CAR_Public/090519.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, May 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 97

                           Headlines

ADVANCED ACCESSORY: Workers File WARN Violations Suit in Mich.
AFFINION GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Wash. Consumer Fraud Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Ruling on Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit Pending
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: "Bridges" ERISA Lawsuit Still Pending in Ohio
BANK OF AMERICA: 1031 Tax Group Victims File $140M Calif. Suit

BEST BUY: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Electronics Recycling Fee
CBEYOND INC: Motion to Dismiss Ga. Securities Complaint Pending
CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Damages in "Beattie" Still Undetermined
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Employee Files $50M Litigation in California
GENERAL ELECTRIC: To Defend Shareholders' Securities Lawsuits

IDEARC INC: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas
INDYMAC FEDERAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Securitized Mortgage Loans
KELLOGG BROWN: Faces Shareholders' Lawsuit in Texas State Court
N.C. BAPTIST: Judge Sets Limits in Employees' Lawsuit Settlement
PITTSBURGH MERCY: Court Certifies Class in Ex-Workers' FLSA Suit

PPL ENERGY: Talks on Shareholders' Suit to Resume in June 2009
REDDY ICE: Antitrust Violations Suit in Kansas Dismissed in Feb.
REDDY ICE: Continues to Face Securities Complaints in Michigan
REDDY ICE: Faces Consolidated Amended Antitrust Suit in Mich.
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces "Blanchard" Tort and Condemnation Suit

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces "Mays" Damages Lawsuit Over Ash Spill
TENNESSEE VALLEY: "Giltnane" Gross Negligence Lawsuit Pending
TENNESSEE VALLEY: "Long" Suit Over Kingston Ash Spill Pending
WELLPOINT INC: Scott + Scott Files Healthcare Subscribers' Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IDEARC INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
POPULAR INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Litigation
POPULAR INC: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in P.R.
POPULAR INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
SUNTRUST BANKS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

ADVANCED ACCESSORY: Workers File WARN Violations Suit in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Accessory Systems, LLC, and its owner Castle Harlan,
Inc. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act in connection to Advanced Accessory's closure, Liz
Shepard of Times Herald reports.

The lawsuit was filed on April 15, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the caption,
"Richards et al v. Advanced Accessory Systems LLC et al., Case
No. 2:2009-cv-11418."  It was filed by Robert Richards, Larry
Bond, Karen Bonkoski, Linda Brozowski, Rosa Fox, Ajit Pai and
Mary Griffor, who are all former workers of the company.

The former employees claim they weren't given enough notice of
the massive layoffs that resulted from the closure of plants in
Port Huron, Shelby Township and owner Castle Harlan's
headquarters in Sterling Heights, reports Times Herald.

The suit says the company violated the WARN Act, which requires
certain employers give at least 60 days notice of a closure or
large-scale layoffs, according to the Times Herald report.

The former employees are requesting 60 days of wages and
benefits.  If the company is found to have violated the act it
would be liable for about $2 million in wages alone, according
to Cary McGehee, Esq., the lawyer representing the employees,
Times Herald reported.


AFFINION GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Wash. Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported consumer fraud class-action
suit pending in Washington court against Affinion Group, Inc.,
which, prior to 2007, was known as the Trilegiant Corp.

On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The
Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior
Court of Washington, Spokane County.  The claim asserts
violations of various consumer protection statutes.

The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
denied by the court.

Plaintiffs have asked the court to hear oral argument on May 8,
2009, regarding their motion for class certification.  The
parties also continue to conduct discovery in this matter,
according to the company's April 30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com--
is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world.  Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.


AFFINION GROUP: Ruling on Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County has yet to rule
on a plaintiff's motion appealing its decision to compel
arbitration in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit,
according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s April 30, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class-action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC (now know as Affinion
Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC), and Allstate
Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County,
alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and
violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive
practices act.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County.

The company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008.  In granting the
company's motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration
with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not
class) basis.

On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's order. The court has yet to rule on plaintiffs'
motion.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com--
is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world.  Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: "Bridges" ERISA Lawsuit Still Pending in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against American Electric Power Co., Inc. alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
three putative class-action complaints were filed against AEP,
certain executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging
violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an
investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP
stock.  The suits, which were later consolidated, were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Aside from American Electric Power, other defendants named are
American Electric Power Service Corp.; E. Linn Draper, Jr.; and
Thomas V. Shockley, III.

In July 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification and dismissed all claims without prejudice.

In August 2007, the appeals court reversed the trial court's
decision and held that the plaintiff did have standing to pursue
his claim.  The appeals court remanded the case to the trial
court to consider the issue of whether the plaintiff is an
adequate representative for the class of plan participants.

In September 2008, the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and ordered briefing on whether the
plaintiff may maintain an ERISA claim on behalf of the Plan in
the absence of class certification.

In October 2008, counsel for the plaintiff filed a motion to
intervene on behalf of an individual seeking to intervene as a
new plaintiff.

In March 2009, the court granted a motion to intervene on behalf
of an individual seeking to intervene as a new plaintiff,
according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Judge Algenon L. Marbley, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Stull, Stull and Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-687-7230
          e-mail: ssbny@aol.com

          James Edward Arnold, Esq. (jarnold@cpaslaw.com)
          Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
          471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-469-1400

               - and -

          Joseph J. Braun, Esq. (jjbraun@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy - 1
          The Federal Reserve Bldg.
          150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
          Charlie L. Divine, Esq.
          Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Issa Mikel, Esq.
          George S. Wang, Esq.
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Phone: 212-455-2000
          Fax: 212-455-2502
          Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/


BANK OF AMERICA: 1031 Tax Group Victims File $140M Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clients of The 1031 Tax Group LLC, a bankrupt exchange fund firm
run by convicted Ponzi schemer Edward H. Okun, have launched a
proposed class-action suit to recover $140 million from Bank of
America NA, Citibank NA, Foley & Lardner LLP and others for
allegedly facilitating the scheme, Law360 reports.

Seven plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 14, 2009, on behalf of
330 investors who say they lost millions of dollars, according
to the Law360 report.


BEST BUY: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Electronics Recycling Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co. Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
that alleges it overcharges its customers for a state-mandated
electronics recycling fee.

The suit, captioned, "David Regan, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc.,
and Does 1 though 5," was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Orange-Central Judicial
District on May 11, 2009.  It generally alleges violations of
the Business & Professions Code Sections 172000.

The state imposed the recycling fee effective Jan. 1, 2005, and
Best Buy can retain 3 percent of what it charges.  The named
plaintiff, represented by Judith Fouladi with Bohm, Matsen &
Kegel of Costa Mesa, claims Best Buy charged him $16 for a
laptop though the authorized fee for it was $8.

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

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


CBEYOND INC: Motion to Dismiss Ga. Securities Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cbeyond, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint to the
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is
pending.

On May 6, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
"Weisberg v. Cbeyond, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-1666"
was filed against the company and its chairman and chief
executive officer, James F. Geiger.

The action was brought by Steven Weisberg, individually and on
behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the company's common
stock between Nov. 1, 2007, and Feb. 21, 2008.  It asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and regulations thereunder, based upon
allegations that the company underreported its customer churn
rate.

The plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount for damages
on behalf of himself and all other members of the purported
class.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which—in accordance with court rulings—changed the purported
class representatives to two institutional investors, Genesee
County Employees' Retirement System and the Essex Regional
Retirement Board.

The Amended Complaint also added J. Robert Fugate, the company's
chief financial officer and an executive vice president, as an
individual defendant.  The Amended Complaint does not materially
alter the allegations of the original complaint

On Dec. 23, 2008, the company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs have opposed that motion, according to
the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

The suit is "Weisberg v. Cbeyond, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
08-CV-1666," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Suite 110
          440 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337


Representing the defendants are:

          Scott P. Hilsen, Esq. (shilsen@alston.com)
          Alston & Bird
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: 404-881-7000

               - and -

          David A. Becker, Esq.
          Latham & Watkins
          555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Phone: 202-637-2174


CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Damages in "Beattie" Still Undetermined
----------------------------------------------------------------
The scope and amounts of damages awarded in a consumer class-
action lawsuit entitled, "Beattie, et al. v. CenturyTel Inc.,"
remain subject to additional fact-finding and resolution.

The suit was filed by Barbrasue Beattie and James Sovis on Oct.
28, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  It alleges that the company unjustly and unreasonably
billed customers for inside wire maintenance services.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages and injunctive
relief under various legal theories on behalf of a purported
class of over two million customers in the company's telephone
markets.

On March 10, 2006, the court certified the suit as a class-
action suit and issued a ruling that the billing descriptions
the company used for these services during an approximately 18-
month period between Oct. 29, 2000 and May 2002 were legally
insufficient.  The company's appeal of this class certification
decision was denied.

Centurytel's preliminary analysis indicates that it billed less
than $10 million for inside wire maintenance services under the
billing descriptions and time periods specified in the District
Court ruling.  The Court's order does not specify the award of
damages, the scope and amounts of which, if any, remain subject
to additional fact-finding and resolution of what the company
believes are valid defenses to plaintiff's claims, according to
the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2008.

The suit is "Beattie, et al. v. Centurytel, Inc., Case No. 1:02-
cv-10277-DML," filed in the U.S District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Judge Judge David M. Lawson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory J. Boulahanis, Esq.
          Boulahanis & Assoc.
          21905 Garrison Avenue
          Dearborn, MI 48124
          Phone: 313-277-2550
          Fax: 313-277-2550

              - and -

          Elwood S. Simon, Esq. (esimon@esimon-law.com)
          Elwood S. Simon Assoc.
          355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Phone: 248-646-9730
          Fax: 248-258-2335


Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer L. Frye, Esq. (jfrye@dickinsonwright.com)
          Dickinson Wright
          301 N . Liberty, Suite 500
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: 734-623-7075
          Fax: 734-623-1625

               - and -

          David J. Houston, Esq. (dhouston@dickinsonwright.com)
          Dickinson Wright
          215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200
          Lansing, MI 48933-1888
          Phone: 517-371-1730


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Employee Files $50M Litigation in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Giant retail chain Costco Wholesale Corp. is facing a class
action complaint filed in California Superior Court in San Diego
County, filed by the company's hourly employees who have been
forced to clock out of work and want to go home, but are
routinely and regularly prevented from doing so.

     Mary Pytelewski, a full-time clerk who has worked nearly a
decade in Costco's warehouse in San Marcos, Calif., filed the
suit on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
Costco employees.

     She and the class are represented in the matter by David W.
Sanford and Steven L. Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP
and Ed Chapin and Jill Sullivan, Of Counsel to Sanford Wittels &
Heisler LLP, along with other affiliate counsel. Mr. Sanford is
resident in the firm's Washington, D.C. office; Mr. Wittels is
resident in the firm's New York City office; and Mr. Chapin and
Ms. Sullivan are residents in San Diego.

     According to Ms. Pytelewski's legal team, the suit stems
from a scheme by Issaquah, Washington-based Costco Wholesale
Corporation to deny its California employees compensation and
overtime benefits due to them under state law.  The heart of the
scheme involves locking hourly employees inside each warehouse
every night for approximately 15 minutes after they have
finished work and are off the clock.  During this period, the
stores' managers perform closing activities, such as removing
jewelry from display cases and emptying cash registers.

     "Costco makes the false claim that locking these employees
inside its warehouses until store managers and supervisors
complete their closing routines is necessary for store
security," said Mr. Sanford.  "That meets the legal definition
of 'false imprisonment' because employees are being held against
their will. Costco does not count this time as work and it will
not compensate hourly employees for the time they spend each
night waiting for supervisors and managers to complete their
tasks."

     Costco is the largest wholesale club operator in the U.S.
and has some 100 stores in California.

     Ms. Pytelewski has worked at Costco since 2001, when she
began as a part-time seasonal assistant.  According to the legal
team, she has made numerous complaints to Costco's management
about these violations of California's wage and hour laws and
other unlawful practices.  "The upshot of her individual claim
is the company took retaliatory action against her," explained
Mr. Wittels.  "They wrote her up for so-called discrepancies in
her cash drawers, placed her on two unofficial 'probations,' and
posted a supervisor as a guard at her cash register.  But at no
time did Costco address the wage and hour issues she raised or
her very legitimate concern about being detained on a nightly
basis against her will."

     The Complaint asserts that the class includes several
hundred or more Costco employees, geographically dispersed
throughout California, all of whom work or have worked overtime
on a daily and weekly basis without the compensation due to
them.  Costco's employment practices are described as violating
the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare
Commission Occupational Wage Order, and the Unfair Competition
Law, Business and Professions Code.

     "Costco is building its business and its competitive
advantage at my expense and at the expense of all of its other
hourly workers," said Ms. Pytelewski.  "I pursued every avenue I
could to remedy this situation through the channels the company
makes available, but I was rebuffed and ridiculed at every turn.
I want pay that I'm owed from Costco for the time I've been
required to stay after clocking out, and I want the company to
stop locking me in the warehouse every night when my shift is
over."

     The Complaint requests a finding by the Court that Costco's
violations of California employment laws have been willful and
asks for damages of not less than $50 million for Ms. Pytelewski
and the class.  It also asks the Court to enjoin Costco to cease
and desist from all of its unlawful and unfair employment
practices, as well as for compensatory damages for its practice
of false imprisonment, compensatory damages for its retaliation
against Ms. Pytelewski, attorneys' fees and court costs.

     The Complaint also demands a jury trial.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: To Defend Shareholders' Securities Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Co. intends to defend against the allegations
in purported class-action lawsuit filed under the federal
securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In March and April 2009, individual shareholders filed purported
class actions naming as defendants GE, a number of GE officers
(including its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer) and its directors.

The complaints seek unspecified damages.

The complaints principally allege that GE falsely stated that it
would maintain its quarterly $0.31 per share dividend, while
allegedly concealing that the company did not have sufficient
cash on hand and cash flow to achieve that goal.

One of the complaints also alleges that GE made
misrepresentations concerning projected earnings and losses for
GE Capital in 2009.

The company expects to move to consolidate the cases, according
to its May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Conn.-based General Electric Co. -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a
diversified technology, media and financial services company.
With products and services ranging from aircraft engines, power
generation, water processing and security technology to medical
imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and
industrial products, it serves customers in more than 100
countries.


IDEARC INC: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of shareholders filed a securities class-action
complaint against phone book publisher Idearc, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Law360
reports.

The complaint, filed at the end of April, generally alleges that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing
material misrepresentations to the market concerning Idearc's
operations, prospects and financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Idearc securities.


INDYMAC FEDERAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Securitized Mortgage Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
IndyMac Federal Bank is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging that it failed to meet its own underwriting guidelines
on certain securitized mortgage loans, Diana Golobay of
housingwire.com.

The law firms of Kohn, Swift & Graf and Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz filed the suit on behalf of all purchasing
parties, reports housingwire.com.

Previously, the Class Action Reporter reported that the law
firms filed the class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for Southern District of New York on May 14, 2009 (Class Action
Reporter, May 18, 2009).

It was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the
following IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates: Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2006-A5CB; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-AR9; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR11; IndyMac
INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR6; Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2006-A6; Residential Asset Securitization
Trust 2006-A7CB; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR13;
IndyMac INDB Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-1; IndyMac Home Equity
Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series 2006-H2; IndyMac INDX
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR21; Residential Asset Securitization
Trust 2006-A8; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR19;
IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR1; IndyMac INDX Mortgage
Loan Trust 2006-AR23; Residential Asset Securitization Trust
2006-A10; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR12; IndyMac
INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR25; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan
Trust 2006-R1; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A11;
IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage
Loan Trust 2006-AR27; IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-
Backed Trust, Series 2006-H3; Residential Asset Securitization
Trust 2006-A12; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR29;
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR31; IndyMac INDX
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FLX1; Residential Asset Securitization
Trust 2006-A13; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-R2;
IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR3; IndyMac INDX Mortgage
Loan Trust 2006-AR14 (and 5 Additional Grantor Trusts For The
Class 1-A1a, Class 1-A2a, Class 1-A3a, Class 1-A3b and Class 1-
4a Certificates, to be established by the Depositor, IndyMac
MBS, Inc.); Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A14CB;
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR33; Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2006-A15; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-AR35; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR37;
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A16; IndyMac INDX
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR41; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-AR39; Residential Asset Securitization Trust; IndyMac INDX
Mortgage Loan Trust; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1;
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A1; IndyMac INDX
Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FLX1; Residential Asset Securitization
Trust 2007-A2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1;
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FLX2; Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2007-A3; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust;
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR5; Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2007-A5; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust
2007-AR7; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR9; IndyMac
INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan
Trust 2007-FLX3; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR11;
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A6; IndyMac IMSC
Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-F1; Residential Asset Securitization
Trust 2007-A7; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR13;
IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR3; IndyMac INDX Mortgage
Loan Trust 2007-FLX4; IndyMac IMJA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-A1;
and, IndyMac IMJA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-A2, backed by pools
of mortgage loans, pursuant to or traceable to each
certificate's respective offering against IndyMac MBS, Inc.,
certain officers and directors of IndyMac, Underwriters of the
Certificates and certain ratings agencies, pursuant to Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2) and 77o.

The case name is styled, "Police and Fire Retirement System of
the City of Detroit, v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., et al."

The Complaint alleges that following the issuance of the
Certificates, information began to emerge revealing that IndyMac
routinely disregarded the underwriting guidelines set forth in
the IndyMac mortgage loan origination documents.  The veracity
of this information was subsequently confirmed by the disclosure
of substantially higher rates of delinquencies and foreclosures
on collateral for such highly-rated debt issues.  These
disclosures, and the poor performance of the collateral, forced
the Underwriter Rating Agencies to review and revise downward
the ratings assigned to the Certificates due to the fact that
the true nature of the collateral had not been properly assessed
at the time of the Offerings and the ratings assigned by the
Underwriter Rating Agencies did not accurately reflect expected
delinquencies.  The Underwriter Rating Agencies downgraded the
Certificates, causing a substantial decline in the value of the
Certificates.

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct engaged in by
each of the defendants in issuing materially false and
misleading Offering Materials (the Form S-3 registration
statement filed on or about February 24, 2006, as amended on
March 29, 2006 and April 13, 2006, and the Certificates'
respective prospectus supplements), plaintiff and the other
members of the Class have sustained substantial damage in
connection with the purchase of the securities issued pursuant
to or traceable to the Offering Materials.

A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 13, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          David W. Wales, Esq.
          Rachel S. Poplock, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


KELLOGG BROWN: Faces Shareholders' Lawsuit in Texas State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg Brown & Root, the former subsidiary of Halliburton Co.,
are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the District
Court for Harris County, Texas, Ben Hallman of Am Law Litigation
Daily reports.

The law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer filed the class-action
complaint on behalf of the Policemen and Firemen Retirement
System of the City of Detroit, contending that persistent
wrongdoing at KBR, abetted by Halliburton, has cost the
shareholders more than $650 million, according to the Am Law
Litigation Daily.

Most of the allegations of wrongdoing described in the complaint
are drawn from news sources and from government investigations,
most prominently the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
investigation, reports Am Law Litigation Daily.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d00


N.C. BAPTIST: Judge Sets Limits in Employees' Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Beaty of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina set the eligibility requirements for
the proposed settlement of a lawsuit involving the group health
plan for N.C. Baptist Hospitals, Inc. employees, Richard Craver
of the Winston-Salem Journal.

The settlement could affect more than 8,000 current employees,
along with current and former beneficiaries and employees
covered by the plan Named as defendants in the lawsuit is N.C.
Baptist Hospitals, Inc. and applicable affiliates group health
plan, according to the Winston-Salem Journal report.

Those eligible for the settlement participated in the plan from
March 6, 2002, to May 7, 2009, ruled Judge Beaty, reports the
Winston-Salem Journal.

Richard Craver of the Winston-Salem Journal previously reported
that N.C. Baptist Hospitals, Inc. settled a purported federal
class-action lawsuit accusing it of requiring its employees to
pay more in fees for a group health plan -- which it co-owns --
than other corporate clients (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12,
2009).

The preliminary settlement includes an agreement to increase
discounts and lower co-payments in the MedCost plan.  It has the
potential to affect more than 8,000 current Baptist employees,
along with current and former beneficiaries and employees
connected to its provider network.  Employees also could be
compensated for damages, particularly overpayments, as far back
as March 2002, according to the Winston-Salem Journal.

The agreement was filed on Jan. 6, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The plaintiffs -- a current employee and a former employee --
are not identified in the filings, but both live in Forsyth
County.  A hearing on the agreement has not been set.  A notice
of a potential class-action lawsuit has been filed with the
court system, reports the Winston-Salem Journal.

Also listed in the lawsuit were MedCost LLC and MedCost Benefit
Services LLC.  MedCost LLC is co-owned by Carolinas HealthCare
System of Charlotte.

The litigation accuses Baptist of violating the duties,
responsibilities, and obligations imposed upon them as a
fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or
ERISA.

The Winston-Salem Journal reported that the lawsuit also accuses
Baptist of requiring employees to pay more for services rendered
at the hospital through MedCost than alternative health-care
plans would have, including higher co-payments and lower
discounts.  It also said that employees paid higher fees than
those required by MedCost from other corporate clients.

Plan participants made contributions of between $9 million and
$13 million a year since March 2002, the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, "NCBH selected its subsidiary,
MedCost, as the network provider for the plan knowing that
MedCost would include NCBH in its provider network at
substantially inflated reimbursement rates."  It adds, "The
selection was made not on the basis of quality or cost from a
fiduciary standpoint, but rather was based on NCBH's own
economic interests."


PITTSBURGH MERCY: Court Certifies Class in Ex-Workers' FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted class-action status to the matter, "Taylor et al v.
Pittsburgh Mercy Health System, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2009-
cv-00377," The Associated Press reports.

The class-action lawsuit covers nearly 30,000 eligible former
and current employees at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
(UPMC), according to the AP report.

Paula Reed Ward of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette previously
reported that Pittsburgh Mercy Health System, Inc. faces a
purported class-action lawsuit in Pennsylvania alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Class Action
Reporter, April 3, 2009).

The suit, captioned, "Taylor et al v. Pittsburgh Mercy Health
System, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00377," was filed on
March 31, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by two former employees, Yvonne Taylor
and Karen Camesi.

It named as defendants: Pittsburgh Mercy Health System, Inc.,
The Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh, St. Pius X Residence, Inc.,
Kenneth Eshak, and Kristen Bell.

The former workers, who worked at Mercy Hospital before it
became UPMC Mercy in January 2008, alleged that the health
system failed to pay them for training and for work they did
during meal breaks over at least a three-year period, reports
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The plaintiffs -- represented by J. Nelson Thomas, Esq., an
attorney for the Rochester, N.Y., law firm Dolin, Thomas &
Solomon --  allege that hospital officials knew that extra work
was being performed and that employees were not being
appropriately paid for it.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status and could cover as many as
4,000 people who worked for the hospital system.  It also seeks
damages, as well as injunctive relief to prevent the hospital
system from continuing the alleged illegal practice, The
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported.

According to the suit, the health system deducts 30 minutes per
day from employees' paychecks to cover meal breaks, even though
employees often don't take such breaks, or they are required to
perform some work during them.

Further, the plaintiffs allege that work done before or after
employees' shifts often isn't compensated and should be
calculated at overtime rates.  Another allegation is that the
hospital did not pay employees for time spent in various
training programs, according to The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
report.

The suit is "Taylor et al v. Pittsburgh Mercy Health System,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00377," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge
Nora Barry Fischer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
          (nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com)
          Dolin, Thomas & Solomon
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: (585) 272-0540
          Fax: (585) 272-0574


PPL ENERGY: Talks on Shareholders' Suit to Resume in June 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement discussions in a purported class-action suit filed
against PPL Energy Supply LLC in the U.S. District Court of
Montana are scheduled to resume in June 2009.

In August 2001, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by a
group of Montana Power shareholders against Montana Power, the
directors of Montana Power, certain advisors and consultants of
Montana Power, and PPL Montana.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Montana Power
failed to obtain shareholder approval for the sale of Montana
Power's generation assets to PPL Montana in 1999, and that the
sale "was null and void ab initio."

Among the remedies that the plaintiffs are seeking is the
establishment of a "resulting and/or constructive trust" on both
the generation assets and all profits earned by PPL Montana from
the generation assets, plus interest on the amounts subject to
the trust.

This lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court of Montana,
Butte Division, and the judge placed this proceeding on hold
pending the outcome of certain motions currently before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the resolution of
which may impact this proceeding.

The judge in this case has not established a schedule to resume
the proceeding, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

PPL Energy Supply, LLC is an energy and utility holding company
with headquarters in Allentown, Pennsylvania.  Through its
subsidiaries, PPL is primarily engaged in the generation and
marketing of electricity in two key markets - the northeastern
and western U.S. - and in the delivery of electricity in PA and
the U.K.


REDDY ICE: Antitrust Violations Suit in Kansas Dismissed in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit against Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.
for antitrust violations was dismissed in February 2009,
according to the company's April 30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed in Kansas state
court alleging violations of state antitrust laws and related
claims.

The lawsuit is seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss and those motions to dismiss
were granted on Feb. 26, 2009.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- is a
manufacturer and distributor of packaged ice in the United
States.  The company serves variety of customers in 31 states
and the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name.
Its principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags,
which it sells to a diversified customer base, including
supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.  As of
March 6, 2009, the company owned or operated 58 ice
manufacturing facilities, 67 distribution centers and
approximately 3,100 Ice Factories.


REDDY ICE: Continues to Face Securities Complaints in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. continues to face purported securities
class-action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

Beginning on Aug. 8, 2008, purported class action complaints
have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan asserting claims under the federal
securities laws against the company and certain of its current
or former senior officers.

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that the
defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence
of, and the company's alleged participation in, an alleged
antitrust conspiracy in the packaged ice industry.

The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of various
alleged classes of purchasers of the company's common stock.

Two motions for consolidation of the three actions and for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel were
filed on Oct. 7, 2008.  One of the two proposed lead plaintiffs
withdrew his motion.  No lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's
counsel has yet been named and no scheduling order has been
entered, according to the company's April 30, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- is a
manufacturer and distributor of packaged ice in the United
States.  The company serves variety of customers in 31 states
and the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name.
Its principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags,
which it sells to a diversified customer base, including
supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.  As of
March 6, 2009, the company owned or operated 58 ice
manufacturing facilities, 67 distribution centers and
approximately 3,100 Ice Factories.


REDDY ICE: Faces Consolidated Amended Antitrust Suit in Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. faces a consolidated amended complaint
in the multidistrict proceedings pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice had instituted an investigation of the
packaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putative
class action lawsuits, have been instituted in various federal
courts in multiple jurisdictions alleging violations of the
federal antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages
and injunctive relief.

Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have
been transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Plaintiffs in most of the actions have agreed to extend the
Company's deadline to respond to the subject complaints until 45
days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the
multidistrict proceedings.

Motions and responses were filed by various plaintiffs relating
to appointment of interim class counsel and liaison counsel.

A hearing on those motions was held on March 16, 2009; the Court
has not yet ruled on those motions.  No scheduling order has
been entered by the Court and no date has been set for the
company to respond to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in
the multidistrict proceedings, according to the company's April
30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- is a
manufacturer and distributor of packaged ice in the United
States.  The company serves variety of customers in 31 states
and the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name.
Its principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags,
which it sells to a diversified customer base, including
supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.  As of
March 6, 2009, the company owned or operated 58 ice
manufacturing facilities, 67 distribution centers and
approximately 3,100 Ice Factories.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces "Blanchard" Tort and Condemnation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority faces a purported class-action suit
styled, "Blanchard v. TVA," according to the company's May 1,
2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Nine individual landowners in Roane County, Tennessee, filed
suit on Jan. 9, 2009, against TVA.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all
similarly situated persons allegedly damaged by the Kingston ash
spill.

The complaint alleges causes of action based in tort –
negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, and trespass,
among other things – and inverse condemnation, – and seeks
compensatory damages in excess of $5 million.

Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power.  TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity.  TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams,
three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple
combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission
lines.  Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides
power to serve people across parts of seven states in the
Tennessee Valley region.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces "Mays" Damages Lawsuit Over Ash Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority faces a lawsuit seeking class-action
status for individuals allegedly affected by the Kingston ash
spill, styled Mays v. TVA.

A landowner in Roane County, Tennessee, filed suit on Jan. 7,
2009, against TVA.

The plaintiff is seeking class-action status on behalf of all
similarly situated landowners.

The complaint alleges that the Kingston ash spill constitutes a
private nuisance which has interfered with the use and value of
the property of the proposed class members.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages in excess of $5
million, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power.  TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity.  TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams,
three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple
combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission
lines.  Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides
power to serve people across parts of seven states in the
Tennessee Valley region.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: "Giltnane" Gross Negligence Lawsuit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority faces a putative class-action lawsuit
styled, "Giltnane v. TVA," according to the company's May 1,
2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Six individual landowners in Roane County, Tennessee, and one
local business filed suit on Jan. 9, 2009.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all
entities (including individuals and businesses) located within a
25-mile radius of Kingston.

The complaint alleges, among other things, gross negligence,
strict liability, nuisance per se, and violation of various
state and federal environmental statutes.

The plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and an injunction requiring TVA to
perform immediate medical and environmental testing, to abate
the nuisance, and to remediate the environmental damage.

Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power.  TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity.  TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams,
three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple
combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission
lines.  Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides
power to serve people across parts of seven states in the
Tennessee Valley region.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: "Long" Suit Over Kingston Ash Spill Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority faces a putative class-action lawsuit
filed by forty-three individuals in Roane County, Tennessee, on
March 17, 2009.

The suit styled Long v. TVA was filed against the company, four
TVA employees, and certain TVA contractors.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all
entities (including all individuals and businesses) within a 10-
mile radius of Kingston.

As to TVA, the complaint alleges causes of action based in tort
– negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, willful
misconduct, wanton misconduct, negligence per se, trespass,
nuisance, ultra hazardous activity, misrepresentation/fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent
infliction of emotional distress – and also alleges National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") claims under the
Administrative Procedures Act.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and
injunctive relief relating to spill remediation, including an
order directing TVA to fund medical monitoring.

As to the four TVA employees, the complaint alleges
constitutional tort claims in addition to state-law tort claims,
according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly
owned but self-funded United States government corporation,
mandated by federal charter to supply power.  TVA has 36,914
megawatts of dependable generating capacity.  TVA's power
facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams,
three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple
combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission
lines.  Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides
power to serve people across parts of seven states in the
Tennessee Valley region.


WELLPOINT INC: Scott + Scott Files Healthcare Subscribers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Scott + Scott commenced class action litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of insurance customers of WellPoint, Inc. (NYSE:WLP), against
the Company, UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and Ingenix, Inc. alleging
that these companies, along with alleged co-conspirators Aetna,
Inc., CIGNA Corporation, Oxford Health Plans, Health Net, Inc.,
created and used rigged data to deliberately under-reimburse
WellPoint subscribers for out-of-network services they received.

     The lawsuit, filed in California federal court, follows on
the action commenced in early 2008 in Connecticut federal court
by Scott + Scott on behalf of healthcare subscribers against
Aetna, UnitedHealth Group and Ingenix.

     Specifically, the WellPoint complaint alleges that
WellPoint and its co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to
utilize skewed data provided by UnitedHealth Group and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Ingenix to systematically reduce
reimbursement for out-of-network services consumers received.

     The lawsuits relate to a recent investigation launched by
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that found that Ingenix
data is intentionally manipulated to allow the conspiring health
plans to shortchange reimbursements to doctors on medical bills.

     For more information about this action, please visit
http://www.scott-scott.com/Top-Headlines/INGENIX-ANTITRUST-
CLASS-ACTIONS.html.


For more details, contact

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IDEARC INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Idearc,
Inc. (Pink Sheets:IDARQ) publicly traded securities during the
period between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2007 for violations
of the federal security laws.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Idearc's operations, prospects and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Idearc
securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 7, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


POPULAR INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ:BPOP) between January 23, 2008 and January
22, 2009, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     The complaint charges Popular and certain of its officers
with violations of the Exchange Act.

     Popular, through its subsidiaries, offers a range of retail
and commercial banking products and services in Puerto Rico and
the United States.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose the following adverse facts, among others:

       -- that the Company's deferred tax assets related to its
          U.S. operations were materially overstated;

       -- that the Company was experiencing increasing loan
          losses in Puerto Rico and the U.S. construction
          sectors;

       -- that the quality of the Company's remaining mortgage-
          related loans in its U.S. mainland portfolios and
          other assets were deteriorating and were materially
          overstated;

       -- that the Company was experiencing a higher percentage
          of non-performing loans;

       -- that the Company's new loan originations were
          declining; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company would soon
          be facing liquidity concerns and would be forced to
          cut or eliminate paying a dividend to shareholders.

     On January 22, 2009, Popular announced its financial
results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2008, the period
ended December 31, 2008.  For the quarter, the Company reported
a net loss of $702.9 million, citing to a higher provision for
loan losses, among other things.  In response to this
announcement, shares of the Company's common stock fell $2.52
per share, or 50%, to close at $ 2.46 per share, on heavy
trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Popular securities during the Class Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 14, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfel, Esq. (ddjr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/popular/


POPULAR INC: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in P.R.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on
behalf of investors who purchased Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOP)
securities between January 23, 2008 and January 22, 2009,
inclusive.

     The complaint charges Popular and certain of its officers
with violations of the federal securities laws.

     Popular, through its subsidiaries, offers a range of retail
and commercial banking products and services in Puerto Rico and
the United States.

     The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts related to the Company's true financial
condition and prospects.  This resulted in artificially inflated
prices of the Company's common stock during the Class Period and
a significant drop in the stock price when the Company announced
its financial results for the fourth quarter and year end of
2008.

     Specifically, during the Class Period, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse
facts, among others:

       -- that the Company's deferred tax assets related to its
          U.S. operations were materially overstated;

       -- that the Company was experiencing increasing loan
          losses in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Construction
          sectors;

       -- that the quality of the Company's remaining mortgage-
          related loans in its U.S. mainland portfolios and
          other assets was deteriorating and was materially
          overstated;

       -- that the Company was experiencing a higher percentage
          of non-performing loans;

       -- that the Company's new loan originations were
          declining; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company would soon
          be facing liquidity concerns and would be forced to
          cut or eliminate paying a dividend to shareholders.

     On January 22, 2009, Popular announced a net loss of $702.9
million for the fourth quarter, citing a higher provision for
loan losses, among other things.  As a result of the
announcement, shares of the Company's common stock declined
$2.52 per share, losing approximately 50% of their value.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Popular
investors.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 13, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com

   
POPULAR INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood announces that on May 14, 2009, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico against Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BPOPN).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from January 23, 2008 through January 22, 2009.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


SUNTRUST BANKS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against SunTrust Banks, Inc. (NYSE:STI) and certain of
its top officials and underwriters.

     The class action was filed on behalf of those who acquired
SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities issued by
the Company in its February 2008 public offering. The Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

     SunTrust is a financial holding corporation, which provides
a broad range of financial products and services to consumer and
corporate customers in the United States and abroad.

     On February 27, 2008, SunTrust filed a prospectus
supplement to a shelf registration statement/prospectus dated
October 18, 2006, pursuant to which SunTrust sold 27.6 million
units of the Trust Preferred Securities to the public at $25 per
unit, for proceeds of approximately $690 million.

     The Complaint alleges that the representations made in the
Company's registration statement/prospectus were materially
false and misleading because at the time of the offering:

       -- the Company did not adequately disclose the extent to
          which its assets, including loans and mortgage-related
          securities, were impaired;

       -- the defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets, particularly with respect to the
          Company's Alt-A or "liar loan" portfolios;

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting the
          value of its assets; and

       -- the Company was not as well capitalized as it had
          publicly represented.

     On January 22, 2009, SunTrust belatedly announced a
significant increase in its provision for loan losses along with
the release of its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2008.  At
that time, the Company reported its first quarterly loss in two
decades and cut its quarterly dividend from $0.54 to $0.10 per
share.  When this news became public, the price of the Trust
Preferred Securities began a precipitous decline.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 14, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529


                            *********

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  * * *