CAR_Public/090427.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 81

                           Headlines

AMERICAN FAMILY: Appeals Plaintiff Substitution in Ill. Lawsuit
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Defending Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Defending Suit Over Alleged Failure to Refund
APOLLO GROUP: Appeal to Ruling in Ariz. Securities Suit Pending
APOLLO GROUP: Arizona Title VII Suit v. Univ. of Phoenix Closed

APOLLO GROUP: Faces Suit by Former UPX Students in Calif. Court
COSTCO WHOLSALE: Reaches Settlement For Suit over "Hot Gasoline"
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Judge OKs Settlements in Shareholders' Suit
EVONIK DEGUSSA: Reaches $15M Settlements in Pa. Antitrust Case
HOME SOLUTIONS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Junked on March 25

HOME SOLUTIONS: June 15 Hearing Set for "Melms" Suit Settlement
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Mass.
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Units Still Face Estate of Quisenberry's Suit
IRAN: U.S. Government Seeks Dismissal of Tehran Hostages' Suit
LOUIS VUITTON: Seeks Dismissal of "Arthur" Case Over Sold Works

LUZERNE COUNTY: Added as Defendant in JLC Suit Over Kickbacks
MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART: Seeks Dismissal of Murukami Case
PARTNER COMMS: Served With Subscribers' Litigation in Tel-Aviv
ROLLS-ROYCE CORP: Class Certification Sought For "Randall" Case
UNITED STATES: Faces S.D. Suit Over 1877 Taking of Black Hills

VCG HOLDING: Ruling on Motions in Zajkowski Suit Expected in May
VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Well Water


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER CORE: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Litigation


                           *********

AMERICAN FAMILY: Appeals Plaintiff Substitution in Ill. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Family Mutual Insurance wants to appeal a decision by
Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court wherein
he appointed substitute plaintiffs for a class-action lawsuit
against the company whose original plaintiff died five years
ago, Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record reports.

On April 9, 2009, company attorney Timothy Sansone, Esq., asked
Judge Stack to seek appellate review of a Feb. 3, 2009 order
preserving a Lakin Law Firm class action he certified in 2002.

Mr. Sansone wrote, "Respectfully, the lack of any class
representative for so long is not something that can be ignored,
called irrelevant, or set aside as unimportant," according to
The St. Clair Record report.

"Here, absent class members in this case have never received any
notice, and any attempt now, through the newly appointed
chiropractic class representatives, will not resolve the
constitutional due process defects present and will only further
confuse the situation," he wrote, reports The St. Clair Record.

Steve Korris of The Madison County Record previously reported
that Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court
certified two chiropractors and three chiropractic clinics to
replace the late Manuel Hernandez as leader of a class-action
lawsuit against American Family Insurance (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 17, 2009).

The judge issued a ruling on Feb. 3, 2009 in connection to a
purported class-action against American Family, which is
claiming that the company improperly reduced payouts on medical
bills from car crashes.

In a Jan. 2, 2009 response to a Dec. 26, 2008 American Family
Insurance brief that argued, "This is not a class action,"
lawyers Brad Lakin, Esq. and Paul Weiss, Esq. have explained why
the suit has been led for five years by a dead man.  However,
the answer as to why it must be prolonged as a class-action suit
is a secret, according to the The Madison County Record report
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2009).

The lawsuit was originally filed against the company by Manuel
Hernandez in 2000, who claims that the insurer improperly
reduced a payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto
accident (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 16, 2008).

In 2002, Judge Daniel Stack, as associate judge, certified Mr.
Hernandez as representative of a class in 17 states.  As circuit
judge, Judge Stack trimmed the class to 11 states in 2005.

In 2007, the company discovered that Mr. Hernandez has been dead
since January 2004, and therefore asked the court to dismiss the
case on this basis.

Since Mr. Hernandez's death, the attorneys have been trying to
substitute him with a another class representative.  First it
was his wife, and then later on by a band of out of state
chiropractors.

The Madison County Record reported that American Family lawyer
Anthony Martin, Esq. of St. Louis, opposing a motion to
substitute for the late Manuel Hernandez, wrote, "It ceased
being a class action long ago."  He argued that class counsel
have converted themselves into "the de facto plaintiff."

Though Mr. Hernandez died in 2004, Judge Stack didn't hear about
it from Messrs Lakin and Weiss.  American Family reported his
death to Judge Stack in 2006.

In his December 2008 brief, Mr. Martin wrote, "Either class
counsel knew of Mr. Hernandez's death for over two years and
failed to act, or failed to attempt to contact the sole class
representative for over two years," reports The Madison County
Record.

Mr. Martin argued that because the class received no notice, the
class died with Mr. Hernandez.  He explains, "Notice is required
because absent class members have several constitutional due
process rights which have not been protected in this lawsuit."

He also wrote, "American Family's concern for absent class
members' constitutional due process rights is also a concern for
its own."

Mr. Martin pointed out that the chiropractors and clinics, which
would substitute for Mr. Hernandez knew nothing about the
litigation until Mr. Lakin solicited them, reports The Madison
County Record.

"Those chiropractors responded to the solicitation letters
trolling for substitute class representatives a little more than
one year ago," according to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin argues that the three potential substitutes don't
belong to the class.  In addition, he also questioned the
adequacy of class counsel who sued each other two years ago,
according to The Madison County Record.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Defending Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
American National Insurance Company continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
California Labor Code, according to the company's Form 10
registration statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated April 6, 2009.

American National is a defendant in a lawsuit, which proposes to
certify one or more classes of persons who contend that American
National allegedly violated various provisions of the California
Labor Code, engaged in unfair business practices, fraud and
deceit, conversion, and negligent misrepresentation with respect
to certain of its sales agents.

The plaintiff has posited that she may seek a nationwide class
for alleged violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
at some point in the future.

The plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, restitution, interest,
penalties, attorneys' fees, punitive damages and injunctive
relief in an unspecified amount.

American National Insurance Company -- http://www.anico.com--
and its subsidiaries, operate primarily in the insurance
industry.  The company offers a line of insurance coverages,
including individual and group life, health, annuities, personal
lines property and casualty, and credit insurance.  In addition,
through non-insurance subsidiaries, American National offers
mutual funds, and invests in real estate.  It operates in seven
marketing segments: Independent Marketing Group, Career Sales &
Service Division, Multiple Line, Senior Age Marketing, Direct
Marketing, Credit Insurance Division And Health Division.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Defending Suit Over Alleged Failure to Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
American National Insurance Company continues to defend a class-
action lawsuit alleging failure to refund premiums.

The company is the defendant in a class-action lawsuit which
contends that American National allegedly failed to refund
credit life and disability insurance premiums to persons who
paid the underlying indebtedness prior to the insured loan's
maturity.

A settlement class has been certified.

In addition, American National has reached a settlement with the
State of Texas in a similar action regarding this situation.

American National has reserved $27 million for settlement of
these cases, including payment of attorneys' fees, and believes
that any additional amounts that may be necessary will not be
material to the consolidated financial statements, according to
the company's Form 10 registration statement filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 6, 2009.

American National Insurance Company -- http://www.anico.com--
and its subsidiaries, operate primarily in the insurance
industry.  The company offers a line of insurance coverages,
including individual and group life, health, annuities, personal
lines property and casualty, and credit insurance.  In addition,
through non-insurance subsidiaries, American National offers
mutual funds, and invests in real estate.  It operates in seven
marketing segments: Independent Marketing Group, Career Sales &
Service Division, Multiple Line, Senior Age Marketing, Direct
Marketing, Credit Insurance Division And Health Division.


APOLLO GROUP: Appeal to Ruling in Ariz. Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to a ruling in a consolidated lawsuit
captioned, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's March 31, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009.

In October 2004, three class-action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  The court
consolidated the three pending class action complaints under the
caption, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff.

The Lead Plaintiff represents a class of the company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004,
and Sept. 14, 2004.

The consolidated complaint specifically named the company, Todd
S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, and Daniel E. Bachus, as
defendants.

On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel
E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Act by the company for defendants'
allegedly material false and misleading statements in connection
with its failure to publicly disclose the contents of a
preliminary U.S. Department of Education program review report.

The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007.  On Jan. 16, 2008,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding
damages of up to $5.55 for each share of common stock in the
class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The class shares are those purchased after Feb. 27, 2004, and
still owned on Sept. 14, 2004.

The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an
automatic stay until Feb. 13, 2008.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
execution of the judgment pending resolution of its motions for
post-trial relief, which were also filed on Feb. 13, 2008,
provided that the company post a bond in the amount of $95.0
million.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95-million bond with
the Court.

Oral arguments occurred on Aug. 4, 2008 as part of the company's
post-trial motions, during which the District Court vacated the
earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and entered judgment
in favor of Apollo and the other defendants.

The $95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently
released on Aug. 11, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 29, 2008.  A hearing date
for the appeal has not been set.  The plaintiffs' opening brief
is currently due on May 18, 2009, and the defendants' brief is
currently due on July 30, 2009.

The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Judge James A. Teilborg,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
         (robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com)
         Mitchell & Forest
         2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-468-1411
         Fax: 602-468-1311

              - and

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

          Wayne W. Smith, Esq.
          Orange County Office
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949-451-4108
          Fax: 949-475-4709


APOLLO GROUP: Arizona Title VII Suit v. Univ. of Phoenix Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit against the University of
Phoenix, Inc. (UPX), a unit of Apollo Group, Inc., captioned,
"Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of
Phoenix, Inc., Case No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM," is now closed,
according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 28, 2009.

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 25, 2006, by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission as a Title VII action against UPX.  It
was filed on behalf of four identified former employees and a
proposed class of unidentified former and current employees who
were allegedly discriminated against because they were not
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The complaint also alleges that some of the employees were
retaliated against after complaining about the alleged
discrimination.

The EEOC did not serve its Complaint on UPX until Nov. 21, 2006.
UPX answered the Complaint on Dec. 8, 2006, denying the material
allegations asserted.

An initial Scheduling Conference was held on Feb. 15, 2007.

During the course of discovery, the EEOC identified
approximately 45 additional class members on whose behalf it was
seeking relief.

UPX filed motions to strike almost all of these additional class
members on the basis that they failed to timely exhaust their
administrative remedies and meet other statutory prerequisites
to filing suit under Title VII.

The District Court denied University of Phoenix's motions to
strike on May 2, 2008 and University of Phoenix subsequently
filed a motion for certification to file an interlocutory appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On May 20, 2008, the District Court granted University of
Phoenix's motion for certification and stayed discovery
regarding the additional class members pending the Ninth
Circuit's ruling.

On Aug. 15, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied University of
Phoenix's request to file an interlocutory appeal.  As a result,
on Aug. 19, 2008, the District Court reopened discovery on all
class members and extended the discovery deadline for 90 days.
The parties subsequently reached a settlement resolving this
action through a consent decree that was approved by the
District Court on Nov. 7, 2008, and the case is now closed.
Under the terms of the consent decree, University of Phoenix
paid in the first quarter of fiscal year 2009 approximately $1.9
million to the class members and an additional $0.1 million in
attorney's fees, which the company accrued for in the third
quarter of fiscal year 2008.  University of Phoenix will also
provide, among other things, additional training and oversight
to the Enrollment Department of its online campus, according to
the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb.
28, 2009.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge
Mary H. Murguia, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Katherine J. Kruse, Esq. (katherine.kruse@eeoc.gov)
          EEOC
          3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 690
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848
          Phone: 602-640-5029
          Fax: 602-640-5009

Representing the defendants is:

          William R. Hayden, Esq. (bhayden@swlaw.com)
          Snell & Wilmer LLP
          1 Arizona Ctr, 400 E. Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001
          Phone: 602-382-6000
          Fax: 602-382-6070


APOLLO GROUP: Faces Suit by Former UPX Students in Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, University of Phoenix,
Inc. (UPX), face a class-action lawsuit filed by former UPX
students on Feb. 5, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On Dec. 9, 2008, three former University of Phoenix students
filed a complaint against Apollo Group and UPX in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The complaint alleges that with regard to students who dropped
from their courses shortly after enrolling, University of
Phoenix improperly returned the entire amount of the students'
undisbursed federal loan funds to the lender.

The students purport to be bringing the complaint on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of similarly-situated student
loan borrowers.

On Jan. 21, 2009, the plaintiffs voluntarily filed a dismissal
"without prejudice to re-filing."

The plaintiffs then filed a similar complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division Los Angeles) on Feb. 5, 2009.

According to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 28, 2009, at this time, Apollo Group does not know
how many students may fall into this category, or whether there
is a proper basis for the lawsuit to proceed as a class-action
lawsuit.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private
education provider.  The company offers educational programs and
services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels
online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The
University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute
for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial
Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International
University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned
subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global).  The company
has also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University
(Meritus), which began operations in September 2008.


COSTCO WHOLSALE: Reaches Settlement For Suit over "Hot Gasoline"
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Costco Wholesale Corp. agreed to settle a lawsuit over the
sale of "hot gasoline," becoming the first U.S. gasoline
retailer to do so and setting a possible national precedent,
said Consumer Watchdog.  The group applauded the discount chain
and urged others to break ranks with the oil industry and sell
"fair fuel."

     "This is fantastic news for consumers," said Judy Dugan,
research director of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer
Watchdog. "Costco is taking the lead in offering drivers
gasoline that has the same amount of energy in every gallon,
living up to its reputation as a consumer-friendly place to
shop."

     The agreement affects Costco motor fuel sales in Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia. The deal,
if fully approved, would go fully into effect within five years.
Costco would install temperature-sensing pumps that slightly
adjust the amount of fuel to same energy content in each gallon.
Such pumps are almost universally used in Canada and
increasingly in Europe.

     This action is just the first big step toward a final
settlement involving Costco, and will likely face ferocious
opposition from oil companies and bigger name-brand refiners and
retailers.  The fuel lobby this month pushed Virginia
legislators into at least temporarily banning temperature-
adjusted sales.

     "Oil and fuel lobbyists who try to intimidate state and
national regulators into stopping Costco will be trying to make
fairness illegal," said Dugan.  "This is the rear-guard action
of an industry that is already seen as completely
untrustworthy."

     Fairness is the point, said Consumer Watchdog.  When the
temperature of gasoline rises above 60 degrees, gasoline expands
but gas pumps don't account for the bigger volume, so consumers
receive less gasoline than they should.  When motorists buy
gasoline, they have no idea what the fuel temperature is, even
though adjacent stations can vary by 15 degrees.  For every 15-
degree rise in temperature, 1% of the fuel is lost to expansion.
Some big gas stations and truck stops keep their fuel
aboveground, in tanks painted flat black.  They don't paint them
black for convenience -- it's a perverted use of solar energy to
keep the fuel hot, said Consumer Watchdog.

     A 2% expansion of gasoline at 90 degrees, at even $3.00 a
gallon, is a $1.20 loss on a 20-gallon fill-up.  At $4 a gallon,
the loss is $1.60.  The loss to all drivers nationally adds up
to $3 billion or more.  California drivers alone lose hundreds
of millions of dollars a year to hot fuel.

     The deal, if finalized, will remove Costco from national
and state class action lawsuits by drivers -- and by truckers,
who can lose hundreds of dollars to hot fuel each year.

     Costco has long been willing to consider selling gasoline
adjusted at the pump to deliver the same amount of energy in
every gallon.  There were rumors back to late 2007 that Costco
was talking with California regulators about being fair to
drivers.  The company backed down, clearly under industry
pressure.  At the time, Consumer Watchdog wrote a letter to
Costco Chairman James Sinegal encouraging him to sell
temperature-adjusted gasoline.

     Costco, which usually undercuts the competition on gasoline
prices anyway, obviously thinks the cost of installing
temperature adjusting pumps -- which comes to hundredths of a
penny per gallon over the life of a pump, according to the
California Energy Commission -- is worth it, said Consumer
Watchdog.

     Consumer Watchdog also recently charged that a conflict of
interest affected the outcome of the California Energy
Commission's study on the costs and benefits of fixing the "hot
fuel" ripoff in the state.  James Boyd, the energy commissioner
who led the study, is the spouse of the chief lobbyist for the
Western States Petroleum Association, whose most powerful
members oppose fixing hot fuel.

     Although the state's Fair Political Practices Commission
ultimately stated that Boyd did not have a conflict of interest,
it was on the technical grounds that Mrs. Boyd's direct
employer, and Mrs. Boyd, would not foreseeably suffer a loss of
income because of the hot fuel study.

     "The battle in the California Energy Commission over the
effects of hot fuel may foreshadow a battle against Costco's
decision to be fair in its sale of gasoline," said Dugan.
"Ultimately, that battle will damage the already bottom-feeding
reputation of oil companies more than it will save them from
cheating consumers of a few cents a gallon.  They should give it
up before their public approval rating hits zero."

The Stipulation of Class Action Settlement is available at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3bd3


CROCUS INVESTMENT: Judge OKs Settlements in Shareholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Manitoba judge approved three settlement agreements in the
CDN$200-million class-action lawsuit against Crocus Investment
Fund, clearing the way for shareholders to finally receive money
that has been in limbo since trading was halted in December
2004, The Winnipeg Free Press reports.

On April 22, 2009, Justice Kenneth Hanssen gave the green light
to settlements from the defunct fund's directors and officers,
its former lead underwriter Wellington West Capital, and its
former auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers.  The approval removed
the last hurdle for Deloitte & Touche, Crocus's receiver, to
apply to the court to pay out money to the fund's 34,000
shareholders.

"We've very pleased with today's result," David Klein, the
Vancouver-based lawyer representing the shareholders in the
class-action case told The Winnipeg Free Press.  "It's almost
the end, we're very close to the end."

Bernie Bellan, the crusading Crocus shareholder who launched the
class action three years ago, told The Winnipeg Free Press that
he felt relief that the end is finally in sight.  He said
considering the fund is sitting on CDN$66 million in cash, it
wouldn't be unreasonable for shareholders to expect a CDN$5-a-
share payout from the receiver.

In total, the three approved settlements are worth nearly CDN$10
million.  Coupled with two previous agreements with the Province
of Manitoba and the Manitoba Securities Commission, the class-
action case will receive about $12.5 million from a quintet of
defendants.  Shareholders won't see all of that, however, as
one-third is earmarked to be paid out to the case's lawyers.


EVONIK DEGUSSA: Reaches $15M Settlements in Pa. Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evonik Degussa Corp., Lucite International, Inc., Arkema, Inc.,
and Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. have agreed to pay a total
of $15.1 million to settle a long-running class action alleging
a conspiracy to drive up the prices of methyl methacrylate and
acrylic, Law360 reports.

In a motion filed on April 22, 2009 with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs asked a
judge to approve four separate settlement agreements following
negotiations with the chemical companies, according to the
Law360 report.


HOME SOLUTIONS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Junked on March 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated shareholder class-action suit captioned, "Home
Solutions of America Investor Group v. Fradella, Civil Action
No. 3:06-cv-1096," was dismissed on March 25, 2009, according to
Home Solutions of America, Inc.'s Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 13, 2009.

On Sept. 22, 2008, the company entered into a Confidential
Settlement Agreement with its lenders under its Revolving Credit
Facility, Term Loan and Letter of Credit Facility.  The
Settlement Agreement, which supersedes the Forbearance Agreement
entered into Feb. 6, 2008, as amended, between the company and
its lenders, effectively settled all outstanding obligations
between the company and its lenders.

The company reached an agreement to settle the consolidated
shareholder class action captioned, "Home Solutions of America
Investor Group v. Fradella, Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-1096,"
filed on June 20, 2006.

The 2006 Class Action Settlement and the Derivative Action
Settlement are subject to approval by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, which has set a hearing for
March 23, 2009 to determine whether the 2006 Class Action
Settlement should be approved.

Under the terms of the 2006 Class Action Settlement, the company
agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle all claims brought by a
certified class of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Home Solution during the period between April 11, 2006, and
March 5, 2007, inclusive.  If all required payments are made and
the 2006 Class Action Settlement is approved by the District
Court, all claims asserted by 2006 Settlement Class will be
dismissed with prejudice, and a portion of the $3.5 million
settlement amount will be used to pay the attorneys' fees of
counsel for the plaintiffs.

On March 23, 2009, the court held a Fairness Hearing on whether
the settlement of the 2006 Class Action should receive final
approval and on March 25, 2009, the Court issued its final order
and judgment dismissing all causes of action with prejudice
against the company and the individual defendants, also awarding
attorneys fees from the settlement proceeds to the plaintiffs'
class counsel.

Home Solutions of America, Inc. -- http://www.hsoacorp.com/--
is a provider of restoration, construction and interior services
to commercial and residential areas that are prone to flooding,
hurricanes, tornados, fires or other naturally occurring and
repetitive weather related emergencies, and/or experiencing
commercial or residential development.  The company operates
through two segments: restoration and construction services, and
interior services.


HOME SOLUTIONS: June 15 Hearing Set for "Melms" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final hearing has been set for June 15, 2009, on the settlement
of a purported class-action suit captioned, "Melms v. Home
Solutions of America et al., Civil Action No. 3L07-CV-1961,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

The company reached an agreement to settle a purported class-
action suit captioned, "Melms v. Home Solutions of America et
al., Civil Action No. 3L07-CV-1961," filed on Feb. 15, 2008, and
amended on May 29, 2008.

Under the terms of the Melms Settlement, the company agreed to
pay $5.1 million to settle all claims brought by a class of all
persons who purchased common stock of Home Solutions from May
10, 2007 through Feb. 15, 2008.

On April 10, 2009, the Melms Settlement was approved by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas which mandated
a final Settlement Hearing for June 15, 2009, to approve the
settlement and plaintiff's fees, among other things, according
to Home Solutions of America, Inc.'s Form 8-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 13, 2009.

Home Solutions of America, Inc. -- http://www.hsoacorp.com/--
is a provider of restoration, construction and interior services
to commercial and residential areas that are prone to flooding,
hurricanes, tornadoes, fires or other naturally occurring and
repetitive weather related emergencies, and/or experiencing
commercial or residential development.  The company operates
through two segments: restoration and construction services, and
interior services.


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc., continues to face a
purported class-action lawsuit in Massachusetts, alleging that
the company's prospectus supplement with respect to its November
2007 public offering was inaccurate and misleading and omitted
material facts.

The purported federal securities class-action lawsuit was filed
on April 10, 2008, by Pyramid Holdings Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company; its
chief executive officer, Ron Zwanziger; and its chief financial
officer, David Teitel.

The complaint seeks damages and interest, rescissory damages for
class members who have sold their shares, and recovery of
reasonable costs and expenses of this litigation.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
April 10, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Pyramid Holdings Inc. v. Inverness Medical
Innovations Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-10615-JLT," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Joseph L. Tauro, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

          Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
          (BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com)
          Goodwin Procter LLP
          Exchange Place, 53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-570-1094
          Fax: 617-523-1231


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Units Still Face Estate of Quisenberry's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc.'s subsidiaries
continue to face a class-action complaint styled Estate of
Melissa Prince Quisenberry v. Alere Medical, Inc., TA
Associates, Inc., Covington Associates, et al.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Estate of Melissa Prince Quisenberry
filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
California on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
against Alere Medical Inc., and Agora Parent, Inc., both of
which are wholly owned subsidiaries; Ronald D. Geraty, MD, chief
executive officer of Alere Medical and certain other individuals
who were executive officers, directors and/or significant
shareholders of Alere Medical; as well as certain other
unaffiliated entities.

Plaintiff and class owned common and/or preferred stock in Alere
Medical and allege that the defendants forced them to tender
their stock in connection with the March 14, 2007 sale of Alere
Medical to an unaffiliated entity at a price which was
substantially lower than the price at which the company bought
Alere Medical on Oct. 24, 2007.

Plaintiff also alleges that the individual defendants breached
fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty and
candor; and that Alere Medical and certain unaffiliated entities
aided, abetted and substantially participated in the breach of
fiduciary duty, according to the company's April 10, 2009 Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc. -- http://www.invmed.com/--
is a global developer, manufacturer and marketer of advanced
consumer and professional medical diagnostic products.  The
company is a supplier of consumer pregnancy and
fertility/ovulation tests and rapid point-of-care diagnostics.
The company's products and services are focused in the areas of
infectious disease, cardiology, oncology, drugs of abuse and
women's health. In addition, it manufactures and markets a
variety of vitamins and nutritional supplements.  Inverness
Medical Innovations, Inc. operates in four segments:
professional diagnostic products, health management, consumer
diagnostic, and vitamins and nutritional supplements.


IRAN: U.S. Government Seeks Dismissal of Tehran Hostages' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government has asked the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia to dismiss a purported class-action lawsuit
against Iran filed by Americans held hostage at the U.S. Embassy
in Tehran 30 years ago, The Associated Press reports.

The request comes in a $6.6 billion class-action suit entitled,
"Roeder et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 1:2008-cv-
00487," which was filed back in March 21, 2008.

The original plaintiffs are three of the hostages Charles W.
Scott of Jonesboro, Ga., David M. Roeder of Alexandria, Va., and
Don A Sharer of Mansfield, Texas -- and the wife and daughter of
another hostage, Barry Rosen, from New York City, Barbara B.
Rosen and Ariana B. Rosen.

Fifty-two American diplomats and military officials were held
captive for more than a year at the end of Jimmy Carter's
presidency by a group of Islamist students who supported the
Iranian revolution, reports The Associated Press.

The hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, just minutes after
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the new president.

In court papers filed on April 21, 2009, the Justice Department
argued that the agreement to release the hostages, known as the
Algiers Accords, precluded lawsuits against Iran, according The
Associated Press report.

A similar lawsuit brought by the Iranian hostages was dismissed
in 2000 after the government successfully argued it was banned
by the Algiers Accords.  The hostages argue that legislation
passed by Congress last year and signed into law by President
George W. Bush gives them the right to bring private lawsuits.

However, the Justice Department argued that the law does not
mention the Algiers Accords, much less explicitly repeal them,
AP reports.

"The gratitude of the United States for the service and
dedication of these brave individuals cannot be overstated, nor
can the suffering and abuse they endured on behalf of this
country be exaggerated; these matters are beyond dispute," the
Justice Department wrote in its filing.

The hostages argue that Iran supported their confinement and
abuse, with visits from government officials, stays in
government prisons and buildings and threats of trial in Iranian
courts.  The lawsuit says current Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad was one of their interrogators.

The suit says the hostages were tortured, beaten sometimes until
they lost consciousness and kept in fear of their lives, at
times even lined up in front of marksmen locking their guns.  It
says they were imprisoned without adequate food, clothing or
medical care, blindfolded with their hands tied, interrogated
for hours at a time and kept in isolation for months at a time,
The Associated Press reported.


LOUIS VUITTON: Seeks Dismissal of "Arthur" Case Over Sold Works
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a
purported class-action lawsuit, entitled, "Arthur v. Louis
Vuitton North America Inc et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-04731-AHM-
FFM," Mike Boehm of The Los Angeles Times reports.

The suit was originally filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
but was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

When it was initially filed in June 2008, the suit alleged only
the company failed to provide information about the artworks
required under California's Fine Prints Act.  In August 2008
though, attorneys added fraud allegations, reports The Los
Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times previously reported that Louis Vuitton is
facing a class-action complaint filed in the Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging that the luxury retailer did not provide
proper documentation for the works sold at its Museum of
Contemporary Art (MOCA) boutique (Class Action Reporter, July 8,
2008).

Named plaintiff Clint Arthur alleges that Louis Vuitton failed
to take the law into account when selling limited-edition prints
by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami at his show at the
museum's Geffen Contemporary.

He says two limited-edition prints he bought for $6,000 each
were signed by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami but not also
numbered by the artist as promised in an accompanying
certificate.  MOCA, he says, provided no documentation at all
for two $855 Murakami prints.

The Los Angeles Times recounts that since 1970, California law
has required dealers who sell limited-edition prints of artists'
work to disclose an array of information supporting the prints'
authenticity.

Mr. Arthur says that because Louis Vuitton failed to provide
sufficient information, 500 Murakami prints that were on sale
for an average of $8,000 lacked the ironclad certification
required, making them less valuable for resale.  The show --
Vuitton store included -- is now at the Brooklyn Museum in New
York.

The California law allows triple damages for violations,
exposing Louis Vuitton to a potential multimillion-dollar
liability.

Mr. Arthur, who sued Louis Vuitton on June 23, 2008 said he
discovered the law on the Internet after having misgivings about
the prints he had purchased last winter during the "Murakami"
exhibition at MOCA's Geffen Contemporary building.

According to the LA Times report, the law on fine art prints
apparently has been enforced rarely, if ever, since it went on
the books in 1970, but on paper it carries considerable clout:
It specifically authorizes the state attorney general, district
attorneys and city attorneys to bring civil charges carrying
fines of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The suit is "Arthur v. Louis Vuitton North America Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-04731-AHM-FFM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Daniel E. Engel, Esq. (dan@danengel.com)
          Daniel E. Engel Law Offices
          18150 Archwood Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91335-5502
          Phone: 818-345-2634
          Fax: 866-535-1248

               - and -

          Matthew J. Butterick, Esq. (mb@buttericklaw.com)
          Butterick Law Corporation
          5419 Hollywood Blvd Suite C731
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Phone: 323-544-1435
          Fax: 866-801-1147

Representing the defendants are:

          Rebecca J. Edelson, Esq. (redelson@steptoe.com)
          Steptoe and Johnson
          2121 Avenue of the Stars Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-5052
          Phone: 310-734-3200
          Fax: 310-734-3300

               - and -

          Robert E. Shapiro, Esq. (rob.shapiro@bfkn.com)
          Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum and Nagelberg LLP
          200 West Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-984-3100
          Fax: 312-984-3150


LUZERNE COUNTY: Added as Defendant in JLC Suit Over Kickbacks
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Juvenile Law Center added Luzerne County as a defendant in
an amended lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Pennsylvania, captioned, "H.T. et al v. Ciavarella
et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-00357," Dave Janoski of The Standard
Speaker reports.

The plaintiffs in the suit are juveniles denied their right to
counsel in court appearances before former county Judge Mark A.
Ciavarella Jr., who has pleaded guilty to accepting bribes in
connection with juvenile-detention contracts, according to The
Standard Speaker report.

The other defendants are Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., Michael T.
Conahan, Robert J. Powell, Robert Mericle, Gregory Zappala,
Cindy Ciavarella, Barbara Conahan, Mericle Constructions, Inc.,
Mid-Alantic Youth Services, PA Child Care, LLC, Western PA Child
Care, LLC, Pinnacle Group Of Jupiter, LLC, Vision Holdings, LLC,
and Beverage Marketing of Pennsylvania, Inc.

On Feb. 26, 2009, JLC, along with its pro bono co-counsel
Hangley Aronchick Segal and Pudlin, filed a class-action lawsuit
in U.S. Federal Court in Wilkes-Barre, PA claiming that former
Luzerne County judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan
conspired with the other defendants in a brazenly corrupt scheme
to accept kickbacks in exchange for arranging contracts between
the Luzerne County juvenile court and the private defendants'
for-profit juvenile detention centers for the referral and
placement of Luzerne County youth adjudicated delinquent between
2003-2008.  As the Complaint states, "In choosing to treat
children as commodities that could be traded for cash, the
defendants have placed an indelible stain on the Luzerne County
juvenile justice system."

In addition to Judges Ciavarella and Conahan, the suit names
Gregory Zappala, Cindy Ciavarella, Barbara Conahan, Robert
Powell, Robert Mericle, Mericle Construction, Mid-Atlantic Youth
Services, PA Child Care, Western PA Child Care, Pinnacle Group
of Jupiter, Vision Holdings, and Beverage Marketing of
Pennsylvania as defendants.  The class members seek monetary
damages under federal civil rights laws and the federal
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The complaint further states, "With utter disdain for the rule
of law, defendants Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. and Michael T.
Conahan, in combination and conspiracy with other defendants
named herein, have collectively perpetrated, through their acts
and omissions, what ranks as one of the largest and most serious
violations of children's rights in the history of the American
legal system."

"The stories of the individual children and their parents who
appeared before Judge Ciavarella are haunting, depicting an
imperious judge who was operating completely outside the bounds
of law, exhibiting only a callous disregard for the children who
appeared before him," says Marsha Levick, Deputy Director and
Chief Legal Counsel at Juvenile Law Center.  "The civil suit
asks for damages for children whose dispositions before
Ciavarella were so swift, arbitrary and unsparing."

In addition to seeking damages from defendants under the civil
RICO statute for injuries suffered as a result of this
conspiracy, the youth also seek damages for the persistent and
widespread violation of their constitutional rights to appear
before an impartial tribunal, their right to counsel in the
delinquency hearings held before Ciavarella, and their right to
be informed of the consequences of waiving their right to a
trial before pleading guilty.  These constitutional violations
occurred throughout the five year period, affecting thousands of
children.  "Children were caught in a wave of unprecedented
lawlessness that often, within moments, tore them away from
their families, their schools, their friends and ultimately,
their lives immediately handcuffed, shackled and incarcerated
for infractions as minor as shoplifting a $4 jar of nutmeg or
taking change from an unlocked car to buy a bag of chips," says
Robert Schwartz, Executive Director at Juvenile Law Center.

"Judge Ciavarella's placement of so many children in juvenile
facilities without regard for their underlying charges suggests
a procrustean scheme that violated one of the core principles of
the juvenile justice system the right to individualized
treatment and rehabilitation," states Lourdes Rosado, Associate
Director at Juvenile Law Center.  "He shredded the
constitutional rights and statutory rights of these children;
and now, he has been properly stripped of any right to serve as
a judge or practice law ever again.  Through this lawsuit, we
also seek to hold him civilly liable for money damages."

In April 2008, Juvenile Law Center filed an application to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court for extraordinary relief on behalf of
Luzerne County youth who had been adjudicated delinquent in
violation of their constitutional rights to counsel and to enter
only knowing and voluntary guilty pleas.  The State's records
indicated that more than 60% of Luzerne juveniles had appeared
without counsel during the most critical phases of delinquency
proceedings as a consequence of unlawful waivers of counsel,
resulting in unconstitutional admissions of guilt, delinquency
adjudications, and out-of-home placements.  The filing drew
amicus briefs from the Pennsylvania Attorney General and the
Department of Public Welfare.  The Luzerne County District
Attorney filed a brief opposing Juvenile Law Center's petition
saying that "it was not a matter of immediate public
importance."

On January 8, 2009, after eight months of silence on the issue,
the Supreme Court denied Juvenile Law Center's petition in a
one-sentence response.  But on January 26th, U.S. Attorney
Martin Carlson filed criminal charges against Ciavarella and
Conahan for devising and operating a scheme to accept financial
kickbacks for placing children that Ciavarella had adjudicated
delinquent into residential programs.

Within days, Juvenile Law Center renewed and expanded its
petition for King's Bench relief on behalf of over 2,500 youth
claiming that "this case is now about the wholesale subversion
of the Luzerne County juvenile justice system over many years."
Three days later, on February 2nd, the State Supreme Court
vacated its earlier decision and subsequently granted Juvenile
Law Center's petition for the rarely used King's Bench petition.
Juvenile Law Center seeks to overturn and expunge the
adjudications of all these youth through their action before the
state Supreme Court, in addition to seeking damages on their
behalf in the federal lawsuit."

Juvenile Law Center has partnered with the Philadelphia based
law firm of Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin to file today's
suit.  "The abhorrent record of injustice over so many years in
Luzerne County compelled us to work on this case with Juvenile
Law Center," says Daniel Segal, Partner.  "This is an
opportunity for our firm to lend our services and show youth
that there are adults in this world who care about fairness and
justice."

Juvenile Law Center is a national, non-profit, public interest
law firm that advances and protects the rights and well-being of
children in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
Juvenile Law Center is a resource for other legal advocacy
groups across the nation and in 2008 was one of eight
organizations around the world to receive the prestigious John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Creative and Effective
Institutions Award.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3be1

For more information:

          Lourdes Rosado
          The Juvenile Law Center
          Phone: (215) 625-0551
          Web site: http://www.jlc.org


MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART: Seeks Dismissal of Murukami Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) and Louis Vuitton North
America, Inc. are seeking the dismissal of a purported class-
action lawsuit over allegations that the luxury retailer did not
provide proper documentation for the works sold at its MOCA
boutique, Mike Boehm of The Los Angeles Times reports.

The suit against MOCA in Los Angeles Superior Court, reported by
The LA Times last year, alleges no fraud but concerns failure to
provide proper certificates for three limited-edition prints
signed by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami that the
plaintiff Clint Arthur bought for $2,655 at the regular museum
shop.

MOCA contends that the suit should be dismissed because in March
2009, it gave Mr. Arthur the legally required certificates it
had previously failed to provide, reports The Los Angeles Times.

Judge William Highberger is expected to rule by summer whether
that case should go forward, according to The Los Angeles Times
report.


PARTNER COMMS: Served With Subscribers' Litigation in Tel-Aviv
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Partner Communications Company Ltd. (NASDAQ: PTNR)(TASE:
PTNR), an Israeli mobile communications operator, was served on
April 22, 2009 with a lawsuit requesting certification as a
class action, filed against Partner in the District Court of
Tel-Aviv.  The claim alleges that Partner charges certain
subscribers for certain calls not according to their rate plan.

     If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total
amount claimed from Partner is estimated by the Plaintiffs to be
approximately 186,732,000 NIS.

     Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and at this
preliminary stage is unable to evaluate the probability of
success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if
any, with any degree of certainty.


ROLLS-ROYCE CORP: Class Certification Sought For "Randall" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a gender discrimination lawsuit against Rolls-
Royce Corp. are asking Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to declare
the case a class-action, Jeff Swiatek of The Indianapolis Star
reports.

The suit, captioned, "Randall et al vs Rolls-Royce Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:2006-cv-00860," was filed on May 26, 2006 by
two high-level female managers of the company, Sally Randall and
Rona Pepmeier.  Sandra Blevins, Esq., of the Indianapolis law
firm of Betz & Associates is representing both women.

In their federal lawsuit, the plaintiffs say that they have been
paid less than their male counterparts, passed over for
promotions and witnessed male executives putting down women,
according to The Indianapolis Star report.

The two refer to a corporate "code of silence" at Rolls-Royce
that inhibits women from talking about being underpaid or not
promoted, out of fear they will be fired if they do.

Ms. Randall, 59, and Ms. Pepmeier, 36, say they have been
removed from bonus plans they previously were eligible for and
no longer are on a career track for promotions since they filed
their lawsuit three years ago, reports The Indianapolis Star.

The plaintiffs are seeking for class-action status so as to
allow up to 537 female engineers and managers at the company's
Indianapolis facility to join as plaintiffs.

The Indianapolis Star reported that if the class is approved,
claims easily could run into the millions of dollars against
Rolls-Royce, based on several years' worth of alleged
underpayments to its female engineers and managers.  The case
involves only white-collar female employees at certain pay
grades at Rolls-Royce's Indianapolis facility, which formerly
was Allison Engine Co.

Responding to the allegations, Roll-Royce in a recent court
filing calls the gender discrimination charge "absurd,"
contending the company doesn't discriminate against women and
actually promotes them faster than men, reports The Indianapolis
Star.

The suit is "Randall et al vs Rolls-Royce Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:2006-cv-00860," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Sandra L. Blevins, Esq. (sblevins@betzadvocates.com)
          BETZ & ASSOCIATES
          One Indiana Square
          Suite 1660
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 687-2222
          Fax: (317) 687-2221

               - and -

          Thomas J. Henderson, Esq. (tjh@hendersonfirm.net)
          HENDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
          1425 K. Street, N.W.
          Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 587-5687
          Fax: (202) 587-5601

Representing the defendants are:

          Hannesson Ignatius Murphy, Esq. (hmurphy@btlaw.com)
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          11 South Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 231-7210
          Fax: (317) 231-7433

               - and -

          George A. Stohner, Esq. (gstohner@morganlewis.com)
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          300 South Grand Avenue
          22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 612-1015
          Fax: (213) 612-2501


UNITED STATES: Faces S.D. Suit Over 1877 Taking of Black Hills
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeks a court order that would give members of eight
Sioux tribes a share of money awarded in old court cases for the
improper taking of the Black Hills in 1877 by the federal
government, Chet Brokaw of The Associated Press reports.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Dakota.  It says even though the Sioux
tribes have refused the money and have continued to demand the
return of the land, the courts cannot give back the Black Hills,
according to the AP report.

Wanda L. Howey-Fox of Yankton, one of the lawyers who filed the
lawsuit, told The Associated Press that money is the only remedy
available for the loss of the Black Hills.

For more details, contact:

          Harmelink & Fox Law Office
          721 Douglas Ave., Ste. 101
          Yankton, SD 57078-3564
          Phone: (605) 665-1001
          Fax: (605) 665-6781


VCG HOLDING: Ruling on Motions in Zajkowski Suit Expected in May
----------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on the summary judgment motions in a purported class-
action suit against VCG Holding Corp. and its Class Affairs unit
in Minnesota over certain employment practices is expected in
May 2009.

An ex-employee, Eric Zajkowski, filed the lawsuit in December
2007, following his termination from employment with Classic
Affairs, a wholly owned subsidiary of the company.

The plaintiff alleges that in connection with his employment, he
was subject to certain employment practices which violated
Minnesota law.  The initial action and subsequent pleading
assert that this matter is filed as a purported class-action
lawsuit.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff moved
to amend his complaint to name additional plaintiffs and later,
to name Classic Affairs as a party defendant.

The company and classic Affairs have answered this complaint
denying all liability to the plaintiffs.  The parties have
engaged in written discovery, but no depositions have yet been
taken in this case.

The parties have attempted, via mediation, to resolve this case.
That mediation was unsuccessful.

The defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for mid
January 2009.  The parties have filed cross-motions for Summary
Judgment and the Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Class
Certification.  Those matters were heard on Feb. 2, 2009.  A
ruling on those Motions is expected in May 2009.  Trial is also
presently scheduled for May 2009.  However, that date remains
subject to change, according to the company's April 9, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is engaged in
owning and operating nightclubs that provide live adult
entertainment, food and beverage services.  The majority of the
clubs operate under the branded names PT's, Diamond Cabaret and
The Penthouse Club under non-exclusive licensing agreements. As
of December 31, 2008, it owned and operated 20 nightclubs in
Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, Texas, North Carolina, Minnesota,
Kentucky, Maine, Florida, and California. The company was
founded in 1989 and is based in Lakewood, Colorado.  It owns
International Entertainment Consultants, Inc., which provides
management services to its nightclubs and, on a fee basis, to
non-owned affiliated nightclubs.  VCG Holding classifies its
operations into two segments: the operations of the Clubs and
the management of non-owned adult nightclubs.


VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Well Water
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Village of Crestwood, Illinois, its mayor, and former mayor
are facing a purported class-action lawsuit that claims they
allowed residents to drink contaminated well water for decades,
CBS2 Chicago reports.

The suit, filed by Crestwood resident Joseph Marzano on behalf
of "thousands" of Crestwood residents who paid for allegedly
contaminated tap water, accuses the Village of Crestwood, Mayor
Robert Stranczek, his father, and unnamed alleged co-
conspirators with "quietly" making use of contaminated water as
a way to save money, according to the CBS2 Chicago report.

The suit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, claims the village
touted their cheap water prices while covertly using water from
a well known to contain dry cleaning chemicals, specifically
vinyl chloride.

It claims that in 1986, state regulators told Crestwood
officials that a well they were using was tainted with dangerous
chemicals.  Following the notification, the suit claims village
officials told the state that it would only use the well in
emergency situations and would provide tap water from Lake
Michigan only.

However, Mr. Marzano claims the village continued to use the
"tainted" well in an effort to save money, reports CBS2 Chicago.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER CORE: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund
(OPIGX, OIGBX, OPBCX).  The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer
Core Bond Fund, while representing itself as conservative and
appropriate as "a long-term investment" and as "part of a
retirement plan portfolio" was exceeding its own risk controls
by investing in high-risk, highly leveraged bets that directly
conflicted with its stated conservative strategy.  The Core Bond
Fund lost more than 35 percent of its value in 2008 and another
10 percent in the first three months of 2009 alone.

     The Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund was promoted as appropriate
for, and was offered by, several 529 college savings plans, such
as the Illinois 529 Bright Start plan, the Oregon College
Savings Plan, the Texas Lonestar 529 Plan, Maine's NextGen
College Investing Plan, the New Mexico Scholar's Edge and
College Sense 529 plans and Nebraska's State Farm College
Savings Plan. The Fund was also offered by several retirement
plans and annuities.

     The class action, entitled, "Smith v. OppenheimerFunds Inc.
et al, 09-cv-00929-WDM-KMT," is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.  It names as
defendants Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund, OppenheimerFunds and
certain of its officers and directors.  OppenheimerFunds is a
subsidiary of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
(MassMutual).  Defendants are charged with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940
for issuing false and misleading statements as to the Fund's
overall strategy and investment objectives in the Fund's filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 22, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          711 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/opigx.asp


                            *********

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  * * *