CAR_Public/090423.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 23, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 79

                           Headlines

ALCATEL LUCENT: EEOC Lawsuit v. Lucent Remains Stayed in Calif.
CITY OF FARGO: Reaches Proposed $1.5M Settlement in "Sauby" Case
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: N.Y. Judge Favors Nixing of Hollander Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: May 27 Conference Set For Faulty Coolant Lawsuit
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit in Texas

HORIZON BLUE: N.J. Judge Gives Final Approval to "Drazin" Deal
HOSPIRA INC: Trial in Employees' Lost Benefits Lawsuit To Begin
MERIDIAN CAPITAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments
OFFICE DEPOT: New Complaint Filed in Fla. Shareholders' Lawsuit
OSI RESTAURANT: Defending Ervin Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations

OSI RESTAURANT: Expects EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims
STATION CASINOS: Defends Amended Complaint in "Murchison" Suit
STATION CASINOS: Still Faces "Lukevich" Labor Suit in Nevada
TD BANKNORTH: Coughlin Stoia Secures $50M Deal in Holders' Suit
UCI HOLDCO: Bid in "Perrault" Case Pending Quebec Court Ruling

UCI HOLDCO: Champion Faces Direct Purchasers' Consolidated Suit
UCI HOLDCO: Motion in "Urlin" Suit Pending Ontario Court Ruling
UCI HOLDCO: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Suit Pending
UCI HOLDCO: "Peerali" Lawsuit v. Champion Laboratories Pending
UNITED STATES: Judge Issues Ruling in Suit Over Residency Claims

U.S. STEEL: Seeks Transfer of Pollution Lawsuit to Federal Court

* Employees Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Reinstate RICO Case V. UAW


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

J.P. JEANNERET: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MRU HOLDINGS: Murray, Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
REGIONS FINANCING: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ZYNEX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Litigation in Colo.


                           *********

ALCATEL LUCENT: EEOC Lawsuit v. Lucent Remains Stayed in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit styled, "EEOC v. Lucent
Technologies Inc." remains stayed pending the disposition of
another case raising similar issues, according to Alcatel
Lucent's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

In September 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) filed a purported class-action lawsuit against Lucent in
the U.S. District Court in California.

The case alleges gender discrimination in connection with the
provision of service credit to a class of present and former
Lucent employees who were on maternity leave prior to 1980 and
seeks the restoration of lost service credit prior to April 29,
1979, together with retroactive pension payment adjustments,
corrections of service records, back pay and recovery of other
damages and attorney's fees and costs.

The case is stayed pending the disposition of another case
raising similar issues. In the related case, the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals recently found against the defendant
employer.  The defendant employer in the related case has filed
an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court heard
argument of this case on Dec. 10, 2008.  The Supreme Court has
requested additional briefings based on the enactment of the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Paris-based Alcatel Lucent -- http://www.alcatel-lucent.com--
provides product offerings that enable service providers,
enterprises and governments worldwide, to deliver voice, data
and video communication services to end users.  It offers fixed,
mobile and converged broadband networking, Internet protocol
(IP) technologies, applications and services.  It has operations
in more than 130 countries.  The company operates in three
business segments: Carrier, Enterprise and Services.


CITY OF FARGO: Reaches Proposed $1.5M Settlement in "Sauby" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed $1.5 million settlement was reached in a purported
class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case
No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW-KKK," Patrick Springer of INFORUM reports.

The case, filed by Stephanie Sauby, a West Fargo woman, was
certified as a class-action, with 54,000 drivers eligible to
become part of the case who collectively paid fines exceeding
those set by state law by $4.3 million, according to the INFORUM
report.

Dickinson Press previously reported that Judge Rodney Webb of
the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota ruled
that a West Fargo woman can continue her lawsuit against the
city of Fargo over traffic fines.

According to Dickinson Press, plaintiff Stephanie Sauby accused
the city of violating her rights by assessing higher traffic
fines than state law allows.

The city argued that the fines were not unconstitutional, and
asked Judge Webb to dismiss Ms. Sauby's lawsuit.

The report notes that in his recent ruling, Judge Webb dismissed
one of the counts against the city, but found enough evidence to
continue the case on two other counts.  Specifically, Judge Webb
threw out Ms. Sauby's claim of excessive fines but said she "has
successfully raised equal protection and due process claims."

Judge Webb, however, has not yet decided whether to grant Ms.
Sauby's case class-action status, Dickinson Press relates.

According to the report, the city's lawyer, Stacy Tjon-Bossart,
Esq., did not return a phone message asking for comment.  Ms.
Sauby's attorney, Timothy Purdon, Esq., likewise has no comment.

The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-
RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
North Dakota, Judge Rodney S. Webb, presiding, with referral to
Judge Karen K. Klein.



COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: N.Y. Judge Favors Nixing of Hollander Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a recommendation to dismiss a
purported class-action against Columbia University, entitled,
"Hollander v. Institute for Research on Women & Gender at
Columbia University et al., Case No. 1:2008-cv-07286," Joy
Resmovits of CU Columbia Spectator reports.

Corey Kilgannon, who writes for New York Times, previously
reported that Columbia University is facing a lawsuit filed by
Manhattan lawyer Roy Den Hollander, Esq., before the U.S.
District Court in Manhattan.  The suit alleges that the
university's offer of women's studies courses is discriminatory
toward men (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2008).

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are Institute for Research on
Women & Gender at Columbia University, School of Continuing
Education at Columbia University, Trustees of Columbia
University in the City of New York, U.S. Department of
Education, Margaret Spellings, Robert M. Bennett, Richard P.
Mills, and James C. Ross.

The NYT report points out that Mr. Hollander is a self-described
antifeminist.  According to NY Times, over the past year, Mr.
Hollander has sued Manhattan nightclubs for favoring women by
offering ladies' night discounts and has sued the federal
government over a law that protects women from violence.

Specifically, in July 2007, Mr. Hollander filed a class-action
suit against prominent Manhattan nightclubs like Copacabana,
China Club, Lotus and Sol, claiming they discriminated against
men with their ladies' nights offering free or reduced
admission, which allegedly violates the 14th Amendment's
guarantee of equal protection under the law.  In addition, in
February 2008, Mr. Hollander filed a suit against the federal
government calling parts of the Violence Against Women Act
unconstitutional.  These cases are still pending.

In his latest class-action suit, Mr. Hollander accuses Columbia
University of using government aid to preach a "religionist
belief system called feminism."  He also called women's studies
"a bastion of bigotry against men" and said that the
university's women's studies program "demonizes men and exalts
women in order to justify discrimination against men based on
collective guilt."

Such academic programs at Columbia and at universities
nationwide, Mr. Hollander's suit says, are "spreading prejudice
and fostering animosity and distrust toward men with the result
of the wholesale violation of men's rights due to ignorance,
falsehoods and malice."

"Federal financial aid, state funds and other assistance help
proselytize feminism at Columbia," in violation of equal
protection safeguards of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, Mr.
Hollander claims, adding "Columbia has thrown its influence and
prestige into violating the rights of men by offering a women's
studies program but no men's studies program."

NY Times relates that Mr. Hollander devotes much of his private
practice to representing men in civil cases -- "antifeminist
cases or guys'-rights cases," as he puts it -- and said his
bitter 2001 divorce from a woman he married in Russia helped
ignite his anger toward feminists and laws he sees as favoring
women.

Columbia University spokesman Robert Hornsby told NY Times that
he could not comment on the lawsuit or even confirm that the
university had been served with it.


GENERAL MOTORS: May 27 Conference Set For Faulty Coolant Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dennis Ruth of the Madison County Circuit Court set a May
27, 2009 case management conference for a purported class-action
lawsuit against General Motors Corp. that accuses the company of
pouring defective coolant into 40 million new engines.

In general, the lawsuit alleges that sludge accumulated in
engines and caused mechanical problems.

Matthew Armstrong, of King Marker Armstrong in St. Louis, sued
General Motors in 2003, on behalf of Granite City residents
Robin Flynn and Cheryl Hall.

Mr. Armstrong sought to recover damage that sludge caused to
Flynn's 2000 Chevrolet Impala and Hall's 2000 Oldsmobile Alero.

Mr. Flynn and Ms. Hall also sought damages from coolant makers
Shell and Chevron.

Ernest Coy, Joe Whatley and Peter Burke of Birmingham, Ala.,
added their names to the complaint.

GM removed the suit to federal court in East St. Louis, and
District Judge Michael Reagan sent it back to Madison County
Circuit Court.

Mr. Armstrong asked Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to certify
Flynn and Hall as class representatives for everyone who bought
a General Motors vehicle since 1996.

In 2004, Mr. Armstrong added a claim from plaintiff Harry Reed
of Pontoon Beach, owner of a 1998 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.

Ms. Flynn, Mr. Hall and Mr. Reed later settled with Shell and
Chevron.

General Motors moved to dismiss, advising Judge Byron that it
made 40 million vehicles in the class period.  It also argued
that the vast majority of buyers never had a sludge problem and
never would have a sludge problem.  In addition, General Motors
also moved to strike class allegations.

In November 2004, Judge Byron denied both motions.

In January 2005, Mr. Hall withdrew as plaintiff, due to a
"family situation."  Mr. Flynn withdrew in March 2005, for the
same reason.  Mr. Reed remained as a the sole remaining
plaintiff.


HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hooters of America, Inc. has reportedly settled a purported
gender discrimination class-action suit in Corpus Christi, Texas
that was filed by a man who claims he applied for a serving
position and was denied because he's a male, according to an
Onpointnews.com report.

Onpointnews.com reported that court records show that the
plaintiff and and Hooters reached a confidential settlement on
April 13, 2009.  It also reported that the settlement applies
only to the Corpus Christi franchisee.

KRIS-TV previously reported that the suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Jan. 8,
2009 by Nikolai Grushevski under the caption, "Grushevski v.
Texas Wings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00002" (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 15, 2009)

Aside from Hooters, other defendants named in the suit are:

       -- Texas Wings, Inc.,
       -- Corpus Christi Wings, Ltd., and
       -- TWI XXII, Inc.

KRIS-TV reported that Mr. Grushevski unsuccessfully applied for
a waiter's job with Hooters in May 2008.  At the time, he
claimed gender discrimination, but a complaint to the labor
department went nowhere.

Now, with the help of attorney Martin A. Shellist, Esq. of
Shellist Lazarz LLP, he has filed a federal lawsuit against
Hooters.

Mr. Shellist told KRIS-TV that he believes they have a strong
case.  In his lawsuit, he said, "Hooters attempts to circumvent
the law by referring to its waiters as 'Hooters Girls'."

"I think we've got a strong case.  I think if you take Hooters'
logic to the extreme, it violates the law at every point.  I
think it's unfair," according to Mr. Shellist.

In the mid-90s, the federal courts ruled that Hooters was
allowed to only employ girls as Hooters Girls, but Mr. Shellist
argues that his client's case is different.

The complaint said, "Grushevski applied to become a food server,
not a Hooters Girl."  It also said that he is not trying to
deprive Hooters of its right to employ Hooters Girls.

Hooters representatives told KRIS-TV that they do hire men, just
not as servers, but Mr. Grushevski argued that position should
be gender neutral.

Vice President for Hooters Restaurants in Texas, Mike Herrick,
told KRIS-TV that it appears Mr. Grushevski is filing the
lawsuit for the money.

Mr. Shellist wants to turn the case into a class-action suit and
find other men who claim they have also been discriminated
against.  He hopes the case will go before a jury sometime next
year, reports KRIS-TV.

The suit is "Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:09-cv-00002," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Judge Janis Graham Jack, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Martin A. Shellist, Esq. (mshellist@eeoc.net)
          Shellist Lazarz LLP
          1900 West Loop South
          Suite 1910
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: 713-621-2277
          Fax: 713-621-0993


HORIZON BLUE: N.J. Judge Gives Final Approval to "Drazin" Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Faith Hochberg of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey gave final approval to the proposed settlement of
the class-action lawsuit entitled, "Drazin v. Horizon Blue Cross
Blue Shield, Civ. 6-6219," which generally alleges that the
company wrongfully denied claims by eating-disorder patients,
The National Law Journal reports.

The settlement will require Horizon Blue to to expand benefits
for 1.5 million eating disorder patients and pay up to $2.45
million to the plaintiffs lawyers.

The National Law Journal reported that under the settlement,
about 566 Horizon patients whose coverage for eating disorders
was previously limited will now recover about $1.2 million for
treatment they received.

Horizon Blue also agreed to treat any future eating disorder
claims the same way it treats biologically-based mental
illnesses such as schizophrenia -- a move that will cost it an
estimated $17.8 million.

In so doing, the company will have to give up its current
restrictions limiting treatment to 20 outpatient visits per
calendar year and 30 days of hospitalization, according to the
The National Law Journal report.


HOSPIRA INC: Trial in Employees' Lost Benefits Lawsuit To Begin
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in a class-action suit brought by former Abbott
Laboratories employees alleging they lost benefits when the
company spun off Hospira, Inc. in 2004 is finally set to start
this week, and could lead to a ruling this autumn, Dow Jones
Newswires reports.

According to Steven Sprenger, Esq., counsel for the plaintiffs
at the law firm Sprenger + Lang, the hearing is planned to last
six days but in two chunks one starting this week and the
other in late July.  This is due to Abbott's planned annual
meeting Friday, which will prevent plaintiffs' attorneys from
calling Abbott Chief Executive Miles White to testify.  Mr.
Sprenger told Dow Jones Newswires that he aims to call Mr. White
in July and to call Hospira Chief Executive Christopher Begley
this week.

Mr. Sprenger estimated that judge's decision in the bench trial
could come in September or October.  Plaintiffs are "seeking to
be put back into the same position that they would have been in
but for the spinoff and the loss of their benefits," he tells
Dow Jones Newswires.

Hospira, Inc. continues to face a class-action lawsuit over
allegations that the spin-off of the company from Abbott
Laboratories adversely affected employee benefits in violation
of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 5, 2009).

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned,
"Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott
Laboratories and Hospira, Inc."

On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and the company for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA.  The company has moved to dismiss
the new claim.

By order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class-action
status to the lawsuit.  The new claim in the amended complaint
is not subject to the class certification ruling.

As to the sole claim against the company in the original
complaint, the court certified a class defined as:

     "all employees of Abbott who were participants in the
     Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott
     was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30,
     2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD/creation of
     Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who
     were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit
     Plans on the date of their terminations."

In July 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants
seeking summary judgment.  Hospira denies all material
allegations asserted against it in the complaint.

In the third quarter of 2008, Hospira received notice from
Abbott requesting that Hospira indemnify Abbott for all
liabilities that Abbott may incur in connection with this
litigation.  Hospira denies any obligation to indemnify Abbott
for the claims asserted against Abbott in this litigation,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Paul William Mollica, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica
         208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-263-0272


Representing the company is:
         James F. Hurst, Esq. (jhurst@winston.com)
         Winston & Strawn LLP
         35 West Wacker Drive
         41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-558-5230


MERIDIAN CAPITAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meridian Capital Partners and its investment manager, Meridian
Diversified Fund Management LLC, are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit in New York for allegedly breaching their
fiduciary duties in entrusting client money with convicted
Ponzi-scheme operator Bernard Madoff, Chad Bray of Dow Jones
Newswires reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers by law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, according to the Dow Jones Newswires report.

The Class Action Reporter previously reported that the law firm
of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of an institutional investor in the
U.S. 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 Jan. 2, 2008 and Dec.
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 (Class Action Reporter, April 22, 2009).

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/


OFFICE DEPOT: New Complaint Filed in Fla. Shareholders' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated group of plaintiffs has filed a new complaint in
a purported class-action lawsuit accusing Office Depot, Inc. and
two of its principals of a massive financial fraud that erased
billions in shareholder value, Law360 reports.

The complaint was filed April 20, 2009 by lead plaintiff New
Mexico Educational Retirement Board in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, according to the Law360
report.


OSI RESTAURANT: Defending Ervin Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. continues to defend a purported
class-action complaint alleging violations of state and federal
wage and hour law.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the purported class-action complaint styled,
"Ervin, et al. v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc.," was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

This lawsuit alleges violations of state and federal wage and
hour law in connection with tipped employees and overtime
compensation and seeks relief in the form of unspecified back
pay and attorney fees.

The complaint alleges a class-action under state law and a
collective action under federal law, according to the company's
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com-- which was formerly known
as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant
company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-
wide restaurants.  The Company operates in all 50 states and in
20 countries internationally, predominantly through company-
owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of
partnerships and franchises.


OSI RESTAURANT: Expects EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. expects the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to pursue claims of gender discrimination
against the company on a nationwide basis through other
proceedings, according to its March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services,
Inc. are the defendants in a class-action lawsuit brought by the
EEOC alleging that they have engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination against women on the basis of their gender with
respect to hiring and promoting into management positions as
well as discrimination against women in terms and condition of
their employment and seeks damages and injunctive relief.

The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 28, 2006, is styled, "EEOC v.
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services,
Inc.," U.S. District Court, District of Colorado.

In addition to the EEOC, two former employees have successfully
intervened as party plaintiffs in the case.

On Nov. 3, 2007, the EEOC's nationwide claim of gender
discrimination was dismissed and the scope of the suit was
limited to the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana.

Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com-- which was formerly known
as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant
company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-
wide restaurants.  The Company operates in all 50 states and in
20 countries internationally, predominantly through company-
owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of
partnerships and franchises.


STATION CASINOS: Defends Amended Complaint in "Murchison" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc. defends an amended complaint in the
purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "S. Blake Murchison v.
Station Casinos, Inc. et al.," pending in the U.S. District
Court, District of Nevada.

The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 12, 2009, and brought on behalf of an
individual noteholder, purporting to act on behalf of a proposed
class of similarly situated noteholders, of the company's
outstanding senior and senior subordinated notes, alleges that
he has been unfairly discriminated against in connection with
the Company's pending solicitation of ballots in favor of a
proposed plan of reorganization.

The plaintiff alleges that the solicitation is an exchange offer
that will give a limited number of holders of the company's
outstanding notes the opportunity to obtain new notes which will
be senior to the outstanding notes.

The lawsuit names as defendants the company, its directors and
certain of its executive officers.

On Feb. 26, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary
injunction preventing the company from finalizing or
consummating the exchange offer contemplated in the proposed
plan of reorganization.

On March 16, 2009, the company opposed plaintiff's motion,
arguing that:

   1) plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on
      the merits in the underlying lawsuit because the
      reorganization plan proposes to treat all noteholders
      equally; and

   2) plaintiff will not suffer irreparable injury in the
      absence of an injunction because he will have an
      opportunity to fully and fairly protect his interests in
      the bankruptcy court prior to consummation of the proposed
      plan and exchange offer.

The Court has not ruled on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction.

On March 25, 2009, plaintiff amended his Complaint, raising new
claims, abandoning other claims asserted in the original
complaint, and purporting to to act on behalf of a proposed
class of all noteholders as to certain claims and for similarly
situated noteholders as to other claims.  The amended complaint
asserts, among other things, that the plan of reorganization
will grant only a limited number of holders of the Company's
outstanding notes the opportunity to obtain new notes that are
senior to the outstanding notes.

According to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, it believes that the lawsuit, as amended,
is without merit because, among other reasons, all holders of
the company's outstanding senior notes and senior subordinated
notes, respectively, would receive the same consideration
pursuant to the proposed plan of reorganization regardless of
whether such holders were eligible to participate in the
solicitation of votes for the plan and no old notes would remain
outstanding following consummation of the proposed plan.

Las Vegas-based Station Casinos, Inc. is a gaming and
entertainment company that currently owns and operates nine
major hotel/casino properties (one of which is 50% owned) and
eight smaller casino properties (three of which are 50% owned),
in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as manages a casino
for a Native American tribe.


STATION CASINOS: Still Faces "Lukevich" Labor Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
A labor-related class-action lawsuit remains pending against
Station Casinos, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, according to the company's March 31, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The purported class-action complaint against the company was
initiated on Feb. 4, 2008, by former Station Casinos employees
Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company:

       -- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,
       -- failed to pay overtime,
       -- failed to timely pay wages, and
       -- unlawfully converted certain earned wages.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000,
punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
the plaintiffs' counsel.

The company filed a response to the complaint on March 10, 2008.
The parties are currently in the discovery process.

The company has yet to file a response to the complaint.

The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No.
2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net)
          McInerney & Jones
          9460 Double R Blvd., Suite 103
          Reno, NV 89521
          Phone: 775-853-6440
          Fax: 775-853-6445

               - and -

          Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com)
          Righetti Law Firm, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-983-0900
          Fax: 415-397-9005

Representing the defendants is:

          Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP
          3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Phone: 702-677-3900
          Fax: 702-737-1612


TD BANKNORTH: Coughlin Stoia Secures $50M Deal in Holders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP secured a
settlement of $50 million in cash for a class of TD Banknorth,
Inc. shareholders.  Plaintiffs in a related action previously
attempted to settle the case for under $3 million, or $.03 per
TD Banknorth share.  This victory for shareholders provides
members of the class with an exponentially greater recovery than
the related action was poised to provide before plaintiffs City
of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System and
H. Louis Farmer, Jr. successfully objected to that settlement
and took over the case.

     The $50 million settlement, before fees and expenses, is
more than 16 times the amount shareholders would have received
under the previously proposed settlement.  The Settlement
Agreement was filed with the Court on April 20, 2009 and the
settlement is subject to approval by the Court.

     "We always believed that TD Banknorth's shareholders
deserved more than mere pennies, and we're pleased that we were
able to obtain substantially more than the originally proposed
settlement," said John J. Riley II, the Treasurer of the City of
Dearborn Heights.

     This class action was filed on behalf of former
stockholders of TD Banknorth, arising out of the April 20, 2007
going-private merger in which Toronto-Dominion Bank, TD
Banknorth's majority stockholder, cashed out TD Banknorth's
public stockholders for $32.33 per share.  The plaintiffs
alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to TD
Banknorth's shareholders because the terms of the going-private
merger were unfair and the result of an unfair process.

     A number of plaintiffs filed complaints in Delaware and
attempted to settle the case quickly.  At the same time, Farmer
filed an action in Maine state court and aggressively litigated
the case.  After obtaining strong evidence in support of his
claims, Farmer, along with Dearborn Heights, took his case to
Delaware and successfully objected to the settlement reached by
the original Delaware plaintiffs.

     As the Court later summarized:

     While Farmer took extensive discovery in the Maine
litigation, including nine depositions, the Original Plaintiffs
did little to advance the litigation in Delaware, seemingly
satisfied with negotiating a very modest settlement.  Aware of
these negotiations and concerned by what he saw as the Original
Plaintiffs' lack of diligence, Farmer stipulated to stay the
Maine litigation and, with the other plaintiff currently seeking
certification, the City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police &
Fire Retirement System ("Retirement System"), filed a motion to
intervene in the Delaware litigation.  On March 23, 2007, two
days after the filing of the motion to intervene, the Original
Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of settlement, agreeing to the
certification of the class and the appointment of the Original
Plaintiffs as class representatives.  The terms of the
settlement also included certain corrective disclosures, and an
increase of $.03 per share in the merger price.... Farmer and
Retirement System filed their objection, amply supported by the
extensive discovery taken in the Maine action, and, on July 19,
this court rejected the settlement....

     "We firmly believed in the strength of our claims and were
forging ahead towards trial prior to reaching a settlement with
defendants. We consider this an exceptional result for our
clients and the class," said Coughlin Stoia partner Samuel H.
Rudman.

     The case "In re TD Banknorth Shareholders Litigation, No.
2557-VCL," was led by Coughlin Stoia partners Samuel H. Rudman
and Evan J. Kaufman.  Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. partners
Michael Hanrahan and Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr. served as Delaware
counsel.

For more information, you can review the Settlement Agreement
and exhibits thereto on the Coughlin Stoia web site () and at

For more details, contact

          Dan Newman (DNewman@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: (800) 449-4900
          Web sites: http://www.csgrr.comand
               http://www.TDBanknorthShareholdersLitigation.com


UCI HOLDCO: Bid in "Perrault" Case Pending Quebec Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to have the matter styled "Jean-Paul Perrault v.
Champion Labs. et al.," proceed as a class action remains
pending, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-
K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Champion was named as one of five defendants in the class-action
lawsuit filed in Quebec, Canada, on April 25, 2008.

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

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

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

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UCI HOLDCO: Champion Faces Direct Purchasers' Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Champion Laboratories, Inc. faces a consolidated amended
putative class-action complaint filed by direct purchasers of
aftermarket filters, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s March 31,
2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

As of March 15, 2009, United Components, Inc. (UCI) and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., were named
as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed
in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the
Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of
Illinois alleging conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to aftermarket oil,
air, fuel and transmission filters.

All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket
filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of
their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present.  Each
case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an
injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees.

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

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

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UCI HOLDCO: Motion in "Urlin" Suit Pending Ontario Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to have the matter styled "Urlin Rent A Car Ltd. v.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al," proceed as a class action
remains pending, according to UCI Holdco, Inc.'s March 31, 2009
Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Champion was named as one of 14 defendants in a class-action
lawsuit filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario, Canada.

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

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

The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter
proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on.

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UCI HOLDCO: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a consolidated putative class-action
complaint filed by indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters
against Champion Laboratories, Inc., is pending, according to
UCI Holdco, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

United Components, Inc. (UCI) and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Champion Laboratories, Inc., were named as two of multiple
defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in the
District of Connecticut, the Northern District of California,
the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of
New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect purchasers of
aftermarket filters.  Champion, but not UCI, was also named in 3
similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of California.

These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law.  They are styled as
putative class actions on behalf of all persons or entities who
acquired indirectly aftermarket filters manufactured and/or
distributed by one or more of the defendants, their agents or
entities under their control, at any time between Jan. 1, 1999
and the present.  The complaints seek damages, including
statutory treble damages, an injunction against future
violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees.

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

On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the other defendants jointly filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser
Complaint.  On that same date, Champion, UCI and the other
defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA
complaint.

Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all
defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009.
The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed
until after it rules on the motions to dismiss.

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UCI HOLDCO: "Peerali" Lawsuit v. Champion Laboratories Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit styled "Peerali v. Champion Laboratories,
Inc. et al., No. BC405424," is pending, according to UCI Holdco,
Inc.'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 Jan. 12, 2009, United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned
subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., was named as one of ten
defendants in an action filed in the Superior Court of
California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a
purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket
filters.

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

Evansville, Ind.-based UCI Holdco, Inc. was incorporated on
March 8, 2006 as a holding company for UCI Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and United Components, Inc., which operates in one business
segment through its subsidiaries. United Components manufactures
and distributes vehicle parts, primarily servicing the vehicle
replacement parts market in North America and Europe.


UNITED STATES: Judge Issues Ruling in Suit Over Residency Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christina A. Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California tentatively ordered the
Department of Homeland Security to reopen cases of 22 people who
were denied green cards because their American spouses died
during the application process, The Associated Press reports.

Judge Snyder issued the preliminary ruling on April 20, 2009,
and is expected to make a final decision after a hearing on
April 22, 2009.  These rulings are in connection to a class-
action lawsuit captioned, "Carolyn Robb Hootkins et al. v.
Michael Chertoff et al. Case No. CV07-05696 CAS," according to
the AP report.

The judge's ruling cited a 2006 appeals court decision that said
applicants don't lose their status as spouses of U.S. citizens
if the spouse dies before the government rules on their
permanent residency applications, reports The Associated Press.

The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that the
Department of Homeland Security is facing a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California alleging its erroneous legal standard has stripped
numerous foreign spouses of U.S. citizens of their right to
legal residency (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 12, 2007).

This action arises under the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952 (INA), 8 U.S.C. Section 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) and 8 U.S.C.
Section 1255.

A citizen may apply for adjustment of status for a non-citizen
spouse as an immediate relative.  A non-citizen spouse may apply
if he or she has been married to a citizen for two years or more
and the citizen spouse dies.

If the citizen dies before the second anniversary of the
marriage, the non-citizen is no longer considered a spouse, and
thus loses all rights.  Because the department is not punctual
in processing their claims, numerous spouses had lost the right
to become legal residents under this system.

The plaintiffs seek writ of mandamus and an injunction.

The suit is "Carolyn Robb Hootkins et al. v. Michael Chertoff et
al. Case No. CV07-05696 CAS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Brent W. Renison, Esq. (brent@entrylaw.com)
          Parrilli Renison LLC
          5285 SW Meadows Rd., Ste 175
          Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
          Phone: (503) 597-7190
          Fax: (503) 726-0730

               - and -

          Alan R. Diamante, Esq. (diamantelaw@aol.com)
          Law Office of Alan R. Diamante
          523 W. Sixth Street, Ste. 210
          Los Angeles, California 90014
          Phone: (213) 943-4555
          Fax: (213) 943-4553


U.S. STEEL: Seeks Transfer of Pollution Lawsuit to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel is seeking for the transfer a class-action lawsuit
against the company and 10 other Lake County polluters from
state court to federal court, because more than $5 million could
be at stake, the Gary Post Tribune reports.

Company attorney Terence M. Austgen, Esq., filed the paperwork
on April 17, 2009 Friday requesting the move.  In the notice of
removal, Mr. Austgen said federal court has jurisdiction because
claims are more than $5 million and because at least one
plaintiff and one defendant are from separate states, reports
the Gary Post Tribune.

In March, a group of parents filed a class-action suit against
11 of Lake County, Indiana's worst air-pollution emitters
claiming the companies foul the region's air with toxic
pollutants to such a degree that children in the area could face
life-long development and health issues (Class Action Reporter,
March 27, 2009).

Among the parties sued in the case are United States Steel Gary
Works; ArcelorMittal USA Indiana Harbor East and West; Dover
Chemical Corp. in Hammond; Edw. C. Levy Co., Harsco Corp., the
Marley-Wylain Co., Pollution Control Industries Inc.; Rhodia
Inc., UGN Inc., and Union Tank Car Co., according to Gary Post
Tribune report.

Parents filed the suit after a series of studies revealed
children in Lake County - which includes the heavily
industrialized cities of East Chicago and Gary - are exposed to
higher levels of airborne toxins including cadmium, manganese
and lead than elsewhere in the United States.

The studies show exposure to these toxic emissions during
childhood can lead to increased risk of cancer, damage to
developing lungs and other organs, damage in the development of
the respiratory, nervous, endocrine and immune systems, as well
as behavioral problems, and mental disabilities.

"The plight of these children is nothing short of a healthcare
crisis for those living in this area," said lead attorney and
HBSS managing partner Steve Berman.

The Political Economy Research Institute, joined by USA Today,
concluded that the air quality in Lake County, Indiana is among
the worst in the country, and that school-aged kids in the
region inhale or ingest more toxins than nearly any other area
in the U.S.

According to the research, of air quality outside 127,800
schools nationwide, four of the schools in East Chicago, Indiana
- including Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, Benjamin Franklin
Elementary School, East Chicago Lighthouse, and Eugene Field
Elementary School - ranked in the first percentile, the most
toxic air in the nation.

No East Chicago school ranks above the sixth percentile in the
study, the suit states.

Mr. Berman noted that children are at an increased risk of the
effects of airborne toxins and need long-term medical
monitoring.

"A child, running and playing can take in as much as 50 percent
more air through their lungs than an adult doing the same
activity," Mr. Berman noted.  "We have no way of knowing the
long- term effects of these contaminants."

"Air they breathe today could cause asthma or lung cancer 10
years down the line," Mr. Berman added.

Mr. Berman also noted that the population of Lake County is
economically disadvantaged, with about 12 percent of the
residents living below the poverty line.

"Most people in Lake County don't have the ability to pull up
their stakes and move away to find a healthy place to raise
their kid; they are stuck there," Mr. Berman added.  "Regardless
of how poor they are, we think Lake County children should have
the right to breathe air that won't make them ill, or worse."

Ron Kurth, a parent from Lake County city Crown Point filed the
suit in Lake County Superior Court on behalf of all the region's
residents whose children have attended Lake County schools.  In
addition to medical monitoring, the suit asks the court to order
a public awareness campaign about the dangers of these
chemicals, air quality monitoring throughout Lake County and a
citizen advisory board to allow continued input on the medical
monitoring program.

Additional defendants in this case include Dover Chemical Corp.,
The Marley-Wylain Co., Pollution Control Industries, Rhodia
Inc., UGN Inc., Union Tank Car Co., and HARSCO Corp.

For more details, contact:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (708) 776-5600
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/lakecounty
          e-mail: lakecounty@hbsslaw.com


* Employees Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Reinstate RICO Case V. UAW
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, on April
21, 2009, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court to uphold workers' challenge to a
secret quid pro quo agreement intended to install the United
Auto Workers (UAW) union at Freightliner plants in North and
South Carolina.

     With free legal aid from the Foundation, five employees at
three plants operated by Daimler Trucks subsidiary Freightliner
filed a class-action federal racketeering lawsuit in 2006
challenging an illegal scheme in which union officials agreed in
advance to significant concessions at the expense of the
Freightliner workers at its non-union facilities in North
Carolina in exchange for valuable company assistance in
organizing those workers.

     Federal law bars companies from giving "things of value" to
unions or union officials, and it is also illegal for company
and union agents to negotiate terms and conditions of employment
before the union hierarchy has proven a majority of employees
actually want it to represent them.  But in a secret
"Preconditions to Card Check Procedure" pact inked before
employees even knew they were a UAW union organizing target,
Freightliner and the UAW union expressly agreed to limitations
on wages, an increase in the health care costs shouldered by
employees, and other concessions.

     In return, Freightliner gave the UAW union organizers
direct access to propagandize employees at compulsory "captive
audience" meetings and to harangue them in company break rooms,
granted union organizers access to employees' private home
addresses, agreed not to provide truthful information to
employees about the downsides of unionization, and agreed to
automatically recognize the union without a secret ballot vote
when presented the requisite number of signed union
authorization cards.

     In such "card check" organizing drives, employees are
frequently coerced or misled into signing such cards, which are
then counted as "votes." Workers have also complained that
signed cards are difficult to revoke.

     In December, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit upheld union lawyers' motion to dismiss the case.
Foundation attorneys argue the lower court erroneously limited
"things of value" to only tangible and explicit monetary
benefits.  But given the millions of dollars unions spend on
corporate campaigns to obtain the advantages delivered by
Freightliner in this case, the UAW clearly obtained "things of
value."  Moreover, the court could have simply remanded for fact
finding as to monetary value, which can easily be established.

     "We urge the Supreme Court to do what the lower courts have
refused: restore the rights of American workers victimized by
sweetheart deals between management and union bosses," said
Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work
Foundation.

     The employees seek financial restitution to all employees
at the Mount Holly, Gastonia, and Cleveland, North Carolina,
facilities in the form of treble damages for all dues seized and
earnings lost as a result of the unlawful pact.  Additional
Freightliner plants known to be covered by the once-secret
agreement are located in High Point, North Carolina, and
Gaffney, South Carolina.

For more details, contact:

          National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education
               Foundation, Inc.
          8001 Braddock Road
          Springfield, Virginia 22160
          Phone: (703) 321-8510 or (800) 336-3600
          Fax: (703) 321-9613 or (703) 321-9319
          Web site: http://www.nrtw.org/


                   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 19, 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


MRU HOLDINGS: Murray, Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of investors who purchased shares of MRU
Holdings, Inc. during the period between July 9, 2007 and
September 19, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint charges MRU and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants' public statements failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

       -- the market for Auction Rate Securities ("ARS"), which
          the Company issued in its first student loan
          securitization, was illiquid and existed at the whim
          of the broker-dealers;

       -- the illusion of liquidity created by the broker-
          dealers allowed the Company to securitize its student
          loans on favorable terms;

       -- that once the true nature of the ARS market became
          known, the terms of future securitizations by the
          Company would not be favorable to the Company; and (4)

       -- that without the favorable terms available in the ARS
          market as a result of manipulation by the broker-
          dealers, the Company would not have sufficient capital
          to originate loans, making the Company's business
          model untenable.

     On July 7, 2008, the Company revealed the unfavorable terms
of its second securitization, causing the price of its
securities to drop to $2.27 per share - a one day decline of
$0.23 per share, or 9.2%.  Then, on August 18, 2008, Moody's
Investors Service placed the ARSs issued by MRU on review for
downgrade, driving the price of MRU shares even further, to
$1.05 per share.  After the market closed on September 5, 2008,
the Company ceased originating student loans, which caused MRU's
stock price to fall even further, closing on September 6, 2008
at $0.71.  Finally, on February 9, 2009, MRU announced that it
had filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy.  The Company's
shares have been delisted from the NASDAQ stock exchange, and
currently trade at less than $.01 per share.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 19, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Eva Hromadkova
          Brian Brooks
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Phone: 212-682-1818 or 800-497-8076
          e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com


REGIONS FINANCING: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     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 purchasers of the 8.875% Trust Preferred Securities of
Regions Financing Trust III (NYSE: RF-PZ) who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the
April 2008 Offering.

     The Complaint charges Regions Financial Corporation and
certain of its officers and directors, its auditor, and the
underwriters of the Offering with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933.

     Regions engages in consumer and commercial banking, trust,
securities brokerage, mortgage and insurance products and
services.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in
connection with the Company's Offering, defendants failed to
disclose or indicate the following:

       -- that the Company improperly accounted for goodwill;

       -- that the Company improperly accounted for impaired
          assets;

       -- that the Company improperly recorded provisions for
          loan losses;

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

       -- that the Company was not as well capitalized as
          represented; and

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

     On or about April 28, 2008, the Company conducted the
Offering.  In connection with the Offering, the Company filed a
Registration Statement and Prospectus with the SEC.  The
Offering was a financial success for the Company, as it was able
to raise over $345 million by selling 13.8 million shares of the
Securities to investors at a price of $25 per share.  On January
20, 2009, Regions announced dismal financial results for the
fourth quarter of 2008.  Details included a $6 billion non-cash
charge for impairment of goodwill, a $469 million loss resulting
from non-performing assets, and an increase in the loan loss
provision to $1.150 billion.  Then, on February 2, 2009, it was
reported that Moody's had downgraded the Company, largely due to
its deteriorating loan portfolios in the troubled Florida
market.  As a result of these disclosures, the price of the
Securities has declined significantly.

     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 June 1, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com


ZYNEX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Litigation in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Rosen Law Firm filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Zynex, Inc. (OTCBB: ZYXI)
formerly known as Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB: ZYNX)
securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009 inclusive.

     The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado as case no. 09-CV-780.

     The Complaint charges Zynex, its chief executive officer,
Thomas Sandgaard, and chief financial officer, Fritz Allison,
with violations of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with Zynex's
issuance of materially false financial statements to the
investing public during the Class Period.  According to the
Complaint, the Defendants, in violation of the Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and Zynex's own internal polices,
misstated the Company's reported net revenues and accounts
receivable for the first three quarters of fiscal 2008.

     On April 1, 2009, Zynex announced that its unaudited
financial statements and press releases issued on results for
the first three quarters of 2008 can no longer be relied upon
and would have to issue restated financial results to reflect
adjustments to accounts receivable and net revenue for such
periods.  The Company announced that it believed the cumulative
impact of these adjustments would be $5.1 million.  This adverse
news caused Zynex's stock price to fall dramatically, injuring
Zynex shareholders.

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

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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  * * *