CAR_Public/090507.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 89

                           Headlines

3M CO: Faces Lawsuit in California Alleging Age Discrimination
AMERICAN FAMILY: $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit Reinstated
APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over MagSafe Power Adapters
BEAZER HOMES: Reaches $30.5M Deal in Ga. Shareholders' Lawsuit
BRISCONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT: Faces AUD1.3B Suit in Sydney Court

CARNIVAL CORP: Suit by Jacobs & Copyright Owners Junked in March
CENTEX CORP: Investors File Lawsuits Over Pulte Homes Takeover
EDDIE BAUER: Discovery in "Scherer" Labor Lawsuit Postponed
EDDIE BAUER: Final Approval of "Hill" Suit Settlement Pending
ENERGY TRANSFER: NYMEX Manipulation Suit Dismissed on March 26

ENERGY TRANSFER: "Rio Grande" Suit in Texas Dismissed in March
FEDERAL DEPOSIT: WaMu Executives File Lawsuit Over CIC Payments
J.P. MORGAN: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Credit Card Policy Change
LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Suit Pending in Minnesota
MAPLE LEAF: Nov. 21, 2009 Cutoff Set for Claims to CDN$27M Deal

MONSANTO CO: No Trial Date Yet for Contamination Suit in W.Va.
OKLAHOMA: Judge Grants Class Certification to Foster Care Suit
PASO ROBLES: Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Over Sewer, Water Fees
PEROT FAMILY: Faces Investors' Suit in Texas Over $2.5Bil Loss
ROYAL BANK: NY Judge Backs Out of Litigation Due to Family Link

THOMSON CORP: Ontario Court to Mull Settlement in Robertson Suit
TOTAL S.A.: Removed from Claims List of South African Citizens
VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: Faces Second Suit Over Contaminated Water
WSB FINANCIAL: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in March
YTB INT'L: Continues to Face Consolidated Litigation in Illinois


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

3M CO: Faces Lawsuit in California Alleging Age Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California
filed by current and former employees who allege that the
company discriminated against them in promotion and employment
decisions based on their age, saying that the company's use of
the Six Sigma quality improvement program favored younger
workers, Julie Forster of The Pioneer Press reports.

The suit is captioned, "Garcia et al v. 3M Company, Case No.
5:2009-cv-01943," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on May 4, 2009, alleging 3M
violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Listed as plaintiffs in the case are Arthur J. Garcia, Ronald K.
Brooks, Betty Jean Norman, Roderick Vold, Robert Elander, and
John Lynn.  They are represented by lead counsel Steven Sprenger
of the Sprenger & Lang, PLLC.  AARP, the advocacy group for
older people, is providing co-counsel in the case as well,
according to The Pioneer Press report.

The six named plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for a
group of more than 6,000 current and former 3M employees around
the nation.

The complaint alleges that since at least 2001, 3M intentionally
discriminated against employees ages 46 and older in performance
appraisals, training, promotions and pay.  It also alleges 3M
fires or forces these older employees to retire or resign, The
Pioneer Press reported.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges age discrimination stems
largely from the company's selection of employees for "Six
Sigma" training, a management method 3M adopted in 2001.  3M
selects very few older employees for high-level Six Sigma
training compared with their presence in the work force, the
complaint says, and the selection process gives younger
employees big advantages in subsequent employment decisions,
reports The Pioneer Press.

The suit is "Garcia et al v. 3M Company, Case No. 5:2009-cv-
01943," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steven Sprenger, Esq.
          Sprenger & Lang, PLLC
          1400 Eye Street, N.W.
          Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-265-8010
          Fax: 202-332-6652

          Thomas W. Osborne, Esq.
          AARP Foundation Litigation
          601 E. Street, N.W.
          Washinton, DC 20049
          Phone: 202-434-2060
          Fax: 202-434-6424

               - and -

          Teresa Demchak, Esq. (dem@gdblegal.com)
          Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian
          300 Lakeside Drive
          Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 763-9800
          Fax: (510) 835-1417


AMERICAN FAMILY: $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit Reinstated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Court of Appeals reinstated a $17 million jury
verdict against American Family Mutual Insurance Co. in a class-
action lawsuit over vehicle repairs and aftermarket auto parts,
Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star reports.

The state appeals court ruled that Jackson County Circuit Judge
Edith Messina was mistaken when she ruled in June 2007 that the
plaintiffs had failed to prove their theory of damages,
according to The Kansas City Star report.

The Associated Press reports previously reported that Jackson
County Circuit Judge Edith Messina overturned a jury's decision
ordering American Family Mutual Insurance Co. to pay $17 million
in a class-action suit involving after-market auto parts (Class
Action Reporter, June 26, 2007).

Filed in May 2000 and certified as a class action in December
2001, the suit challenges the company's policy of specifying
after-market auto parts and omitting certain repair procedures
in its repair estimates.

It alleged that American Family specified non-original equipment
manufactured parts in paying to repair policyholders' damaged
vehicles.

Further, it alleged that the use of aftermarket crash parts,
including fenders, doors, hoods and panels, were inferior to
original equipment and a potential safety hazard.

In March 2007, a Missouri jury awarded more than $17 million to
approximately 315,000 Missouri residents with claims for vehicle
repairs between May 1990 and December 2004 (Class Action
Reporter, March 13, 2007).  Jurors determined American Family
allowed repair shops to use inferior, third-party equipment to
repair policyholders' damaged vehicles.

American Family is based in Madison, Wisconsin.  Representing it
is attorney David Oliver.


APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over MagSafe Power Adapters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
California that accuses the company of distributing unsafe
MagSafe power adapters and forcing customers to buy replacements
instead of addressing the problem with an improved design,
AppleInsider reports.

The suit is captioned, "Kitagawa, Jr et al v. Apple, Inc., Case
No. 5:2009-cv-01911," and was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on May 1, 2009.

Listed as plaintiffs are Naotaka Kitagawa, Jr., Timothy J.
Broad, and Jesse Reisman, who are claiming that the cables
inevitably break down, leading to wire fraying that causes a
potential fire hazard, according to AppleInsider report.

The litigation alleges that standard use, such as winding the
cable around the guides, is all that is needed to damage the
adapter.

Mr. Broad claims the plastic covering melted, exposing the wires
and building enough heat to start a house fire.  "It almost
burned my hand when I brushed it accidentally," he claims,
reports AppleInsider.

The plaintiffs are asserting that Apple has failed to act on a
widespread problem, directing customers to Apple service
locations just to recommend a second purchase of a new adapter.

The lawyers seek class-action status, as the issues are known to
be experienced by "at least thousands" of customers and possibly
into the hundreds of thousands, AppleInsider reported.

Additionally, the company is charged in the lawsuit of violating
California's business codes and breaching the explicit and
implied warranties for its devices.

The plaintiffs are asking for refunds to cover any associated
cost, along with punitive damages and a public warning issues by
the company, according to the AppleInsider report.

The suit is "Kitagawa, Jr et al v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:2009-
cv-01911," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Craig L. Briskin, Esq. (cbriskin@findjustice.com)
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-822-5100 x116
          Fax: 202-822-4997

               - and -

          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. (alreenh@zhlaw.com)
          Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP
          625 Broadway
          Suite 906
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-342-8000
          Fax: 619-342-7272


BEAZER HOMES: Reaches $30.5M Deal in Ga. Shareholders' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. agreed to pay $30.5 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit over allegations it misled shareholders
about problems with its mortgage-lending practices that led to a
federal investigation, Bloomberg News reports.

Under terms of the settlement, the company denies any
wrongdoing, according to a statement by Beazer.  The settlement
is subject to final approval by Judge Clarence Cooper of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
according to the Bloomberg News report.

The company and certain of its current and former executive
officers are named as defendants in a putative securities class-
action suit filed on March 29, 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 26, 2009).

The plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of Beazer Homes' common stock between July 27,
2006, and March 27, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects because the company did not disclose facts related to
alleged improper lending practices in its mortgage origination
business.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages.

Two additional lawsuits were subsequently filed on May 18 and
21, 2007, before the same district court, asserting similar
factual allegations and proposing class periods of July 28,
2005, through March 27, 2007, and March 30, 2005, through March
27, 2007, respectively.

The three cases were subsequently consolidated by the court and
the court appointed Glickenhaus & Co. and Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiffs.

On June 27, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended and
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws, which purports to assert claims on behalf of a
class of persons and entities that purchased or acquired the
securities of Beazer Homes during the period Jan. 27, 2005,
through May 12, 2008.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts a claim against the
defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company business and prospects, including, among other things,
alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to alleged
improper lending practices in the company's mortgage origination
business, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to
improper revenue recognition and other accounting improprieties
and alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
company's land investments and inventory.

The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims against the
Individual Defendants under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Exchange Act.

The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that the suit is
properly maintained as a class action, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  Briefing of the
motion was expected to be completed in March 2009, according to
the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The suit is "Eugene Kratz, et al. v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milberg.com)
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-594-5300

          Krissi T. Gore, Esq. (KGore@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

               - and -

          Francis P. Karam, Esq. (karam@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com)
          Cravath Swaine & Moore
          825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide Plaza
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Phone: 212-474-1227


BRISCONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT: Faces AUD1.3B Suit in Sydney Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A major stakeholder in the troubled builder and operator of
Brisbane's airport link toll road says it has launched a AUD1.3
billion class-action lawsuit against BrisConnections Management
Company Ltd. and Macquarie Bank, the Australian Associated Press
reports.

The claim was filed in the Federal Court in Sydney in April 2009
by lawyers for Brisbane Toll Road Link -- owned by U.S.-based
New Hampton Distressed Asset Fund and represented by Sydney
businessman Jim Byrnes -- which owns 15.2% of BrisConnections,
according to the Australian Associated Press report.

Mr. Byrnes says the class-action suit was launched on behalf of
all past and present unit holders.  It alleged misleading
statements and errors in the product disclosure statement.

"We're saying, stay in the class action and we'll fight for your
rights," Mr. Byrnes told the Australian Associated Press.

Lawyer Raymond Whitten of Whittens confirmed the court had
accepted the statement of claims seeking AUD1.3 billion, the
Australian Associated Press reported.


CARNIVAL CORP: Suit by Jacobs & Copyright Owners Junked in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against Carnival Corp., its subsidiaries and
affiliates, on behalf of James Jacobs and a purported class of
owners of intellectual property rights to musical plays and
other works performed in the U.S. was dismissed on March 25,
2009.

In January 2006, the lawsuit was filed against the company and
its subsidiaries and affiliates, and other unaffiliated cruise
lines in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The plaintiffs claim infringement of copyrights to Broadway, off
Broadway and other plays.

The suit seeks payment of (i) damages, (ii) disgorgement of
alleged profits and (iii) an injunction against future
infringement.

On March 25, 2009, the court dismissed without prejudice the
claims against Carnival and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
because of the plaintiffs' failure to state their claims with
the required specificity.  The plaintiffs may file an amended
complaint within 30 days of the dismissal, according to the
company's April 2, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Feb. 28, 2009.

Carnival Corp. -- http://www.carnivalcorp.com-- is a cruise and
vacation company.  The company has a portfolio of cruise brands
and is a provider of cruises to all vacation destinations.  The
cruise brands of the company includes Carnival Cruise Lines,
Princess Cruises (Princess), Costa Cruises (Costa), Holland
America Line, P&O Cruises, AIDA Cruises (AIDA), Cunard Line
(Cunard), Ibero Cruises (Ibero), Ocean Village, P&O Cruises
Australia and The Yachts of Seabourn (Seabourn).  In addition to
the cruise operations, the company owns Holland America Tours
and Princess Tours, the cruise/tour operators in the State of
Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada.


CENTEX CORP: Investors File Lawsuits Over Pulte Homes Takeover
--------------------------------------------------------------
     At least five investors in Centex Corp. have filed lawsuits
on behalf of certain current shareholders in CTX shares in
Nevada and Texas State Courts over the proposed takeover of
Centex Corporation (Public, NYSE:CTX) by Pulte Homes under the
present conditions.

     The shareholders of CTX allege that the members of board of
directors of Centex Corp. (Public, NYSE:CTX) breached their
fiduciary duty owed to the CTX shareholders and violated other
state law in connection with the attempt to sell CTX to Pulte
Homes.

     Under the terms of the proposed $3.1 billion takeover,
Centex shareholders will receive 0.975 shares of Pulte stock for
each share of Centex they own, or $10.50 per share based on the
April 7, 2009 closing price of Pulte stock.

     The plaintiffs allege that the transaction appears unfair
given that, among other things, Centex shares traded above
$12.40 per share as recently as January 8, 2009 and Centex has a
book value in excess of $10.50 per share.

     Specifically the plaintiffs allege that "The proposed
acquisition as currently constituted does not adequately value
Centex's extensive land holdings nor does it adequately account
for Centex's balance sheet, which included $1.7 billion in cash
as of March 31.  Likewise, the proposed acquisition fails to
compensate shareholders for the $350 million in annual synergies
Pulte expects to receive from the combined company post-merger."

     Centex, which is incorporated in Nevada but based in
Dallas, was sued as early as April 17 with now at least four
lawsuits against Centex directors and Pulte in District Court
for Dallas County and on April 24 in Clark County District Court
in Las Vegas.  Centex spokesman Ken Smalling reportedly said on
Monday the company had no comment on the suits.


EDDIE BAUER: Discovery in "Scherer" Labor Lawsuit Postponed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a purported class-action lawsuit, entitled "Scherer
v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No. 2007-cv-02270," pending with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has been postponed.

The purported class-action suit was filed in September 2007, by
Kristal Scherer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, against Eddie Bauer, Inc., and Does 1 to 100 before
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

The suit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code relating to the payment of
incentive bonuses and the company's policy on forfeiture of
personal days.

The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

In December 2007, the company filed a partial motion to dismiss
certain counts of the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim.  That motion was denied in June 2008.

The complaint was amended in January 2008 to add an additional
named plaintiff.  The company filed an answer in July 2008
denying the claims made.

The parties have agreed to postpone discovery pending issuance
of a ruling on the settlement in the purported class-action
lawsuit, entitled, "Tara Hill v. Eddie Bauer, Inc.," according
to the company's April 2, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 3, 2009.

The suit is "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No.
3:2007cv02270," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James C. Kostas, Esq. (jkostas@aol.com)
          Huffman and Kostas
          1441 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-544-0800
          Fax: 619-544-0892

               - and -

          Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq. (sostrofflaw@aol.com)
          Law Offices of Sheldon A. Ostroff
          1441 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-544-0881

Representing the defendants is:

          Kalia C. Petmecky, Esq. (kpetmecky@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-229-1000


EDDIE BAUER: Final Approval of "Hill" Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval to a proposed settlement of a purported class-
action suit against Eddie Bauer, Inc. remains pending, according
to the company's April 2, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 3, 2009.

The purported class-action lawsuit, entitled, "Tara Hill v.
Eddie Bauer, Inc.," was filed on June 15, 2006, before the Los
Angeles Superior Court in the State of California.

The suit alleged, among other things, that Eddie Bauer:

      -- did not provide the plaintiffs with adequate wage
         statements;

      -- did not reimburse the plaintiffs for business-related
         expenses;

      -- forced the plaintiffs to buy Eddie Bauer clothing;

      -- did not timely pay the plaintiffs at the cessation of
         employment; and

      -- improperly required the plaintiffs to work during rest
         and meal periods without compensation.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert various causes
of action, including those under the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

On April 23, 2007, the company reached a settlement related to
the class-action suit.

A hearing to consider final court approval of the settlement
occurred on July 10, 2008, at which the plaintiff in the matter,
"Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No. 3:2007cv02270,"
objected to the settlement on various grounds.

The court took the parties' positions under advisement and the
company expects a ruling to be issued during the third quarter
of 2008.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the company accrued
$1.6 million in the first quarter of 2007 to cover settlement
payments and attorneys' fees, the company's regulatory filing
stated.  The settlement payments are proposed to be made partly
in cash and partly in company gift cards.

In a status conference held on March 30, 2009, the judge
indicated that he would sign an order approving settlement.

Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.eddiebauer.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that sells casual sportswear and accessories
for the modern outdoor lifestyle.  The company's primary target
customers are women and men who are 30-54 years old.


ENERGY TRANSFER: NYMEX Manipulation Suit Dismissed on March 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on
March 26, 2009, dismissed a putative class-action lawsuit
against Energy Transfer Partners LP that accuses the energy
pipeline and natural gas firm of illegally manipulating the
price of natural gas futures contracts on the New York
Mercantile Exchange.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, alleges that the company engaged in
intentional and unlawful manipulation of the price of natural
gas futures and options contracts on the New York Mercantile
Exchange, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2008).

It further alleges that during the class period from Dec. 29,
2003, to Dec. 31, 2005, the company had the market power
manipulate index prices, and that it used this market power to
artificially depress the index prices at major natural gas
trading hubs, including the Houston Ship Channel, in order to
benefit the company's natural gas physical and financial trading
positions and intentionally submitted price and volume trade
information to trade publications.

The action asserts that the unlawful depression of index prices
by the company manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas
futures and options contracts to artificial levels during the
class period, causing unspecified damages to the plaintiff and
all other members of the putative class who purchased or sold
natural gas futures and options contracts on NYMEX during the
class period.

Initially, two class-action lawsuits were filed against the
company.  Following the consolidation order, the plaintiffs who
had filed the two earlier cases filed a consolidated complaint.
The plaintiffs have requested certification of their
consolidated suit as a class action, unspecified damages, court
costs and other appropriate relief.

On Jan. 14, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated suit on the grounds of failure to allege facts
sufficient to state a claim.

On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
class action complaint.  In response to this new pleading, on
May 5, 2008, the company filed yet another motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On June 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a response
opposing the company's motion to dismiss.

On March 26, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas issued an order dismissing the consolidated
class action complaint.  The court dismissed the complaint, with
prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

The company is unable to predict whether the plaintiff will seek
to appeal this order, according to the company's April 2, 2009
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The suit is "Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-03349," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, with Judge Keith P. Ellison,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com)
          Labaton & Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-883-7527

          Craig Briskin, Esq. (cbriskin@findjustice.com)
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-822-5100
          Fax: 202-822-4997

               - and -

          Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          1910 Ice Cold Storage Building, 104 21st St Moody Ave.
          Galveston, TX 77550
          Phone: 409-762-5393
          Fax: 409-762-0538

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps
          1000 Louisiana, Ste. 6800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-655-5160
          Fax: 888-329-2286


ENERGY TRANSFER: "Rio Grande" Suit in Texas Dismissed in March
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Rio Grande Royalty
Company Inc v. Energy Transfer Partners LP et al, Case No.
4:2008-cv-00857," was dismissed on March 26, 2009.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on March 17, 2008, as a class-action
complaint.  It alleges that the company engaged in unlawful
restraint of trade and intentional monopolization and attempted
monopolization of the market for fixed-price natural gas
baseload transactions at the Houston Ship Channel from December
2003 through December 2005 in violation of federal antitrust
law.

The complaint further alleges that during this period, the
company exerted monopoly power to suppress the price for these
transactions to non-competitive levels in order to benefit from
its own physical natural gas positions.

The plaintiff has, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated sellers of physical natural gas, requested
certification of the suit as a class-action and seeks
unspecified treble damages, court costs and other appropriate
relief.

On May 19, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint.

On March 26, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas issued an order dismissing the class-action
complaint.  The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state
a claim on all causes of action and for anti-trust injury, but
granted leave to amend.

The company is unable to predict whether the plaintiffs will
seek to amend their complaint in accordance with the order or
whether the plaintiffs will seek to appeal the order, according
to its April 2, 2009 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The suit is "Rio Grande Royalty Company Inc. v. Energy Transfer
Partners LP et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00857," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Keith
P. Ellison presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com)
          Labaton & Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-883-7527

               - and -

          Robert A Chaffin, Esq. (robert@chaffinlawfirm.com)
          Chaffin & Stiles
          4265 San Felipe, Ste 1020
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: 713-528-1000
          Fax: 713-952-5972

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps et al
          1000 Louisiana, Ste 6800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-655-5160
          Fax: 888-329-2286


FEDERAL DEPOSIT: WaMu Executives File Lawsuit Over CIC Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Five former Washington Mutual, Inc. (WaMu) executives sued the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), saying that under
their written employment agreements they were owed "change in
control" payments, equal to one-and-a-half times their regular
pay, after the thrift was seized and its banking assets sold
off, Drew DeSilver of The Seattle Times reports.

The lawsuit, filed in April 2009, seeks class-action status for
more than 100 other former WaMu executives similarly affected,
according to The Seattle Times report.


J.P. MORGAN: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Credit Card Policy Change
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.P. Morgan & Chase continues to face a purported class-action
lawsuit for monthly service fees attached to some low-interest
credit cards, Herb Weisbaum of KOMO News reports.

In January 2009, Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart filed a
class-action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. on behalf of a class of customers who
have been charged a monthly service fee on balance transfers to
their Chase credit cards that have low fixed APRs (annual
percentage rates) for the life of the loan.

Affected customers calling Chase said they were offered a $10
monthly fee and a higher minimum payment schedule -- jumping
minimum payments from 2 percent to 5 percent of their balances -
- or a higher interest rate, USA Today reported on Feb. 9, 2009
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2009).

Chase spokeswoman Stephanie Jacobson told United Press
International that the new policy affected credit card holders
with promotional rates who have kept large balances for more
than two years, making little progress reducing their balances.
The change, affected about 400,000 accounts, she adds.

For more details, contact:

          Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, New York 10004
          Phone: 212.847.8315
          Fax: 646.964.9645
          Web site: http://www.gslawny.com/


LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Suit Pending in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson Software, Inc., continues to face a labor-related class-
action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

The punitive class-action lawsuit was filed against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on May 20, 2008, on behalf of current and former business,
systems, and technical consultants.

The suit, "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," alleges that the company failed to pay
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
state law, and alleges violations of state record-keeping
requirements.  It also alleges certain violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and unjust enrichment.

The relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan
credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees.

The company successfully moved the case from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota Federal District Court has
conditionally certified the case under the FLSA as a collective
action and granted the company's motion to dismiss the two ERISA
counts.  Still pending before the Court is the company's motion
to dismiss the Minnesota state law wage and hour claims,
according to its April 2, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb.
28, 2009.

The suit "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H. Stein,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq. (lgreen@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

          Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq.
          (lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com)
          Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
          190 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-747-0300
          Fax: 516-747-0653

               - and -

          Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq. (smcgrane@felhaber.com)
          Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A.
          220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-373-8511
          Fax: 612-338-0535


MAPLE LEAF: Nov. 21, 2009 Cutoff Set for Claims to CDN$27M Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
     A Nov. 21, 2009 deadline was set for availing of the CDN$27
million settlement in the Canada-wide class-action lawsuit
against Maple Leaf Foods, which was filed over last year's
listeriosis outbreak.

     A Canada-wide settlement of up to CDN$27 million has been
approved by the Courts in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec
providing financial compensation for people who purchased or
consumed recalled meat products produced by Maple Leaf Foods,
during the period January 1, 2008 to August 31, 2008.

                  How to Apply for Compensation

     Anyone who believes they qualify for compensation can
download a claim form from the web site
http://www.mapleleafclaim.comor by calling the court-appointed
Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-800-801-2521.  If you are
unsure if you qualify, you are encouraged to call the Claims
Administrator.

     All claims must be filed by 5:00 pm EST, November 2, 2009
and you are encouraged to file your claim as soon as possible to
avoid processing delays.

     The only way to receive compensation is to submit a
completed claim form to the Court appointed Claims
Administrator.

                        Who Should Claim

     The settlement establishes a fund of up to CDN$27 million
to pay valid claims for compensation relating to the physical or
psychological harm caused by the consumption of Recalled
Products.  The settlement provides varying amounts of
compensation to individuals who consumed recalled products and
became sick or died.

     The following claim submission facts should be noted:

       -- Proof of purchase and consumption is not required.  A
          sworn Declaration attesting to purchase and
          consumption is sufficient.

       -- Proof of any listeria infection is not required.  A
          sworn Declaration attesting to physical illness with
          flu like symptoms is sufficient.

       -- Medical proof of illness or psychological trauma is
          required except in the case of illness lasting between
          24 and 48 hours.  In the latter case, no medical proof
          is required at all.

     People who purchased but did not consume Recalled Products
are also bound by the settlement but are ineligible to be paid
any compensation.

Summary of legal rights to compensation in this settlement:

     A. Physical and Psychological Trauma Claims Without Medical
        Evidence Lump sum payment: CDN$750.00.

        a. Physical symptoms consistent with listeriosis after
           consuming.
        b. Illness duration: 24 hours to less than 48 hours.
        c. Medical proof: None required.

     NOTE: If a claimant consumed recalled product and suffered
from flu-like symptoms but never visited a doctor or hospital or
clinic, he or she may claim at Level 1 as this is the level that
does not require medical evidence to support a claim.

     B. Physical and Psychological Trauma Claims with Medical
        Evidence Payment range: CDN$3,000 - CDN$125,000 plus
        certain additional amounts.

        a. Physical symptoms consistent with listeriosis after
           consuming.
        b. Illness duration: More than 48 hours.
        c. Medical proof: Required.

     C. Psychological Trauma Only Claims with Medical Evidence
        Payment range: CDN$2,000 - CDN$17,500 plus certain
        additional amounts.

        a. Psychological trauma only, after consuming.
        b. Anxiety onset after August 17, 2009.
        c. Medical proof: Required.

     A list of over 242 Recalled Products which were identified
as potentially contaminated with the bacteria listeria
monocytogenes, can be found on the website
http://www.mapleleafclaim.com.

            Opting Out of the Class Action Settlement

     The only option that allows claimants to ever be part of
any other lawsuit against Maple Leaf Foods regarding the legal
claims in this case, is by submitting a signed "Opt Out" form
postmarked no later than Friday August 7, 2009.

     Under the settlement approved by the courts, if a claimant
chooses to do nothing by the claims deadline of November 2,
2009, they will receive no compensation and give up all of their
rights to further legal action in this matter.

For further information: visit http://www.mapleleafclaim.comor
contact the Claims Administrator: Bruneau Group Inc.: Maple Leaf
Settlement Administrator, 1-800-801-2521, Fax: (613) 562-0321,
info@mapleleafclaim.com.


MONSANTO CO: No Trial Date Yet for Contamination Suit in W.Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit against Monsanto Co. that claims the
company polluted the Nitro area with unsafe levels of the toxic
chemical dioxin remains pending.

The order prevents lawyers from placing ads in the media about
the facts of the case and from initiating contact with the media
about the case, according to the WOWK report.

                        Case Background

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed by 15 plaintiffs
against Monsanto Co. and several other defendants over
dioxins/furans contamination (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23,
2008).

The suit, "Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," also names
as defendants Pharmacia Corp. and seven others.  The company is
named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of
Pharmacia.

The alleged class consists of all current and former residents,
workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were
allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties
surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.

The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a
chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by
Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia
and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.

Akzo Nobel and Flexsys are named defendants in the case, but
Solutia is not, due to its pending bankruptcy proceeding.

The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real
estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels,
funds to test for human contamination and future medical
monitoring costs.

The complaint also seeks an injunction against further
contamination and punitive damages.

Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys group of defendants tendered their
cases to Monsanto for indemnification and defense.  Monsanto
agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys
defendant group.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the
Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb
replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action
matters.  The court has not set a trial date for the case,
according to the company's April 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
period ended Feb. 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

         W. Stuart Calwell, Esq.
         Alex McLaughlin, Esq.
         The Calwell Practice
         P.O. Box 113, Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304-343-4323 and 304-291-5223
         Fax: 304-344-3864 and 304-291-2240;

              - and -

         James F. Humphreys, Esq.
         J. David Cecil, Esq.
         Thomas G. Wilson, Esq.
         James F. Humphreys & Associates
         United Center, Suite 800, 500 Virginia Street
         East Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304-347-5050
         Fax: 304-347-5055


OKLAHOMA: Judge Grants Class Certification to Foster Care Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma has allowed a case against the
state in connection to its foster care system go forward as a
class-action suit, Marla Carter of kjrh.com reports.

Previously, Jay F. Marks of NewsOK.com reported that Judge
Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma has excluded a state employees' group from
a purported class-action lawsuit seeking to reform the state
child welfare system (Class Action Reporter, March 19, 2009).

The Oklahoma Public Employees Association, which includes more
than 300 state Department of Human Services child welfare
workers, filed a brief in February in support of an advocacy
group's attempt to turn its lawsuit into a class-action case,
according to the NewsOK.com report.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell sided with DHS, agreeing
the group did not have any unique perspective to offer, reports
NewsOK.com.

NewsOK.com reported that the group's proposed brief, which was
filed Feb. 11, 2009 largely duplicated the arguments made by
Children's Rights, the advocacy group behind the lawsuit, Judge
Frizzell wrote.

The Daily Oklahoman previously reported that Children's Rights,
a New York-based child advocacy organization, joined several
prominent Oklahoma law firms and an international firm in filing
a class-action suit against Oklahoma's Department of Human
Services (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2008).

The suit accuses DHS of repeatedly subjecting children in state
custody to extreme abuse and neglect.  It asks the judge to
impose far-reaching reforms on the state system.

"Oklahoma has long maintained one of the most dangerous and
badly mismanaged child welfare systems in the nation, and
thousands of children have suffered under nightmarish conditions
for years as a result," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive
director of Children's Rights.

"It is disgraceful that we have to seek a federal court order to
force the state to begin fixing problems that it should have
addressed many years ago. But it is clear that this is the only
way to protect Oklahoma's abused and neglected children -- and
that is what this lawsuit is about."

Children's Rights is asking the judge to declare the lawsuit a
class action so the attorneys can represent all of the more than
10,000 children in state care.

For more details, contact:

          Marcia Robinson Lowry
          Children's Rights
          330 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: 212.683.2210 or 888.283.2210
          Fax: 212.683.4015
          e-mail: info@childrensrights.org
          Web site: http://www.childrensrights.org/


PASO ROBLES: Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Over Sewer, Water Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Paso Robles, California is seeking for dismissal of
a class-action lawsuit alleging it violated state law when it
raised water and sewer rates in 2002 and 2004, Tonya Strickland
of The San Luis Obispo Tribune reports.

City Attorney Iris Yang, Esq., filed the city's formal response
to the lawsuit on April 24, 2009, saying the allegations don't
satisfy required legal standards, according to The San Luis
Obispo Tribune report.

The Paso Robles Press previously reported that the City of Paso
Robles, California faces a purported class-action lawsuit that
was filed by members of the group Concerned Citizens of Paso
Robles, alleging that the city illegally imposed water and sewer
fees in violation of Proposition 218 and seeking the return to
ratepayers of an estimated $8 million (Class Action Reporter,
April 2, 2009).

The action -- filed in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court on
March 25, 2009 -- intends to recover bill payer's money for
illegally collected water and sewer fees by City officials,
reaching back as far as 2002.  More than $8 million could be
refunded to city residents, according to The Paso Robles Press
report.

According to a press release issued by CCPR on March 27, 2009,
the plaintiffs alleged that reaching back as far as 2002 "and
perhaps earlier," the city failed to obtain voter approval for
the charges or fees, which also compelled a writ of mandate to
return the illegally collected fees to bill payers in the
community.

The Paso Robles Press reported that Paul Heidenreich, Esq., an
attorney for Manhattan Beach-based Huskinson, Brown, Heidenreich
& Carlin, LLP, is lead counsel for the plaintiffs.


PEROT FAMILY: Faces Investors' Suit in Texas Over $2.5Bil Loss
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Perot Family Trust is facing a purported class-action suit
in Texas by investors who say that the trust lost $2.5 billion
in its wholly owned Parkcentral Global Hub, whose value sank
from $2.5 billion to "less than zero," The Courthouse News
Service reports.

The suit is captioned, "Levine Capital Ltd v. The Perot Family
Trust et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-00826," and was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on May 4,
2009.  The lead plaintiff in the case, Levine Capital, Ltd., is
represented by Ellen Presby of Dallas and Coughlin, Stoia,
Geller of San Diego, Calif.

In the suit which also names Hill Air Company I LLC, Perot
Management GP LLC, Perot GP Inc., Petrus Securities LP, Steven
L. Blasnik, and Joy Leffingwell as defendants, the plaintiffs
say they lost "100% of their invested capital," according to The
Courthouse News Service report.

Among the allegations in this complicated 28-page complaint are
that investors paid the defendants more than $94 million in
management and incentive fees from Sept. 1, 2007 through Oct.
31, 2008, and that "from July 1, 2007 until Nov. 30, 2008,
defendants wrongfully induced investors to place $219,248,551 in
new capital into the Global Fund," reports The Courthouse News
Service.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3c81

The suit is "Levine Capital Ltd v. The Perot Family Trust et
al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-00826," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ellen A. Presby, Esq. (epresby@presbylaw.com)
          Presby Law Office
          10,000 N Central Expwy
          Suite 400
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Phone: 214/890-4045
          Fax: 214/890-4046

               - and -

          James I. Jaconette, Esq. (jamesj@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 W Broadway
          Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/231-1058
          Fax: 619/231-7423


ROYAL BANK: NY Judge Backs Out of Litigation Due to Family Link
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Loretta A. Preska of the District Court for the Southern
District of New York, who had been appointed to oversee a legal
action brought by British local authority pension funds against
Royal Bank of Scotland, has stepped aside from the case after it
emerged that her husband had provided legal advice to the bank,
Mark Kleinman and Jonathan Sibun of Telegraph.co.uk reports.

The judge recused herself after disclosing that her husband,
Thomas Kavaler, Esq., was a partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel,
a law firm which counts RBS among its clients, according to the
Telegraph.co.uk report.

In a document handed to lawyers representing the investors,
Judge Preska said Cahill Gordon & Reindel "from time to time
represents" RBS as well as other international investment banks.

Investors launched the class-action lawsuit amid claims that RBS
"falsely reassured" shareholders that its business was solvent
ahead of its near nationalization, reports Telegraph.co.uk.

North Yorkshire and Merseyside council pension funds, which have
a combined value of about GBP4bn, are seeking compensation for
the "massive losses" incurred when RBS was bailed out and its
share price collapsed.

The pension funds hired U.S. law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins which in turn appointed Cherie Blair, wife of
the former Prime Minister, a QC at the Matrix Chambers, as an
adviser on the case, the Telegraph.co.uk reported.

At least six legal actions have been filed with several other
law firms involved.  A lead plaintiff, who would shape the
detail and strategy of the class-action suit, has yet to be
appointed.

The suit names RBS and its board, including former RBS chief
executive Sir Fred Goodwin and former chairman Sir Tom McKillop,
as defendants, Telegraph.co.uk reports.

Although RBS is a British bank, investors have been able to
bring the class-action suit in the U.S. because the bank
conducted a lot of business there, according to the
Telegraph.co.uk report.


THOMSON CORP: Ontario Court to Mull Settlement in Robertson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will be asked on June 16,
2009 to consider a proposed settlement in "Robertson v.
Thomson," Julius Melnitzer of The National Post reports.

The class-action lawsuit involves breach of copyright claims by
freelance writers who objected to the defendants publishing
works written for print media in electronic databases without
paying the writers for the electronic rights, reports The
National Post.

Canada's Supreme Court ruled in favor of a freelance writer in a
class action she filed in 1996 against Globe and Mail and
Thomson Corp. over reproduction of articles in online databases
without additional compensation to the author, the Canadian
Press reports, The National Post reported.

The suit was filed in 1996 by freelance writer Heather Robertson
against against Globe and Mail and Thomson Corp. after Globe and
Mail reproduced two of her articles in an online database (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 18, 2006).  Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky
represented the plaintiffs.

The settlement involves a payment of CDN$11 million to provide
benefits to class members including a claims-based compensation
plan and an alternative take-down benefit for certain freelance
work, as well as certain donations, according to The National
Post report.


TOTAL S.A.: Removed from Claims List of South African Citizens
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL S.A. has been removed from the list of companies against
which certain South African citizens alleging human rights
violations may bring claims, according to the company's April 3,
2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In a threatened class action proceeding in the United States,
TOTAL, together with approximately 100 other multinational
companies, is the subject of accusations by certain South
African citizens who alleged that their human rights were
violated during the era of apartheid by the army, the police or
militias, and who consider that these companies were accomplices
in the actions by the South African authorities at the time.

The claims against the companies named in the class action,
which were not officially brought against TOTAL, were dismissed
by a federal judge in New York.

The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and, after a procedural
hearing on Nov. 3, 2008, decided to remove TOTAL from the list
of companies against which it was bringing claims.

TOTAL S.A. -- http://www.total.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is an integrated international oil
and gas company.  With operations in more than 130 countries,
TOTAL engages in all aspects of the petroleum industry,
including Upstream operations (oil and gas exploration,
development and production, liquefied natural gas (LNG)) and
Downstream operations (refining, marketing and the trading and
shipping of crude oil and petroleum products).  The company also
produces base chemicals (petrochemicals and fertilizers) and
specialty chemicals for the industrial and consumer markets.  In
addition, TOTAL has interests in the coal mining and power
generation sectors, as well as a financial interest in Sanofi-
Aventis.  TOTAL's worldwide operations are conducted through
three business segments: Upstream, Downstream and Chemicals.


VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: Faces Second Suit Over Contaminated Water
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Village of Crestwood, Illinois, and its past two mayors are
facing a second class-action lawsuit for allegedly endangering
the public health by allowing residents to drink water from a
contaminated well for more than 20 years, Sun-Times News Group
reports.

The lawsuit, filed by Crestwood resident Kathryn Torrisi,
accuses the village, Mayor Robert Stranczek, former Mayor
Chester Stranczek and unnamed co-conspirators of concealing the
presence of chemicals in the village's tap water and
"unscrupulously" causing the tainted water to be pumped into
homes and businesses, according to the Sun-Times News Group
report.

Ms. Torrisi brings the claim on behalf of all people who paid
for and consumed tap water from the Crestwood well between 1986
and 2007, the lawsuit says.  She resided in Crestwood from 1980
to 1991 and again from 2001 to 2005 and consumed and paid
Crestwood for the tainted tap water at issue, Sun-Times News
Group reported.

The lawsuit seeks damages and establishment of a "constructive
trust" consisting of money the defendants collected from water
bills for the purpose of testing and monitoring the adverse
health effects of the contaminated water, reports Sun-Times News
Group.

CBS2 Chicago previously reported that a 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 (Class Action
Reporter, April 27, 2009).

That 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.


WSB FINANCIAL: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved in March
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final settlement of the matter, "In Re: WSB Financial Group
Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ," which was
filed against WSB Financial Group, Inc., was approved by the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
March 27, 2009.

In October 2007, a purported securities fraud class-action suit
was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington against the Company and certain of its
directors and current and former officers alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeking an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief in
connection with the Company's initial public offering (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 2, 2008).

Since then four additional, similar actions have been filed in
the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington.

As is typical in these cases, all the actions have been
consolidated into a single action, "In RE: WSB Financial Group
Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ."

As previously reported, WSB Financial Group, the parent company
of Westsound Bank, said that it has entered into a settlement
agreement with the lead plaintiff in a pending securities class
action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008).

The class-action settlement is subject to the approval of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The settlement agreement provides for the certification of a
class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock pursuant or traceable to its initial public
offering completed on December 21, 2006. The total amount of the
settlement is $4.85 million. The Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance policy will contribute
approximately $4.45 million towards the settlement amount and
has previously contributed approximately $350,000 towards the
Company's legal fees. The settlement agreement contains no
admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or the other
defendants.

"This settlement is a significant accomplishment and allows our
management team to focus on our future," said Terry A. Peterson,
President and CEO. "It further demonstrates our focus on
identifying and executing strategies to eliminate risk.  While
we still believe we have strong defenses, we felt it was
important to get it behind us and eliminate the burden and
expense of protracted litigation. We continue to maintain
adequate levels of capital and liquidity, which are important
measures of the Bank's safety and soundness for both
shareholders and depositors."

The final settlement of the shareholders' class action lawsuit
against the Company was approved by the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on March 27, 2009.  As of
March 16, 2009, Westsound Bank had commenced collection and
foreclosure proceedings on approximately 103 real estate loans,
according to the company's April 3, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          David R. Stickney, Esq.
          Timothy A. DeLange, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (888) 924-1888
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com

               - and -

          In re WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 91179
          Seattle, WA 98111-9279
          Phone: 1 (800) 961-2567
          Web site:
          http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/fullcase/1434


YTB INT'L: Continues to Face Consolidated Litigation in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
YTB International, Inc. continues to face a consolidated lawsuit
in Illinois claiming that the company is nothing more than "an
elaborate pyramid scheme."

Initially, two groups of attorneys filed class-action suits
against the company, according to Sanford J. Schmidt of The
Telegraph.

The suits claim people taken in by the alleged scheme wanted to
earn money by becoming marketing representatives selling travel
packages over the Internet on individual Web sites.  They paid a
$500 license fee and a monthly fee of $50, The Telegraph
reported.

People also could earn more money by recruiting others to join
the firm, and lawyers claim the real money was to be earned that
way, instead of actually selling travel to the public, reports
The Telegraph.

Ann Knef of the St. Clair Record previously reported that Judge
G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois consolidated two competing class-action
lawsuits against YTB International, Inc. (Class Action Reporter
Jan. 16, 2009).

In general the lawsuits claim that the company operates an
illegal pyramid sales scheme and employs an illegal chain
referral sales technique in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Following a hearing in December 2008, lawyers in both cases
agreed that consolidation was appropriate.  Judge Murphy entered
his order on Jan. 6, 2009, according to the St. Clair Record.

Sanford J. Schmidt of The Telegraph reported that at a recent
hearing, Judge Murphy told the two sides he was unwilling to
hear two parallel cases at the same time.  The judge said,
"We're not going to be hearing two cases at one time."  He
added, "It makes a lot of sense to file one complaint" (Class
Action Reporter Dec. 17, 2008).

However, Judge Murphy pointed out that even if the suits were
consolidated, the earliest trial date would be in 2010.  To that
end, the judge gave the lawyers two weeks to come up with an
agreement to consolidate the cases, or he would issue an order
of his own choosing, reports The Telegraph.

Previously, Steve Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reported
that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois set a Dec. 8, 2008 status conference for two purported
class-action lawsuits against YTB International, Inc., which
alleges that the company is an illegal pyramid scheme (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2008).

One of the suits was filed by Faye Morrison and Kwame Thompson
on Aug. 8, 2008.  They seek to represent a putative class who
allege YTB operates an illegal pyramid sales scheme and employs
an illegal chain referral sales technique in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Ms. Morrison, of St. Louis and Mr. Thompson, of Atlanta, acted
as both independent marketing representatives (IMRs) and
referring travel agents (RTAs) for YTB.  Their suit seeks at
least $100 million in damages on behalf of the putative class,
the Madison County Record reports.

The two have retained Rex Carr, Christian Montroy and Michael
Marker of East St. Louis to represent them.  In addition, Jay
Kanzler, Jr., and Brian Massimino of St. Louis will assist in
representing the class.

The Madison County Record reported that the second purported
class-action suit against YTB and its subsidiaries was filed by
Jeffrey and Polly Hartman.  Their suit is almost identical to
the first case, however they are represented by different
lawyers.  They filed their lawsuit, captioned, "Hartman et al.
v. YTB International, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00579-MJR-
CJP," seven days after the first one.

John Carey, Tiffany Marko and Francis "Casey" Flynn of Carey &
Danis in St. Louis represent the Hartmans, according to the
Madison County Record.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience
in prosecuting claims for securities fraud, filed a lawsuit on
behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Sequenom, Inc. (Nasdaq:SQNM).

     The complaint seeks remedies under the federal securities
laws against Sequenom and certain of its executive officers and
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

     The complaint alleges that after months of touting the
Company's accomplishments, on April 29, 2009, Sequenom issued a
press release stating that its employees mishandled R&D test
data for SEQureDx, which was being developed as a non-invasive
prenatal test for Down syndrome. Sequenom also disclosed that
the commercial launch of SEQureDx would be delayed and that:

       -- the Company suspended four employees;

       -- the Company formed a special committee of independent
          directors to oversee an independent investigation of
          the employees' activity related to the test data and
          results;

       -- the committee engaged independent counsel to assist
          the committee in the conduct of the investigation;

       -- the Company's previous press releases and public SEC
          filings concerning SEQureDx could no longer be relied
          upon; and

       -- due to these developments, the Company is now
          reviewing the test results for all its products, not
          just SEQureDx.

     On this news, and after trading as high as $29.14 per share
during the Class Period, the price of Sequenom common stock
plummeted from its previous closing price of $14.91, to $3.62, a
loss of over $11.00 per share.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. (Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330


                            *********

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  * * *