CAR_Public/090422.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 78

                           Headlines

BASIN WATER: Agreement to Settle Securities Suit Reached in Feb.
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Tex. Judge Denies Motion in "Harris" Litigation
CONSTAR INT'L: No Argument Date Yet for Certification Appeal
G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in Israeli Court
GILEAD SCIENCES: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal

GLOBALSTAR INC: Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
GLOBALSTAR INC: Pursues Dismissal of "Stickrath" Suit in Calif.
IRWIN UNION: Pursues Dismissal of Two Lawsuits Over CBNV Loans
KNIGHTS MARINE: Faces Foreign Workers' Suit Over Job Conditions
LENNAR CORP: Faces Fla. Litigation Over Chinese-Made Drywall

LIFECARE HOLDINGS: Still Faces Hurricane Katrina Lawsuits in La.
LOWE'S HOME: FACTA Violations Suit Removed to Ill. Federal Court
MFS LTD: Execs, Auditor Face Investors' Suit in Sydney Court
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Reaches $15M Deal in Insurance Policies Lawsuit
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: 2011 Trial Set for Utah Securities Fraud Suit

PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Judge Dismisses Claims in Market Timing Case
ROCKIES REGION: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set on April 7
SELECT COMFORT: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in California
SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sewer Ratepayers' Case Pending
SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Suit

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Seeks Dismissal of Coal-Ash Sludge Spill Suits
TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Court Allows Mercury-in-Tuna Suit to Proceed
UNITED RENTALS: Parties Agree to Settles Stock Inflation Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

J.P. JEANNERET: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MERIDIAN CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

BASIN WATER: Agreement to Settle Securities Suit Reached in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Water, Inc., on Feb. 19, 2009, reached an agreement in
principle to settle a consolidated purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On Dec. 27, 2007, and Jan. 2, 2008, two purported securities
class-action complaints were filed against Basin Water, Inc.,
Peter L. Jensen, Michael M. Stark and Thomas C. Tekulve for
violations of the Exchange Act.

These lawsuits, which contain similar allegations, are
captioned, "Poulos v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 07-8359
GW (FFMx)," and "Nofer v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 08-
0002 SGL (JCRx)."

The suits, among other things, allege that the Basin defendants
"issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results" because the company
"had not adequately accounted for reserves in connection with
its legacy system contracts."

The plaintiffs allege a putative class period between May 14,
2007, and Nov. 13, 2007, and do not claim a specific amount of
damages.

The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated, and on Oct. 3,
2008, a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) was filed which
alleges that the company deliberately understated the reserves
it took for certain unprofitable contracts, and committed
various intentional violations of GAAP during a putative class
period between Nov. 14, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2008.

The suit does not state a specific amount of damages.

On Feb. 19, 2009, the company and its insurance carriers reached
an agreement in principle to settle the class action with
representatives of the class.  The settlement is still subject
to preparation of a final settlement agreement, following which
the company would intend to seek preliminary approval from the
Court so that class members can receive notice of the
settlement, providing them with the opportunity to accept its
terms or to opt out and choose whether to pursue their own
individual claims.  Following a fair period of notice to the
class, it would be the company's intention to seek final Court
approval of the settlement and the dismissal of all claims
against Basin Water.

The company denies all of the allegations in the lawsuit and
believes that its disclosures were appropriate under the law.
Nevertheless, it has agreed to settle the litigation in order to
avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.  The company does
not expect a cash effect of the settlement as the entire
settlement amount is expected to be paid by its liability
insurers, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Basin Water, Inc. -- http://www.basinwater.com/-- is a provider
of process solutions for a range of customers, which include
designing, building, implementing and servicing systems for the
treatment of contaminated groundwater, the treatment of
wastewater, waste reduction and resource recovery.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Tex. Judge Denies Motion in "Harris" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas has denied a motion by Blockbuster,
Inc. that sought to compel arbitration in the matter, "Cathryn
Elaine Harris, et al. v. Blockbuster, Inc., Case No. 3:2009-cv-
00217," Wendy Davis of MediaPost News reports.

The judge found that the arbitration clause in Blockbuster's
terms and conditions agreement with its customers was illusory
because Blockbuster reserves the right to modify the terms "at
its sole discretion" and "at any time."

The class-action lawsuit was filed as a result of Blockbuster's
participation in Facebook's ill-fated Beacon ad program, which
notified members about their friends' e-commerce activity,
according to the MediaPost News report.

In the year-old lawsuit, Dallas County resident Cathryn Elaine
Harris alleged that Blockbuster violated the federal Videotape
Privacy Protection Act by sharing information about her movie
rentals and sales with Facebook without first obtaining her
written consent, reports MediaPost News.

MediaPost News reported that Ms. Harris is asking for at least
$2,500 for each violation of the statute, a law passed in 1988
after a newspaper obtained the video rental records of U.S.
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.


CONSTAR INT'L: No Argument Date Yet for Certification Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to
schedule an oral argument date for the class certification
appeal in a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed
against Constar International, Inc.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various
underwriters, were named defendants in the consolidated putative
securities class action suit, captioned "In re Constar
International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-
05020."

This action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, is a consolidation of two complaints:

     -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et
        al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

     -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

A consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants in these lawsuits
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  They
seek class-action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.

The court has previously denied the company's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
as well as the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On May 7, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
company filed objections to the Report and Order.

The Court later overruled the company's objections, adopting the
Special Master's Report and Order, and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On March 18, 2008, the company filed a Rule 23(f) Petition in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to
take an immediate appeal from the class certification ruling.

On April 30, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an Order granting
the company's Rule 23(f) Petition.

According to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the parties have briefed the appeal.  A
date has not yet been set for oral argument.  At the company's
request, the Special Master has agreed to stay all further
proceedings before the District Court pending the outcome of the
appeal, with the exception of certain limited discovery.

The suit is "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge
Edmund V. Ludwig, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. (beige@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq. (andrewb@lcsr.com)
          Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes & Lerach, LLP
          401 B. Street, STE. 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbclasslaw.com)
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the defendants are:

          Steven B. Feirson, Esq. (steven.feirson@dechert.com)
          Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
          (michael.kichline@dechert.com)
          Scott A. Thompson, Esq. (scott.thompson@dechert.com)
          Dechert, Price & Rhoads
          1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
          Phone: 215-994-2749
          215-994-2390
          Fax: 215-994-2222


G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in Israeli Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
     G. Willi-Food International Ltd. (NASDAQ: WILC), on April
16, 2009, had been served with a purported class action lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that the Company misled its customers by
illegal marking of a product that the Company imports and sells
as "suger free", according to The Israeli Consumer Protection
Law, 1981.

     The group which the lawsuit desires to represent are any
Israeli resident who bought this product due to such person's
preference for a "suger free" or a "reduced suger" product.
According to the plaintiff, the Group consists of 2,000
customers.  The plaintiff appraises its own damages at NIS 2,000
(approximately USD 500) and the damages of the entire Group to
be NIS 4 million (approximately USD 1 million).

     At this preliminary stage, the Company is examining the
plaintiff's alleged claims, and it will respond and relate to
the allegations, to the extent necessary, after its examination
and after consulting with its legal advisors.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. -- http://www.willi-food.co.il
-- is one of Israel's largest food importers and a single-source
supplier of one of the world's most extensive ranges of quality
kosher food products.  It currently imports, markets and
distributes more than 2,500 food products manufactured by some
120 top-tier suppliers throughout the world to more than 1,500
customers.  Willi-Food excels in identifying changing tastes in
its markets and sourcing high-quality kosher products to address
them.  The Company also operates several subsidiaries: its
subsidiary, Gold Frost Ltd., develops and distributes kosher
chilled and frozen dairy food products internationally together
with its Danish dairy distributor subsidiary; the joint venture
with the Baron Family engages in the global import, export and
distribution of kosher products worldwide; and Shamir Salads is
a leading international manufacturer and distributor of pre-
packaged chilled Mediterranean dips and spreads.


GILEAD SCIENCES: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Gilead Sciences, Inc.'s
appeal of a finding that shareholders in a securities fraud
class-action lawsuit against the drugmaker sufficiently alleged
a causal relationship between the increase in sales from
Gilead's forbidden off-label marketing of its HIV drug Viread
artificially inflating the drug's value for a time and a later
drop in the company's stock price, Law360 reports.

The high court's decision was in connection to an earlier ruling
wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California of the fourth amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008).

On May 12, 2006, the federal court executed orders dismissing in
its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended
complaint associated with a purported class-action suit against:

       -- the company,
       -- the chief executive officer,
       -- chief financial officer,
       -- former executive vice president of operations,
       -- executive vice president of research and development,
       -- senior vice president of manufacturing, and
       -- senior vice president of research.

The complaint is generally alleging that the defendants violated
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements.  The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

On Aug. 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's decision and will remand
the case to the district court, according to the company's Oct.
31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Gilead Sciences Securities litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-4999," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins
presiding.

Representing thee plaintiffs are:

          Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0878
          Fax: 212-818-0477

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM)
          Green Welling LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710

Representing the defendants are:

          John C. Dwyer, Esq. (dwyerjc@cooley.com)
          Grant P. Fondo, Esq. (gfondo@cooley.com)
          Cooley Godward, LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Phone: 650-843-5000
          Fax: 650-857-0663


GLOBALSTAR INC: Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the consolidated purported
class-action lawsuit against Globalstar, Inc. is pending before
the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the first of three purported class-action suits
was filed against the company, its CEO and its CFO in the
Southern District of New York alleging that Globalstar's
registration statement related to its initial public offering in
November 2006 contained material misstatements and omissions and
seeking damages and recission under various provisions of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The Court consolidated the three cases as "Ladmen Partners, Inc.
v. Globalstar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-0976 (LAP)," and
appointed Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund as lead plaintiff.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the plaintffs' Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs filed their brief on Jan. 29, 2009, and the company's
responsive brief was filed March 30, 2009, according to its
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Globalstar, Inc. -- http://www.globalstar.com/-- is a provider
of mobile voice and data communication services via satellite.
Using in-orbit satellites and ground stations, which it refers
to as gateways, the company offers voice and data communications
services to government agencies, businesses and other customers
in over 120 countries.


GLOBALSTAR INC: Pursues Dismissal of "Stickrath" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar, Inc. continues to pursue dismissal of the purported
class-action complaint styled, "Stickrath v. Globalstar, Inc."

On April 7, 2007, Kenneth Stickrath and Sharan Stickrath filed a
purported class-action complaint against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
07-cv-01941.

The complaint is based on alleged violations of California
Business & Professions Code 17200 and California Civil Code
Section 1750, et seq., the Consumers' Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0
million but do not allege any particular damages incurred.

In July 2008, the company filed a motion to deny class
certification and a motion for summary judgment.  The court
deferred action on the class certification issue but granted the
motion for summary judgment on Dec. 22, 2008.  The court did
not, however, dismiss the case with prejudice but rather allowed
counsel for plaintiffs to amend the complaint and substitute one
or more new class representatives.

On Jan. 16, 2009, counsel for the plaintiffs filed a Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The company filed its answer on
Feb. 2, 2009.  The company will continue to seek to have class
certification denied and the case dismissed with prejudice,
according to its March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Globalstar, Inc. -- http://www.globalstar.com/-- is a provider
of mobile voice and data communication services via satellite.
Using in-orbit satellites and ground stations, which it refers
to as gateways, the company offers voice and data communications
services to government agencies, businesses and other customers
in over 120 countries.


IRWIN UNION: Pursues Dismissal of Two Lawsuits Over CBNV Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a subsidiary of Irwin Financial
Corp., continues to pursue the dismissal of two purported class-
action lawsuits in connection with loans it purchased from
Community Bank of Northern Virginia.

The lawsuits were filed against or named Irwin Union Bank as a
defendant in 2004 and later consolidated for pre-trial
procedures in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, claiming that Community Bank of Northern
Virginia was allegedly engaged in a lending arrangement
involving the use of its charter by certain third parties who
charged high fees that were not representative of the services
rendered and not properly disclosed as to the amount or
recipient of the fees.

The lawsuits, which are both seeking class-action status, are:

       -- "Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company," and

       -- "Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia."

Both lawsuits are at a preliminary stage with motions to dismiss
pending in each case, according to the company's March 31, 2009
Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com/--
provides financial services throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The
Company focuses primarily on the extension of credit to
consumers and small businesses, as well as providing the ongoing
servicing of those customer accounts.  Through its direct and
indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major
lines of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and
home equity lending.  Its direct and indirect major subsidiaries
include Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a commercial bank, which
together with Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a federal savings bank,
which conducts the Company's commercial banking activities;
Irwin Commercial Finance Corp., a commercial finance subsidiary,
and Irwin Home Equity Corp., a consumer home equity lending
company.


KNIGHTS MARINE: Faces Foreign Workers' Suit Over Job Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Knights Marine & Industrial Services, Inc., and Five Star
Contractors LLC are facing a purported class-action lawsuit that
alleges foreign workers on temporary visas in Mississippi were
forced to live in storage buildings and were not given the jobs
and pay they were promised, The Associated press reports

Ten Brazilians sued the two companies on April 20, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
accusing the defendants of racketeering, breach of contract, and
fraud, according to the AP report.

The workers allege they paid thousands of dollars to come to
Mississippi in hopes of high-paying jobs that didn't
materialize, reports The Associated Press.

The suit seeks class-action status to cover all workers brought
to the United States by the companies in 2006 and 2007, The
Associated Press reported.


LENNAR CORP: Faces Fla. Litigation Over Chinese-Made Drywall
------------------------------------------------------------
Lennar Corp. faces a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of
homeowners who bought houses built with Chinese-made drywall and
claim it emits gases that make people sick, Alex Veiga of The
Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit was filed last month in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, according to a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission by the company.

The plaintiffs claim they bought two homes built by the company
that were made with the Chinese drywall, which they contend
emits sulfur gasses and other fumes, reports The Associated
Press.

Lennar said its subcontractors used drywall made in China during
the construction of its homes primarily in 2005 and 2006.  The
company said some of the material contains high levels of sulfur
and may emit sulfur-based gases.

The builder said it has been inspecting homes that it built that
might have had the Chinese drywall and paying to have it and
other components, such as ventilation and air conditioning
systems, replaced, according to the AP report.

The homebuilder, meanwhile, has sued the Chinese drywall
manufacturer and its distributors, The Associated Press
reported.


LIFECARE HOLDINGS: Still Faces Hurricane Katrina Lawsuits in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
LifeCare Holdings, Inc. remains a named defendant in various
civil lawsuits and actions filed with the Louisiana Patient
Compensation Fund by former patients at Memorial Medical Center
who allege damages as a result of injuries sustained during
Hurricane Katrina.

Tenet Healthsystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc., the company's
former landlord, is also named as a defendant in these actions.

In one of these cases, the plaintiffs' counsel is seeking class
-action certification to represent other individuals who were
also patients or present at Memorial Medical Center at the time
of Hurricane Katrina.

In addition to disputing the merits of the allegations in these
suits, the company said that certification of a class in these
actions is not appropriate and that each of these cases should
be adjudicated independently.

The company reported no development in these matters in its
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

LifeCare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.lifecare-hospitals.com/--
operates 19 long term acute care hospitals located in nine
states.  Long term acute care hospitals specialize in the
treatment of medically complex patients who typically require
extended hospitalization.


LOWE'S HOME: FACTA Violations Suit Removed to Ill. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against a store of Lowe's Home
Centers, Inc. claiming it neglected its duty to protect
customers from identity theft and credit card fraud under the
Fair and Accurate Transaction Act (FACTA) was removed to federal
court, Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record reports.

The case was slated for a case management conference before
Judge David Hylla of Madison County Circuit Court on April 29,
2009.  However, Lowe's filed a notice of removal April 13, 2009.
The case has been transferred from the Madison County Circuit to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois,
according to The St. Clair Record report.

The St. Clair Record reported that Lowe's argued in the notice
that the federal courts have jurisdiction over the case because
the class action suit argues that the company violated federal
law.

Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record previously reported that
the lawsuit was filed by Doris J. Masters, represented by Brad
Lakin of LakinChapman in Wood River, on Oct. 2, 2008 in Madison
County Circuit Court, case number 2008-L-910.  Ms. Masters
claims the Glen Carbon Lowe's, located at 159 Whistle Stop Dr.,
negligently provided a receipt listing her entire credit card
number (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2009).

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

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

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

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

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


MFS LTD: Execs, Auditor Face Investors' Suit in Sydney Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior executives of the failed Gold Coast finance company MFS
Limited, including its founder Michael King are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit accusing of deceiving thousands
of unitholders who deposited and lost the bulk of more than $1
billion in a mortgage fund managed by the group, The Sydney
Morning Herald reports.

An AU$1 billion class-action has been launched in the Federal
Court in Sydney against the fund's auditor KPMG and its manager
MFS Investment Management.

In a statement of claim, a copy of which was obtained by The
Sydney Morning Herald, it is alleged the executives in the
finance group offered misleading information in the product
disclosure statements provided to investors in the Premium
Income Fund.

These statements asserted that the directors of MFSIM would only
make secured loans, carry out their "duties with integrity and
diligence according to the law" and take an "arms length
commercial approach" to transactions.  The statement of claim
alleges the opposite was the case.

According to the claim, "MFSIM and MFS engaged in conduct, in
relation to a financial product or a financial service, which
was misleading or deceptive or was likely to deceive in
contravention of the Corporations Act," reports The Sydney
Morning Herald.

It also alleges MFSIM, which is now owned by the Queensland
asset manager Wellington Capital, failed to ensure unsecured
loans made to several MFS investment vehicles were made on "arms
length" commercial terms.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the bulk of the loans or
investments made by the fund were with other investment vehicles
run by MFS and MFS itself.

"MFSIM had not properly assessed the assets and liabilities of
each guarantor in order to determine their creditworthiness," it
is alleged, according to The Sydney Morning Herald report.

The statement of claim alleges several loans were made to MFS
related entities "that lacked financial resources, or [were]
otherwise unwilling or unable, to make interest payments or to
repay the capital".

The claim, lodged by Sydney firm Carneys Lawyers, has also
claimed the fund's auditor KPMG failed in its duties.  It said
the KPMG partner Andrea Waters, who was responsible for the
audit of the MFSIM's compliance plan, "failed to exercise
reasonable care, skill and diligence."  It is alleged she failed
to obtain sufficient knowledge of the activities of the fund to
enable her to identify and understand the transactions, reported
The Sydney Morning Herald.


MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Reaches $15M Deal in Insurance Policies Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. and two other companies agreed to
pay $15 million to settle a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging that the companies performed actuarial work incorrectly
on long-term care insurance policies, The Kansas City Business
Journal reports.

The suit originally was filed in 2002 in Jackson County Circuit
Court in Independence by by Macon, Mo., residents Eric and Carol
Chalgren, according to Gregory Leyh, lead class counsel with
Gregory Leyh PC in Gladstone, reports The Kansas City Business
Journal.

According to Mr. Leyh, because of the defective actuarial work
done on the long-term care insurance policies, the policies went
through four premium increases, despite being sold as level-
premium policies.

The class included 1,169 members, Missouri residents who bought
the policies between 1995 and 1997, Mr. Leyh tells The Kansas
City Business Journal.

American Heritage Life Insurance Co. and Wakely and Associates
Inc. also were defendants in the suit, according to The Kansas
City Business Journal report.


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: 2011 Trial Set for Utah Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative Jan. 24, 2011 trial is slated for the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending against Nature's
Sunshine Products, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah.

Between April 3, 2006 and June 2, 2006, five separate
shareholder class-action lawsuits were filed against the company
and certain of its present and former officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

These matters were consolidated and on Nov. 3, 2006, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint against the company,
its Chief Executive Officer and former director, Douglas
Faggioli, its former Chief Financial Officer, Craig D. Huff, and
a former director and former Chair of its Audit Committee, Franz
L. Cristiani.

The consolidated complaint asserts three separate claims on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock:

       -- a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the company for
          violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
          Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that Mr.
          Faggioli made a series of alleged material
          misrepresentations to the investing public;

       -- a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the company for
          violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, alleging
          that Mr. Faggioli made a series of misrepresentations
          to the company's then independent auditor, KPMG, LLP,
          for the purpose of obtaining unqualified or "clean"
          audit opinions and review opinions from KPMG
          concerning certain of the annual and quarterly
          financial statements; and

       -- a claim against Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and Cristiani
          for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
          alleging that the individual defendants have "control
          person" liability for the previously-alleged
          violations by the company.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, together with interest thereon, litigation
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
and any such other and further relief as may be allowed by law.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the company and Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and
Cristiani moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its
entirety.

On May 21, 2007, the court issued its decision denying the
motion in large part, but shortening the proposed class period
on one of the plaintiffs' claims.

On June 6, 2007, the company and the other defendants answered
the Consolidated Complaint, wherein they denied all allegations
of wrongdoing and raised a number of affirmative defenses.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in part, establishing the class as all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common
stock, and were damaged thereby, from March 16, 2005 to March
20, 2006.

On May 9, 2008, at the invitation of the court based upon recent
case law developments, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second cause of action (a 10b-5 claim based on non-
public representations to KPMG).  The plaintiffs opposed this
motion.  On Sept. 23, 2008, the court granted the company's
motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' second cause of action.

The case is currently in the early stages of discovery.  Trial
is not scheduled to commence until Jan. 24, 2011, according to
the company's March 31, 2009 Amendment to its registration
statement on Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The suit is "Hyman v. Nature's Sunshine Products et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00267-TS-SA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah, Judge Ted Stewart, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          Climaco Lefkowtiz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli
          55 Public Sq., Ste 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113-1972
          Phone: (216) 621-8484

               - and -

          Gary A. Dodge, Esq.
          Hatch James & Dodge
          10 W Broadway, Ste. 400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 363-6363
          e-mail: gdodge@hjdlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq.
          (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius, P.A.
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: (215) 963-5000

               - and -

          Erik A. Christiansen, Esq. (ecf@parsonsbehle.com)
          Parsons Behle & Latimer
          201 S. Main St., Ste. 1800
          P.O. Box 45898
          Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
          Phone: (801) 532-1234


PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Judge Dismisses Claims in Market Timing Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Frederick Motz of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland dismissed the remaining 10b-5 claims against Putnam
Investments in a purported class-action lawsuit over mutual fund
market timing, Andrew Longstreth of Am Law Litigation Daily
reports.

Finding that the alleged damages had been fully offset by the
restitution Putnam paid in regulatory settlements, Judge Motz
dismissed the last remaining claims made against Putnam in the
litigation, entitled, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation,
MDL No. 04-MD-15863, Civil No. JFM-04-560," according to the Am
Law Litigation Daily report.

A copy of the dismissal order is available free of charge at:

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


ROCKIES REGION: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set on April 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval hearing of the settlement of a consolidated
class-action complaint in Colorado against Petroleum Development
Corp. (PDC), the Managing General Partner (MGP) of Rockies
Region 2007 Limited Partnership, was expected on April 7, 2009.

On May 29, 2007, Glen Droegemueller, individually and as
representative plaintiff on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint against PDC in the
District Court, Weld County, Colorado alleging that the MGP
underpaid royalties on gas produced from wells operated by the
Managing General Partner in the State of Colorado.  The
plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and to recover an unspecified
amount of compensation for underpayment of royalties paid by the
MGP pursuant to leases.  The MGP moved the case to Federal Court
on June 28, 2007, and on July 10, 2007, it filed its answer and
affirmative defenses.

A second similar Colorado class-action suit was filed against
the MGP in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
on Dec. 3, 2007, by Ted Amsbaugh, et al.

On Dec. 31, 2007, the plaintiffs in this second action filed a
motion to consolidate the case with the Droegemueller action.
On Jan. 28, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
consolidate the action with the Droegemueller Action.

The court approved a stay in proceedings until Sept. 22, 2008,
while the parties pursued mediation of the matter.  Although
Rockies Region was not named as a party in the suit, the lawsuit
states that it relates to all wells operated by the MGP, which
includes a majority of the company's 75 wells in the Wattenberg
field.  On Oct. 10, 2008, the court issued preliminary approval
of a settlement agreement.

According to its March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the portion of the proposed settlement related to
the company's wells for all periods through Dec. 31, 2008 is
$78,105.  This amount, plus legal costs of $7,863, were recorded
to fully accrue for the settlement through Dec. 31, 2008.  In
November 2008, the MGP paid into an escrow account, on behalf of
the company, amounts due under the settlement.  These amounts
will be deducted from future Partnership distributions.

Notice of the settlement was mailed to members of the class-
action suit in the fourth quarter 2008, and the final settlement
approval hearing is expected on April 7, 2009.

Bridgeport, W.Va.-based Rockies Region 2007 Limited Partnership
engages in the exploration and development of oil and natural
gas properties.  The company was organized as a limited
partnership on May 22, 2007, in accordance with the laws of the
State of W.Va.  Upon completion of a private placement of its
securities, the company was funded and commenced business
activities on Aug. 31, 2007.


SELECT COMFORT: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
San Jose, Calif., alleging a defect in the company's Sleep
Number beds can cause them to incubate dangerous mold, the
Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer reports.

Attorney Robert Gagliasso's law firm is heading up the lawsuit
against Select Comfort, alleging the company knew of the defect
and concealed its existence, according to the Raleigh (N.C.)
News & Observer report.

Mr. Gagliasso alleges in the suit that while not all of the beds
will face mold problems, they all create an ideal situation for
mold to grow due to collected internal moisture, reports the
Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking unspecified damages
for health problems they allegedly occurred as a result of the
bed mold, the Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer reports.


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sewer Ratepayers' Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a sewer ratepayers' class-action suit
filed against one of Syncora Holdings, Ltd.'s operating
businesses, Syncora Guarantee Inc., and other defendants,
remains pending, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form
10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On June 17, 2008, Charles Wilson, on behalf of himself and a
class consisting of every Jefferson County, Alabama sewer
ratepayer since January 1, 1993, filed the suit.

The lawsuit alleges that through the wrongful conduct of the
members of the Jefferson County Commission, most notably Larry
Langford, the County incurred a bonded indebtedness of
approximately US$3.2 billion relating to improvements to its
sewer system.

The complaint alleges that the commissioners, in a conspiracy
with several individuals, financial companies, law firms, and
bond insurers, completed several swap transactions whereby the
bonds, which were primarily fixed interest securities, were
swapped to variable rate and auction rate securities.

These swaps, the complaint alleges, were done primarily to
facilitate the inappropriate payment of exorbitant fees to
several bond brokers and financial advisors.

With respect to the bond insurers, including Syncora Guarantee,
the complaint alleges that the insurers negligently insured the
bonds while allowing themselves to become undercapitalized and
downgraded by the rating services, which in turn downgraded the
bonds.

The plaintiffs allege damages on the ground that their sewer
rates are much higher than they otherwise would have been
without the wrongdoing of all parties.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently
pending before the court.  Plaintiffs have also voluntarily
dismissed Jefferson County taxpayers as members of the putative
class, leaving only the sewer system ratepayers.  Several of the
defendants have filed motion seeking recusal of the Judge based
on his daughter being a Jefferson County ratepayer, and thus a
member of the putative class of plaintiffs.

Syncora Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.scafg.com/Holdings/--
formerly Security Capital Assurance Limited, is a holding
company whose operating subsidiaries provide financial guarantee
insurance, reinsurance, and other credit enhancement products to
the public finance and structured finance markets throughout the
U.S. and internationally.  The company's businesses consists of
Syncora Guarantee Inc. (formerly XL Capital Assurance Inc.) and
its wholly owned subsidiary, XL Capital Assurance (U.K.) Limited
(XLCA-UK) and Syncora Guarantee Re Ltd. (formerly XL Financial
Assurance Ltd.).  The segments of the company are financial
guarantee insurance and financial guarantee reinsurance.  The
financial guarantee insurance segment offers financial guarantee
insurance policies and credit-default swaps contracts.  The
financial guarantee reinsurance segment reinsures financial
guarantee policies and CDS contracts issued by other monoline
financial guarantee insurance companies.


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings Ltd. still faces a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In December 2007 and January 2008, three class-action lawsuits
were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  They are:

       -- "Brickman Investments, Inc. v. Security Capital
          Assurance Ltd et al.,"

       -- "2 West, Inc. v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et
          al.," and

       -- "Clarke v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al."

Two of the lawsuits were filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common shares in the secondary public
offering by XL Insurance Ltd., as selling shareholder, on or
about June 6, 2007.  The third lawsuit was filed on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from April 23, 2007, through Dec. 10, 2007, including
those who purchased shares in the secondary offering.

The complaints name the company, its president and chief
executive officer, its former executive vice president and chief
financial officer, and XL Insurance, as defendants, and they
allege various violations of the U.S. Securities Act and the
U.S. Exchange Act by the defendants.  Two of the complaints also
name the lead underwriters of the secondary offering as
defendants.

The complaints include claims that the defendants' public
statements, including the registration statement and prospectus
related to the secondary offering, contained false and
misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts
necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading.

On April 24, 2008, an order was entered consolidating these
actions under the caption "In re Security Capital Assurance Ltd.
Securities Litigation," and appointing the Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff.

On Aug. 6, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The
consolidated amended complaint adds Edward Hubbard, Executive
Vice President, as well as Richard Heberton, former chief credit
officer of XL Capital Assurance, Inc., as defendants and expands
the class period to include all persons who acquired the
company's securities from March 15, 2007, to March 18, 2008.

No further developments in the matter were reported in the
company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-11086-DAB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Deborah A. Batts, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. (egleston@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          e-mail: 212-779-3218

          Irving Bizar, Esq. (Ibizar@Ballonstoll.com)
          Ballon, Stoll, Bader and Nadler
          729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-575-7900
          Fax: 212-764-5060

               - and -

          Richard A Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Seeks Dismissal of Coal-Ash Sludge Spill Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Valley Authority filed motions in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking
for the dismissal of all seven lawsuits brought by residents
claiming damages from the Dec. 22, 2008 spill of coal-ash sludge
at the Kingston Fossil Plant, Scott Barker of The Knoxville News
Sentinel reports.

In motions filed on April 17, 2009, TVA claims its actions
maintaining a coal-ash retention pond are covered under the
discretionary function doctrine, which, with exceptions,
prevents a federal government entity from being sued for
planning and carrying out policy.

The spill dumped 5.4 million cubic yards of coal-ash into the
Emory River and surrounding countryside.  No one was injured,
but the deluge destroyed three houses and buried nearby
property, according to The Knoxville News Sentinel report.

Though TVA acknowledged its responsibility to clean up the
spill, the utility said in a statement: "We also have a
responsibility to be good financial stewards for the 9 million
ratepayers of the Tennessee Valley.  This is an important
balance to maintain."

The Knoxville News Sentinel reported that TVA estimates cleanup
costs could reach $825 million, excluding litigation costs and
regulatory penalties.  The utility has bought more than 70
affected pieces of property at a cost of $20 million.

Elizabeth Alexander, Esq., an attorney who represents clients in
one of the cases, told The Knoxville News Sentinel that
plaintiffs would try to block TVA's move.

U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan issued an order on April 17, 2009
giving plaintiffs in the four-class-action and three non-class-
action complaints until July 10, 2009 to respond.  Judge Varlan
also set guidelines for evidence discovery, limiting it for now
to information on the question of the discretionary function
doctrine and punitive damages claims, reports The Knoxville News
Sentinel.


TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Court Allows Mercury-in-Tuna Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey woman can sue
tuna fish producer, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, over the mercury
poisoning she allegedly suffered from eating the company's
canned albacore tuna, Chris Rizo of Legal Newsline reports.

Previously, Tri-Union Seafoods asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
review the case.  Without comment, the justices allowed an
appeals court ruling in the matter to stand, according to the
Legal Newsline report.

Deborah Fellner, whose diet consisted almost exclusively of
canned tuna for five years, sued Tri-Union Seafoods, the maker
of Chicken of the Sea brand tuna, for failing to warn her of the
dangers of eating its tuna fish product, reports Legal Newsline.

She sued under the New Jersey Product Liability Act over her
alleged exposure to methylmercury and other harmful compounds
contained in Chicken of the Sea tuna fish products from 1999 to
2004, Legal Newsline reported.

Legal Newsline reported that the San Diego, Calif.-based company
argued that it was not responsible for her claimed illness,
arguing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not
consider canned tuna fish worthy of mercury warnings to
consumers.

Judge Dennis Cavanaugh of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey threw out the lawsuit, but the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the third circuit reinstated the class-action
lawsuit, report Legal Newsline.

Law.com previously reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit has revived a class-action suit against Tri-
Union Seafoods, the manufacturer of Chicken-of-the-Sea brand
tuna, brought by consumers who claimed they were never warned
that excessive consumption of the product could lead to mercury
poisoning (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2008).

According to Law.com, the appellate court's three-judge panel
unanimously found that a lower court improperly dismissed the
suit, captioned "Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods," on the grounds
that it was pre-empted by U.S. Food & Drug Administration
regulations.  Thus, the recent ruling reverses the decision by
Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

"The FDA has promulgated no regulation concerning the risk posed
by mercury in fish or warnings for that risk, has adopted no
rule precluding states from imposing a duty to warn, and has
taken no action establishing mercury warnings as misbranding
under federal law or as contrary to federal law in any other
respect," Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Walter K. Stapleton wrote.

Judge Stapleton, in an opinion joined by Judge Dolores K.
Sloviter and Judge D. Brooks Smith, concluded that Deborah
Fellner's lawsuit does not conflict with the FDA's regulatory
scheme for the risks posed by mercury in fish "because the FDA
simply has not regulated the matter."

Law.com recounts that defense lawyers had argued that Ms.
Fellner's "duty-to-warn" claim conflicted with the FDA's
decision to forego any warnings in order to avoid scaring
consumers away from a useful product.

Specifically, John A. Kiernan, Esq., of Bonner Kiernan Trebach &
Crociata argued that the FDA would deem any warning false and
misleading because it would not "balance out the negative . . .
information with positive information about the numerous healthy
attributes of canned tuna."

Judge Stapleton disagreed, saying "the FDA took no action to
preclude state warnings -- at least, no binding action via
ordinary regulatory procedures."

The Third Circuit found that Judge Cavanaugh had improperly
equated the FDA's decision to issue a consumer advisory with
actual regulation.  Judge Cavanaugh, in his January 2007
decision, said that "the FDA's regulatory scheme is the result
of over 10 years of data collection and study," and that the
plaintiffs were effectively asking the court to disregard the
FDA's "deliberately nuanced response" to the issue of mercury in
seafood.

Judge Stapleton noted that, in the advisory, the FDA offered
advice to women who are or may become pregnant about selecting
and eating fish.  In doing so, Stapleton said, the FDA did not
"specifically regulate" anything, but instead gave "non-binding
advice to a class of consumers."  As a result, Judge Stapleton
said, the FDA advisory did not "promulgate a federal legal
standard" with which Ms. Fellner's state law claims could
potentially conflict.

"The mere fact that the FDA chose to warn only certain 'at risk'
consumers, rather than all consumers, does not create a
conflict," Judge Stapleton further wrote.  "The advisory does
recommend continued fish consumption within certain parameters,
but that recommendation is clearly not inconsistent with a
warning against excess consumption."

The report recounts that Ms. Fellner originally filed the suit
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, alleging that her diet
consisted almost exclusively of Chicken-of-the-Sea tuna for five
years, causing her to contract severe mercury poisoning, and
that Tri-Union Seafood had failed to warn consumers of the risk
of excessive tuna consumption.

Tri-Union later removed the suit to federal court and sought
dismissal on federal pre-emption grounds, citing a California
court's decision to dismiss a consumer suit brought by former
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

According to Law.com, while the California suit was pending, the
FDA had sent a letter to Mr. Lockyer that said the FDA's prior
regulatory actions pre-empt the state's suit because tuna
canning companies would be unable to comply both with the FDA's
approach and state law.  The letter warned Mr. Lockyer that his
suit would "frustrate the FDA's carefully considered federal
approach" to the issue of mercury in fish.

Subsequently, in May 2006, the California Superior Court agreed
with the FDA and found the suit was indeed pre-empted by federal
law.

Now, the Third Circuit's recent ruling directly conflicts with
the California court's decision, finding that the FDA's opinion
that such suits are pre-empted is not entitled to deference from
the courts because the agency has never truly regulated mercury
levels in fish.

"While the FDA may well have the authority to promulgate a
regulatory scheme which would preclude any state duty to warn
consumers of the risks of mercury in tuna, it simply has not
done so," Judge Stapleton wrote.

Ms. Fellner is represented by Adina H. Rosenbaum, Esq., and
Brian Wolfman, Esq., of the Public Citizen Litigation Group in
Washington, D.C., along with William O. Crutchlow, Esq., and
Khalid Elhassan, Esq., of Eichen Levinson & Crutchlow in Edison,
N.J.


UNITED RENTALS: Parties Agree to Settles Stock Inflation Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc. shareholders have agreed to settle a
securities fraud class-action accusing the company and its
executives of artificially inflating stock prices, which
plummeted after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
revealed it was investigating the company's accounting methods,
Law360 reports.

Shareholder plaintiffs filed the motion for settlement on April
17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, according to the Law360 report.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

J.P. JEANNERET: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C. filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against defendants J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc.,
John P. Jeanneret, Paul L. Perry, Ivy Asset Management
Corporation, Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, and Margolin,
Winer & Evens LLP, on behalf of all persons, other than
Defendants, who invested in Income-Plus Investment Fund, from
January 1, 1999 to the present, to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and common
law claims, including breach of fiduciary duties.

     The case name is styled, "Local 73 Annuity Fund, et al. v.
J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc., et al."

     This Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
unknown to Income-Plus Investors, Defendants failed to perform
the necessary due diligence that they were being compensated to
perform as investment advisors, managers and fiduciaries, and
proximately caused millions of dollars in losses by placing the
Plaintiffs' investment assets of Income-Plus in entities managed
by Bernard Madoff.

     Defendants either knew or were reckless in not realizing
that the Income-Plus Investment Fund's assets that were placed
with Madoff were at risk because his enterprise was a massive
Ponzi scheme.  Defendants ignored numerous red flags, including
the abnormally high and stable positive investment results
reportedly achieved by Madoff regardless of market conditions;
inconsistencies between Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities,
LLC's publicly available financial information concerning its
assets and the purported amounts that Madoff managed for
clients; and the fact that BMIS was audited by a small, obscure
accounting firm.

     Jeanneret issued an Offering Memorandum for Income-Plus
Investment Fund that was false and misleading because it falsely
stated that Jeanneret would conduct thorough due diligence with
respect to Income-Plus' investments.

     Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Jeanneret, Ivy, and Ivy's
parent company, Bank of New York, failed to perform the
represented due diligence and oversight, and abdicated their
fiduciary duties to the investors by entrusting the Plaintiffs'
assets with Madoff.  Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant
Margolin negligently failed to conduct a proper audit of Income-
Plus' financial statements.

     Plaintiffs have alleged claims on behalf of the Class for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5, as well as breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and
breach of contract.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 17, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Barbara Hart (Bhart@lowey.com)
          Thomas M. Skelton (Tskelton@lowey.com)
          Vincent Briganti (Vbriganti@lowey.com)
          Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza One North Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601-2310
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Web site: http://www.lowey.com


MERIDIAN CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all investors who acquired
shares in Meridian Capital Partners, Inc. funds of hedge funds
managed by Meridian Diversified Fund Management, LLC between
January 2, 2008 and December 11, 2008, seeking to recover losses
resulting from Meridian Diversified's placement of significant
amounts of investor money into funds managed by Bernard Lawrence
Madoff and his firm, and who were damaged thereby.

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

     The complaint charges Meridian, Meridian Diversified and
their officers and/or partners with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and ERISA.

     Meridian is an alternative investment adviser offering
funds of hedge funds to institutional and high net worth
investors and acts as the managing member of Meridian
Diversified.

     The complaint alleges that Meridian Diversified placed
significant amounts of investor money into funds managed by
Madoff and his firm.  Madoff has now been charged with running
what may be the largest Ponzi scheme ever.  Unknown to investors
in its Funds, Meridian Diversified had invested 6% to 8% of its
clients' funds in Madoff-managed investments.  This was contrary
to the duties Meridian Diversified had to its investors of good
faith and fair dealing and contrary to the representations
Meridian Diversified had made regarding its processes for
selecting fund managers.  As a result of defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duty and false statements, investors made additional
investments in the Funds and/or held shares they would have
redeemed.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
investors who acquired shares in Meridian Funds managed by
Meridian Diversified during the Class Period and whose shares
were invested in entities run by Madoff and all employee benefit
plans which invested with Meridian Diversified and whose assets
were invested in whole or in part by Meridian Diversified in any
Madoff-related investment during the Class Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 20, 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/meridiancapital/


                            *********

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  * * *