CAR_Public/090513.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 93
  
                           Headlines

ALCOA INC: Sept. 22, 2009 Trial Scheduled for Tenn. ERISA Suit
BIDZ.COM INC: Denies Claims in Calif. Investor's Litigation
BIOVAIL CORP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Litigation
BURGER KING: Franchisees File Calif. Suits Over Advertising Plan
CASSELS BROCK: Faces Canadian Suit For Negligent Tax Opinion

CDR FINANCIAL: Municipal Derivatives Price-Fixing Case Dismissed
CHINESE COMPANIES: May 27, 2009 Hearing Set for Drywall Lawsuits
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Law Firm Appointed Lead Counsel in Ala. Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Lawsuit Over Theft of Confidential Data

FIRSTPLUS FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder's Litigation in Nevada
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Decision on Motorola's Appeal Pending
HALIFAX BUILDING: Ninth Circuit Revives Calif. Investors' Suit
HORIZON LINES: Price-fixing Complaints Still Pending Discovery
HORIZON LINES: To Defend Two Securities Lawsuits in Delaware

KLA-TENCOR: Appeal to Dismissed Derivative Suit Pending in Del.
KLA-TENCOR CORP: "Crimi" Suit Over Stock Option Grants Dismissed  
MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE: Faces Litigation Over Toll Collection
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Aug. 5 Hearing Slated for $2.7M Settlement
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Defends Claims in Consolidated Derivative Suit

SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: To Defend "Diaz" Lawsuit Over Merger with CSR
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: To Defend "Reich" Suit on CSR Merger Agreement
STATION CASINOS: Bondholder Nixes Nev. Suit Over Reorganization
TD AMERITRADE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Client Information Theft

UNION BANCAIRE: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Madoff-Related Investments
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Judge Rejects UnitedHealthcare/Ingenix Deal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Scott+Scott LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

ALCOA INC: Sept. 22, 2009 Trial Scheduled for Tenn. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 22, 2009 trial is scheduled for the class-action suit,
"Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

The suit was filed on Nov. 17, 2006, by plaintiffs representing
approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or
Reynolds Metals Co., and spouses and dependents of such
retirees.  It alleges that the company violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor-Management
Relations Act by requiring the plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1,
2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments
and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription
drugs.

The plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care
plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits.  They
additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty
to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back
payment of benefits and attorneys fees.

Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.  

During the fourth quarter, following briefing and argument, the
court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class,
bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty
claims, struck the plaintiffs jury demand, but indicated it
would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of Sept. 17,
2008.

In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009
and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to Sept. 22, 2009.   

Alcoa estimates that, in the event of an unfavorable outcome,
the maximum exposure would be an additional postretirement
benefit liability of approximately $300 million and
approximately $40 million of expense (includes an interest cost
component) annually, on average, for the next 11 years,
according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Curtis v. Alcoa Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2006-cv-
00448," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Judge Thomas W. Phillips, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq. (katapano@gmail.com)
          744 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: 518-463-7501
          Fax: 518-463-7502

Representing the defendant is:

          John W. Woods, Jr., Esq. (jwoods@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams
          951 East Byrd Street
          Riverfront Plaza East Tower
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Phone: 804-788-8629
          Fax: 804-343-4794


BIDZ.COM INC: Denies Claims in Calif. Investor's Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bidz.com, Inc. denied the claims in a lawsuit filed by Ramon
Gomez in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, against the company and its chairman and chief
executive officer, David Zinberg, RTT News reports.

The company noted that the plaintiff's allegations are solely
based on a report published by Citron Research on November 26,
2007.  The company said it has publicly refuted all the claims
made in the report, according to RTT News.

Bidz.com believes the plaintiffs' claims are entirely without
merit and intends to defend the action vigorously, RTT News
reported.

An investor in BIDZ.com, Inc., on May 7, 2009, has filed a
proposed securities class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Bidz.com (Nasdaq: BIDZ) during the
period between Aug. 13, 2007 and Nov. 26, 2007 against Bidz.com
and its chief executive over alleged Federal Securities Laws
violations (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2009).

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Bidz.com
and its chief executive violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by issuing between Aug. 13, 2007 and Nov. 26, 2007 a series
of false and misleading statements intended to project the
picture of a financially sound and well-operating company, when,
in fact, BIDZ.com, Inc. was operating with material deficiencies
and undisclosed substantial problems that went to the heart of
its business model.


BIOVAIL CORP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a proposed shareholder
class-action lawsuit accusing Biovail Corp. of misleading
investors about the antidepressant Aplenzin, calling the lawsuit
a "prime exemplar of a legally baseless securities strike suit,"
Law360 reports.

In a ruling issued on May 8, 2009, Judge McMahon granted the
company's motion to toss the amended complaint in its entirety,
according to the Law360 report.


BURGER KING: Franchisees File Calif. Suits Over Advertising Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group representing Burger King Holdings Inc. (BKC) franchisees
filed purported class-action lawsuits that seek to block plans
by the parent company to divert rebates the store operators
receive from buying soft drink syrup into a beefed-up national
advertising budget, Paul Ziobro of Dow Jones Newswires reports.

National Franchise Association, Inc., which represents over 75%
of Burger King's U.S franchise operators, says that franchisees
will lose out on hundreds of millions of dollars over the next
decade as the parent company uses long-standing funds the
operators had received for advertising.

The two complaints, filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on May 4, 2009, also separately
name Coca-Cola Co., and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., as
defendants.  Both are seeking class-action status, according to
the Dow Jones Newswires report.

Burger King is trying to tap up to 40% of the syrup rebate funds
that all stores receive in order to increase its national
advertising presence next year at a time of fierce fast-food
competition.  The chain also has a host of products it plans to
launch for a new batch broiler.

According to the lawsuit, the total money diverted will be $25
million in 2010 and almost $40 million a year until 2022, when
National Franchise Association estimates the agreement between
the company and drink suppliers will expire, reports Dow Jones
Newswires.

At issue is whether the parent company can control the use of
money from a soft drink contract entered into by Burger King and
the two drink companies in 1999.  That contract was set to
expire once all stores purchase a combined 600 million gallons
of syrup, which the lawsuit says will occur in 2022.

Dow Jones Newswires reported that based on how much soft drink
syrup each store purchases, the owner of the store received
rebates for store repairs, equipment maintenance and local
promotions.  The store operators say they are the intended
beneficiaries of the agreement and the parent company cannot
"unilaterally strip" the stores of this funding without the
franchisees' consent.


CASSELS BROCK: Faces Canadian Suit For Negligent Tax Opinion
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action was instituted against Cassels Brock & Blackwell
by disaffected individuals who participated in a timeshare
program operated and promoted by the Athletic Trust of Canada,
Julius Melnitzer of The National Post reports.

The plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Gottlieb, Davit Akman and
Derek Ricci of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, allege that the
law firm's Lorne Saltman negligently prepared a tax opinion
leading them to believe that they could both support amateur
athletics and reduce their tax liability, according to The
National Post report.

The participants received timeshare weeks and donated them,
together with cash donations, to registered Canadian amateur
athletic organizations, The National Post reported.  

In return, they were issued charitable donation receipts and
claimed the related tax credits.  Ultimately, the CRA denied the
timeshare portion of the donations, and the plaintiffs were
collectively required to pay million of dollars in arrears of
interest, reports The National Post.

None of the allegations, of course, have been proven, but the
statement of claim is available online, The National Post
reports.


CDR FINANCIAL: Municipal Derivatives Price-Fixing Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed most of the class-action claims
filed in 2008 by five municipal issuers that alleged Wall Street
and other firms engaged in a secret, anticompetitive price-
fixing conspiracy of municipal derivatives and guaranteed
investment contracts, Andrew Ackerman of Bond Buyer reports.

The class-action suit was led by Hinds County, Miss., and
included as co-plaintiffs Fairfax County, Va., Mississippi,
Baltimore, and the Central Bucks, Pa., School District.  It
alleged that 37 banks, brokers, insurance companies, and
investment advisory firms -- including CDR Financial Products,
JP Morgan, and Bank of America -- conspired to fix the municipal
derivatives market in violation of federal antitrust law,
according to the Bond Buyer report.

As a result, the suit claimed, issuers were hurt by alleged
widespread price fixing and bid-rigging in the multimillion-
dollar municipal derivatives industry since 1992, reports Bond
Buyer.

Bond Buyer reported that the class-action lawsuit stemmed from
several individual suits filed in multiple federal courts that
were consolidated in the New York court in 2008 after the
Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, and
Internal Revenue Service launched parallel criminal and civil
investigations of alleged antitrust and anti-competitive
practices in municipal investments and derivatives, including
bid-rigging and price fixing.

In a 50-page order issued on April 29, 2009, Judge Marrero said
that the class-action suit, instead of making specific
allegations of anti-competitive behavior, simply listed
"basically every type of conspiratorial activity that one could
imagine," reports Bond Buyer.

The handful of specific allegations of abuse that are cited all
fall outside a four-year statute of limitations and the issuers
did not indicate the defendants concealed the conduct, proof of
which would be needed to get around the four-year limitation,
according to Judge Marrero, Bond Buyer reports.

Of the 37 firms named in the class action, few were tied to
specific instances of anti-competitive behavior, the judge
noted.  The states and localities argued these firms were a part
of a conspiracy.  However, plaintiffs rested their arguments on
a number of claims that Judge Marrero rejected as proof of a
conspiracy such as that they issued and sold municipal
derivatives to plaintiffs; that there is a history of
anticompetitive behavior in the muni market; that there are a
number of ongoing criminal investigations tied to swaps and
GICs; and that the firms are members of some of the same trade
associations and attended industry conferences, according to the
Bond Buyer report.


CHINESE COMPANIES: May 27, 2009 Hearing Set for Drywall Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of federal judges appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court
will hold a hearing on May 27, 2009 on where to consolidate
several lawsuits filed against Chinese companies that
manufactured allegedly defective drywall, The Times-Picayune
reports.

Attorney Daniel Becnel Jr., Esq., who filed a class-action suit
against the manufacturers in federal court in New Orleans, told
The Times-Picayune that the cases would most likely be
consolidated here, in Miami or in Fort Myers, Fla.

Homeowners have complained that the Chinese drywall emits sulfur
compounds that corrode air-conditioning coils and other
household appliances and lead to nosebleeds and other
respiratory problems, according to The Times-Picayune report.


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Law Firm Appointed Lead Counsel in Ala. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Labaton Sucharow LLP announced that the Firm has been
appointed Lead Counsel in the securities class action litigation
against Colonial BancGroup, Inc. on behalf of the Court-
appointed Lead Plaintiffs State-Boston Retirement System,
Norfolk County Retirement System, City of Brockton Retirement
System, and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System.  Lead Plaintiffs
represent a class of purchasers of Colonial's securities between
January 23, 2008 and January 27, 2009, inclusive.  The case is
pending in the Middle District of Alabama in front of the
Honorable Myron H. Thompson.

     The case stems from allegations that, despite the continued
softening of the real estate and credit markets in the first
half of 2008, Defendants repeatedly assured Colonial investors
that the Company had taken the appropriate steps to decrease its
exposure to troubled mortgages.  On October 22, 2008, Colonial
suspended its dividend and announced its third quarter 2008
financial results: a net loss of $71 million due in substantial
part to a sharp increase in its nonperforming assets and charge-
offs.  Colonial's stock continued to trade at artificially
inflated levels as this revelation, along with others made
during the remainder of the Class Period, was accompanied by
denials and continued misrepresentations by Defendants.

     After the market closed on January 27, 2009, Colonial
announced its fourth quarter and full year 2008 financial
results: a net loss of $825 million for the quarter due in
substantial part to a $575 million goodwill impairment charge, a
$415 million charge to write off troubled assets and an increase
to its loan loss reserve.  For the first time, Colonial further
disclosed that its receipt of $550 million from the U.S.
Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP") was
conditioned upon the Company raising an additional $300 million
in equity. Colonial has been lambasted by analysts and investors
for failing to timely disclose this significant TARP
contingency.

     Christopher Keller, partner, Labaton Sucharow said,
"Investors lost millions due to Colonial's false statements
regarding it's exposure to risky mortgages and the financial
health of the company. Lead Plaintiffs seek to do all they can
to best protect their employees and retirees' pension assets
against this fraudulent behavior."

For more details, contact:

          Stacey Szluka, Esq. (sszluka@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 212-907-0664


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal court set an Oct. 16, 2009 final approval
hearing for the proposed settlement of a class-action suit over
Costco Wholesale Corp.'s annual membership renewal practices,
Diane Lade of the South Florida Sun Sentinel reports.

In general, the suit claims the company unlawfully shortchanged
five million consumers who renewed after their Costco
memberships had expired by not resetting the renewal date,
according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel report.

For example, a Costco customer whose membership expired on Jan.
31, 2008 did not renew until March 30, 2008.  But his new
enrollment period then was from Jan. 31, 2008 to Jan. 1, 2009,
meaning he paid for two months of membership during which he had
no benefits.

While there is no law specifically prohibiting this practice,
attorneys for Long Island Costco customer Rhonda Dupler and the
class, including Michael Berg of Meiselman, Denelea, Packman,
Carton & Eberz, argued that the wholesaler did not disclose the
practice to consumers and breached the contract by not giving
members all the months they paid for, reports the South Florida
Sun Sentinel.

Under the settlement, Costco would agree to provide between one
to three months free membership, valued at between $4.17 and
$25, as part of the settlement, valued at around $40 million.  
The action would apply to present and former members, and to all
types of memberships, which cost $50 or $100 annually.

Consumers nationwide who were members between March 1, 2001, and
March 31, 2009, and who renewed more than three weeks late, may
qualify and have been notified by Costco, the South Florida Sun
Sentinel reported.

For more details, visit http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3cc0.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Lawsuit Over Theft of Confidential Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
alleging that it allowed unknown people to gain confidential
information of its members, Joe Harris of the Courthouse News
Service.

John Amburgy, the lead plaintiff in the case, claims Express
Scripts got an extortion letter in October 2008, threatening to
publish confidential information of millions of Express Scripts
members on the Internet.  The letter included confidential
information of 75 members, including Social Security numbers and
prescription information, according to the suit.

Mr. Amburgy claims that the company waited nearly a month to
issue a vague statement on its Web site on Nov. 6, 2008 and a
second statement on Nov. 11, 2008 that admitted some Express
Scripts members had received similar letters, reports the
Courthouse News Service.  

The suit states that Express Scripts announced that it knows
where the information was accessed but was still investigating
how it was accessed.  Five months later though Express Scripts
still has not announced how many members have had their
confidential information compromised, according to the suit.

Mr. Amburgy claims Express Scripts has a history of being
dishonest with its customers.  Thus he seeks damages and wants
Express Scripts to provide credit monitoring for class members,
the Courthouse News Service reported.


FIRSTPLUS FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder's Litigation in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
     FIRSTPLUS Financial Group, Inc. (FPFG) faces a purported
class-action lawsuit in Nevada that was filed shareholder of the
company.

     On February 13, 2009, James P. Hanson, for himself and
purportedly on behalf of other FPFG shareholders, filed a
lawsuit in Nevada state court seeking, among other things, to
enforce a 2006 settlement agreement between FPFG and its
shareholders which requires certain annual distributions to be
made by FPFG to the shareholders from funds received by the FPFG
Grantor Residual Trust from the FPFG Creditor's Trust.

     The lawsuit requests class certification for the
plaintiffs, but it has not been certified as a class action at
this time.


FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Decision on Motorola's Appeal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision on
Motorola Inc.'s interlocutory appeal in the purported class-
action suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," remains
pending, according to Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s April 24,
2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2009.

A purported class-action suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et
al.," was filed against Motorola and various of its directors,
officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly
permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase
or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of
Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to
disclose vendor financing to Telsim in connection with the sale
of telecommunications equipment by Motorola.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the
Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held
shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the
present," and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004.  Plaintiff
filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005.  On March 19,
2007, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

Three new purported lead plaintiffs intervened in the case, and
filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000
through Dec. 31, 2002.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Illinois District Court granted the
motion for class certification but narrowed the requested scope
of the class.

Motorola has sought leave to appeal in the appellate court and
reconsideration in the Illinois District Court of certain
aspects of the class certification order.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Illinois District Court modified the scope
of the class, granted summary judgment dismissing two of the
individually-named defendants in light of the narrowed class,
and ruled that the judgment as to the original named plaintiff,
Howell, would be immediately appealable.

The class as certified includes all Plan participants for whose
individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of
Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001
with certain exclusions.

On Feb. 15, 2008, Motorola and its codefendants filed motions
for summary judgment on all claims asserted by the class.  Those
motions are currently pending before the District Court.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit agreed to hear Motorola's interlocutory appeal of the
District Court's order certifying the class. This hearing
occurred on Oct. 23, 2008.

As a result of the terms of its separation from Motorola, it is
possible that Freescale could be held responsible to Motorola
for a portion of any judgment or settlement in this matter.  The
company continues to assess the merits of this action as well as
the potential effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. -- http://www.freescale.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
semiconductor products that are based on its core capabilities
in embedded processing.  The Company's product portfolio are
Microcontroller Solutions; Networking and Multimedia; Cellular
Products, and Radio Frequency, Analog and Sensors.


HALIFAX BUILDING: Ninth Circuit Revives Calif. Investors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived a
California putative class-action suit alleging the Halifax
Building Society deceived investors regarding the bank's
conversion into publicly traded company Halifax PLC, Law360
reports.

On May 8, 2009, Judges Susan P. Graber, Richard R. Clifton and
David G. Trager of Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's
decision in the matter, ruling that the claims are not time-
barred, according to the Law360 report.


HORIZON LINES: Price-fixing Complaints Still Pending Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The price-fixing class-action complaints filed against Horizon
Lines, Inc. and other domestic shipping carriers are pending
discovery, according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 22, 2009.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena
and search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) into possible antitrust violations in the domestic
ocean shipping business.

Subsequent to the commencement of the Department of Justice's
investigation into possible antitrust violations in the domestic
ocean shipping business, a number of purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the company and other domestic
shipping carriers.

Fifty-six cases have been filed in the following federal
district courts: eight in the Southern District of Florida, six
in the Middle District of Florida, nineteen in the District of
Puerto Rico, eleven in the Northern District of California, two
in the Central District of California, one in the District of
Oregon, eight in the Western District of Washington, and one in
the District of Alaska.  All of the district court cases that
related to ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane
were consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL)
proceeding in the District of Puerto Rico.  All of the district
court cases that related to ocean shipping services in the
Hawaii and Guam tradelanes were consolidated into a MDL
proceeding in the Western District of Washington.  One district
court case remains in the District of Alaska, relating to the
Alaska tradelane.

Each of the federal district court cases purports to be on
behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased
domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean
carriers.  

The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman
Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly  
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.
(HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones
Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.  
The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


HORIZON LINES: To Defend Two Securities Lawsuits in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. intends to defend two securities class-
action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.

The two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, naming the company and five current and
former employees, including its Chief Executive Officer, as
defendants.

The first complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2008, and the second
complaint was filed on Jan. 27, 2009, but was subsequently
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

Each complaint purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock during the period from March 2, 2007
through April 25, 2008.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company made
material misstatements and omissions in connection with alleged
price-fixing in the company's shipping business in Puerto Rico
in violation of antitrust laws.

The company says in its April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 22, 2009, that it has appropriate disclosure practices.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly  
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.
(HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones
Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.  
The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


KLA-TENCOR: Appeal to Dismissed Derivative Suit Pending in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court filed by the plaintiff
claiming to be a KLA-Tencor Corp. shareholder is pending,
according to the company's April 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

As part of a derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Chancery
Court on July 21, 2006, which has been stayed pending a ruling
on the motion to terminate a federal derivative action, a
plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder also asserted
a separate putative class action claim against the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers.

The plaintiff alleges that shareholders incurred damage due to
purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from
historical stock option granting practices.

On March 17, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the
putative class action claim.  Plaintiff sought leave to appeal
the stay decision, and the Company opposed plaintiff's
application.  On April 14, 2009, the Chancery Court denied
plaintiff's application to appeal.  Plaintiff subsequently filed
a notice of appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court seeking to
overturn the Chancery Court's denial of the application to
appeal.

KLA-Tencor Corporation -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a  
supplier of process control and yield management solutions for
the semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.  Its
products are also used in a number of other industries,
including light emitting diode (LED) and data storage
manufacturing, and solar process development and control.  The
Company's portfolio of products, services and software are
designed to help integrated circuit (IC) manufacturers manage
yield throughout the entire fabrication process, from research
and development to final volume production.  In June 2008, KLA-
Tencor completed its acquisition of ICOS Vision Systems
Corporation NV, a supplier of packaging and interconnect
inspection solutions for the semiconductor industry.  Its
offerings are categorized into four groups: Defect Inspection,
Metrology, Product related services and Software.  In October
2008, the Company acquired Microelectronic Inspection Equipment
(MIE) business unit of Vistec Semiconductor Systems.


KLA-TENCOR CORP: "Crimi" Suit Over Stock Option Grants Dismissed  
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against KLA-Tencor Corp. in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara has been dismissed.

The plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed the putative class-action
complaint on Sept. 4, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Santa Clara against the company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of persons
who held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002, and
Sept. 27, 2006.

The suit alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty
and rescission based on alleged misstatements and omissions in
the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning the company's past stock option grants.  
It seeks unspecified damages based upon purported dilution of
the company's stock, injunctive relief, and rescission.

Aside from the company, the defendants named in the suit are:

   -- Edward W. Barnholt,
   -- H. Raymond Bingham,
   -- Robert T. Bond,
   -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr.,
   -- Stephen P. Kaufman,
   -- Kenneth Levy,
   -- Michael E. Marks,
   -- Dean O. Morton,
   -- Kenneth L. Schroeder,
   -- Jon D. Tompkins, and
   -- Richard P. Wallace.

The company filed a motion to stay the case pending the
resolution of other option-related litigation, as well as a
demurrer asking the court to dismiss the case on the ground that
the claims have no merit.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court sustained the company's demurrer and
granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint reasserting his original
claims and adding a claim under section 1507 of the California
Corporations Code on April 1, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the company removed the suit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.   The
Company then filed a motion to dismiss the action in the
Northern District of California, which was granted in part, with
the remaining claims being remanded to the California Superior
Court on Sept. 12, 2008.

The company has filed a demurrer to plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint, which is scheduled to be heard on Feb. 6, 2009.

The plaintiff responded by agreeing to dismiss the action with
prejudice, bringing an end to this action, according to the
company's April 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

The suit is "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-02249-
CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. (mweiler@morganlewis.com)
          Attorney at Law
          One Market, Spear Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Phone: 415-442-1000
          Fax: 415-442-1001


MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE: Faces Litigation Over Toll Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Jan Schlichtmann, Esq. filed a purported class-action
lawsuit claiming tolls collected on the Massachusetts Turnpike
are an illegal tax, The Boston Herald reports.

The suit, filed on May 9, 2009 in the Middlesex Superior Court
on behalf of three drivers who use the highway, seeks a refund
that could amount to $300 million, according to The Boston
Herald report.

Mr. Schlichtmann tells The Boston Herald tolls collected on the
Pike are "an unconstitutional expropriation of money" because
they are used to pay for other projects, including the $15
billion Big Dig.  He says there is legal precedent supporting
his clients.


MORTGAGE LENDERS: Aug. 5 Hearing Slated for $2.7M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A bankruptcy court in Delaware has set an Aug. 5, 2009 hearing
for the proposed settlement of a purported class-action lawsuit
against now-defunct Mortgage Lenders Network, The Hartford
Courant reports.

More than 1,600 employees of company are expected to share in  
the proposed $2.7 million settlement, according to The Hartford
Courant report.

The lawsuit accused the Middletown-based subprime lender, which
shut down abruptly in early 2007 and filed for bankruptcy, of
failing to comply with federal regulations that require
employers to give 60 days notice before shutting down a company,
reports The Hartford Courant.

The settlement, which was given preliminary approval on May 111,
2009, covers wages that would have been paid in the 60-day
period covered by the class-action lawsuit, The Hartford Courant
reported.


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Defends Claims in Consolidated Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. intends to defend the class-
action allegations asserted in the consolidated shareholder
derivative lawsuit, according to the company's April 24, 2009
Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

In February 2008, two shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, for Santa
Clara County, against certain of SiRF's officers and directors.
These complaints allege breach of fiduciary duties, waste of
corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the
California Corporations Code.  

These cases have been consolidated, and an amended complaint was
filed on Nov. 18, 2008.  

On Jan. 21, 2009, the parties submitted a stipulation to the
court adjourning defendants' response to the derivative
complaint pending resolution of SiRF's motion to dismiss the
securities litigation pending in the Northern District of
California.

On Feb. 27, 2009, plaintiffs in the derivative litigation filed
an amended, consolidated complaint, which added a purported
class action claim against SiRF and SiRF's Board of Directors in
connection with the Merger Agreement.  The class action
allegations asserted in the consolidated amended complaint are
substantially similar to the allegations set forth in the "Diaz
v. Banatao, et al.," and "Reich v. SiRF Technology Holdings,
Inc. et al." actions, although the class action allegations
asserted in the consolidated amended complaint contain the
additional allegation that SiRF entered into the Merger
Agreement for the purpose of evading alleged liability relating
to the derivative claims.

Plaintiffs also seek to compel certain changes in SiRF's
corporate governance.

On March 27, 2009, the court ordered the Diaz and Reich actions
consolidated with the shareholder derivative lawsuit, and
affirmed its prior appointment of co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in
the consolidated action.  The court further directed plaintiffs
to submit a second amended consolidated compliant within 45 days
of its order of consolidation.

SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.sirf.com/-- is a  
supplier of Global Positioning System (GPS)-based location
technology solutions designed to provide location awareness
capabilities in high-volume mobile consumer and commercial
applications.  The company's products use GPS to provide
longitude, latitude, and time information to GPS-enabled
devices.  SiRF offers GPS chip sets, standalone, and system on
chip (SoC), chip sets, and software products for high-volume GPS
markets.  SiRF markets and sells its products in four major
markets: wireless handheld devices such as mobile phones;
automotive electronic systems, including navigation and
telematics systems; consumer electronics products, such as
recreational GPS handhelds, mobile gaming machines, digital
cameras and wearable devices; and mobile computing systems,
including personal digital assistants, notebook computers,
universal mobile personal computers, and mobile Internet
devices.


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

In February 2008, multiple putative class-action lawsuits were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against the company and certain of its officers
and directors.  These complaints allege that the defendants made
misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's
business and operating results in violation of the federal
securities laws.

These cases have been consolidated and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on July 28, 2008 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 10, 2008).

On Sept. 26, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims asserted in the consolidated amended complaint.

The motion has been fully briefed, according to the company's
April 24, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

The suit is "In re SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:2008cv00856," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Maxine M.
Chesney, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2600
          Phone: San Francisco, CA 94111
          Fax: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq.
          (david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com)
          Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-233-4500
          Fax: 650-233-4545


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: To Defend "Diaz" Lawsuit Over Merger with CSR
--------------------------------------------------------------
SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. intends to defend the purported
class-action lawsuit, "Diaz v. Banatao, et al.," according to
the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 27, 2008.

On Feb. 13, 2009, a complaint regarding the purported class-
action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
Santa Clara County, against SiRF and SiRF's Board of Directors
in connection with the Merger Agreement with CSR.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

   (1) SiRF's Board of Directors violated its fiduciary duties
       to SiRF's stockholders by approving the Merger and
       certain terms set forth in Section 5.4 of the Merger
       Agreement related to SiRF's ability to solicit, consider
       or accept alternative proposals,

   (2) SiRF aided and abetted its Board of Directors' alleged
       breach of fiduciary duty, and

   (3) the Merger Consideration is unfair for reasons including,
       but not limited to, a temporarily low stock price and
       that the book value of a share of stock allegedly exceeds
       the Merger Consideration per share.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting SiRF and CSR from consummating the Merger,
rescission of the Merger if the Merger is consummated prior to
the entry of final judgment by the court, an accounting by the
defendants to the plaintiffs for all damages caused by them and
an accounting for all profits and any special benefits obtained
by the defendants as a result of any breach of fiduciary duty
and attorneys' fees and expenses.

SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.sirf.com/-- is a  
supplier of Global Positioning System (GPS)-based location
technology solutions designed to provide location awareness
capabilities in high-volume mobile consumer and commercial
applications.  The company's products use GPS to provide
longitude, latitude, and time information to GPS-enabled
devices.  SiRF offers GPS chip sets, standalone, and system on
chip (SoC), chip sets, and software products for high-volume GPS
markets.  SiRF markets and sells its products in four major
markets: wireless handheld devices such as mobile phones;
automotive electronic systems, including navigation and
telematics systems; consumer electronics products, such as
recreational GPS handhelds, mobile gaming machines, digital
cameras and wearable devices; and mobile computing systems,
including personal digital assistants, notebook computers,
universal mobile personal computers, and mobile Internet
devices.


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: To Defend "Reich" Suit on CSR Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. intends to defend the purported
class-action lawsuit, "Reich v. SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc.
et al.," according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

On Feb. 20, 2009, a complaint regarding a purported class-action
lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Clara County, against SiRF and SiRF's Board of Directors in
connection with the Merger Agreement with CSR.

The complaint alleges that, in approving the Merger, SiRF's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty,
good faith, due care and disclosure by, among other things, (I)
agreeing to sell SiRF without first taking steps to ensure that
SiRF's stockholders would obtain adequate, fair, and maximum
consideration under the circumstances and (ii) engineering the
Merger to benefit themselves and/or CSR without regard for
SiRF's stockholders.

The complaint further alleges that SiRF aided and abetted SiRF's
Board of Directors' breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Merger,
to compel SiRF's Board of Directors to properly exercise their
fiduciary duties to SiRF's stockholders, to impose a
constructive trust, in favor of the plaintiffs, upon any
benefits improperly received by SiRF's Board of Directors as a
result of their wrongful conduct and to award the plaintiffs the
costs and disbursements of the class action, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.sirf.com/-- is a  
supplier of Global Positioning System (GPS)-based location
technology solutions designed to provide location awareness
capabilities in high-volume mobile consumer and commercial
applications.  The company's products use GPS to provide
longitude, latitude, and time information to GPS-enabled
devices.  SiRF offers GPS chip sets, standalone, and system on
chip (SoC), chip sets, and software products for high-volume GPS
markets.  SiRF markets and sells its products in four major
markets: wireless handheld devices such as mobile phones;
automotive electronic systems, including navigation and
telematics systems; consumer electronics products, such as
recreational GPS handhelds, mobile gaming machines, digital
cameras and wearable devices; and mobile computing systems,
including personal digital assistants, notebook computers,
universal mobile personal computers, and mobile Internet
devices.


STATION CASINOS: Bondholder Nixes Nev. Suit Over Reorganization
---------------------------------------------------------------
S. Blake Murchison, a bondholder challenging Station Casinos
Inc.'s plan for a prepackaged bankruptcy filing and debt
exchange has dismissed without prejudice his lawsuit against the
Las Vegas company, its board of directors, and its key
executives, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The notice of dismissal simply cites a lack of action in parts
of the case: The defendants didn't file an answer or motion for
summary judgment on Murchison's amended complaint, no trial date
has been set and the court has not certified the case as a class
action, Mr. Murchison's filing said, according to The Las Vegas
Sun report.

On April 23, 2009, the Class Action Reported reported that
Station Casinos, Inc. is defending an amended complaint in the
purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "S. Blake Murchison v.
Station Casinos, Inc. et al.," pending in the U.S. District
Court, District of Nevada (Class Action Reporter, April 23,
2009).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TD AMERITRADE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Client Information Theft
----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. reached a settlement for a class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California over the theft of client contact
information, Josh Funk of The Associated Press reports.

The plaintiffs -- current and former customers of the online
brokerage -- said they received unwanted e-mail ads about
certain stocks.  The ads appeared to be designed to manipulate
the value of thinly traded stocks, according to the AP report.

Anyone who held an Ameritrade account or provided an e-mail
address to the company before Sept. 14, 2007, could benefit from
the lawsuit.  The database that was breached included
information on 6.2 million people, reports The Associated Press.

A hearing has been scheduled for Sept. 10, 2009 to determine
whether the settlement should receive final approval, The
Associated Press reported.


UNION BANCAIRE: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Madoff-Related Investments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss private bank Union Bancaire Privee (UBP), its asset
management unit, and several executives are facing a purported
class-action lawsuit over investments through feeder funds with
convicted Ponzi-scheme operator Bernard Madoff, Chad Bray of Dow
Jones Newswires reports.

The investor lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court  for the
Southern District of New York on May 8, 2009, alleges the bank,
its asset management business and several executives were "gross
negligent" and breached their fiduciary and professional duties
to conduct adequate due diligence of Mr. Madoff and his firm,
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, according to Dow Jones
Newswires.

According to the lawsuit, "As a result of defendants' wrongful
conduct, including the failure to conduct due diligence into the
legitimacy of BMIS, the UBP Funds' investments have been wiped
out, thereby damaging plaintiff and the other members of the
class."

The Geneva-based bank has said it had about $700 million in
Madoff-related investments through its funds-of-funds and client
portfolios, reports Dow Jones Newswires.

The litigation is seeking class-action status for investors in
UBP Funds as of Dec. 11, 2008, when the Madoff fraud came to
light.  It was filed on behalf of New York investor Andrea
Barron by law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Dow
Jones Newswires reports.

Dow Jones Newswires reported that the complaint is seeking
damages, including the return of management fees.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Judge Rejects UnitedHealthcare/Ingenix Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence M. McKenna of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York declined to approve the proposed
settlement in the class-action lawsuit, "UnitedHealthcare v.
AMA," which names a business of UnitedHealth Group, Inc. as a
defendant, according to hanys.org.

The plaintiffs, including some Healthcare Association of New
York State's (HANYS) members, alleged that United, through the
Ingenix database of "usual, customary, and reasonable" rates,
underpaid patients and doctors for out-of-network services.  The
proposed settlement equaled $350 million minus class notice,
administration costs, and attorney fees, reports hanys.org.

According to the plaintiff's counsel, the judge found that the
proposed settlement amount was too small, particularly because
administration costs would reduce the settlement.  The judge
indicated that more information is needed for a final
settlement, including the number of class action plaintiffs,
hanys.org reported.  

UnitedHealth Group Inc. -- http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/--
is a diversified health and well-being company which offers
offers a broad spectrum of products and services through six
operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice,
Uniprise, Specialized Care Services and Ingenix.  Through its
family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70
million individuals nationwide.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Scott+Scott LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against
Sequenom, Inc. (Nasdaq: SQNM) and certain officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The action for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing
Sequenom common stock during the period beginning June 4, 2008
through April 29, 2009, inclusive, including those who purchased
in Sequenom's July 1, 2008 offering priced at $15.50 per share.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
Sequenom, a genetic diagnostics company, made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the clinical performance of
the Company's developmental Down syndrome screening test.  After
repeated announcements by Sequenom to its investors touting
positive clinical results, the Company shocked the market when,
on April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company issued a
press release announcing that it was suspending the expected
launch of its Down syndrome screening test, SEQureDx, due to the
Company's mishandling of R&D test data.  As a result, the
Company stated that the clinical results reported to investors
could no longer be relied upon.

     As the market reacted to this disclosures, Sequenom's stock
collapsed over $11 per share overnight, closing at $3.62 per
share the following day -- a one-day decline of more than 75%,
on volume of more than 88 million shares.

     Indeed, the complaint alleges, it became clear at the end
of the Class Period that Sequenom misinformed the investing
public that:

       -- the data being collected in R&D testing of SEQureDx
          was reliable;

       -- the product's testing process was effective and the
          Company was exercising the requisite control over
          access to and accountability for the data being
          gathered;

       -- SEQureDx could identify the extra copy of genetic
          material on the 21st chromosome needed to predict Down
          Syndrome with the level of accuracy being claimed;

       -- the June 2009 product release was based on reliable
          data; and

       -- the Company's financial reports and projections, which
          were heavily reliant upon a June 2009 launch of
          SEQureDx Technology, were accurate.

     Because the misinformation disseminated by the Company,
Sequenom stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $27.76 per share on September
24, 2008.  This inflated stock price permitted Sequenom to raise
the $92 million in the July 1, 2008 follow-on stock offering,
acquire a diagnostic company for fewer shares of Sequenom stock
than would have been necessary absent the inflation and commence
a stock-based tender offer for another company.

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

For more details, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.    

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *