramerlevin.com)
          Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-715-9300
          Fax: 212-715-8000


VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Suit v. VRM I Set for June Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial on a contract breach class action against Vestin Realty
Mortgage I, Inc. (VRM I) and Vestin Mortgage, Inc. is scheduled
to begin on June 19, 2009, according to Vestin Fund III, LLC's
March 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

VRM I and Vestin Mortgage are defendants in a breach of contract
class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by certain
plaintiffs who allege, among other things, that they were
wrongfully denied appraisal rights in connection with the merger
of Vestin Fund I, LLC (Fund I) into VRM I.

The court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders
who voted against the merger of Fund I into Vestin Realty
Mortgage I, Inc.

The terms of VRM I's management agreement and Fund I's Operating
Agreement contain indemnity provisions whereby Vestin Mortgage
and Michael V. Shustek may be eligible for indemnification by
VRM I with respect to the action.

Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com-- is investing
in commercial real estate.  Through subsidiaries, the firm
originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by
commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office
buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities.
Its Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate
investment trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus
on mortgages and deeds of trust.


VESTIN REALTY: June Trial Set for Contract Breach Suit v. VRM II
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial on a contract breach class action against Vestin Realty
Mortgage II, Inc. (VRM II) and Vestin Mortgage, Inc. is
scheduled to begin on June 19, 2009, according to Vestin Fund
III, LLC's March 26, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

VRM II and Vestin Mortgage are defendants in a breach of
contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by
certain plaintiffs who allege, among other things, that they
were wrongfully denied appraisal rights in connection with the
merger of Vestin Fund II, LLC (Fund II)into VRM II.

The court certified a class of all former Fund II unit holders
who voted against the merger of Fund II into VRM II, and a
subclass of all class members who were over the age of 60 and
Nevada residents at the time of the merger.

The terms of VRM II's management agreement and Fund II's
Operating Agreement contain indemnity provisions whereby, Vestin
Mortgage and Michael V. Shustek may be eligible for
indemnification by VRM II with respect to the action.

Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com-- is investing
in commercial real estate.  Through subsidiaries, the firm
originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by
commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office
buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities.
Its Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate
investment trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus
on mortgages and deeds of trust.


WALGREEN CO: Plumbers and Steamfitters' Suit Pending in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co. and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating
Officer continue to defend against the Plumbers and Steamfitters
Local No. 7 Pension Fund's putative class-action suit, according
to the company's March 26, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Feb. 28,
2009.

On April 16, 2008, the Pension Fund filed a putative class-
action suit against the company and two of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of company common
stock during the period between June 25, 2007, and Nov. 29,
2007.

The complaint, which was amended on Oct. 16, 2008, charges the
company and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Operating Officer with violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the company
misled investors by failing to disclose declining rates of
growth in generic drug sales and a contract dispute with a
pharmacy benefits manager that allegedly had a negative impact
on earnings.

Based in Deerfield, Ill., Walgreen Co. is principally a retail
drugstore chain that sells prescription and non-prescription
drugs and general merchandise.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COACH INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Coach,
Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between
January 23, 2007, and October 22, 2007, for violations of the
federal security laws.

     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.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 15, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of persons who acquired preferred
securities pursuant or traceable to a materially false and
misleading registration statement filed with the SEC on October
10, 2006 by Deutsche Bank AG.

     These preferred securities include the 6.375% Noncumulative
Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding
Trust VIII (NYSE:DUA); the 6.55% Trust Preferred Securities of
Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust II (NYSE:DXB); the 6.625%
Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank
Capital Funding Trust IX (NYSE:DTT); the 7.35% Noncumulative
Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding
Trust X (NYSE:DCE); the 7.60% Trust Preferred Securities of
Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust III (NYSE:DTK); and the
8.05% Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Contingent
Capital Trust V (NYSE:DKT) offered in October 2006, May 2007,
July 2007, November 2007, February 2008 and May 2008,
respectively.

     The complaint charges DB, certain of its subsidiaries, its
senior insiders, the investment banks that underwrote the
Offerings and DB's auditors with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933.  DB is an investment bank headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, which has offices in the United
States.

     The complaint alleges that from October of 2006 through May
of 2008, DB consummated the Offerings pursuant to the false and
misleading Registration Statement, selling over 248 million
shares of the Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of more
than $6.2 billion.

     After the Offerings, on January 14, 2009, DB issued a press
release announcing disappointing fourth quarter 2008 financial
results, including a loss after taxes of EUR4.8 billion for the
fourth quarter of 2008, reflecting market conditions that
severely impacted results in the sales and trading businesses,
"most notably in Credit Trading including its proprietary
trading business, Equity Derivatives and Equities Proprietary
Trading."  As a result of this disclosure, the prices of the
Securities fell dramatically

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

       -- the Company failed to properly record provisions for
          credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities,
          commercial real estate loans, and exposure to monoline
          insurers;

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent it from improperly recording provisions for
          credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities,
          commercial real estate loans, and the Company's
          exposure to monoline insurers;

       -- the Company's internal risk management systems were
          inadequate to limit the Company's exposure to credit
          trading, equity derivatives, and proprietary equity
          trading; and

       -- the Company was not as well capitalized as
          represented, and, notwithstanding the billions of
          dollars raised in the Offerings, the Company would
          have to raise an additional EUR10 billion by selling
          equity in the Company to the German government.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
who acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offerings.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before April 24, 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/deutschepreferred/


DEUTSCHE BANK: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities 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 Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the 7.60% Trust Preferred Securities
of Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust III, who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Securities of Deutsche Bank AG pursuant
or traceable to the Company's February 2008 Offering.

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

     Deutsche Bank AG, headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany, is a
global investment bank.

     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 improperly recorded provisions for
          commercial real estate losses, credit losses, and
          residential mortgage-backed securities;

       -- that the Company was not as well capitalized as it had
          stated;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal risk
          management systems;

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

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

     On or about February 12, 2008, the Company completed the
Offering pursuant to a false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus.  The Registration Statement
incorporated the Company's 2007 financial results and certain
statements made in the Company's 2006 Annual Report on Form 20-F
filed with the SEC.  The Offering was a financial success for
the Company, as it was able to raise over $1.75 billion by
selling 70 million shares of the Securities to investors at a
price of $25 per share.

     Subsequently, on January 14, 2009, Deutsche Bank announced
that it anticipated a loss after taxes of approximately EUR 4.8
billion for the 2008 fiscal fourth quarter.  Then on February 5,
2009, the Company issued a press release announcing a net loss
of EUR 3.9 billion for fiscal year 2008 and a loss before income
taxes of EUR 5.7 billion.  As a result of these disclosures, the
Securities declined significantly, closing on February 5, 2009
at $13.11.

     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 29, 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


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.
(NYSE:HPY) for violations of the federal securities laws.

     The suit was filed on behalf of a Class consisting of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired Heartland's publicly traded
securities between August 5, 2008 and February 23, 2009.

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

     Specifically, Defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose:

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

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

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

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

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

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

     Once the Company revealed the breach and its potential
impact on the Company, the price per share of Heartland's stock
declined precipitously -- losing approximately 65% of its value.

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

For more details, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
acquired Prudential Financial, Inc. 9% Junior Subordinated Notes
(NYSE:PHR) pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
Prudential's June 2008 initial public offering of the
Securities.

     The Complaint charges Prudential, certain of its officers
and directors, the underwriters of the Offering and Prudential's
auditor with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
lawsuit alleges that defendants consummated the Offering
pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement,
selling 36.8 million shares of the Securities at $25 per share,
for proceeds of over $920 million.  The Registration Statement
incorporated Prudential's financial results for 2007 and the
first quarter of 2008.  Prudential ultimately announced write
downs associated with its exposure to subprime mortgages.

     The Registration Statement failed to disclose that:

       -- the Company's asset-backed securities collateralized
          with subprime mortgages were impaired to a greater
          extent than the Company had disclosed;

       -- defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets; and

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting its
          impaired assets.

     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:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Spector, Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C.
announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced 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 the securities
pursuant to the Company's June 2008 initial public offering of
the Securities, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933.

     On June 24, 2008, the Company conducted an Offering of
securities with the filing of a Prospectus Supplement, which is
part of the Registration Statement, with the SEC.  The Offering
was successful as the Company 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.

     The Complaint alleges that Prudential and certain of its
officers, directors, underwriters and auditor with violations of
the Securities Act for issuing a false Prospectus.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented:

       -- 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 the Company did not properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
          and

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

     On February 4, 2009, 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 press release issued by Fitch Ratings 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.

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

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862
          e-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com
          Web site: http://www.srkw-law.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  * * *