CAR_Public/090520.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, May 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 98

                           Headlines

ABN AMRO: Notification Program Begins for $9.6M Suit Settlement
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in California
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Consolidated Merchants' Suit Pending in N.Y.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Customer Suits Over Insurance Billing Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Baydale" Securities Suit in New York

AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Homa" Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Ads on Remand
APPLE INC: Judge Grants Judgment Request in iTunes-iPod Lawsuit
ASRM & SART: Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Egg-Sharing Dismissed
AT&T CORP: Supreme Court Favors Firm in Pregnancy Leave Appeal
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit For "Fixing" Interest Rates, Prices

COMCAST CORP: Faces W.Va. Litigation Over "Tying" of Cable Boxes
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Lawsuit Over False Claims About Cheerios
JEWELRY TELEVISION: Former Exec Files Wrongful Termination Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Carcinogen Content
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal Motion by Ex-GC

PHILIP MORRIS: Calif. Supreme Court Reinstates Cigarette Lawsuit
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeal to Certification of N.J. Suit Pending
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Suits by Third-Party Payors
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Suits Related to Merck Merger Transaction
SCHERING-PLOUGH: June 1 Hearing Set for $165M Suit Settlement

SCHERING-PLOUGH: No Ruling Yet on Recommendation in K-DUR Suits
SCHERING-PLOUGH: VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Suits Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia
TOYS "R" US: Pa. Judge Issues Ruling in Price-Fixing Litigation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AKEENA SOLAR: Scott+Scott LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

ABN AMRO: Notification Program Begins for $9.6M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
     A notification program began on May 18, 2009 as ordered by
the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois to
alert those who purchased certain Callable CDs before March 9,
2008 about a proposed $9.6 million settlement involving a case
filed against ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (also known as ABN AMRO Holding
N.V.); ABN AMRO North America, Inc.; LaSalle Bank, N.A.;
Standard Federal Bank; and European America Bank.

     This lawsuit claims that the Defendants, prior to March 9,
2008, did not adequately disclose the risks associated with
callable certificates of deposit ("Callable CDs") sold by
brokers (including brokers affiliated with a bank or financial
institution).  Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the
Defendants did not adequately inform the purchasers of Callable
CDs that they might suffer losses if they were sold prior to
call or maturity, or otherwise failed to make full and accurate
disclosure regarding material aspects of those CDs prior to
purchase. The settlement does not mean that any law was broken
or that the Defendants did anything wrong.  The Defendants deny
all legal claims in this case.

     The Class includes anyone (including institutional
investors) who bought a Callable CD at the full principal amount
before March 9, 2008 from a broker (including brokers affiliated
with a bank or financial institution) and either:

       -- lost money when they sold their Callable CD prior to
          call or maturity for less than the purchase price; or

       -- unsuccessfully attempted to sell or redeem the
          Callable CD for full principal amount prior to
          maturity.

     Only CDs issued, distributed or underwritten by any of the
Defendants are included in the settlement.  Class members can go
to http://www.CallableCDclass.comand search the CD database
using the CD CUSIP number, issuer, issue date, interest rate or
original maturity date, or call 1-800-754-3341 to find out if
their CD is included in the settlement.

     Notices informing Class members about their legal rights
are scheduled to appear in national newspaper supplements and a
consumer publication leading up to a hearing on October 26,
2009, when the Court will consider whether to grant final
approval to the settlement.

     The Court has appointed the law firms of Richardson,
Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC of Charleston, SC and
Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel, & Burns, LLP of Tampa, FL to
represent the Class as "Class Counsel."

     Those affected by the settlement can send in a claim form
to ask for payment, or they can ask to be excluded from, or
object to, the settlement.  Claim forms must be postmarked no
later than January 8, 2010.  The deadline for exclusions and
objections is August 24, 2009.

     A toll-free number, 1-800-754-3341, has been established in
this case (called Dolen v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V., No. 01-L-454),
along with a website, http://www.CallableCDclass.com,where
notices, claim forms, a searchable database of Callable CDs, the
settlement agreement, and the Court's preliminary approval order
may be obtained.  Those affected may also write to Callable CD
Settlement, PO Box 427, Birmingham, AL 35201-0427.


ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund II,
on March 31, 2009, filed a proposed securities class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common shares of certain mutual funds
offered by Allianz Global Investors Fund Management LLC against
the Funds' investment manager, Allianz Global Investors Fund
Management LLC and the Funds' sub-adviser, Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC and certain of its officers and/or
trustees over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Funds' investment manager, Allianz Global Investors Fund
Management LLC and the Funds' sub-adviser, Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC and certain of its officers and/or
trustees violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the above stated periods, were
as follows: The Funds lacked effective controls and hedges to
minimize the risk of loss and risk of liquidity from auction
rate securities ("ARS") which affected a large part of their
portfolios, The Funds lacked effective internal controls to
ensure that the Funds would remain in compliance with
restrictions and limitations related to their investment
portfolios and strategies, The extent of the Funds' liquidity
risk due to the illiquid nature of a large portion of the Funds'
portfolios, including ARS, was omitted; and The extent of the
Funds' risk exposure to ARS was misstated.

Covered by the lawsuit is anyone who purchased or otherwise
acquired the following common shares: PIMCO California Municipal
Income Fund II between May 22, 2007 and December 1, 2008, PIMCO
Municipal Income Fund II between May 22, 2007 and December 1,
2008, PIMCO Municipal Income Fund III between June 6, 2007 and
December 1, 2008, PIMCO New York Municipal Income Fund III
between June 6, 2007 and December 1, 2008, and/or PIMCO
California Municipal Income Fund III between June 6, 2007 and
December 1, 2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 29, 2009.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Consolidated Merchants' Suit Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. continues to face a consolidated purported
class-action lawsuit captioned, "In re American Express
Merchants' Litigation," pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The company has been named in a number of purported class-action
suits in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between the company's charge cards and credit cards
in violation of various state and federal laws, including:

   (i) Cohen Rese Gallery et al. v. American Express Company et
       al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
       California (filed July 2003);

  (ii) Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Company et
       al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
       California (filed August 2003);

(iii) DRF Jeweler Corp. v. American Express Company et al.,
       U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
      (filed December 2003);

  (iv) Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company et al., Superior
       Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed December
       2003);

   (v) Chez Noelle Restaurant v. American Express Company et
       al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
       York (filed January 2004);

  (vi) Mascari Enterprises d/b/a Sound Stations v. American
       Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the
       Southern District of New York (filed January 2004);

(vii) Mims Restaurant v. American Express Company et al., U.S.
       District Court for the Southern District of New York
       (filed February 2004); and

(viii) The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company et
       al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
       York (filed July 2004).

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.  Upon motion to the Court by the
company, the venue of the Cohen Rese and Italian Colors actions
was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (SDNY) in December 2003.

Each of the above-listed actions (except for Hayama) is now
pending in the SDNY under the consolidated caption "In re
American Express Merchants' Litigation."

On April 30, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss all the
actions filed prior to such date that were pending in the SDNY,
and on March 15, 2006, such motion was granted, with the Court
finding the claims of the plaintiffs to be subject to
arbitration.  Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its
dismissal.  That request was denied.  The plaintiffs appealed
the Court's arbitration ruling and on Jan. 30, 2009, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District
Court.  The parties have requested a conference with the
District Court to discuss next steps in light of the Second
Circuit's ruling.

On April 17, 2009, the company filed with the U.S. Supreme Court
an application for an extension of time to file a petition of
certiorari with the Supreme Court from the arbitration ruling of
the Second Circuit.

In addition, the company continues to request the California
Superior Court hearing the Hayama action referenced above to
stay that action.  To date the Hayama action has been stayed.

The company also filed a motion to dismiss the action filed by
Marcus, which was denied in July 2005.  On Oct. 1, 2007, Marcus
filed a motion seeking certification of a class.  The company
has opposed Marcus' motion for class certification.  Each of the
company and Marcus have moved for summary judgment in their
favor.  A decision on the class certification motion and the
summary judgment motions is pending, 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.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Customer Suits Over Insurance Billing Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. continues to face putative class-action
suits alleging violations of California and New York law by
billing customers for flight and baggage insurance that they did
not receive, 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.

In January 2006, in a matter captioned, "Hoffman, et al. v.
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., No.
2001-02281," Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Alameda, the Court certified a class action against TRS.

In a case management order dated April 8, 2008, the Court
defined two classes as follows:

   (1) all persons who obtained American Express charge cards
       governed by New York law with billing addresses in
       California who purchased American Express' fee based
       travel related insurance plans from Sept. 6, 1995,
       through Feb. 12, 2008, and

   (2) all persons who obtained American Express charge cards
       governed by New York law with billing addresses in states
       other than California who purchased American Express' fee
       based travel related insurance plans from Sept. 6, 1995,
       through Feb. 12, 2008.

The Court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify a class to
pursue claims on behalf of persons who held American Express
credit cards governed by Utah law.

Plaintiffs allege that American Express violated California and
New York law by allegedly billing customers for flight and
baggage insurance that they did not receive.

American Express filed a motion for summary judgment asking that
the case be dismissed as a matter of law.  The summary judgment
motion was partially granted in July 2008, when the Court
dismissed certain claims against American Express including
claims for punitive damages.  Certain other claims survived
summary judgment.  A trial on the remaining claims began in
November 2008.  The company prevailed in Phase 1 of that trial
with the Court ruling that the contract between the company and
its cardmembers was not ambiguous and that the company operated
the air-flight and baggage insurance program consistent with the
contract.

On March 25, 2009, the Court entered a preliminary order in the
company's favor in Phase 2 of the trial, finding that:  (1) the
contract is not unconscionable; (2) the company did not violate
California consumer protection laws; and (3) the company did not
violate New York consumer protection laws.  The Court also
awarded as-yet-to-be-determined costs to the company.

In addition, a matter raising related allegations to those in
the Hoffman case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  That matter, captioned,
"Environment Law Enforcement Systems v. American Express et
al.," has effectively been stayed pending the proceedings in the
Hoffman action.  Following the favorable March 25, 2009, ruling
in Hoffman, the plaintiff in Environmental Law Enforcement
Systems asked the Court to lift the stay.  The company has
opposed that request.

On Oct. 30, 2008, a case making allegations similar to those
raised in the Hoffman case was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  That matter, captioned,
"Kass v. American Express Card Services, Inc., American Express
Company and American Express Travel Related Services," was filed
as a putative class-action suit on behalf of American Express
credit card holders.  On March 11, 2009, the Kass Court entered
an order granting the joint motion of the parties to stay the
case, and the Court also administratively closed the case.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Baydale" Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action suit, captioned, "Baydale v. American
Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel Henry" is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Feb. 20, 2009, a putative class-action litigation captioned,
"Brozovich v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and
Daniel T. Henry," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with certain alleged misstatements regarding the
credit quality of the company's credit card customers.

The purported class covered the period from March 1, 2007 to
Nov. 12, 2008.

The action sought unspecified damages and costs and fees.

The Brozovich action was subsequently voluntarily dismissed.

On March 27, 2009, a putative class-action lawsuit, captioned,
"Baydale v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel
Henry," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The action makes similar allegations to
those made in Brozovich, 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.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Homa" Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Ads on Remand
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action suit captioned, "Homa v. American
Express Company et al." has been remanded to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, 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.

In June 2006, a putative class-action suit captioned, "Homa v.
American Express Company et al." was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The case alleges, generally, misleading and fraudulent
advertising of the "tiered" "up to 5 percent" cash rebates with
the Blue Cash card.

The complaint initially sought certification of a nationwide
class consisting of "all persons who applied for and received an
American Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30,
2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate or rebates
provided for in the offer."

On Dec. 1, 2006, however, plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint dropping the nationwide class claims and asserting
claims only on behalf of New Jersey residents who "while so
residing in New Jersey, applied for and received an American
Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30, 2003 to
the present."

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other unspecified
relief that the Court deems appropriate.

In May 2007, the Court granted the company's motion to compel
individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint.  Plaintiff
appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, and on Feb. 24, 2009, the Third Circuit reversed
the decision and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


APPLE INC: Judge Grants Judgment Request in iTunes-iPod Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. has won a round in an ongoing consolidated antitrust
class-action suit with a federal judge ruling that the
relationship between its iTunes music store and iPod products
does not constitute illegal tying, Law360 reports.

On May 15, 2009, Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Apple's request for
a judgment on the pleadings, according to the Law360 report.


ASRM & SART: Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Egg-Sharing Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit
brought by a bankrupt organization representing human egg donors
who allege the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ARSM)
and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART)
engaged in "egg-sharing" without the consent of donors, ruling
that the plaintiffs failed to prove racketeering or anti-
competitive conduct.

In an order signed on May 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.


AT&T CORP: Supreme Court Favors Firm in Pregnancy Leave Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of AT&T Corp. over a
policy that lowers pension benefits for female workers who took
pregnancy leave prior to 1979, when a federal pregnancy law was
enacted, Mark H. Anderson of Dow Jones Newswires reports.

On May 18, 2009, the justices, in a majority led by Justice
David Souter, said the seniority system AT&T applies to its work
force is protected by federal law "because the seniority system
run by AT&T is bona fide" despite the quirk created by 1970s
changes in federal protections for pregnant workers, reports Dow
Jones Newswires.

According to Justice Souter, "Bona fide seniority systems allow,
among other things for predictable financial consequences both
for the employer who pays the bill and for the employee who gets
the benefit," Dow Jones Newswires reported.

At issue in the case -- captioned, "AT&T v. Hulteen, 07-543," --
was whether its seniority system, which omits pregnancy leave
taken by women prior to 1979, is a violation of the pregnancy
discrimination law.

The class-action lawsuit against AT&T could affect workers at
other predecessors of the Bell telephone system, Dow Jones
Newswires reports.

The Supreme Court ruling overturned a lower court decision that
went against the company, according to the Dow Jones Newswires
report.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit For "Fixing" Interest Rates, Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America is facing a purported class-action lawsuit that
was filed by the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority and the
Central Bucks School District, WFMZ-TV Online reports.

The bank is one of more than 30 financial institutions named in
the suit, which states that the companies engaged in anti-
competitive practices by conspiring to fix interest rates and
prices on investments the school district and the authority
made, reports WFMZ-TV Online.

In April, a federal judge dismissed the charge against most of
the financial institutions.  Bank of America is still listed,
according to the WFMZ-TV Online report.


COMCAST CORP: Faces W.Va. Litigation Over "Tying" of Cable Boxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit alleging
that the cable company's requirement of customers to pay a
separate fee for a cable box is illegal, Justin Anderson of The
West Virginia Record reports.

The suit was filed on April 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia by Gordon Ramey, II
against Comcast Corp., Comcast Holdings Corp., Comcast Cable
Communications, Inc. and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings,
Inc.

Captioned, "Ramey v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 3:2009-cv-
00353," the litigation centers around the cable boxes that
Comcast rents out to its digital cable and premium cable
customers for between $10 and $15 per month in addition to the
monthly cable bill, according to The West Virginia Record
report.

Mr. Ramey's lawsuit alleges this practice constitutes an illegal
"tying arrangement" which restrains trade against state and
federal laws.  "Tying" refers to when a company offers a service
that can only be used by obtaining a separate product made by
the same company that is providing the initial service, The West
Virginia Record reported.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
West Virginia Record, "Comcast has a monopoly in areas in which
it provides cable television services to persons located in each
of the states in which Comcast provides cable services, or
otherwise has sufficient market power to appreciable restrain
free competition."

Mr. Ramey alleges that Comcast tells its customers that other
cable boxes aren't compatible with the cable signal "even though
cable boxes are available on the open market that would readily
permit members of the class to view" the cable offered by
Comcast, reports The West Virginia Record.

He also alleges that Comcast buys the cable boxes at a fixed and
low cost from manufacturers like Scientific Atlanta and Motorola
and then rents them out to customers, The West Virginia Record
reports.


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Lawsuit Over False Claims About Cheerios
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Mills, Inc. is facing a purported class-action suit that
accuses the company of pushing Cheerios with false claims that
it will lower cholesterol and prevent heart attacks, the
Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on May 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California by Charity E. Huey, who
is represented in the matter by Harold Hewell, Esq., of San
Diego, Howard Rubinstein, Esq., of Aspen, Colo., and Joe
Whatley, Jr., Esq., with Whatley, Drake & Kallas of New York,
N.Y.

It claims that the U.S. FDA warned General Mills in a May 5
letter that the label on its Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat
Cereal violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, according to
the Courthouse News Service report.

According to the complaint, the FDA specifically objected to
these claims on the label: "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in
6 weeks"; and "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can
reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios
is ... clinically proven to lower cholesterol.  A clinical study
showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios
cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low
in saturated fat and cholesterol," the Courthouse News Service
reported.

The plaintiffs claims that the label for regular Cheerios makes
similar claims, but boasts of "10% in one month!", reports the
Courthouse News Service.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d0c


JEWELRY TELEVISION: Former Exec Files Wrongful Termination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A former Jewelry Television executive filed a purporetd class-
action lawsuit against Knoxville-based home shopping network for
wrongful termination and age discrimination, alleging a "scheme"
to get rid of employees with expensive health care costs, Carly
Harrington of The Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

The suit was filed on May 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption, "Gordon
v. America's Collectibles Network et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-
00206."

Others named as defendants in the lawsuit include: America's
Collectibles Network, Multimedia Commerce Group, Inc., can
Financing, Inc., ACN Network, Inc., ACN Leasing, Inc., The Gem
Store, Inc., JTV.Com Internet Company, BBJ Holdings, Inc., XS
Goods, Inc., Kevin Muir, Timothy B. Matthews, F. Robert Hall,
William C. Kouns, Gerald D Sisk, Charles A Wagner, Crawford
Wagner, Warren Neal, Gregory West, Christopher West, Wayne
Lambert, David Boeschenstein, Steven Roth, Catherine
Colcotronis, Clay Davis, Harris Bagley, Brent Butcher, James
Thome, William Lane, Donna Burns, Bradley Adams, Wyndle
Kingsmore, and Timothy Engle.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff, Steve Gordon, a
company vice president who oversaw procurement, logistics,
travel and the retail store Gemstore, was terminated as part of
a companywide reduction in work force last May, reports The
Knoxville News Sentinel.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, maintains that
Jewelry Television sought to eliminate employees who threatened
the company's objective of an independent public offering by
increasing health insurance or workers' compensation premiums,
according to The Knoxville News Sentinel report.

Mr. Gordon, who was hired by Jewelry Television in 2004, was
diagnosed with cancer in 2005.  "It is our contention that he,
amongst others, were selected to improve their loss exposure in
health and workmans' compensation areas," according to Mr.
Gordon's attorney M.J. Hoover, III, who noted that Jewelry
Television's insurance plan is self-funded, The Knoxville News
Sentinel reports.

The suit alleges the company targeted employees for termination
through a reduction in work force, or "a pretextual guise for
discriminatory conduct."

It seeks $10 million in damages and lost pay as well as
compensatory damages that includes expenses related to Mr.
Gordon's cancer treatment, The Knoxville News Sentinel reported.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d0d


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Carcinogen Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Keller Rohrback L.L.P., on May 15, 2009, filed a class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey against several manufacturers of children's bath and
personal care products which contain the carcinogenic
ingredients formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane.

     Plaintiffs are purchasers of the following brand name
products, among others:

       -- Johnson's Baby Shampoo * (manufactured by Johnson &
          Johnson)

       -- Suave Kids 2-in-1 Shampoo * (manufactured by Helene
          Curtis)

       -- Grins & Giggles Milk & Honey Baby Wash * (manufactured
          by Gerber)

       -- Dora the Explorer Bubble Bath * (manufactured by MZB
          Personal Care)

       -- Pampers Kandoo Foaming Handsoap * (manufactured by
          Proctor & Gamble)

       -- Equate Tearless Baby Wash * (manufactured by Wal-Mart)

     The Complaint alleges that the Defendants manufactured,
distributed, marketed, tested and/or sold children's bath and
personal care products containing formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane,
which are known toxic and carcinogenic agents linked to cancer
and skin allergies.

     Although the companies manufacturing and marketing these
products call them "gentle" and "pure," dozens of top-selling
children's bath and personal care products are contaminated with
the cancer-causing chemicals formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane
according to the March 2009 Campaign for Safe Cosmetics report,
"No More Toxic Tub."   According to Attorney Lynn Sarko,
"Numerous parents have contacted us who are justifiably
concerned and alarmed to learn that children's shampoo and other
products manufactured by reputable manufacturers contained toxic
ingredients when safe alternatives exist."

For more details, contact:

          Mary Garner, Paralegal
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          Phone: 800/776-6044
          e-mail: productliability@kellerrohrback.com
          Web site: http://www.krclassaction.com


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal Motion by Ex-GC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California rejected a motion to dismiss a class-
action lawsuit against the former general counsel of Juniper
Networks Inc., who is accused of deceiving the public to
orchestrate and conceal a $900 million backdating scheme, Law360
reports.

On May 15, 2009, Judge Ware denied the motion to dismiss filed
by lawyers for the ex-general counsel of the company, according
to the Law360 report.


PHILIP MORRIS: Calif. Supreme Court Reinstates Cigarette Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court ruled that a long-running class-
action lawsuit against major cigarette makers can go ahead,
after being effectively halted by a lower court, Bill Rigby of
Reuters reports.

The suit, originally brought in 1997, alleges that major tobacco
companies, industry groups and a public relations firm engaged
in a "decades-long campaign of deceptive advertising and
misleading statements" about cigarettes, addiction, and disease,
according to the Reuters report.

The defendants include Altria Group, Inc.'s Philip Morris USA
unit; Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.;
Lorillard, Inc.; and public relations firm Hill and Knowlton
Inc, owned by WPP Plc, Reuters reported.

Under a change in California law in 2004, designed to curb
excessive class-action lawsuits against corporations, the state
made it more difficult to form a class-action suit, by demanding
that each member of the suit demonstrate personal damage or loss
of money caused by the alleged fraud, reports Reuters.

In light of the new law, state's Court of Appeal backed the
defendants' demand to decertify the class-action lawsuit, which
would force each plaintiff to file separate lawsuits.  That
ruling greatly diminished the impact of the legal action.

However, the Supreme Court reversed that decision on a majority
4-3 verdict, which allows the class-action suit to proceed,
Reuters reports.

In an May 18, 2009 ruling, the court stated, "We conclude that
standing requirements are applicable only to the class
representatives, and not all absent class members."  In essence
the court states that only a handful of plaintiffs leading the
suit must show proof of damage and deception, not all plaintiffs
in the suit, according to the Reuters report.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeal to Certification of N.J. Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp.'s appeal to the class certification
decision in a remanded putative class-action complaint for
breach of fiduciary duties under the Company's Employee Savings
Plan (Plan) is pending before the U.S. District Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

On March 31, 2003, the Company was served with a putative class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging that Schering-Plough, retired
Chairman, CEO and President Richard Jay Kogan, its Plan
administrator, several current and former directors, and certain
former corporate officers breached their fiduciary obligations
to certain participants in the Plan.

The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly
suffered by the Plan.

The complaint was dismissed on June 29, 2004.  The plaintiffs
appealed.  On Aug. 19, 2005 , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit reversed the dismissal by the District Court.

The matter has been remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the District Court entered an order granting
in part, and denying in part, the named putative class
representative's motion for class certification.

Schering-Plough then petitioned the U.S. District Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit for leave to appeal the class
certification decision.  Schering-Plough's petition was granted
on Dec. 10, 2008, 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.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world.  The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Suits by Third-Party Payors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. continues to face several purported class-
action lawsuits filed on behalf of third-party payors.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, Schering-Plough
made cash payments of US$435 million for the settlement of the
investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Massachusetts involving certain of the Company's sales,
marketing and clinical trial practices and programs, cash
payments of US$9 million of employee termination costs related
to the 2006 manufacturing streamlining and US$6 million related
to integration planning.

Several purported class action litigations were filed following
the announcement of the settlement of the Massachusetts
Investigation.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages on behalf of third-
party payors resulting from the allegations of off-label
promotion and improper payments to physicians that were at issue
in the Massachusetts Investigation.

No further developments in the cases were reported in 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.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world.  The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Suits Related to Merck Merger Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. faces putative class action lawsuits filed
on behalf of the company's shareholders relating to the merger
agreement with Merck & Co., Inc., 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.

Since the announcement of the merger agreement with Merck, a
number of putative class action lawsuits have been filed on
behalf of the shareholders of Schering-Plough.

The complaints name as defendants Schering-Plough, its
directors, and in certain cases, Merck and Schering-Plough
subsidiaries, Blue, Inc. and Purple, Inc.

The complaints variously allege, among other things, that
Schering-Plough's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to a merger of Schering-Plough with Merck without
taking steps to ensure that shareholders would obtain adequate,
fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances, and that
Schering-Plough and, in certain complaints, Merck aided and
abetted the directors' breaches of duty.

The complaints seek, among other things, class action status, an
order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the proposed
transaction, rescission of the transaction if it is consummated,
damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world.  The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: June 1 Hearing Set for $165M Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing at 2:00 p.m. on June 1, 2009 for the proposed
$165,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Schering-Plough
Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:01-cv-829."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, located at the Frank R. Lautenberg U.S.
Post Office & Courthouse Bldg., 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New
Jersey 07101 in the Courtroom of the Honorable Katharine S.
Hayden, U.S.D.J.

Following Schering-Plough's announcement that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) had been conducting inspections of its
manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had
issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with
current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain named officers (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2008).

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that Schering-Plough failed to
disclose an alleged serious risk that a new drug application for
CLARINEX would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing
issues, and they allege that the Company failed to disclose the
alleged depth and severity of its manufacturing issues.

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of Schering-Plough stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb.
15, 2001.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.

The Court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003.
Notice of pendency of the class action was sent to members of
that class in July 2007.  On Feb. 18, 2009, the Court signed an
order preliminarily approving a settlement agreement.  The
proposed settlement agreement is scheduled to be presented for
final approval at a hearing on June 1, 2009, 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.

For more details, contact:

          In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 1-877-451-2127
          Web site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/


SCHERING-PLOUGH: No Ruling Yet on Recommendation in K-DUR Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey judge has
yet to rule on a recommendation to dismiss several purported
antitrust class-action suits filed before the federal and state
courts against Schering-Plough Corp. with regards to the drug K-
DUR.

Schering-Plough Corp. had settled patent litigation with Upsher-
Smith, Inc. and ESI Lederle, Inc. relating to generic versions
of K-DUR, the company's long-acting potassium chloride product
supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and
Upsher Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications.

Following the commencement of an Federal Trade Commission
administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from
those settlements, which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's
favor, alleged class action suits were filed in federal and
state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-
DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle.

These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of
action.

These suits seek unspecified damages.

In February 2009, a special master recommended that the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismiss the class-
action lawsuits on summary judgment.  The U.S. District Court
judge has not yet ruled on the recommendation, 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.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world.  The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. is still facing several purported class-
action suits in connection with the sale and promotion of the
VYTORIN, ZETIA, and ENHANCE products, 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.

Since mid-January 2008, Schering-Plough has become aware of or
been served with litigation, including:

        -- civil class-action lawsuits alleging common law and
           state consumer fraud claims in connection with
           Schering-Plough's sale and promotion of the Merck &
           Co., Inc./Schering-Plough joint-venture products'
           VYTORIN and ZETIA;

        -- several putative shareholder securities class action
           lawsuits (where several officers are also named
           defendants) alleging false and misleading statements
           and omissions by Schering-Plough and its
           representatives related to the timing of disclosures
           concerning the ENHANCE results, allegedly in
           violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
           Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

        -- a putative shareholder securities class action
           lawsuit (where several officers and directors are
           also named), alleging material misstatements and
           omissions related to the ENHANCE results in the
           offering documents in connection with Schering-
           Plough's 2007 securities offerings, allegedly in
           violation of the Securities Act of 1933, including
           Section 11;

        -- several putative class action suits alleging that
           Schering-Plough and certain officers and directors
           breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and
           seeking damages in the amount of losses allegedly
           suffered by the Plans;

        -- a Shareholder Derivative Action alleging that the
           Board of Directors breached its fiduciary obligations
           relating to the timing of the release of the ENHANCE
           results; and

        -- a letter on behalf of a single shareholder requesting
           that the Board of Directors investigate the
           allegations in the litigation and, if warranted,
           bring any appropriate legal action on behalf of
           Schering-Plough.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an
innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company.
Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations
with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save
and improve lives around the world.  The company applies its
research-and-development platform to human prescription and
consumer products as well as to animal health products.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in SunTrust Banks, Inc. (Public, NYSE:STI)
Capital IX 7.875% Trust preferred shares has filed a proposed
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of those
who acquired SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred
Securities issued SunTrust Banks in its February 2008 public
offering against SunTrust Banks, Inc. over alleged violations of
Federal Securities Laws.

     According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that
SunTrust Banks, Inc. and certain of its top officials and
underwriters violated the Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Specifically, so the lawsuit, 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 and that the representations made
in this registration statement/prospectus were materially false
and misleading.

     Then on January 22, 2009, SunTrust 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,
SunTrust Banks 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 to decline. SunTrust Banks, Inc. is a
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate
clients.


TOYS "R" US: Pa. Judge Issues Ruling in Price-Fixing Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anita Brody of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania ruled that a putative price-fixing
class-action suit against retail giant Toys "R" Us Inc. and
several makers of high-end baby products will proceed with
several small classes, not one big class, Law360 reports.

The ruling was issued on May 14, 2009, according to the Law360
report.



  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AKEENA SOLAR: Scott+Scott LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Scott+Scott LLP, on May 18, 2009, filed a class action
complaint against Akeena Solar, Inc. and certain of the
Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The action for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those
purchasing Akeena common stock during the period beginning
December 26, 2007 through March 13, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
Akeena, a designer and marketer of solar power systems, made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's sales, financial performance and condition.

     After repeated glowing announcements by Akeena to its
investors touting the strength of demand for the Company's
products, its large sales "backlog" and transparency into its
financial projections and reporting, the Company surprised the
market in a series of negative disclosures beginning on January
16, 2008.

     First, Akeena revealed that the credit-line increase
announced on December 26, 2007, touted as a vote of confidence
in the Company, actually contained a cash collateral requirement
equaling the amount of the extension.  The Company then reported
that its 4Q 2007 sales had significantly missed the sales
"backlog" Akeena confirmed existed at the end of its 3Q 2007.
At the end of the Class Period, on March 13, 2008, Akeena
finally revealed that actual losses incurred in its 4Q 2007,
which had already ended on December 31, 2007, were significantly
higher than investors had been led to expect.  Its newly-
appointed Chief Financial Officer also revealed that his
predecessor had been booking as "backlog" every new installation
contract, regardless of whether the customer intended to take
delivery within six months (as Akeena's "backlog" had previously
been defined) or the status of the customer's financing.

     As the market reacted to these disclosures, Akeena's common
stock, which had traded as high as $16.80 on January 7, 2008,
fell precipitously, closing at $6.15 per share on March 13,
2008.

     The complaint alleges the several statements made by Akeena
to investors were materially false or misleading.

     The statements were false or misleading because, when they
were made the Company knew that:

       -- the previously reported backlog number was unreliable;

       -- its gross profit margins were declining;

       -- its net losses were dramatically increasing and

       -- the $17.5 million "increase" in Akeena's credit line
          announced on December 26, 2007 was merely a cash
          collateralization agreement which simply increased the
          Company's restricted cash.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 17, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Scott + Scott LLP
          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  * * *