CAR_Public/090526.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, May 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 102

                           Headlines

AMERICA SERVICE: Berkowitz Mulls Appeal to Denied Certification
AMERICA SERVICE: Seeks to Confirm Dismissed Claims in Fraud Suit
COLIBRI GROUP: Former Workers File WARN Violations Suit in R.I.
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Expects Merged & Amended ERISA Suit in May
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Federal Securities Lawsuits Pending in Md.

DEAN FOODS: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Tenn.
DENDREON CORP: Wash. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Litigation
FIRST HEALTH: Ill. Court to Mull Fairness of PPO Suit Settlement
GOOGLE INC: California Court Gives Preliminarily OK to $20M Deal
IOVATE HEALTH: Faces Lawsuits in Canada, Tenn. Over Hydroxycut

KINDER MORGAN: Oct. 19 Trial Set for Royalty Interests Lawsuit
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending
NORTHSTAR AEROSPACE: Settlement Reached in TCE Litigation
PPL CORP: Settlement Talks in Shareholders Suit Resumes in June
RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal to "Brookler" Ruling Remains Stayed

RADIOSHACK CORP: "Stuart" Reimbursements Suit Pending in Calif.
TAISHAN GYPSUM: N.C. Homeowners File Suit Over Chinese Drywall
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Mass.
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Concert Tickets
TIMMINCO LTD: Accepts Service of Ontario Securities Litigation

TISHMAN SPEYER: Tenants Association Files $10M Lawsuit in N.Y.
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES: Faces Labor Violations Litigation in N.J.
WATERS CORP: To Respond to Amended Dearborn Complaint in June


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIDZ.COM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
IDEARC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Litigation
IDEARC INC: Walden Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ark.
SUNTRUST BANKS: Coughlin Stoia Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

AMERICA SERVICE: Berkowitz Mulls Appeal to Denied Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Berkowitz, M.D., the plaintiff in a putative class-action
suit, has indicated that he will appeal the ruling denying class
certification in the case, according to American Service Group,
Inc.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Aug. 2, 2006, the plaintiff, an individual physician
independent contractor in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed a
putative class action suit against PHS and the City of
Philadelphia in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Trial Division, seeking unspecified damages for the
class, but damages in the amount of approximately $10,000
individually.

The suit is entitled Andrew Berkowitz, M.D., Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prison Health
Services, Inc. and City of Philadelphia.

Plaintiff alleges that he provided services to inmates in the
Philadelphia Prison System at the request of the defendants and
that the defendants breached the alleged contractual duties owed
to him by paying an amount alleged to be less than the full
amount plaintiff billed for his medical services.

On Sept. 22, 2006, the City filed a New Matter Crossclaim
against PHS alleging breach of contract, negligence and seeking
indemnification.

On Sept. 29, 2006, PHS filed its Answer to plaintiff's
complaint, which Answer included a crossclaim against the City
for contribution and indemnification.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 1,
2007; and PHS and the City responded to this motion.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  The plaintiff has indicated that he will
appeal the court's ruling, 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.

America Service Group Inc. -- http://www.asgr.com/-- through
its subsidiaries Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS), EMSA
Limited Partnership (EMSA), and Correctional Health Services,
LLC (CHS), contracts to provide and/or administer managed
healthcare services to over 120 correctional facilities
throughout the United States. Prior to May 1, 2007, the company
through its subsidiary Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC (SPP), was also
a distributor of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.  The
company's correctional healthcare services segment, through PHS
and CHS, contracts with state, county and local governmental
agencies to provide healthcare services to inmates of prisons
and jails.  The pharmaceutical distribution services segment
contracts with federal, state and local governments and certain
private entities to distribute pharmaceuticals and certain
medical supplies to inmates of correctional facilities.


AMERICA SERVICE: Seeks to Confirm Dismissed Claims in Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to confirm the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee's dismissed claims in an amended
consolidated securities fraud suit filed against America Service
Group Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

On April 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed the first of four similar
securities class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee against the company and the
company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

The plaintiffs' allegations in these complaints are
substantially identical.  The suits are brought on behalf of a
putative class of individuals who purchased the company's common
stock between Sept. 24, 2003, and March 16, 2006.

Allegedly, prior to the company's announcement of the audit
committee's investigation, the company and its CEO and CFO
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements, or
concealing information about the company's business, forecasts
and financial performance.

The complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.  By order dated Aug. 3, 2006, the district court
consolidated the lawsuits into one action.

On Oct. 31, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding as defendants:

       -- Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC;
       -- Enoch E. Hartman III; and
       -- Grant J. Bryson.

The amended complaint also generally alleges that defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
business, which caused the company's securities to trade at
inflated prices during the class period.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages in the form
of restitution; compensatory damages, including interest; and
reasonable costs and expenses.

The defendants requested the court to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the parties completed the briefs on this motion
in May 2007.  This motion is currently pending before the
presiding judge.

On March 31, 2009, the Court ruled on the defendants' motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part.  While the
Court's ruling dismissed significant portions of plaintiffs'
amended complaint and, as a result, narrowed the scope of
plaintiffs' claims, none of the defendants were dismissed from
the case and several of plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 remain.  The parties are not in agreement as to the
scope of the Court's order and defendants filed a motion to
confirm which claims the Court has dismissed, 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 "In Re: American Service Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00323," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Judge William J. Haynes,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          George Edward Barrett, Esq.
          (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
          Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
          217 Second Avenue, N.
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: 615-244-2202

Representing the defendant are:

          Benjamin Lee, Esq. (blee@kslaw.com)
          King & Spalding LLC
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Phone: 404-572-4600
          Fax: 404-572-5100

               - and -

          Marcia Meredith Eason, Esq. (meason@millermartin.com)
          Miller & Martin
          Volunteer Building, 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Phone: 423-756-8304
          Fax: 423-785-8480


COLIBRI GROUP: Former Workers File WARN Violations Suit in R.I.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Colibri Group is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by former employees who allege that the now-bankrupt firm
violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act when it shut down in January, Rob Bates of Jewelers
Circular Keystone reports.

The suit was filed by some 280 former employees of company on
May 21, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island, under the caption, "Colibri Workers for Rights and
Justice et al v. Andis et al., Case No. 1:2009cv00241."  It was
also filed against Colibri's owners, Founders Equity and Phoenix
Consulting.

The litigation charges that, on Jan. 15, 2009, Founders Equity
petitioned a Providence court to force The Colibri Group into
receivership.  On Jan. 14, 2009, Colibri CEO Jim Fleet sent an
email to its employees announcing the closing.  Many of the
employees do not have access to computers of email, the suit
says, so when they showed up the next day they saw a sign
informing them the company had closed.  This was the first
notice they received of the closing, according to the suit,
Jewelers Circular Keystone reported.

The plaintiffs seek back pay, penalties and costs as a result of
the lack of notice required by the WARN Act.  The federal law
requires employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of
covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs, reports
Jewelers Circular Keystone.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Expects Merged & Amended ERISA Suit in May
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated and amended complaint in a class-action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) is expected to be filed on or before May 18, 2009,
according to Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s May 8, 2009 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

In the fall of 2008, multiple class action lawsuits were filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland and the
Southern District of New York against Constellation Energy; Mayo
A. Shattuck III, Constellation Energy's Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer; and others in their roles
as fiduciaries of the Constellation Energy Employee Savings
Plan.

The actions, which have been consolidated into one action in
Maryland (the Consolidated Action), allege that the defendants,
in violation of various sections of ERISA, breached their
fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage Constellation
Energy Savings Plan's assets by designating Constellation Energy
common stock as an investment, by failing to properly provide
accurate information about the investment, by failing to
properly monitor the investment and by failing to properly
monitor other fiduciaries.

The Consolidated Action seeks to compel the defendants to
reimburse the plaintiffs and the Constellation Energy Savings
Plan for all losses resulting from the defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duty, to impose a constructive trust on any unjust
enrichment, to award actual damages with pre- and post-judgment
interest, to award appropriate equitable relief including
injunction and restitution and to award costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it
is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to
large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's
largest wholesale power seller.  Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities.  It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity.  The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in
Central Maryland.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Federal Securities Lawsuits Pending in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. continues to face federal
securities class-action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland.

Three federal securities class-action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008.

The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons
who acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A
Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of Constellation
Energy between Jan. 30, 2008 and Sept. 16, 2008, and who
acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008.

The securities class-action lawsuits generally allege that
Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers
or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws
by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27,
2008 offering of Debentures.

The securities class-action suits also allege that Constellation
Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of
material undisclosed information which contradicted public
statements including in connection with its announcements of
financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the
first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the
filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.

The securities class-action lawsuits seek, among other things,
certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory
damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees,
and rescission damages.

A lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed in the New York or
Maryland securities class-action lawsuits pursuant to the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and
Constellation Energy and other defendants have accordingly not
been required to respond to the complaints or take other action
to defend the litigation.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed there to the
District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it
is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to
large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's
largest wholesale power seller.  Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities.  It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity.  The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in
Central Maryland.


DEAN FOODS: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Co. and others in the milk industry still face a
consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee that accuses the defendants of working
together to limit the price the Southeastern dairy farmers are
paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to
fluid Grade A milk processing facilities.

The company was named, among several defendants, in two
purported class-action antitrust complaints filed on July 5,
2007.  The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, and allege generally that the
company and others in the milk industry conspired against the
dairy farmers.

A third purported class-action antitrust complaint, known as a
retailer action, was filed on Aug. 9, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The complaint in
the retailer action was amended on March 28, 2008.  The amended
complaint alleges generally that the company, either acting
alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry,
lessened competition in the Southeastern U.S. for the sale of
processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially
inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers.

Four additional purported class-action complaints were filed on
Aug. 27, 2007, Oct. 3, 2007, Nov. 15, 2007, and Feb. 13, 2008,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The allegations in these complaints are similar to
those in the dairy farmer actions.

On Jan. 7, 2008, the U.S. MDL Panel ordered the consolidation of
all of the pending cases in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.

On April 1, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the six
dairy farmer actions, and ordered the retailer action to be
administratively consolidated with the coordinated dairy farmer
actions.

A motion by the defendants to dismiss the dairy farmer actions
was denied on May 20, 2008, and an amended consolidated
complaint was filed by the dairy farmer plaintiffs on June 20,
2008.

A joint motion to dismiss the retailer action was filed on Oct.
22, 2007, and is pending before the Court.  A hearing on the
joint motion was held on Jan. 6, 2009.

These matters are currently in discovery and the company intends
to vigorously defend them, according to its May 1, 2009 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and
beverage company.  The company has two segments: the Dairy Group
and WhiteWave Foods Co.  The Dairy Group manufactures and sells
its products under a variety of local and regional brand names
and under private labels.  The company WhiteWave Foods Co.
develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of
nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such
as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy
products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES
creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy
products.


DENDREON CORP: Wash. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
denied a motion that sought the dismissal of most claims in a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
Dendreon Corp., according to a report by Law360.

Previously, it was reported that the company is seeking the
dismissal of an amended complaint in the consolidated securities
fraud class-action suit filed against the company before the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 6, 2009).

Initially, four proposed securities class-action suits were
filed before the same court.  Three of these suits name Dendreon
and its chief executive officer as defendants and allege a
proposed class period of March 30, 2007, through May 8, 2007.

One suit names Dendreon, four of its executive officers, and two
members of its board of directors as defendants, and indicated a
class period of March 1, 2007, through May 8, 2007.

All four proposed class action suits purport to state claims for
securities law violations stemming from the company's
disclosures related to Provenge and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's actions regarding the company's pending
Biologics License Application for Provenge.

The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
expenses.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the
caption "McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al.," and
designated a lead plaintiff.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs
opposed this dismissal request.

The Court held a hearing on the dismissal motion on March 27,
2008.  By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court favored the
defendants and dismissed the complaint, holding that the
plaintiffs failed to plead a claim against the company or the
individual defendants, and allowing them 30 days to file an
amended complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008,
adding the company's senior vice president as defendant.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 2, 2008, and lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the
motion to dismiss on July 31, 2008.

The defendants' reply brief was filed Aug. 20, 2008.  Oral
argument is scheduled for Nov. 25, 2008, according to the
company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The suit is "McGuire et al. v. Dendreon Corporation et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00869-MJP," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Drew Derrick Hansen, Esq. (dhansen@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey
          1201 Third Ave.
          Ste. 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-516-3880

Representing the defendants is:

          Douglas W. Greene (dgreene@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          701 Fifth Ave.
          Ste. 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-883-2500
          Fax: 206-883-2699


FIRST HEALTH: Ill. Court to Mull Fairness of PPO Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is set for today to determine whether a
charitable contribution of more than $1.2 million is a fair end
to a 2004 chiropractor class-action suit against insurer First
Health Group Corp. over claims adjustments, Amelia Flood of The
St. Clair Record reports.

Previously, it was reported that the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial District, Madison County, Illinois, will hold a
fairness hearing on May 26, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed
settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit captioned,
"Richard C. Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health Center,
P.C., and Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care, Inc. and
First Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois, Case No. 04-L-1055," (Class Action Reporter, April 6,
2009).

This lawsuit was filed Sept. 24, 2004.  In the suit, plaintiffs
claim that CCN Managed Care, Inc. (f/k/a Community Care Network,
Inc.), and First Health Group Corp., (collectively First
Health), operated Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) networks
through which healthcare payors improperly discounted the bills
of Illinois healthcare providers who treated workers'
compensation claimants and Illinois automobile accident policy
claimants.

Granite City chiropractor Lawrence Shipley and Glen Carbon
chiropractor Richard Coy settled the class-action suit against
First Health in Madison County in January, reports The St. Clair
Record.

In the settlement, First Health did not admit to any wrongdoing.
It was to give $1.25 million to a charity.  The company would
pay $650,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Wood River attorney
Brad Lakin's law firm and a $10,000 incentive award to the class
representatives, according to The St. Clair Record report.

For more details, contact:

          LakinChapman, LLC
          300 Evans Ave,
          PO Box 229,
          Wood River, IL
          Phone: 618-254-1127
          e-mail: ppo.classaction@lakinchapman.com
          Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com

               - and -

          PPO Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 1971
          Fairbault MN 55021-6167
          Phone: 1-866-680-6562
          Web site: http://www.pposettlements.com


GOOGLE INC: California Court Gives Preliminarily OK to $20M Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Susman Godfrey, along with co-counsel Wolf Popper LLP,
obtained preliminary approval of a proposed $20 million class
action settlement agreement in a case brought by AdWords
advertisers against Google, Inc. "The settlement is a great
outcome for the class," stated Steve Susman.

     The class action alleges claims against Google for breach
of contract, unfair competition, and false advertising, based on
Google's practice of charging AdWords advertisers more than
their per day daily budget and its related disclosures.  The
case is pending in the Federal District Court of the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.

     Final approval of the settlement will be considered on
September 14, 2009.


IOVATE HEALTH: Faces Lawsuits in Canada, Tenn. Over Hydroxycut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. and Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A.,
Inc. are facing two class-action lawsuits in the wake of the
recall of Hydroxycut, a popular weight-loss supplement that has
been linked to liver damage and other life-threatening side
effects, Jon Hood of ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The suits, filed in Canada and Tennessee, accuse defendants,
which manufactures Hydroxycut, of failing to warn of the drug's
dangers or take proper precautions to protect its users.

Hydroxycut was voluntarily recalled on May 1, 2009 after the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) identified numerous
health risks posed by the drug.  FDA received 23 complaints of
liver damage resulting from use of the product, ranging from
jaundice to the need for a transplant, according to the
ConsumerAffairs.com report.

The drug poses other serious risks, including heart failure,
seizures, and rhabdomyolysis, a muscle condition where muscle
fibers break down to the point that they are released into the
bloodstream.  In some serious cases, this condition can lead to
kidney failure.

The Canadian suit, filed on May 4, 2009 defines a class of any
Canadian who purchased Hydroxycut after May 1, 2003.  It alleges
that Iovate failed to warn on the label of Hydroxycut's possibly
serious side effects.  The plaintiffs seeks $20 million plus
punitive damages, reports ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

ConsumerAffairs.com reported that the Tennessee suit, filed on
May 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, defines a class of anyone who purchased a
Hydroxycut product.  The lead plaintiffs, all from Tennessee,
spent varying amounts of money on Hydroxycut products before the
recall was announced.

The suit alleges counts under negligence, breach of express and
implied warranties, fraud, failure to warn, unjust enrichment
and violations of the Tennessee Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
among others.

The plaintiffs in the Tennessee action experienced a number of
symptoms as a result of taking the drug, including nausea,
vomiting, abdominal pain, headaches, and extreme fatigue,
according to ConsumerAffairs.com.


KINDER MORGAN: Oct. 19 Trial Set for Royalty Interests Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 19, 2009 trial date has been set for the case captioned
"J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD,
individually and on behalf of all other private royalty and
overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit,
New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2 Company,
L.P., No. 04-26-CL (8th Judicial District Court, Union County
New Mexico)."

This case involves a purported class-action suit against Kinder
Morgan CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty
and overriding royalty ("royalty interests") on the true and
proper settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide produced
from the Bravo Dome Unit during the period beginning Jan. 1,
2000.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

The purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the United States of America, and those private royalty
interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class
previously certified as a class action by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter, "Doris
Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC N.M.
Civ. No. 95-0012."

The plaintiffs allege that Kinder Morgan CO2's method of paying
royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer
Class Action.

Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel arbitration of this
matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the
Feerer Class Action settlement agreement, which motion was
denied.  Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New
Mexico Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the
trial court.  The New Mexico Supreme Court granted further
review in October 2006, and after hearing oral argument, the New
Mexico Supreme Court quashed its prior order granting review.

In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking further review.
The petition was denied in December 2007.

The case was tried in the trial court in September 2008.

The plaintiffs sought $6.8 million in actual damages as well as
punitive damages.

The jury returned a verdict finding that Kinder Morgan did not
breach the settlement agreement and did not breach the claimed
duty to market carbon dioxide.  The jury also found that Kinder
Morgan breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing and found
compensatory damages of $0.3 million and punitive damages of
$1.2 million.

On Oct. 16, 2008, the trial court entered judgment on the
verdict.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the district court entered orders vacating the
judgment and granting a new trial in the case.  Kinder Morgan
filed a petition with the New Mexico Supreme Court, asking that
court to authorize an immediate appeal of the new trial orders.
In a 2 to 1 decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court denied Kinder
Morgan's petition for immediate review of the new trial orders.
The district court has scheduled a new trial to occur beginning
on Oct. 19, 2009, 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.

Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or
operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150
terminals. The company's pipelines transport more than two
million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum
products, and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural
gas. The company operates through four segments: Products
Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The petition for rehearing filed by each of the parties to the
class-action lawsuit, "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR," is pending with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002,
by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and
certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its
subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries.

The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005.  The Amended
Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor
carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent
Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and
sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and
attorney's fees.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the
plaintiffs to certify the case as a class-action.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification
of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of
determining remedies.

Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of
determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the
remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against
these Landstar subsidiaries:

        -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,
        -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and
        -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of
the defendants and issued written orders setting forth its
rulings related to the decertification of the class and the
denial of the plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive
relief.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by
Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of
the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its
rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class
and other important elements of the Litigation relating to
liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit of certain of the District Court's
rulings in favor of the Defendants.  The Defendants asked the
Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal
with the Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings
of the District Court.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which,
among other things, affirmed the District Court's rulings that:

       -- the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable
          federal leasing regulations from charging
          administrative or other fees to BCO Independent
          Contractors in connection with voluntary programs
          offered by the Defendants through which a BCO
          Independent Contractor may purchase discounted
          products and services for a charge that is deducted
          against the compensation payable to the BCO
          Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"),

       -- the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or
          disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants
          of the applicable federal leasing regulations but
          instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which
          they sustained as a result of any such violations, and

       -- the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be
          handled on a class action basis for purposes of
          determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they
          sustained as a result of any violations.

Further, the analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the
absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the
federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of
all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO
Independent Contractors.

However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District
Court's rulings:

       -- that an old version of the lease formerly used by
          Defendants but not in use with any current BCO
          Independent Contractor complied with applicable
          disclosure requirements under the federal leasing
          regulations with respect to adjustments to
          compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on
          certain loads sourced from the U. S. Dept. of Defense,
          and

       -- that the Defendants had provided sufficient
          documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the
          applicable federal leasing regulations relating to how
          the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were
          computed.

The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court
to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect
to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to
hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an
opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually
sustained as a result of such violations.

Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with
the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's
ruling.

No further developments in the matter were provided in the
company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2009.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-
HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel R. Unumb, Esq.
          Paul D. Cullen, Esq.
          Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq.
          Joseph A. Black, Esq.
          Susan Van Bell, Esq.
          The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC
          1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20007-3770
          Phone: 202-944-8600
                 202-965-6100

          Michael R. Freed, Esq. (mrfreed@bmdpl.com)
          Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL
          Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: 904-366-1500
          Fax: 904-366-1501

               - and -

          Paul D. Cullen Sr., Esq.
          The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC
          1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 300, P.O. Box 25806
          Washington, DC 20007-3708
          Phone: 202-944-8600
          Fax: 202-944-8611

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel R. Barney, Esq. (dbarney@scopelitis.com)
          Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, P.C.
          1850 M St., NW, Suite 280
          Washington, DC 20036-5804
          Phone: 202-783-5485

          Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq.
          Robert L. Browning, Esq.
          Gregory M. Feary, Esq.
          Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C.
          10 W. Market St., Suite 1500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968
          Phone: 317-637-1777
          Fax: 317-687-2414

               - and -

          Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq. (aduva@hklaw.com)
          Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq.
          (lhamilton@hklaw.com)
          Holland & Knight
          50 North Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: 904-353-2000
                 904-353-2000 Ext. 25454
          Fax: 904-358-1872


NORTHSTAR AEROSPACE: Settlement Reached in TCE Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     A settlement was reached on May 22, 2009 in a class action
brought on behalf of Cambridge residents against Northstar
Aerospace, Inc. and Northstar Aerospace (Canada) Inc. in respect
of alleged contamination of Trichloroethylene ("TCE") in the
proximity of Northstar's Bishop Street plant.

     The settlement which, if approved by the Court, will result
in significant compensation being distributed to area residents.
"This is an excellent result in a very challenging case" says
Matthew Baer, one of the counsel responsible for negotiating the
settlement. "Under the terms of the settlement, eligible
residents will receive compensation based on the extent to which
they were adversely impacted by the contamination".

     A town hall meeting is being organized for early June to
explain details of the settlement to Class Members and to answer
any questions.

     The plaintiff class in this action is represented by a
consortium of three area firms:

    -   David Thompson from Scarfone Hawkins LLP
    -   Neena Gupta from Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
    -   Mike Eizenga and Matthew Baer from Siskinds LLP

For further information, contact:

          David Thompson
          Phone: (905) 523-1333

               - and -

          Matthew Baer
          Phone: (519) 660-7782


PPL CORP: Settlement Talks in Shareholders Suit Resumes in June
---------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement discussions in a purported class-action lawsuit filed
by a group of shareholders of The Montana Power Company in the
U.S. District Court of Montana, Butte Division, are scheduled to
resume in June 2009, according to PPL Corp.'s May 1, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

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

Montana Power sold its generating assets to PPL Montana in
December 1999.

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.

In September 2007, certain plaintiffs proposed a settlement of
certain claims not involving PPL and proposed a status
conference to discuss their proposal.  The judge held a status
conference in January 2008, and rejected the proposed
settlement.

PPL Corp. -- http://www.pplweb.com/-- is an energy and utility
holding company, which through its subsidiaries, generates
electricity from power plants in the northeastern and western
U.S.; markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the
northeastern and western portions of the U.S.; delivers
electricity to nearly 5.1 million customers in Pennsylvania, the
United Kingdom and Latin America, and provides energy services
for businesses in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal to "Brookler" Ruling Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the class decertification ruling in
the class-action lawsuit entitled, "Brookler v. RadioShack
Corp.," remains stayed.

The litigation involves allegations that RadioShack violated
California's wage order and labor code relating to the provision
of meal periods.

In February 2006, a California State Court certified a class of
approximately 23,000 members in the wage and hour suit.  The
company moved to decertify this class in July 2007, based upon
recent case authority dealing with the standard of liability for
meal and rest period actions.

RadioShack's motion to decertify was denied by the trial court,
and its petition for review to the California Supreme Court was
denied on Jan. 3, 2008.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
RadioShack's Motion for Class Decertification in the class
action lawsuit.  RadioShack's Motion for Decertification of the
class initially was denied on Aug. 29, 2007.  However, after the
California Appellate Court's favorable decision on similar facts
in "Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court,"
RadioShack again sought class decertification.  The court
granted RadioShack's Motion for Class Decertification based on
the California Appellate Court's decision in Brinker, and the
plaintiffs in Brookler have appealed this ruling.  Following the
Brinker decision, the Brinker plaintiffs appealed the California
Appellate Court's decision in that case to the Supreme Court of
California.  Due to the continuing unsettled nature of
California state law regarding the standard of liability for
meal period violations, RadioShack and the Brookler plaintiffs
agreed to a stay with respect to the plaintiff's appeal of the
class decertification ruling, pending the outcome of the appeal
of the California Appellate court's decision in Brinker.  The
outcome of this action is uncertain, 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.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.


RADIOSHACK CORP: "Stuart" Reimbursements Suit Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit captioned, "Richard Stuart v.
RadioShack Corporation, et al.," is pending, 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.

On June 7, 2007, the class-action lawsuit was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

This action alleges that the company failed to properly
reimburse employees in California for mileage expenses
associated with the use of their personal vehicles to make
transfers of merchandise between Radioshack's stores.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, and on
Feb. 9, 2009, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: N.C. Homeowners File Suit Over Chinese Drywall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taishan Gypsum, a Chinese government-owned manufacturer of
drywall, as well as U.S.-based supplier and installation
contractor, are facing a purported class-action lawsuit that was
filed on behalf of three North Carolina homeowners who
complained of illness and damage to their homes as a result of
the use of a Chinese-made drywall, Kristin Collins of The News &
Observer reports.

The plaintiffs say that the drywall emitted gases that nauseated
them, irritated their eyes and throats, and caused shortness of
breath and fatigue.  The gas also damaged metal utensils,
electronics, wiring and appliances, according to the lawsuit,
reports the News & Observer.

The plaintiffs are a couple from Pasquotank County and a woman
from Perquimans County in the northeast corner of the state,
according to the News & Observer report.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Ticketsnow.com, Inc., John
Does (1-10) and ABC Companies (1-5) are facing a purported
class-action lawsuit alleging that TM and TicketsNow have
engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and unjust
enrichment, Dana Parker-McClain of pollstar.com reports.

The suit was filed on May 14, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District Court of Massachusetts under the caption,
"O'Hurley v. Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. et al., Case No.
1:2009-cv-10794."

The suit was filed by John O'Hurley of Massachusetts who claims
that he attempted to purchase two tickets through Ticketmaster
for a Phish concert on Jan. 31. 2009, but was "rerouted" to
TicketsNow, pollstar.com reported.

Mr. O'Hurley claims he purchased two tickets at TicketsNow for a
total of $455.50, but 10 minutes later received an e-mail
stating he had ordered nine tickets, face value $90 each, but
was charged $2,064.25, reports pollstar.com.

"Defendants' practices, among other characterizations,
constitute a straightforward 'bait and switch' scheme,"
according to Mr. O'Hurley's suit.

The suit is seeking actual and punitive damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees, according to the pollstar.com
report.

For more details, contact:

          Lynda Carey Paris, Esq. (lyndaparis@comcast.net)
          Law Office of Peter A. Lagorio
          The Prince Building
          63 Atlantic Ave.
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-367-4200
          Fax: 617-227-3384


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Concert Tickets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Ticketsnow.com, Inc., John
Does (1-10) and ABC Companies (1-5) are facing a purported
consumer fraud class-action lawsuit in New Jersey in connection
to concert tickets, Dana Parker-McClain of pollstar.com reports.

The suit was filed on May 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey under the caption, "Kelley v.
Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-
02222."

Pollstar.com reported that it was filed by Michael Kelly, who
claims that he attempted to purchase tickets through
Ticketmaster on Jan. 24, 2009 for The Dead, but was "rerouted"
to TicketsNow.  There, Mr. Kelly was charged nearly $830 for
four tickets.  The complaint alleges Mr. Kelly was not informed
of the tickets' face value ($99) until he received them in the
mail.

"Within literally minutes of tickets going on sale by
Ticketmaster, and often less than one minute later for high-
demand events, those tickets are being offered for resale in the
secondary market by TicketsNow at greatly inflated prices,"
according to the suit, reports pollstar.com report.

Mr. Kelly's complaint seeks class-action status on behalf of
consumers who were directed from the the company site to
TicketsNow and purchased tickets above face value after Jan. 15,
2009 (excluding the Bruce Springsteen fans with whom the company
previously settled), pollstar.com reported.

The suit is seeking actual and punitive damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees, according to the pollstar.com
report.

For more details, contact:

          William H. Mergner, Jr., Esq. (wmergner@lbtmlaw.com)
          Leary, Bride, Tinker & Moran
          A Professional Corporation
          7 Ridgedale Avenue
          Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927
          Phone: (973) 539-2090


TIMMINCO LTD: Accepts Service of Ontario Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Timminco Limited (TSX:TIM) announced that it has accepted
service of a proposed class action commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court on May 14, 2009 by Ravinder Kumar Sharma,
alleging that Timminco and others made certain
misrepresentations in 2008 regarding Timminco's solar-grade
silicon production process.

     The plaintiff will need to seek leave or permission of the
court to bring the class action under Secondary Market
Disclosure provisions of the Securities Act.

     Timminco intends to vigorously defend these allegations and
the plaintiff's attempt to get court approval to proceed with
the action.

                         Case Background

     Kim Orr Barristers P.C. has filed a $520 million class
action on behalf of investors of Timminco Limited, a company
listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under symbol TIM.  In
addition to Timminco, certain officers and directors of the
company are also named as defendants, including Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors Dr. Heinz C.
Schimmelbusch for knowingly misleading investors about
Timminco's growth and profit potential (Class Action Reporter,
May 18, 2009).

     Beginning in early 2008, Timminco and Schimmelbusch made
continuous representations in the company's public disclosure
regarding its ability to convert metallurgical-grade silicon
into solar-grade silicon in a cost-efficient manner for sale to
the solar industry.

     Following criticism by certain analysts and the media,
Timminco released a report by Photon Consulting in May 2008 that
made positive statements about Timminco and its growth and
profit potential. Timminco's stock price rose sharply in early
to mid 2008 following these statements.

     In August 2008, Timminco admitted that its solar-grade
silicon production process was flawed. The Photon Report was
subsequently withdrawn by Timminco because "some of the material
factors or assumptions originally used to develop the forward-
looking information in the Photon Report, including in respect
of revenues, production line volumes and costs, may no longer be
valid."  The stock price subsequently collapsed as a result.
Photon Consulting LLC is also named as a defendant in the class
action.

     The Statement of Claim in the class action alleges that the
defendants knew or ought to have known that the representations
regarding the company's ability to produce low-cost, high-
quality silicone in commercial quantities were false or
misleading.  The Plaintiff will also seek leave of the court to
bring a class action pursuant to the Civil Liability for
Secondary Market Disclosure provisions of the Securities Act
(Bill 198).

     The class action is being brought on behalf of all
investors who acquired Timminco's shares between March 17, 2008
up to and including November 11, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Victoria Paris
          Kim Orr Barristers P.C.
          Phone: (416) 596-1414
          e-mail: vp@kimorr.ca


TISHMAN SPEYER: Tenants Association Files $10M Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village Tenants
Association, along with four tenants of the east side Manhattan
complex, filed a class action lawsuit in New York State Supreme
Court on May 19, 2009, alleging that Tishman Speyer improperly
instituted primary residence challenges against hundreds of
rent-stabilized tenants "solely in an attempt to oust Plaintiffs
from their homes and to cause the apartments to be vacated and
deregulated."  The action seeks to enjoin Tishman Speyer from
proceeding further with eviction proceedings against the named
plaintiffs and asks $10 million in damages and attorneys fees.

     The lawsuit asserts that the landlord initiated formal
legal proceedings against these and other tenants "without
probable cause and in a malicious, willful, reckless and wanton
manner."  Under the Rent Stabilization Law, tenants are not
entitled to rent-stabilized apartments if the apartment is not
their primary residence.  In announcing the filing, Al Doyle,
president of the ST/PCV Tenants Association said, "This action
is another way in which our organization is advocating for
tenants and should not be confused with the Appellate Court
decision dealing with Tishman Speyer's right to deregulate
apartments and charge market rate while enjoying 'J-51', a tax
exemption."

     Mr. Doyle asserted that Tishman Speyer has been
unresponsive to the efforts of local elected officials and the
Tenants Association to address the so-called "Golub"
proceedings, despite correspondence, emails and phone calls.
"We have asked that the landlord compensate tenants for the
costs -- often running into thousands of dollars -- that they
have had to incur to protect their right to live in their
homes," Mr. Doyle stated, adding that the Tenants Association
was told by Tishman Speyer that it had instituted primary
residence challenges against slightly more than 1,000 tenants
and claimed that, when completed, it will have been successful
in about 50 percent of the cases.

     Over the past two years, Tishman Speyer has had the
opportunity to review the primary residency status of every one
of the approximately 7,000 rent-stabilized tenants as their
leases came up for renewal and has said that it will not
institute primary residence challenges in the future "absent
changed circumstances."  Mr. Doyle said that the Tenants
Association recently sent a written proposal to Tishman Speyer
to establish standards to define what constitutes "changed
circumstances" and for initiating and resolving primary
residence challenges.  The Association also asked Tishman Speyer
to agree to a process to compensate the more than 500 tenants
who were unsuccessfully challenged for their costs, including
time off from work and attorneys fees.  Mr. Doyle said that the
company's continued failure to address these issues compelled
the Tenants Association to institute legal proceedings to
vindicate the rights of the improperly challenged rent-
stabilized tenants and to protect other tenants from similar
improper actions by the landlord.

For more details, contact:

    The Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village Tenants Association
    P.O. Box 1202
    New York, NY 10009-1202
    Phone: (866) 290.9036
    Web site: http://www.stpcvta.org/


UNDERGROUND UTILITIES: Faces Labor Violations Litigation in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Underground Utilities Corp. and Pipeline Equipment Co. Inc., and
its officers are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the
Superior Court, Essex County, Civil Division (Vicinage 5) in New
Jersey for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C.A. Sections 207 and 216, and the New Jersey Prevailing
Wage Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.25 to -56.47, according to a report
by Michael Booth of The New Jersey Law Journal.

The suit is captioned, "Serrano and Vivar v. Underground
Utilities Corp., A-0676-08," and was assigned to Judge Dennis F.
Carey, III.

The plaintiffs -- Juan Serrano and Edilberto Vivar -- claim the
companies paid them substandard wages and withheld overtime pay
for work done on various public constructions projects,
including work on the New Jersey Turnpike, reports The New
Jersey Law Journal.

Attorney Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. New York's Barnes, Iaccarino,
Virginia, Ambinder & Shepherd is representing the plaintiffs,
who are from Central or South America, The New Jersey Law
Journal reported.

For more details, contact:

          Barnes, Iaccarino, Virginia, Ambinder & Shepherd PLLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1403
          New York, New York 10006-1901
          Phone: (212) 943-9080
          Web site: http://mommiesandmiracles.net/


WATERS CORP: To Respond to Amended Dearborn Complaint in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
Waters Corp. expects to respond in June 2009, to the amended
complaint in a class action lawsuit commenced by the City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System against
the company.

The complaint was filed in November 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges that the company misrepresented its
projected revenues and earnings, its effective tax rates and the
level of business activity in Japan between Jan. 24, 2007 and
Jan. 22, 2008, when it released earnings for the fourth quarter
of 2007.

The complaint asserts that the company and Messrs. Berthiaume
and Ornell violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to fully disclose the information.

The plaintiff class is allegedly comprised of purchasers of
common stock that were injured during the time period stated
above.

In January 2009, Inter-Local Pension Fund ABC/IBT filed a motion
to be appointed as lead plaintiff, which was granted.

In April 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges
that between July 24, 2007 and Jan. 22, 2008, the company
misrepresented or omitted material information about its
projected annual revenues and earnings, its projected effective
annual tax rate, and the level of business activity in Japan.

The amended complaint seeks to recover under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who
purchased common stock of the Company between July 24, 2007 and
Jan. 22, 2008.

The company expects to respond to the amended complaint in June
2009 and intends to defend vigorously, according to its May 8,
2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009.

Waters Corp. -- http://www.waters.com-- is an analytical
instrument manufacturer.  Through its Waters Division, Waters
designs, manufactures, sells and services high-performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC), ultra performance liquid
chromatography, referred to as liquid chromatography, and mass
spectrometry instrument systems and support products, including
chromatography columns and other consumable products.  The
Company operates in two business segments: Waters Division and
TA Division (TA).  Through its TA division, Waters designs,
manufactures sells and services thermal analysis and rheometry
and calorimetry instruments.  The company is also a developer
and supplier of software-based products that interface with the
Company's instruments, as well as other instrument manufacturers
instruments.  In July 2008, the Company completed the purchase
of the net assets of VTI Corporation.  In December 2008, Waters
Corporation completed the purchase of the net assets of
Analytical Products Group, Inc. (APG).


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIDZ.COM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Bidz.com, Inc.
(NASDAQ:BIDZ) common stock during the period between August 13,
2007 and November 27, 2007.

     The complaint charges Bidz and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Bidz is an online retailer of jewelry, featuring a live
auction format.

      The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Bidz was
operating with material weaknesses and undisclosed significant
problems that affected the Company's entire business model.  As
a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, Bidz
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $19.94 per share on November 23,
2007.

     On November 26, 2007, Citron Research issued a negative
report on Bidz, exposing many "red flags" and alleging that
Bidz's auctions were controlled by Bidz and that the Company
seemed to generate a lot of inventory instead of generating
cash.  On this news, Bidz's stock collapsed over $4.67 per share
to close at $11.89 per share on November 27, 2007, a one-day
decline of more than 28%.  Then on November 27, 2007, Bidz
hosted a conference call to rebut the Citron Research article,
but also disclosed that the manager of a major jewelry supplier
to Bidz and a larger shareholder had been convicted in the 1980s
for fencing stolen jewelry.  On this news, Bidz's stock dropped
an additional $1.79 per share, a one-day decline of 15%.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

       -- Bidz did not have controls in place to prevent "shill
          bidding" such that its central business was subject to
          abuse; and

       -- Bidz used unreliable or false appraisal prices on its
          merchandise which misled customers and would
          ultimately cause its business to fail.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Bidz common stock during the Class Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made 60 days after May 7, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/bidz/


IDEARC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased the common stock of Idearc Inc. (Pink Sheets:
IDARQ), between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges certain of the Company's executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     Idearc is a media company that manages and delivers print,
online and wireless publishing and advertising services on
multiple platforms.  The Company's services include yellow
pages, white pages, online directory and search services, web
site design and hosting services, magazines, direct mail and
directory and information services for wireless subscribers.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Idearc's operations, prospects and
financial performance were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during 2007 the
Company relaxed its credit policies in order to increase the
amount of revenue which it reported to stockholders, while
defendants touted the Company's ever-improving, "stringent"
credit and collection policies.  By selling to non-creditworthy
customers, the Company effectively reported tens of millions of
dollars of sales that it otherwise would not have reported,
while accumulating tens of millions of dollars of uncollectible
receivables.  The Company carried these uncollectible
receivables on its books as though they were collectible until
mid-2008, when the Company admitted to a "relaxation of certain
aspects of the Company's credit policy in mid-2008" and began to
write off these uncollectible receivables in piecemeal fashion
over several quarters.

     Between mid-2008 and the end of that year, the Company
wrote off $47 million of worthless receivables that it
attributed to its relaxation of credit policies in mid-2008.
This non-collection of tens of millions of dollars of
receivables had a materially adverse impact on the Company's
liquidity and materially contributed to the Company's need to
file for bankruptcy protection. On March 3, 2009, Idearc filed
for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a
law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class
actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving
corporate fraud.

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

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


IDEARC INC: Walden Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ark.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Walden Law Firm, PLLC filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on
behalf of purchasers of Idearc, Inc. bonds styled "8% Senior
Notes Due 2016" CUSIP/ISIN 451663AC2 between March 27, 2008, and
March 30, 2009.

     The complaint charges Idearc and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Idearc is a media company that manages and delivers print,
online and wireless publishing and advertising services on
multiple platforms.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's ability to service its debt.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Idearc was
suffering from a terminally ill balance sheet, which it
subsequently admitted before filing for bankruptcy.  As a result
of defendants' false and misleading statements, Idearc's bonds
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $74.250 on April 24, 2008.

     On March 31, 2009, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it had initiated a voluntary Chapter 11 petition
under the United States Bankruptcy Code, stating specifically
that the Company had "good potential," but was "being held back
by a terminally ill balance sheet."

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Idearc bonds styled "8% Senior Notes Due 2016"
CUSIP/ISIN 451663AC2 during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

          Richard E. Walden, Esq.
          Walden Law Firm, PLLC
          Phone: 501-907-7000
          e-mail: idearclitigation@gmail.com
          Web site:
          http://www.waldenlawfirm.com/Cases/Idearc/Idearc.html


SUNTRUST BANKS: Coughlin Stoia Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of SunTrust Capital
IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities (NYSE:STI-PZ) of SunTrust
Banks, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's February 2008 initial public offering of the
Securities.

     The complaint charges SunTrust and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     SunTrust is a financial holding corporation, providing a
range of financial products and services to consumer and
corporate customers in the United States and internationally.

     The complaint alleges that defendants consummated the
Offering pursuant to the false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus, selling 27.6 million units of the
Securities at $25 per share, for proceeds of over $690 million.
The Registration Statement incorporated SunTrust's financial
results for 2007 and Form 8-K dated February 12, 2008.

     In November 2008, SunTrust received $3.5 billion in funds
from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and an additional $1.4
billion in December 2008.  Then on January 22, 2009, when
SunTrust released its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2008,
SunTrust reported its first quarterly loss in at least two
decades, cut its quarterly dividend from $0.54 to $0.10 per
common share, and announced a significant increase in its
provision for loan losses.  When this became public, the price
of the Securities declined significantly.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statement were:

       -- the Company's assets, including loans and mortgage-
          related securities were impaired to a greater extent
          than the Company had disclosed;

       -- defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

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

       -- the Company's capital base was not as well capitalized
          as it had represented.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of the Securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
Offering.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made 60 days after May 15, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/suntrustpfd/


                            *********

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  * * *