CAR_Public/090527.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, May 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 103

                           Headlines

BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Supreme Court To Hear Ex-Worker's Suit
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX: Aussie Judge Rejects Bid in Wembley Case
CITY OF CHICAGO: Faces Lawsuit Over Tax v. Bears Ticket-Holders
DUBEK LTD: Faces Litigation in Israel Over Menthol Cigarettes
FISERV TRUST: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Edward Stein Ponzi Scheme

GEORGIA: TRS Settles Retired Teachers' Back Pay Litigation
IPEX INC: Nevada Supreme Court Mulls Appeal of $90M Settlement
KITEC PLUMBING: More Settlement Reached, Five Defendants Left
SEALED AIR: N.J. Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval
STAR GAS: Ruling on Appeals in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending

STRAUS GROUP: Tel Aviv Court Declines Approving Suit Settlement
SUNRISE SENIOR: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending Approval
U.S. GOVERNMENT: D.C. Federal Judge Hears Claims in MRGO Case
VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Bid in "Herbert" Still Pending
VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed

VERISIGN INC: Stock Option Grants Suit Still Pending in Calif.
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: AWP Settlement Pending Final Approval
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Consolidate N.J. Lawsuits Pending
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Androgel Antitrust Suits in Ga.
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Motions in Cipro Suit Set for 3Q Hearing

WRITERS GUILD: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over Foreign Levies
YAHOO! INC: Calif. Consolidated Shareholder Suit Junked in March
YAHOO! INC: Del. Consolidated Stockholder Suit Nixed Last March
YAHOO! INC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
YAHOO! INC: Watkins' Bid to Amend Derivative Suit Still Pending


                           *********

BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Supreme Court To Hear Ex-Worker's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court agreed to hear a purported class-
action lawsuit filed against Bank of America that may settle the
issue of whether or not former employees can sue companies for
whom they once worked under the Unfair Competition Law, Thom
Senzee of The San Fernando Valley Business Journal reports.

Specifically, in "Pineda v. Bank of America," the court will
decide whether lower courts decided properly in denying
penalties for the plaintiff, an employee who gave his employer
two weeks advance notice of his resignation, but who did not
receive his final pay until several days after his resignation
date.

The case was filed as a class-action lawsuit, because the
plaintiff contended the practice of withholding pay was
widespread at the bank, according to The San Fernando Valley
Business Journal report.

The fear of an onslaught of similar class-action lawsuits
against any employer in the state using the precedent, should
the court decide in favor of the plaintiff, has local corporate
defense attorneys voicing concern.

"The scope of fallout will be far-reaching," Mona Hanna,
department chair of the Business and Commercial Litigation
Department at Encino-based Michelman & Robinson, LLP tells The
San Fernando Valley Business Journal Online.

According to her, "If you take a statute of limitation from one
year, as is the time limit with most of the labor code, and
quadruple it, you would effectively be quadrupling the funds
companies would be paying out for (wage infraction) claims
arising out of suits filed under the (Unfair Competition Law)
laws."

The San Fernando Valley Business Journal reported that the crux
of the matter is the Unfair Competition Law allows for a four-
year statute of limitations, while the state labor code under
Section 203 only allows one year in most cases.  Both a trial
court and an appeals court found that, in the case of "Pineda v.
Bank of America," the more conservative time constraints of the
labor code applied.

"The Court of Appeal held that plaintiff's claim for willful
failure to timely pay wages under Labor Code section 203 was
barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations," Felix
Shafir, an associate attorney at Encino-based Horvitz and Levy
told The San Fernando Valley Business Journal Online.

The court in that case also found that wage infraction penalties
are not restitution and cannot be recovered under the Under
Competition Law, reports The San Fernando Valley Business
Journal.


BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX: Aussie Judge Rejects Bid in Wembley Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Ray Finkelstein of the Federal Court in Melbourne ruled
against a bid by Brookfield Multiplex to derail a AU$220 million
Wembley Stadium shareholder class-action lawsuit, Maurice
Dunlevy of The Australian reports.

The developer and fund manager attempted to end one of
Australia's largest class-action lawsuits by alleging
Singaporean and Canadian litigation funders had operated an
illegal management investment scheme, according to The
Australian report.

However, in his judgment, Justice Finkelstein said the basis of
the allegation had been "Multiplex's desire to stop the class
action in its tracks."  He ruled that arrangements between
class-action lawyers Maurice Blackburn and the overseas funders
did not create a managed investment scheme, The Australian
reports.

The Australian reported that Brookfield Multiplex lawyers
Mallesons Stephen Jaques launched the challenge in November
2008.  They claimed that the funding arrangements with
Singapore's International Litigation Funding Partners and
Canadian group Ontario, Inc. were tantamount to a managed
investment scheme, which was required to be -- but had not been
-- registered under the Corporations Act because the funders
were not registered as Australian businesses.

They also sought injunctions restraining both from providing any
more funding, and preventing Maurice Blackburn from taking any
further steps in the action.

Justice Finkelstein said his finding should not come as a
surprise.  He said an management investment scheme was
essentially a scheme in which people invested money in a common
venture with the expectation of profit from the effort of
others, but this had not happened in this case.  "Second, the
obligations that would come into existence if this were a
managed investment scheme, assuming they could be put into
effect, would afford group members little protection of the kind
envisaged," reports The Australian.

Maurice Blackburn regarded the Brookfield Multiplex claim as an
attempt to derail the class-action case.  The ruling gives
Maurice Blackburn a green light to continue the action they
started in December 2006, The Australian reports.

Those proceedings, brought on behalf of P. Dawson Nominees,
allege that between August 2004 and May 2005, Multiplex did not
properly disclose to shareholders or the ASX cost increases and
delays connected with the construction of London's Wembley
National Stadium.

The Australian reported that subsequent revelations about the
Wembley project resulted in a series of Multiplex profit
downgrades that triggered dramatic falls in its share price.  An
amended statement of claim alleges Multiplex overstated its
full-year 2004 profit by at least pound stg. 17 million (AU$34
million) by failing to properly account for the loss on the
Wembley project.

It is also alleged that Multiplex failed to disclose information
about its West India Quay project in London and a large Qantas
hanger project in Queensland, according to The Australian
report.


CITY OF CHICAGO: Faces Lawsuit Over Tax v. Bears Ticket-Holders
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Chicago, Illinois is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit filed by five of 2,900 people told by the city that they
may owe taxes on licenses that allow them to buy Bears season
tickets, Hal Dardick of The Chicago Tribune reports.

The five plaintiffs, who own permanent seat licenses, or PSLs,
want to block the city's attempt to collect an amusement tax
from them for allegedly securing the licenses through a transfer
and not originally from the charter member of the National
Football League.  The licenses initially sold for $900 to
$10,000 per seat, but now can go for more than $30,000 a seat,
according to The Chicago Tribune report.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the litigation also seeks to
recover, on behalf of original PSL owners, more than $10 million
in taxes the plaintiffs' lawyers estimate the Bears paid to the
city when the licenses were first sold, under the assumption the
license owners and not the Bears ultimately footed that tab.

According to Keith Hunt, one of three attorneys who filed the
suit, "They are already taxing the people on the tickets, so
this is a form of double taxation," reports The Chicago Tribune.

The Chicago Bears told PSL holders via e-mail recently that the
city sent letters to 2,900 license owners "alleging that
amusement tax is due on permanent seat license transfers.
...Your frustrations and concerns are understandable," The
Chicago Tribune reported.

The suit alleges the city cannot collect an amusement tax on the
licenses because they merely allow the purchase of season
tickets, The Chicago Tribune reports.


DUBEK LTD: Faces Litigation in Israel Over Menthol Cigarettes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dubek Ltd., a tobacco manufacturer from Israel, is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of people who developed
lung cancer from smoking menthol cigarettes, according to a
report by The Jerusalem Post.

The litigation was initiated by Israel's leading anti-tobacco
attorney, Amos Hausner, who is representing the family of a
Rehovot mother of four who died of a tumor at age 47 after many
years of smoking Dubek's Montana brand of cigarettes, reports
The Jerusalem Post.

Mr. Hausner is also acting on behalf of an estimated 3,000 other
menthol-cigarette smokers who developed cancer during the past
seven years.  The statute of limitations on a manufacturer's
responsibility for damage caused by its products runs out after
seven years, The Jerusalem Post reports.

The Jerusalem lawyer is asking the Central District Court to
recognize the case as a class-action suit against Dubek for NIS
3 billion, according to The Jerusalem Post report.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the deceased woman, who began
smoking cigarettes at 17 and whose own daughter copied her
behavior by starting to light up at 13, died four years ago.
She started with non-menthol cigarettes and then switched to
Montana - smoking up to two packs a day without realizing that
menthol caused them to be more addictive and made it very
difficult to quit.

According to the lawsuit, Israeli law forbids adding any foreign
ingredient to cigarettes.  The fact that menthol is added
without the product's label informing customers that it makes
them more addictive is an additional violation, the lawsuit
contends.

The suit further argued that Dubek was guilty of "misleading
consumers" by not warning that menthol additives make their
products more addictive.  Consumer protection laws require a
manufacturer not to mislead the public, not only by action but
also by omission, The Jerusalem Post reported.


FISERV TRUST: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Edward Stein Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fiserv Trust Co. and TD Ameritrade Online Holding Corp. are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a woman who
says she lost $860,000 in a Ponzi scheme, Adam Klasfeld of The
Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York by Shelley L. Anderson, under the
caption, "Shelley L. Anderson, et al. v. Fiserv, Inc., Fiserv
Trust Company, TD Ameritrade Online Holing Corporation, and TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, Index No. 09601567."  It claims
that the defendants acted as custodians for accounts that
"existed on paper only."

Shelley L. Anderson, who is represented in the case by attorney
Kenneth A. Elan, Esq. And the law firm of Bernard Gross PC, says
she held about $860,000 in Fiserv pension and IRA accounts and
"had no idea" that the assets "had been stolen and depleted,"
until she heard about the arrest of Edward Stein, according to
The Courthouse News Service report.

On March 31, 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
accused Mr. Stein of running a "classic Ponzi scheme," moving
more than $55 million through his affiliated companies,
including DISP LLC, Edward T Stein Associates, G & C Partnership
Joint Venture, Gemini Fund, Prima Capital Management, and
Vibrant Capital Corp.  The next day, according to the complaint,
a district court judge granted the SEC's request to freeze Mr.
Stein's assets, The Courthouse News Service reported.

Ms. Anderson claims that Fiserv never told her "that it was
turning actual custody of her assets over to Mr. Stein and the
affiliates."   She says the company sent her fictitious
statements making her believe "that it held custody and that her
assets were safe and secure."  They even charged her for
purportedly holding the funds that they actually transferred to
Mr. Stein, she says.

According to the complaint, "Since the Custodians did not hold
customer assets or value such assets, they were paid for doing
virtually no work of any kind," reports The Courthouse News
Service.

The Courthouse News Service reported that anticipating legal
trouble, Fiserv had clients agree to "broad indemnity claims ...
to relieve itself of any possible liability for misconduct by
Stein and/or the Affiliates," according to the complaint.  Ms.
Anderson's attorneys say such provisions are unconscionable.

The suit demands damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract, negligence, conversion and violation of general
business law on behalf of herself and all customers who had
pensions and IRAs in Fiserv accounts, according to The
Courthouse News Service report.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d43

For more details, contact:

          Kenneth A. Elan, Esq.
          Law Offices of Kenneth A. Elan
          217 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-619-0261
          Fax: 212-385-2707

               - and -

          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600
          Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com/


GEORGIA: TRS Settles Retired Teachers' Back Pay Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against the Teacher Retirement System of Georgia was
recently settled, thus allowing thousands of retired educators
to receive 6 years of back pay, Cade Fowler of WALB News
reports.

The class-action lawsuit, filed five years ago, will result in a
lump sum payment awarded to 15,000 retired Georgia school
teachers or their beneficiaries.

An agreement was reached between TRS Georgia and the lead
plaintiffs in the case, Larrie Grant Plymel, and Connie Monroe,
in Fulton Superior Court, according to the WALB News report.

In general, the suit contested that Teacher Retirement System
Georgia, which has more than $40 billion dollars in retirement
funds, miscalculated retirement benefits, WALB News reported.

The payout will come in a lump sum and will be awarded to school
employees that retired between Aug. 1, 1983 and Feb. 3, 2003.
Those back payments will cover a span of 6 years, between April
of 1998 and April 2004, before the lawsuit was filed, reports
WALB News.


IPEX INC: Nevada Supreme Court Mulls Appeal of $90M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Nevada Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will hear
arguments to an appeal over the $90 million settlement reached
by IPEX, Inc. in a plumbing defect class-action lawsuit, Jeff
Pope of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The Las Vegas Sun previously reported that the Clark County
District Court in Nevada approved the $90 million settlement of
a class-action lawsuit involving faulty Kitec plumbing fixtures
manufactured by Canada-based IPEX, Inc. (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 9, 2009).

According to Judge Timothy William, who approved the agreement
on Feb. 2, 2008, the partial settlement seems fair and
reasonable despite objections from some of the home builders
remaining in the suit who claim IPEX should bear more of the
costs because it designed and manufactured the fittings.

The agreement removes IPEX from the class action suit and
protects the company and its subsidiaries from future lawsuits,
according to The Las Vegas Sun report.

Hubble Smith of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that in
general the lawsuit alleges that Kitec fittings are defective
because they "dezincify" when exposed to water, resulting in
leaks and breaks in the pipes, reports the Las Vegas Review-
Journal.


KITEC PLUMBING: More Settlement Reached, Five Defendants Left
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys in a class-action lawsuit over faulty Kitec plumbing
fixtures manufactured by Canada-based IPEX, Inc. said they have
reached tentative settlements with all but three plumbers and
two builders, Jeff Pope of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

Of the more than 40 home builders, plumbing contractors,
distributors, and related parties sued after installing Kitec
brand plumbing systems in the valley, only Sharp Plumbing,
Classic Plumbing, Majestic Plumbing, H&H Developments Ltd., and
LBM Development Co. Inc., have yet to reach settlement
agreements, according to The Las Vegas Sun report.

Recently, The Las Vegas Sun reported that District Court Judge
Timothy Williams granted the preliminary approval of 10
settlements and set a fairness hearing for Aug. 3, 2009, at
which time the agreements could be officially accepted.

Judge Williams set a mandatory settlement conference this week
for the remaining five defendants to try and reach an agreement
and avoid a trial, which has been rescheduled to begin June 2,
2009, reports The Las Vegas Sun.

Attorney Bill Coulthard, Esq. of the law firm of Kemp, Jones and
Coulthard, represents the thousands of homeowners whose houses
contain the Kitec system, which has leaked in some homes due to
dezincification, The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The Las Vegas Sun reported that dezincification is a process in
which water removes zinc from brass plumbing fittings and turns
it into silt that collects in the pipes.  Over time, the
accumulated zinc causes blockages that can potentially rupture
water lines.

Mr. Coulthard told The Las Vegas Sun that the remaining two
builders and Majestic Plumbing did work on only a small number
of homes in the valley.


SEALED AIR: N.J. Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement in a purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit against Sealed Air Corp. is pending the approval
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit, "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04372-DMC-MF," was
filed on Sept. 15, 2003.  It seeks class-action status on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
the company from March 27, 2000, through July 30, 2002.

The lawsuit named the company and five of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The company and one of
these individuals remain as defendants after a partial grant of
the defendants' motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiffs' principal allegations against the defendants are
that during the class period, they materially misled the
investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles by failing to properly account and accrue for the
Company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from
past operations of W.R. Grace.  They seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On March 14, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case for
failure to state a claim.  On Dec. 19, 2005, the court granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
court determined that the Complaint failed adequately to allege
scienter as to the four individual defendants other than T.J.
Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect
to these four individual defendants, but adequately alleged
scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the company.  Mr. Dunphy is a
current director of the company and was formerly chairman of the
board and chief executive officer of the company.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the company's
arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative, that the
court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal.

On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  On April 7, 2006, the court heard oral argument on
the defendants' reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006,
the court denied the motion on the ground that issues of fact
prevent the court from granting a motion to dismiss based on the
company's arguments other than scienter.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of the company during the period from March 27, 2000,
through July 30, 2002.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for
class certification, seeking to withdraw as a class
representative and to substitute a new class representative, the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System.

On March 26, 2007, the court entered an order permitting Miles
Senn to withdraw as lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be
substituted as lead plaintiff.  Consequently, the case is now
properly referred to as "MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et
al."

On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead plaintiff, filed a motion to
certify a class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed
Air Corporation securities during the period from March 27,
2000, through July 30, 2002, both dates inclusive, and were
damaged thereby.

On July 25, 2007, the company and Mr. Dunphy filed their
memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS's motion for class
certification.  On July 25, 2007, the company and Mr. Dunphy
also filed a motion for reconsideration or for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in
"Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.," and "Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly" require dismissal of MPERS's claims.

In an opinion and order dated March 12, 2008, the court granted
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In another
Opinion and Order, dated March 14, 2008, the court denied the
defendants' motion of reconsideration of their motion to dismiss
the complaint premised on the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in
Tellabs and Twombly.

On March 27, 2008, the company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition
for leave to appeal the district court's class certification
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On
May 14, 2008, the Third Circuit denied the petition.

On April 27, 2009 the company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiff to settle the "MPERS v. Sealed Air
Corporation, et al." case, subject to documentation and Court
approval.  The agreement provides for payment of $20.0 million,
which will be fully funded by the company's primary and excess
insurance carriers.  As a result of the settlement in principle,
in the first quarter of 2009, the company recorded a liability
in the amount of $20.0 million, which is included in other
current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.
The company also recorded a corresponding current asset in the
first quarter of 2009 for $20.0 million since the claim is fully
covered by its insurance carriers, 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.

The suit is "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge
Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pvdahlstrom@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         One North Lasalle Street, Suite 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602-3908
         Phone: 312-377-1181

              - and -

         Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. (lee@sfclasslaw.com)
         Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
         26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: 856-797-4611
         Fax: 856-797-4612,

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com)
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC
         65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: 973-597-2500


STAR GAS: Ruling on Appeals in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The decision on the December 2008 oral arguments hearing in
connection with the plaintiffs' appeals regarding certain
rulings previously entered in a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit against Star Gas Partners, L.P., remains
pending.

On Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class-action complaint on behalf
of a purported class of unitholders was filed against Star Gas
and its various subsidiaries and officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut.  The suit is
"Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3:04-cv-01766-
IBA."

Subsequently, 16 additional class-action complaints, alleging
the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same
district court.  The class actions were consolidated into one
amended complaint.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the
applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thus, in July 2006, the Court sided with the defendants and
dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.

On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and requested to have the court's judgment of
dismissal altered and reopened.  They also sought leave to file
a second consolidated amended complaint.

On Oct. 20, 2006, the defendants filed their memorandum of law
in opposition to the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.

On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.

However, on April 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery
of their legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA.  This motion was
opposed by the plaintiffs.

On April 20, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Court in connection
with the district court's decisions dismissing the amended
complaint and denying the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.

Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, the class
plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against:

        -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc.,
        -- Paul Biddelman,
        -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.,
        -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.,
        -- UBS Investment Bank, and
        -- Audrey Sevin.

On July 6, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed their brief on
appeal.  The Star Gas Defendants' opposition brief was due on
Aug. 21, 2007, and the class plaintiffs' reply brief was due on
Sept. 11, 2007.

In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant
to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA.

Oral argument was held in December 2008, and a decision is
awaited, 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.

The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. (andres@stlouislaw.com)
          Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.
          7733 Forsyth, Suite 700
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-862-6800
          Fax: 314-862-1606

               - and -

          David L. Belt, Esq. (dbelt@jacobslaw.com)
          Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C.
          350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606
          New Haven, CT 06503-0606
          Phone: 203-772-3100
          Fax: 203-772-1691

Representing the defendants are:

          Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq. (tjgallagher@dbh.com)
          Day, Berry & Howard
          One Canterbury Green
          Stamford, CT 06901-2047
          Phone: 203-977-7300
          Fax: 203-977-7301

               - and -

          Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq. (eandrews@tylercooper.com)
          Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
          205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936
          New Haven, CT 06509-1910
          Phone: 203-784-8200
          Fax: 203-777-1181


STRAUS GROUP: Tel Aviv Court Declines Approving Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Tel Aviv District Court declined to give the go-ahead for a
settlement reached in a class-action lawsuit against food giant
Straus Group, on the grounds that the lawsuit was "frivolous,"
Nurit Roth of Ha'aretz reports.

In the NIS 51 million suit filed three years ago, Strauss-Elite
was accused of misleading consumers in 2004 by reducing the
package size of halvah-flavored and cream-and-nut-flavored
wafers from 500 grams to 400 grams without notifying consumers,
according to the Ha'aretz report.

According to Judge Anat Baron, approving the settlement would
send a signal that frivolous suits were a good way to make money
at the expense of the defendant, or even the public.  She adds,
"It became clear that the basis of the claim and the application
apparently have no substantial basis," Ha'aretz reported

The court explained that the plaintiff was seen taking advantage
of the defendant's desire to avoid the expenses and bad press in
such a litigation, even if the defendant knew the claim had no
chance, reports Ha'aretz.

Judge Baron warned about the costs of this kind of lawsuit.

Some companies found themselves in the position of "'serial
defendants' against class action motions.  These unfortunates
include these cellular service providers, the banks, and
manufacturers, the court explained.

"And no less serious is the fact that they demean and degrade
the defendant," Judge Baron wrote in her ruling.

Under the settlement, the company was to have compensated the
public by offering the product at a 25% discount for one year,
Ha'aretz reported.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement to settle a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
pending against Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia remains subject to court
approval, 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.

Initially, two putative securities class-action complaints,
styled, "United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 880-Retail
Food Employers Joint Pension Fund, et al. v. Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07CV00102," and "First New York
Securities, L.L.C. v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:07CV000294," were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia on Jan. 16, 2007, and Feb. 8, 2007,
respectively.

Both complaints alleged securities law violations by Sunrise and
certain of its current or former officers and directors based on
allegedly improper accounting practices and stock option
backdating, violations of generally accepted accounting
principles, false and misleading corporate disclosures, and
insider trading of Sunrise stock.

Both sought to certify a class for the period Aug. 4, 2005
through June 15, 2006, and both requested damages and equitable
relief, including an accounting and disgorgement.

Pursuant to procedures provided by statute, two other parties --
the Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System -- appeared and jointly moved for the consolidation of
the two securities cases and for appointment as lead plaintiffs,
which requests the Court ultimately approved.

The cases were consolidated on July 31, 2007, under the caption,
"In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 07-CV-00102-RBW."

Thereafter, a stipulation was submitted pursuant to which the
new putative class plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2008.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and names as defendants the company,
Paul J. Klaassen, Teresa M. Klaassen, Thomas B. Newell, Tiffany
L. Tomasso, Larry E. Hulse, Carl G. Adams, Barron Anschutz, and
Kenneth J. Abod.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on
Aug. 11, 2008.

Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition brief to the motion to
dismiss on Oct. 10, 2008.  The parties subsequently submitted
stipulations to the court noting that they had met with a
mediator and were pursuing settlement discussions, and, as a
result, requested and obtained from the court extensions of the
date for the defendants to file their reply brief in support of
their motion to dismiss.

On Feb. 27, 2009, Sunrise and its current or former directors or
officers who were named individually as defendants entered into
an agreement, subject to court approval, to settle the putative
class action.  The settlement calls for the certification by the
court of a class consisting of persons (with exceptions) who
purchased Sunrise common stock between Feb. 26, 2004 and July
28, 2006, and payment of $13.5 million in cash into an interest-
bearing escrow account by March 6, 2009.  Upon final approval of
the settlement by the court, the funds, less any costs of
administration and any attorneys' fees and expenses that the
court might award to plaintiffs' counsel, would be disbursed to
participating class members according to a distribution plan to
be submitted to and approved by the court.

The suit is "In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-00102-RBW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Reggie B.
Walton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-789-3960
          Fax: 202-789-1813

               - and -

          Elizabeth Shattuck Finberg, Esq. (efinberg@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

          Nathaniel Thomas Connally, III (ntconnally@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson, LLP
          8300 Greensboro Drive, Ste. 1100
          McLean, VA 22102-3609
          Phone: 703-610-6100
          Fax: 703-610-6200

               - and -

          Laurie Beth Smilan, Esq. (laurie.smilan@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          11955 Freedom Drive, Suite 500
          Reston, VA 20190
          Phone: 703-456-5220


U.S. GOVERNMENT: D.C. Federal Judge Hears Claims in MRGO Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
A government attorney recently argued that a lawsuit that blames
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' construction of a shipping
channel for flooding St. Bernard Parish and New Orleans private
property during Hurricane Katrina was filed too late and should
be dismissed, Susan Finch of The Times-Picayune reports.

The class-action case, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
in Washington, D.C. a month and a half after the Aug. 29, 2005
storm, contends that continuing environmental damage done by the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) left the plaintiffs, among
them the owners of Rocky & Carlo's Restaurant, vulnerable to
flooding that amounted to the government's taking their property
without just compensation, according to The Times-Picayune
report.

Justice Department special counsel Fred Disheroon told Court of
Claims Judge Susan Braden, who came to New Orleans for the
hearing, that the case was filed long after the MRGO
construction ceased to affect the environment.  Mr. Disheroon
said most of the wetlands loss created by the shipping channel
construction ended in 1980, The Times-Picayune reported.

Plaintiffs' attorney Chuck Cooper, Esq. of Washington, D.C.,
said the case was filed well within a six-year time limit that
federal law sets for bringing such cases.  He said his clients
can show that there had not been flooding on their property
until 2002, reports The Times-Picayune.

Mr. Cooper argued that the effects of the Corps' operation and
maintenance of the channel, built in the 1960s as a shortcut for
deep draft ships between the Gulf and the Industrial Canal, "are
by no means at an end and will get worse, and that's the primary
reason why it's being closed."

Mr. Cooper added that government programs to remediate the
wetlands loss and erosion caused by the MRGO have postponed the
time when the plaintiffs had to file suit, The Times-Picayune
reports.

"As long as the government is saying it's correcting the
problem, until they stop trying to correct it, the time period
is still running, so arguably the six years hasn't even started
to run yet, Mr. Cooper told The Times-Picayune in an interview
after the hearing.

Judge Braden issued no immediate ruling, according to The Times-
Picayune report.

For more details, contact:

          Chuck Cooper, Esq.
          Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
          1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Phone: 202-220-9600
          Fax: 202-220-9601
          e-mail: info@cooperkirk.com
          Web site: http://www.cooperkirk.com/


VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Bid in "Herbert" Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc.'s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denying the company's motion to
dismiss a purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned
"Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No. CV 07
3537FMC," is still pending.

Also named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Endemol USA,
     -- Verisign, Inc.,
     -- M-Qube, Inc., and
     -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc.

The named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi
Eberhart and Cheryl Bentley -- claim that the Internet
promotion, known as the "Lucky Case Game," which costs 99 cents
per text message, is a game of chance that offers a winner a
shot at "Deal or no Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million
grand prize (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2007).

At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold
briefcases (different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are
displayed on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to
participate in the Promotion by submitting the number one
through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold
briefcase.  The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to
reveal that night's "Lucy Case."

The game allegedly involves the three elements of illegal
gambling: consideration, chance and prize.  Viewers of the
program enter the promotion via text message for which they
incur a premium text message fee, or via the Internet.  The
potential winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random,
and have the opportunity to win cash and other prizes.

The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show,
the plaintiffs say.

The plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from
California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against
gambling.

The defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as
follows:

     (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its
         rules and conditions;

     (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal";

     (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the
         "Lucky Case Game";

     (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message
         entries to the "Lucky Case Game";

     (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by
         entrants in the promotion;

     (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the
         promotion;

     (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly
         select and contact the potential prize winner amongst
         the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case";

     (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to
         winning entrants; and

     (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky
         Case Game."

The plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action suit pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of a class consisting of all
persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message
charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game,"
and who did not win a prize.

The plaintiffs brought the action in their individual
capacities,  and for the First and Second Causes of Action, as a
class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid or
incurred premium text message charges in connection with
entering the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, and who have not won
any prize.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal
        gambling;

     2. the extent of each defendants' participation in
        conducting the promotion;

     3. whether defendants' conduct violated California
        Business and Professions Section 17200;

     4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately
        caused injury to plaintiffs and the class;

     5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs
        and the class are entitled to damages, restitution,
        disgorgement, or other monetary remedies;

     6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or
        related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws
        ch. 137, Section 1:

     7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
        recover the amount of premium text messages paid to
        enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and

     8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
        the "Lucky Case Game."

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against
        conducting the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion;

     -- a declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion
        constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the
        class as may be just and proper; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

The company and the other defendants had sought to dismiss the
case, but this request was denied by the District Court.

The case is currently pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit awaiting resolution of the defendants'
petition for interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial
of their dismissal motion  (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12,
2009).

A motion to dismiss ruling in Herbert is on appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 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.

The suit is "Karen Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case
No. CV 07 3537FMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com)
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812

          William A. Pannell, Esq. (billpannell@mindspring.com)
          William A. Pannell, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: 404-353-2283

               - and -

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq. (kaw30328@aol.com)
          Kevin T. Moore, P.C.
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E.
          Building C, Suite 201
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: 770-396-3622


VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned "Cheryl
Bentley et al. v. NBC Universal Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
03647-FMC-VBK," remains stayed, according to VeriSign, Inc.'s
May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Initially, on June 5, 2007, plaintiff Cheryl Bentley, on behalf
of herself and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a
complaint against VeriSign, m-Qube Inc., and other defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants collectively operate
an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing
viewers of the NBC television show "The Apprentice" to incur
premium text message charges in order to participate in an
interactive television promotion called "Get Rich With Trump."

The company sought to dismiss the case, which request was denied
by the District Court (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009).

The suit is "Cheryl Bentley, et al. v. NBC Universal Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03647-FMC-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Florence-
Marie Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Michiyo M. Furukawa, Esq. (mfurukawa@milberg.com)
          Milberg LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-617-1200
          Fax: 213-617-1975

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com)
          Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812

Representing the defendants are:

          Ronald L. Johnston, Esq. (ronald_johnston@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Chad S. Hummel, Esq. (chummel@manatt.com)
          Manatt Phelps & Phillips
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Phone: 310-312-4000


VERISIGN INC: Stock Option Grants Suit Still Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc. still faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
California that alleges false representations and disclosure
failures regarding certain historical stock option grants.

On May 15, 2007, the putative class action suit -- "Mykityshyn
v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign, Inc." -- was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County,
naming the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned
VeriSign common stock between April 3, 2002, and Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and
2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the
1998 Option Plan.  It also seeks to enjoin the defendants from
granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any
currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006
Option Plans.  It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, costs and attorneys fees.

Defendants' collective pleading challenges to the putative
consolidated class action complaint were granted with leave to
amend in August 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009).

By stipulation and Court order, plaintiff's obligation to file
an amended consolidated class action complaint has been
continued pending informal efforts by the parties to resolve the
action, 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.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is a provider of
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: AWP Settlement Pending Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement in a consolidated lawsuit against
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries,
alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to
the reporting of average wholesale prices of certain products,
awaits final approval.

Beginning in July 2002, the company and certain of its
subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, were named defendants in various state and federal
court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting
practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices
and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that
the defendants committed other improper acts in order to
increase prices and market shares.

Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under the
caption, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456."

The consolidated amended class-action complaint in this case
alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated the
reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans
and programs.

The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of
certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its average
wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager
to provide others with such drugs.

The company filed an answer to the amended consolidated class
action complaint on April 9, 2004.  The defendants in the
consolidated suit have been divided into two groups.

The company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large
group of defendants that is currently awaiting a ruling on the
plaintiffs' request for certification of classes of plaintiffs
to maintain a class-action against the drug company defendants.

Certain other defendants, referred to as the "Track One"
defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis.  Classes
were certified against these defendants, a trial has been
completed with respect to some of the claims against this group
of defendants, the presiding judge has issued a ruling granting
judgment to the plaintiffs, that judgment is being appealed, and
many of the claims have been settled.

The Track Two Defendants, including the company, have entered
into a settlement agreement resolving all claims of the Track
Two Defendants in the Consolidated Class Action.  The total
amount of the settlement for all of the Track Two Defendants is
$125 million.

On July 2, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track Two settlement.
The amount to be paid by each Track Two Defendant is
confidential.

On April 27, 2009, the Court held a hearing to further consider
the fairness of the proposed Track Two settlement.  The Court
adjourned the hearing without ruling on the fairness of the
proposed settlement until additional notices are provided to
certain of the class members in the action, 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.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a
specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development,
manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and
generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products.  It operates
through three business segments: Generic, Brand and
Distribution.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Consolidate N.J. Lawsuits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion to have all of the private plaintiff
cases consolidated under the Multidistrict Litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is set for
May 28, 2009, according to Watson Pharmaceuticals 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 March 31, April 17, and April 21, 2009, actions alleging
similar claims were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

These suits are entitled:

   -- Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ Dist. v. Unimed
      Pharms., Inc., et al., Civ. No. 09-1507;

   -- Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
      Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., Civ.
      No. 09-1856;

   -- Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., Civ. No. 09-1900.

These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of various
class representatives.

The complaints allege that the company improperly delayed its
launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange for
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s agreement to permit the company
to co-promote Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the
fair value of the services provided by the company.

The complaints allege violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws and seeks equitable relief and
civil penalties.

On April 8, 2009, the Stephen J. LaFrance plaintiffs filed a
motion to have all of the private plaintiff cases consolidated
under the Multidistrict Litigation rules of the federal courts.

A hearing on that motion is scheduled for May 28, 2009.

On April 20, 2009, the company was dismissed from the Stephen J.
LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey without
prejudice.

All of these lawsuits are at the pleading stages, and additional
actions are anticipated, 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.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a
specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development,
manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and
generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products.  It operates
through three business segments: Generic, Brand and
Distribution.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Androgel Antitrust Suits in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. continues to face purported
antitrust class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia relating to its Androgel(R)
product.

On Feb. 2 and Feb. 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated claimants.

The lawsuits are:

   -- Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
      et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215;

   -- Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed
      Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226;

   -- Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed
      Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228.

The complaints allege that the company improperly delayed its
launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange for
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s agreement to permit the company
to co-promote Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the
fair value of the services provided by the company.

The complaints allege violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws and seeks equitable relief and
civil penalties.

On Feb. 27, 2009, the defendants (including the company) filed
motions to transfer all of the actions pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  On
April 8, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
transfer and transferred the cases to the Northern District of
Georgia.

On April 28, 2009, the Northern District of Georgia granted the
plaintiffs' request to file an amended complaint.

All of these lawsuits are at the pleading stages, and additional
actions are anticipated, 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.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a
specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development,
manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and
generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products.  It operates
through three business segments: Generic, Brand and
Distribution.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Motions in Cipro Suit Set for 3Q Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment in the consolidated suit "In Re:
Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation," are scheduled
to be argued to the Superior Court during the third quarter of
2009, according to Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s May 1, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Beginning July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson, The Rugby Group and other company affiliates in various
state and federal courts in relation to Cipro, an antibiotic
used to treat bacterial infections, alleging claims under
various federal and state competition and consumer protection
laws.

Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions
seeking class certification.  As of March 8, 2006, 42 cases had
been filed against the defendants.

Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re:
Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No.
00-1383."

On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted a motion by Watson to dismiss the case and entered
rulings limiting the theories under which the plaintiffs can
seek recovery against Rugby and the other defendants.

On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of
plaintiffs' claims, denied the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification, and directed the clerk of the court to close the
case.

On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated
action (the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser
plaintiff purchasers and plaintiffs Rite Aid Corp. and CVS
Meridian Inc.) filed notices of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things,
the May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005
order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The three appeals were consolidated by the appellate court.  The
defendants have moved to transfer the appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the ground that patent
issues are involved in the appeal.  The plaintiffs have opposed
the motion to transfer.  The appellate court has not yet ruled
on the motion or the pending appeal.

Other actions are pending in various state courts, including New
York, California, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin.  The
actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in
unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged
agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby
from Aventis, related to the development, manufacture and sale
of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic
version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro.

These actions also generally seek declaratory judgment, damages,
injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of
certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

The courts hearing the cases in New York have dismissed the
actions.  The plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal the
dismissal of the New York action.

In Wisconsin, the plaintiffs appealed and on May 9, 2006, the
appellate court reversed the order of dismissal.  On June 8,
2006, the defendants filed a petition for review in the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.  On July 13, 2007, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

In the action pending in Kansas, the court has stayed the matter
pending the outcome of the appeal in the consolidated case.

In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego, "In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding
Nos. 4154 & 4220," the California Court of Appeal granted on
July 21, 2004, in part and denied in part the defendants'
petition for a writ of mandate seeking to reverse the trial
court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Pursuant to the California appellate court's ruling, the
majority of the plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their
claims as a class.  On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court
granted the parties' joint application to stay the California
case pending the outcome of the appeal of the consolidated case.
In August 2007, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay.  The
court denied the motion to lift the stay, but agreed to consider
the matter again at a status conference.

A status conference was held on May 16, 2008, at which the court
scheduled a further status conference for Dec. 12, 2008.

The parties intend to file motions for summary judgment, which
are scheduled to be argued to the Superior Court during the
third quarter of 2009.  The trial is scheduled for Jan. 24,
2010.

Aventis has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its
affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations
arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by
Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby,
and is currently controlling the defense of these actions.

On Dec. 22, 2008, denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

On March 23, 2009, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
by the direct purchaser plaintiffs and plaintiffs CVS and
Riteaid remains pending.  Other actions are pending in various
state courts, including New York, California, Kansas, Tennessee,
and Florida.

The consolidated suit is "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
Judge David G. Trager, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert S. Schachter, Esq. (rschachter@zsz.com)
          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. (jtusa@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969

Representing the company is:

          David E. Everson, Esq. (deverson@stinsonmoheck.com)
          Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C.
          1201 Walnut, Suite 2900, Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: 816-842-8600
          Fax: 816-691-3495


WRITERS GUILD: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over Foreign Levies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writers Guild of America's (WGA) reached a tentative settlement
for a 2005 class-action suit over foreign levies that was filed
on behalf of writer-director William Richert, Dave McNary of
Variety reports.

In general, Mr. Richert's suit alleges the WGA has no authority
to collect the levies for non-members, hasn't communicated that
information to the affected writers and hasn't paid them.

At stake in the lawsuit are millions of dollars in foreign funds
due to authors as compensation for reuse -- such as taxes on
video rentals, cable retransmissions and purchases of blank
videocassettes and DVDs.  Unlike in the U.S., writers, actors
and directors in most other nations cannot surrender the
copyright on their works, according to the Variety report.

Variety reported that the case had hit a roadblock in March 2009
when Mr. Richert, who has been designated as the class
representative for WGA members, had strongly objected to the
settlement.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl West asked both sides to
work out a settlement with Judge William Highberger, however,
due to some complicated settlement issues the case still
retained unsolved, reports Variety.

Attorneys though for both sides told Judge West at a recent
hearing that meetings with Judge Highberger had resolved a
variety of settlement issues.  That led Judge West to order both
sides to file a preliminary settlement agreement by May 20,
2009, and return to court May 26, 2009 for a hearing, according
to the Variety report.


YAHOO! INC: Calif. Consolidated Shareholder Suit Junked in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated amended class-action and derivative complaint
captioned, "In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Litigation," in Santa
Clara County Superior Court was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs on March 23, 2009.

Since Feb. 1, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County,
against Yahoo! Inc., members of the Board and selected former
officers by plaintiffs Edward Fritsche, the Thomas Stone Trust,
Tom Turberg, Congregation Beth Aaron, and the Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System (collectively, the
"California Lawsuits").

The California Lawsuits were consolidated, and on March 12,
2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint was filed, captioned In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint alleges
that the Board breached fiduciary duties in connection with
Microsoft's unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo!.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit by plaintiff Congregation Beth Aaron was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice, and re-filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on Dec. 3, 2008.

On March 28, 2008, the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted
defendants' motion to stay the Consolidated Amended Class Action
and Derivative Complaint pending resolution of similar
proceedings pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On March 23, 2009, following entry of final approval of
settlement and final order of judgment in the Delaware Lawsuits,
the California Lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice by plaintiffs, 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.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  The company's offerings to users fall into five
categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities;
Media, and Connected Life.  The majority of its offerings are
available in more than 20 languages.  Yahoo! generates revenues
by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority
of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites.  In addition, although
many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a
range of premium services that it offers.


YAHOO! INC: Del. Consolidated Stockholder Suit Nixed Last March
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated stockholder lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery against Yahoo! Inc. and members of the company's
Board was dismissed on March 6, 2009.

Since Feb. 11, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Yahoo! Inc. and
members of the Board by plaintiffs The Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System, Ronald Dicke, and The Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit along with The General
Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund, and
Vernon A. Mercier (the "Delaware Lawsuits").

Two of the Delaware Lawsuits (by plaintiff Wayne County and by
plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union) were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.  The remaining Delaware Lawsuits were
consolidated (lead plaintiff is the Police and Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit) and lead counsel was appointed.

On Nov. 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for leave
to amend and supplement its complaint.  In connection with the
amended motion for leave to amend, plaintiff submitted a
proposed Second Amended and Supplemental Consolidated Complaint
(the "Second Amended Complaint").

The Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that defendants
breached fiduciary duties in connection with the consideration
of proposals by Microsoft to purchase all or part of Yahoo!,
adoption of severance plans, the June 12, 2008 agreement between
Google Inc. and Yahoo! and purports to state claims relating to
alleged false and misleading statements and omissions in
Yahoo!'s proxy statement.

Plaintiffs allege that the proxy statement contained false and
misleading statements and omissions related to the severance
plans, including statements and omissions with respect to the
purpose of the plans, the reasons for adopting the plans, the
benefits provided to employees under the plans, the role played
by outside compensation consultants and the information provided
by them and the total cost of the plans.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award
of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On Dec. 10, 2008, plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuits, Yahoo!
and the Individual Defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") that, if
approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery, will settle and
resolve all claims that were or could have been asserted by the
plaintiffs or members of the settlement class, consisting of all
persons who held Yahoo! common stock at any time between Jan. 31
and Dec. 7, 2008, or on behalf of Yahoo! Inc. in the Delaware
Lawsuits or in any forum.  As provided in the Settlement
Agreement, in consideration for the settlement, Yahoo! agreed to
amend in various ways the severance plans that Yahoo! adopted in
February 2008.

On Dec. 19, 2008, Chancellor Chandler and the Delaware Court of
Chancery approved an order scheduling a hearing to determine
whether to grant final approval to the settlement.  Pursuant to
this order, on Dec. 30, 2008, Yahoo! mailed notice of the
proposed settlement and published a summary notice of the
proposed settlement.  Class members and Yahoo! stockholders had
until Feb. 4, 2009 to serve and file any written objections to
the proposed settlement.  Plaintiffs' counsel submitted a fee
petition seeking legal fees and expenses.  By stipulation and
order, the Court set the hearing on final approval of the
proposed settlement and the plaintiffs' counsel's request for
legal fees and expenses for March 6, 2009.

On March 6, 2009, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its
order granting final approval of the settlement, entering final
judgment dismissing the class and derivative action, and
granting plaintiffs an award of attorneys' fees and costs,
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.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  The company's offerings to users fall into five
categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities;
Media, and Connected Life.  The majority of its offerings are
available in more than 20 languages.  Yahoo! generates revenues
by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority
of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites.  In addition, although
many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a
range of premium services that it offers.


YAHOO! INC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against
Yahoo! Inc.

Initially, on May 11, 2007, the first of two purported
securities class-action complaints was filed against Yahoo! And
certain of its officers and members of its board of directors.

The lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky, under
the caption, "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-03125."

The second lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California by Manfred Hacker, under the
caption, "Manfred Hacker v. Yahoo! Inc et al., Case No. 2:2007-
cv-03902."

These actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and, on Dec. 21, 2007, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who
purchased Yahoo!'s common stock between April 8, 2004, and July
18, 2006.  They allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme
to inflate Yahoo!'s share price by making false and misleading
statements regarding Yahoo!'s operations, financial results, and
future business prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The plaintiffs also allege that the individual defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of the Section 20(A) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and as control persons are
subject to liability under Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of alleged insider trading
proceeds, and other equitable relief.

On March 10, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to
transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

Pursuant to the order, plaintiffs must file their Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint by Nov. 17, 2008.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on
Dec. 19, 2008.  On Feb. 2, 2009, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.

On April 23, 2009, the Court held a hearing on defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The company is awaiting a decision on the
motion, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-03125-CAS-FMO," pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nate Bear, Esq. (nbear@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0853

               - and -

          Mark I. Labaton, Esq. (mlabaton@kreindler.com)
          Kreindler and Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-622-6469

Representing the defendants is:

          Jordan Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-7000


YAHOO! INC: Watkins' Bid to Amend Derivative Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Watkins' motion for leave to file an amended complaint in
her stockholder derivative action against Yahoo! Inc. remains
pending, 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.

On June 14, 2007, a stockholder derivative action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by Jill Watkins against members of the company's Board and
selected officers.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and corporate
waste, with the addition of a claim for relief for alleged
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Watkins
agreed to coordinate her action with the federal class-action
litigation.

On April 29, 2008, the federal court in Los Angeles granted
defendants' motion to transfer the Watkins action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, and
declined to decide the Plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2009, Watkins filed a new motion for leave to file
an amended complaint seeking to:

   -- substitute a new plaintiff,

   -- add a derivative claim alleging violations of Section 20A
      of the Exchange Act,

   -- add a class claim for alleged violations of Section 14(a)
      of the Exchange Act,

   -- add a class claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty,
      and

   -- allege claims relating to Microsoft's unsolicited proposal
      to acquire Yahoo! Inc. on Feb. 1, 2008.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  The company's offerings to users fall into five
categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities;
Media, and Connected Life.  The majority of its offerings are
available in more than 20 languages.  Yahoo! generates revenues
by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority
of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites.  In addition, although
many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a
range of premium services that it offers.


                            *********

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  * * *