CAR_Public/090528.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 28, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 104

                           Headlines

AMERICASH LOANS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Short-Term $700 Loan
AOL LLC: Faces Calif. Subscribers' Lawsuit Over Ads in E-Mails
AOL LLC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Ads Inserted in E-mails
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Leathermon" Suit in Ind.
CARRIAGE SERVICES: FSLA Violations Suit Settlement Okayed in May

CORNELL COS: Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger Nixed in April
CORNELL COS: VCDC Litigation Settlement Set for July '09 Hearing
EASTERN HEALTH: Mediation Set for Breast Cancer Testing Lawsuit
GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Pension Fund's Lawsuit
HEALTH NET: Reaches $1.95M Deal in Suit Over Patients' Policies

HL LEASING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Investment Scam
HOLLAND & KNIGHT: Amended Complaint Filed in "Sullivan" Lawsuit
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Wrongful Death Litigation in California
LAND O' LAKES: Suits Over Prices of Egg Products Still Pending
LEVEL 3: Employee Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Colo. Court

MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gas Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval
MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Court Dismisses SAC in ERISA Litigation
MERCK & CO: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Appeal in Holders' Suit
MRU HOLDINGS: June 19 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status
SIMON PROPERTY: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Gift Card Sales

UTSTARCOM INC: June 19 Hearing Set for "Rudolph" Suit Settlement
UTSTARCOM INC: Securities Litigation Remains Ongoing in Calif.
WAL-MART STORES: LakinChapman LLC Files Suit Over Return Policy


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER CORE: Girard Gibbs LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
POPULAR INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing


                           *********

AMERICASH LOANS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Short-Term $700 Loan
-------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriCash Loans, LLC, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
in Illinois alleging violations of the Payday Loan Reform Act
and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, Adam Doster of
Progress Illinois reports.

The litigation was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County in
Illinois under the caption, "Kevin Johnson, et al. v. AmeriCash
Loans, LLC, Case No. 2009-L-005997."  It was filed by Chicago
native Kevin Johnson in connection to a short-term $700 loan he
took out from AmeriCash Loans.

Mr. Johnson is represented in the matter by attorneys Tom
Geoghegan, Esq., and Mike Persoon, Esq., of Despres, Schwartz,
and Geoghegan, and Robert Cohen, Esq. and Scott Frankel, Esq. of
Frankel and Cohen, according to the Progress Illinois report.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d47

For more details, contact:

          Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan
          77 W Washington St. # 711
          Chicago, IL 60602-3271
          Phone: (312) 372-2511

               - and -

          Frankel & Cohen
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1720
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Phone: 312-759-9600
          Fax: 312-759-9603
          e-mail: info@frankelandcohen.com


AOL LLC: Faces Calif. Subscribers' Lawsuit Over Ads in E-Mails
--------------------------------------------------------------
AOL, LLC is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by two
subscribers that alleges the company violated a federal privacy
law by inserting ads in email, Wendy Davis of Mediapost.com
reports.

The suit was filed on May 19, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California by Los Angeles residents
Rande Bronster and Robert Nachshin.

Captioned, "Rande Bronster et al v. AOL, LLC et al., Case No.
2:2009-cv-03568," the lawsuit is alleging that such ads are
unlawful under the federal Electronic Communications Act and
California law.

AOL has offered free email accounts for almost three years, but
Messrs. Bronster and Nachshin pay the company for premium
service -- which, they argue, should be ad-free, according to
the Mediapost.com report

In an April letter to a lawyer for AOL, the plaintiffs wrote,
"Subscribers to AOL's paid email service pay a monthly fee, in
part, to be free from the annoyance of ads strewn throughout
their emails."  In that same letter, they asked AOL to refund
all fees they had paid since March 2006, shortly after AOL began
inserting ads into emails, Mediapost.com reported.

Last year, AOL began allowing paying subscribers to opt out of
the ad insertions, but Messrs. Bronster and Nachshin allege that
the company didn't proactively notify them they could refuse to
carry the ads.  They also allege that AOL doesn't inform
subscribers that it will insert ads into the footers of their
messages, reports Mediapost.com.

Mediapost.com reported that Messrs. Bronster and Nachshin are
represented by the law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner who are
seeking to represent all subscribers who have paid the company
for an account since February 2006.  The attorneys are also
asking for monetary damages and an injunction against AOL.

For more details, contact:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          Fax: 213-217-5010


AOL LLC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Ads Inserted in E-mails
----------------------------------------------------------------
AOL, LLC continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit over
its practice of inserting ads in subscribers' email, Wendy Davis
of Mediapost.com reports.

The CourtHouse News Service reported that the class-action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California alleging it inserted ads at the end of
more than 100 million e-mails without subscribers' permission,
and won't allow them to cancel the unwanted advertising on their
private emails.  The class claims AOL has done this since March
2006 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2008).

Named plaintiff Frank Cecchini sued AOL on behalf of its 2
million customers who pay for e-mail -- about 20% of AOL's total
subscribership, he says.

Mr. Cecchini says AOL defrauds customers by inserting the email
ads without informing them, without their permission, and
without letting them cancel.  He says AOL thereby unjustly
enriches itself and competes unfairly.

Mr. Cecchini further says paid subscribers expect and should be
able to send e-mails without ads being inserted into them.  He
says they pay for this service -- unlike users of free services,
such as hotmail and Yahoo, which also insert the "footer" ads.

"These advertisements are annoying, confusing, intrusive and
misleading," the complaint states.  Mr. Cecchini says that's why
he pays for AOL email service, instead of using a free service.
He says AOL began inserting the ads for its business partners
around March 1, 2006, without telling its paid customers it was
doing so.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to FRCP Rule 23 on
behalf of all persons in the United States who paid for e-mail
services from AOL LLC since March 1, 2006.

Mr. Cecchini asks the court for:

     -- compensatory damages in an amount according to proof
        with interest;

     -- economic and special damages in an amount according to
        proof with interest;

     -- defendants to be found to have engaged in unfair
        competition in violation of section 17200 of the
        California Business and Professions Code;

     -- defendants to be found to have engaged in unfair
        competition in violation of section 17500 of the
        California Business and Professions Code;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- attorney fees, interest and costs of suit;

     -- an enhancement of attorneys fees pursuant to
        California Civil Code Section 1021.5; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court deems
        just and proper.

The suit is "Frank Cecchini et al. v. AOL LLC et al., Case No.
CV08-06845 CAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. (chamner@hamnerlaw.com)
          Amy T. Wootton, Esq. (awootton@hamnerlaw.com)
          Kimberly A. Westmoreland, Esq.
          (kwestmoreland@hamnerlaw.com)
          Hamner Law Offices, LLC
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 860
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: 818-386-0444
          Fax: 818-386-0050


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Leathermon" Suit in Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, which suit is captioned "Leathermon, et al. v.
Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-137."

On Aug. 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class-action
suit against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery
in Madison, Indiana, including Carriage subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery.

The plaintiffs claim that the cemetery owners performed burials
negligently, breached plaintiffs' contracts, and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

The litigation is in the discovery stage, 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 "Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-137," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge Sarah Evans
Barker, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John C. Eckert, Esq. (john@eckertlawfirm.net)
          Eckert Law Firm
          606 E. Main Street
          Madison, IN 47250
          Phone: 812-265-1606
          Fax: 812-265-2951

               - and -

          J. Anthony Goebel, Esq. (tony@goebellawoffice.com)
          Goebel Law Office
          1034 Copperfield Drive
          Georgetown, IN 47122
          Phone: 812-951-2500
          Fax: 812-951-2522

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert Lewis Barlow, II, Esq. (rbarlow@blueriver.net)
          Barlow Law Office
          201 East Main Street
          Madison, IN 47250
          Phone: 812-273-4440
          Fax: 812-273-2329

               - and -

          John B. Drummy, Esq. (jdrummy@k-glaw.com)
          Kightlinger & Gray
          151 North Delaware Street, Suite 600
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-638-4521
          Fax: 317-636-5917


CARRIAGE SERVICES: FSLA Violations Suit Settlement Okayed in May
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class-action suit filed against
Carriage Services, Inc., which generally alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, was approved by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada on May 5, 2009.

On Nov. 28, 2007, five former funeral directors filed suit for
themselves and on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees of
Carriage.  The plaintiffs allege violations of state wage and
hour laws and FLSA, as well as related tort and contract claims.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Carriage failed to
properly compensate employees for time spent on community work,
on-call time, pre-need appointments, and training, failed to
provide required meal and rest breaks under California state
law, and failed to maintain proper records.

Carriage filed its answer to the complaint on Jan. 28, 2008,
denying all material allegations and asserting appropriate
affirmative defenses.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification under the FLSA.  The parties have
effectuated notice of the lawsuit to all potential class members
pursuant to the Court's order.

The opt-in period expired on Aug. 5, 2008, by which time 441
people had filed consent forms to join the action.

The parties reached a tentative settlement in this matter,
pending Court approval.  As a result of the settlement, the
company recorded a $3.5 million charge, including related legal
fees of $0.2 million, in the fourth quarter of 2008 and funded
the settlement in the first quarter of 2009.  The Court approved
the settlement on May 5, 2009, 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 "Spencer Cranney, et al., v. Carriage Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01587," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Roger L. Hunt,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
          (jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com)
          Dolin Thomas Solomon LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: 585-272-0540

               - and -

          Kyle T. McGee, Esq. (kmcgee@margolisedelstein.com)
          Margolis Edelstein
          525 William Penn Place
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-281-4256
          Fax: 412-642-2380

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael L. Banks, Esq. (mbanks@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-5387
          Fax: 215-963-5001


CORNELL COS: Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger Nixed in April
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Kinbergy's purported class-action suit filed against Cornell
Companies, Inc., in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
269th Judicial District (No. 2006-67413) was dismissed on April
28, 2009.

The lawsuit was filed by Mr. Kinbergy, a purported stockholder
of the company, on Oct. 19, 2006, and names as defendants the
company and each member of its board of directors as well as
Veritas Capital Fund III, L.P.

The purported class action suit alleges, among other things,
that:

      -- the defendants have breached fiduciary duties they
         assertedly owed to the company's stockholders in
         connection with the company entering into the Agreement
         and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 6, 2006, with
         Veritas, Cornell Holding Corp., and CCI Acquisition
         Corp., and

      -- the merger consideration is unfair and inadequate.

The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against
the consummation of the merger.

The proposed merger was rejected at a special meeting of the
company's stockholders held on Jan. 23, 2007.

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, it believes the case is moot.

Based on the company's agreement to pay Plaintiffs' legal fees,
the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Dismissal with
Prejudice with the Court in April 2009.  On April 28, 2009, the
Court granted the Motion and dismissed all claims with
prejudice.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles.  The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.


CORNELL COS: VCDC Litigation Settlement Set for July '09 Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 2009 final approval hearing has been scheduled for the
settlement of a purported class-action suit against Cornell
Companies, Inc., filed in the Federal District Court in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, by individuals stripped searched at the
Valencia County Detention Center.

Joe Torres and Eufrasio Armijo filed the suit in April 2007.
Each alleged that he was stripped searched at VCDC in violation
of his federal rights under the Fourth, Fourteenth and Eighth
amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The claimants also allege violation of their rights under state
law and seek to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
themselves and all detainees at VCDC during the applicable
statues of limitation.

The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Valencia County is also a named defendant in the case and
operated the VCDC for a significantly greater portion of the
period covered by the lawsuit.  Discovery has commenced in the
case.

In December 2008, the parties agreed to a proposed stipulation
of settlement and the Court has preliminarily approved the
settlement.  The settlement amount under the terms of the
agreement is $3.3 million.  Cornell's portion of the stipulated
settlement, based on the number of inmates housed at VCDC during
the time Cornell operated the facility in comparison to the
number of inmates housed at the facility during the time
Valencia County operated the facility, is $1.2 million and was
funded principally through the company's general liability and
professional liability coverage.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the
first quarter of 2009, and the claims administration process is
underway.  A hearing for final approval by the Court has been
scheduled for July 2009.  The company expects the claims
administration process to be completed in the fourth quarter of
2009, 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.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles.  The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.


EASTERN HEALTH: Mediation Set for Breast Cancer Testing Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dates for mediation of the class-action lawsuit over faulty
hormone receptor testing at Eastern Health have been set, VOCM
reports.

Lawyer Ches Crosbie says the Honorable George W. Adams, former
Ontario Superior Court Judge, will mediate the dispute in St.
John's on October 28th to the 30th, according to the VOCM
report.

VOCM reported that after meetings between all involved, it was
decided the original July date was impractical, given the large
volume of required preparation.

Previously, Mr. Crosbie, a St. John lawyer sought class
certification for a suit filed on behalf of nearly hundreds of
breast cancer patients who received inaccurate cancer test
results (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2007).

The suit alleges that Eastern Regional Integrated Health
Authority mishandled the provision of information to the public
and that it wrongly diagnosed several women that they have
breast cancer.

Verna Doucette filed the suit on behalf of a group of women who
feel they suffered as a result of testing problems in the
pathology department that date as far as 1997.  Errors were
disclosed only in 2005.

Mr. Crosbie said women involved in the suit are:

     -- those who say they suffered mental stress after learning
        their tissue samples were being retested;

     -- those who say their estrogen and progesterone receptor
        tests were changed from negative to positive and they
        were unnecessarily treated with chemotherapy; and

     -- those who were allegedly misdiagnosed with breast
        cancer (Class Action Reporter, Oct 23, 2006).

He estimates that as many as 1,000 women are involved.  He did
not specify the amount of damages being sought.

Eastern Health executives apologized for withholding the
information on the inaccuracy of cancer tests.

Mr. Crosbie believes Eastern Health's admissions would
strengthen his claims.  He now has nearly 70 clients.  Other
lawyers are representing 30 other breast cancer patients.

Meanwhile, according to CBC News, the Newfoundland and Labrador
government already ordered a judicial inquiry into flawed
hormone receptor tests.

Defendant Eastern Health told the public it has already fixed
the problems in its pathology testing.

For more information, contact the plaintiffs' lawyer:

          Ches Crosbie, Esq.
          169 Water Street, 4th Floor
          St. John's, NL A1C 1B1
          Phone: 1-888-579-3262 or 579-4000
          Fax: 709-579-9671
          e-mail: ccb@chescrosbie.nf.net
          Web site: http://www.chescrosbie.com/


GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Pension Fund's Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gaylord Entertainment Co., on March 9, 2009, reached an
agreement in principle to settle the pending purported
derivative and class action complaint in Tennessee federal
court.

In August 2008, a union-affiliated pension fund filed a
purported derivative and class action complaint in Tennessee
state court alleging that the directors of the Company breached
their fiduciary duties by adopting a shareholder rights plan.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs purported to dismiss their state
court action, and they re-filed it in federal court.

On Oct. 27, 2008, the company (as the nominal defendant) filed a
motion to dismiss this lawsuit claiming, among other things,
that the plaintiff failed to make the required pre-suit demand
on the Company and that the allegations fail to state a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14,
2009).

On March 9, 2009, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the pending purported derivative and class-action
complaint.  The company and the plaintiffs in the action,
together with their counsel, have agreed that the changes to the
company's Board of Directors and amendments to the Original
Rights Agreement reflected in the Amended Rights Agreement will
form the basis for that settlement, according to the company's
May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended March 31, 2009.

Gaylord Entertainment Co. -- http://www.gaylordentertainment.com
-- is a hospitality and entertainment company that owns and
operates Gaylord Hotels (www.gaylordhotels.com), its network of
meetings-focused resorts and the Grand Ole Opry (www.opry.com),
the weekly showcase.  The company's entertainment brands and
properties include the Radisson Hotel Opryland, Ryman
Auditorium, General Jackson Showboat, Gaylord Springs Golf
Links, Wildhorse Saloon and WSM-AM Radio.  The company's
operations are organized into three principal business segments:
Hospitality, which includes its hotel operations; Opry and
Attractions, which includes its Nashville attractions and assets
related to the Grand Ole Opry, and Corporate and Other.


HEALTH NET: Reaches $1.95M Deal in Suit Over Patients' Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
     On behalf of the California Hospital Association and all
California hospitals, Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, Inc. (HLB) has
negotiated a class action settlement with Health Net of
California and Health Net Life Insurance Company, relating to
rescission of patients' policies.  Under the settlement, Health
Net has agreed to pay at least $1.95 million to settle claims
with hospitals that did not receive payments following
rescissions.

     The settlement is the result of extensive negotiations that
have been ongoing between HLB and Health Net since July 2008,
and covers rescissions by Health Net that occurred between
February 2004 and October 2007. (Case No. BC414389).

     "We are very pleased to have come to an agreement with
Health Net that results in hospitals receiving substantial
payments for the previously unreimbursed services that they
provided to Health Net members who were rescinded," said HLB
partner and co-lead counsel, Glenn Solomon.  "We believe that
Health Net did the right thing here and appreciate its
cooperation in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement."

     Under terms of the Settlement Agreement that was
preliminarily approved by the court today, Health Net will
establish a Facility Compensation Fund and mechanisms to
reimburse hospitals for the services they provided to rescinded
members.  In addition, Health Net will provide each affected
hospital with a list of the patients whose policies were
rescinded so that the hospitals and the patients can receive
closure regarding the rescissions.

     "The practice of rescinding patients' policies after the
patient has received medically necessary services has caused a
great deal of financial stress to both the patients and the
hospitals who provide those services. This settlement goes a
long way towards compensating the hospitals for those services,"
said HLB attorney and co-lead counsel, Daron Tooch.

For more details, contact:

          Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc.
          1875 Century Park East
          Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-551-8111
          Fax: 310-551-8181
          Web site: http://www.health-law.com


HL LEASING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Investment Scam
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Ara Jabagchourian, Esq. of the law firm of Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy filed a purported class-action lawsuit in
California on behalf of investors who believe they were swindled
in a Fresno-based investment scam, Tim Sheehan of The Fresno Bee
reports.

The lawsuit was filed on May 26, 2009 in Fresno County Superior
Court against the estate of John W. Otto, the man who operated
HL Leasing and allegedly masterminded the fraud before killing
himself this month, according to The Fresno Bee report.

Court documents show the suit is being led by a pair of Fresno
plaintiffs, Vicken Massoyan and Maggie Antaramian, but Mr.
Jabagchourian told The Frsno Bee that the case eventually may
encompass more than 1,200 investors who reportedly lost more
than $138 million in a Ponzi scheme that revolved around
fraudulent equipment leases.

Also named as defendants are HL Leasing and another Otto
company, Heritage Pacific Leasing; HL Leasing president Dan
Ramirez and executive vice president Norma Lewis; and Heritage
Pacific chief financial officer Andy Fernandez, reports The
Fresno Bee.

The Fresno Bee reported that Mr. Otto, 67, died May 11, 2009
from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a parking lot in Palm
Desert, only a few miles from his home.  He was the chief
executive officer of both HL Leasing and Heritage Pacific
Leasing.

His death came only days after his attorney sent a letter May 8,
2009 to investors asking for their patience after HL Leasing
failed to make its scheduled interest payments on April 25,
2009.

The missed payment and the May 8 letter triggered complaints by
worried investors to Jabagchourian's firm as well as attorneys
in Fresno and Los Angeles and sparked an investigation by the
FBI, The Fresno Bee reports.

Investors believed their investments were secured by leases for
medical, dental, and farm equipment; in exchange, Messrs. Otto,
Ramirez, and Lewis allegedly promised investors generous
interest rates of as much as 9%.

The litigation accuses Mr. Otto and the other defendants of
fraudulently concealing their activities and deliberately
misleading investors, breaching their fiduciary duty to
safeguard the investments and failing to deal in good faith.
Heritage Pacific and Mr. Fernandez are accused of aiding and
abetting HL Leasing's alleged scam, according to The Fresno Bee
report.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d48

For more details, contact:

          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, California  94010
          Phone: 650-697-6000
          Fax: 650-697-0577; 650-692-3606 or 650-692-1112
          Web site: http://www.cpmlegal.com


HOLLAND & KNIGHT: Amended Complaint Filed in "Sullivan" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investors burned in an alleged $100 million Ponzi scheme
operated by Florida fund manager Arthur Nadel filed an amended
complaint in a purported class-action suit against Holland &
Knight LLP, which allegedly prepared private placement memoranda
for the funds, according to a Law360 report.

Brian Neill of The Bradenton Herald previously reported that
Holland & Knight LLP faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
Florida in connection with the case of Sarasota hedge fund
manager Arthur Nadel, who is accused of defrauding investors out
of hundreds of millions of dollars (Class Action Reporter, March
25, 2009).

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on March 20, 2009 by Michael J. Sullivan on
behalf of the Michael J. Sullivan IRA Account.

It alleges that the law firm, one of the state's largest,
handled prepared paperwork for investments made to Mr. Nadel's
hedge funds, but left out critical information about the funds
and their administrators, according to The Bradenton Herald
report.

Mr. Nadel is being housed in a jail in New York City and is
charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of securities
fraud for what authorities allege was a Ponzi scheme.

Mr. Sullivan's suit maintains that Holland & Knight should have
revealed Mr. Nadel was once disbarred as a lawyer for financial
improprieties and an employee of his was not a CPA, reports The
Bradenton Herald.

"When these memorandums were prepared and distributed, had (the
investors) known this obviously some different decisions would
have been made," according to John Coleman, Esq., an attorney
with the Tampa law firm Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns,
which filed the suit.  "They failed to give investors adequate
information."

The suit maintains that Holland & Knight staff had that
information available to them, but chose not to disclose it.

It states, "During the entire time of H & K's involvement as
counsel for the Nadel Funds and other related entities, Mr.
Nadel had been running a Ponzi scheme, and even a cursory review
of the financial records of the Nadel Funds would have disclosed
the existence of the Ponzi scheme.  Holland and Knight failed
themselves to uncover this scheme, although reasonable inquiry
would have done so."

Mr. Sullivan, a resident of Illinois, states in the suit that he
was unaware of Mr. Nadel's disbarment or financial improprieties
ongoing at the funds.  He had more than $1.8 million invested in
Mr. Nadel's funds, according to the suit.

The Bradenton Herald reported that the suit seeks judgment for
damages and attorney and court costs.  It also seeks a jury
trial.

The suit is "Sullivan v. Holland & Knight LLP et al., Case No.
8:09-cv-00531-EAK-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Guy M. Burns, Esq. (Guyb@jpfirm.com)
          Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
          403 E Madison St. - Ste. 400 (33602)
          P.O. Box 1100
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Phone: 813/225-2500
          Fax: 813/223-7118


KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Wrongful Death Litigation in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Permanente is facing a class-action wrongful death
lawsuit filed by a couple who claim that their infant son died
because Kaiser's policies have institutionalized substandard
care, Karina Brown of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by Erica
Munoz and Gustavo Lopez, who claimed Charles Angel Lopez died
and Erica Munoz suffered "profound injury" because, to save
money, Kaiser refuses to hire enough doctors and has nurse
practitioners and physicians' assistants do the work the should
be done by doctors, according to The Courthouse News Service
report.

Ms. Munoz claims that Kaiser never sent a doctor to help her
until the day her son died.  She also claims Kaiser scrimped by
denying her request for tests that could have saved her son's
life - another practice the couple says Kaiser regularly
implements, reports The Courthouse News Service.

Kaiser allegedly told Ms. Munoz and Mr. Lopez that technological
procedures were unnecessary and "destructive to 'nature doing
its course,'" The Courthouse News Service reports.

The couple -- represented by Steven Zelig, Esq. with Brentwood
Legal Services -- claim Kaiser's actions are part of "a long-
standing institutional practice by which it brazenly ignores,
disregards and flaunts California law."  They also claim Kaiser
sent them "fraudulent and completely overblown" bills, charging
them for services they never received, The Courthouse News
Service reported.

For more details, contact:

          Steven Zelig, Esq.
          11661 San Vicente Blvd 1015
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Phone: 310-442-6042


LAND O' LAKES: Suits Over Prices of Egg Products Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Land O'Lakes, Inc. continues to defend class-action lawsuits
filed against producers of eggs and egg products, according to
the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
March 31, 2009.

Between September 2008 and January 2009, a total of 22 related
class-action lawsuits were filed against a number of producers
of eggs and egg products in three different jurisdictions
alleging violations of antitrust laws.

MoArk was named as a defendant in 21 of the cases.  Norco Ranch,
Inc., was named as a defendant in 13 of the cases.  The company
was named as a defendant in eight cases.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two
separate consolidated amended class action complaints have been
filed: one on behalf of those persons who purchased eggs or egg
products directly from defendants, and the second on behalf of
"indirect" purchasers (i.e. persons who purchased eggs, egg
products, or products containing eggs from defendants'
customers).

The consolidated amended complaints allege concerted action by
producers of shell eggs to restrict output and thereby increase
the price of shell eggs and egg products.

The Plaintiffs in these suits seek unspecified damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of all purchasers of eggs and egg
products, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Land O'Lakes, Inc. -- http://www.landolakesinc.com/-- was
formed as a cooperative designed to meet the needs of dairy
farmers located in the Midwest.  The Company operates its
business through five segments, which includes Dairy Foods,
Feed, Seed, Agronomy and Layers.  Dairy Foods develops,
produces, markets and sells a variety of butter, spreads, cheese
and other related dairy products.  Feed develops, produces,
markets and distributes animal feed to both the lifestyle and
livestock animal markets.  Seed develops markets and sells seed
for a range of crops, including alfalfa, corn, soybeans and
forage and turf grasses.  Agronomy primarily consists of the
operations of Winfield Solutions, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary
established in September 2007 upon the distribution of wholesale
crop protection product assets to the Company from Agriliance
LLC.  Winfield operates as a wholesale distributor of crop
protection products.


LEVEL 3: Employee Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Colo. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An employee, who participated in the Level 3
Communication's 401K retirement plan, has filed in the District
of Colorado a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of certain
former and current employees of Level 3 Communications, Inc.,
who participated in the company plan, over alleged breaches of
certain fiduciaries of the Plan.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 may have occurred in at least two ways, by either
continuing to offer Level 3 common stock as a Plan investment
when it was imprudent to do so, and/or by maintaining the Plan's
investment in Level 3 stock in the Plan when it was imprudent to
do so.

     According to the complaint filed in the District of
Colorado, defendants misled Plan Participants regarding its
successful integration of companies it acquired from late 2005
through early 2007.  The complaint alleges Level 3
Communications, Inc was having extreme difficulties in
integration because of, among other things, increased service
activation times and difficulties in the Company's service
management processes.  According to the complaint, as a result
of these problems, Level 3 Communications, Inc. had inadequate
provisioning capability to convert its signed orders into
revenue generating service.


MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gas Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a purported lawsuit over defective
gasoline that Marathon Oil Corp. sold remains pending while it
awaits the approval of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.

The lawsuit, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al.," alleges that the company's
Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline to wholesalers and
retailers, causing permanent damage to storage tanks, dispensers
and related equipment, resulting in lost profits, business
disruption, and personal and real property damages.

In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Co. conducted extensive cleaning
operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent
damages resulted from the incident.

Class-action certification was granted in August 2007.

The company has entered into a tentative settlement agreement in
this case.  Notice of the proposed settlement has been sent to
the class members.  Approval by the court after a fairness
hearing is required before the settlement can be finalized.

No further developments on the case were reported in 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 "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00966," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory B. Breedlove, Esq. (gbb@cbcbb.com)
         Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove
         P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660
         Phone: 251/471-6191
         Fax: 251/479-1031

              - and -

         James M. Cawley, Jr., Esq. (jay@jaycawley.net)
         Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana Street
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/426-1700
         Fax: 713/425-5325

Representing the defendants are:

         Joseph S. Beeson, Esq. (jsb@ramlaw.com)
         Robinson & Mcelwee
         400 Fifth Third Center
         700 Virginia Street, East
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566

              - and -

         Jeffrey V. Mehalic, Esq.
         The Law Offices Of Jeffrey V. Mehalic
         P.O. Box 11133
         Charleston, WV 25339-1133
         Phone: 304/346-3462
         Fax: 302/346-3469


MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Court Dismisses SAC in ERISA Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
     Stull, Stull & Brody announced on May 26, 2009 that the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has
issued an order dismissing without prejudice the Second Amended
Complaint (SAC) in the 401(k) ERISA class action lawsuit which
Stull, Stull & Brody filed in August 2008 (Docket No. 08-cv-
4904) against Medtronic, Inc. (NYSE: MDT) and other alleged
fiduciaries of the Medtronic, Inc. Savings and Investment Plan.

     The suit alleges that fiduciaries of the Plan breached
their fiduciary duties to the Plan and its participants by
allowing participants to invest their retirement savings in
Medtronic common stock when Medtronic common stock was not a
prudent investment for the Plan accounts and by failing to
disclose to the Plan participants the true risk and return
characteristics of Medtronic stock.  The suit concerns two of
Medtronic's products, the Sprint Fidelis lead (a complex wire
that connects certain defibrillators to a patient's heart
muscle) and the Infuse Bone Graft (a bone filling material
implanted where bone growth is needed).

     In dismissing the Second Amended Complaint without
prejudice the Court found that the Plaintiff, Mark Brown, a
former employee of Medtronic, lacked standing to sue because he
benefited from the artificial inflation in Medtronic's stock
price when he sold his shares at prices he claims were higher
than they should have been.

For more details, contact:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          c/o Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212/490-2022
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


MERCK & CO: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Appeal in Holders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court will decide whether shareholders can sue Merck
& Co., Inc. because of the failure of its former blockbuster
painkiller Vioxx, The Associated Press reports.

On May 26, 2009, the high court agreed to review the company's
challenge to a federal appeals court's reinstatement of a class-
action securities lawsuit, according to the AP report.

In the suit filed in November 2003, investors had charged the
pharmaceutical company with providing misleading information or
omitting information about the risks of Vioxx.

A U.S. District judge dismissed lawsuit, ruling that all the
plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under the statute of
limitation.  However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit decided to allow the lawsuits and Merck appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court, The Associated Press reported.

Vioxx was pulled from the market Sept. 30, 2004, because it
doubled risks of heart attack, stroke and death.  That day
alone, stockholders lost a collective $28 billion, reports The
Associated Press.


MRU HOLDINGS: June 19 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status
------------------------------------------------------------
     Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP reminds current and former
shareholders of MRU Holdings, Inc. (OTC: UNCLQ; formerly NASDAQ:
UNCL) who suffered losses from investment in MRU securities
during the period between July 9, 2007 and September 19, 2008,
inclusive that Friday, June 19, 2009 is the deadline for MRU
investors to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the
pending securities class action.

     Previously, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of MRU Holdings, Inc. during the period between
July 9, 2007 and September 19, 2008, inclusive (Class Action
Reporter, April 23, 2009).

     The complaint charges MRU and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants' public statements failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

       -- the market for Auction Rate Securities ("ARS"), which
          the Company issued in its first student loan
          securitization, was illiquid and existed at the whim
          of the broker-dealers;

       -- the illusion of liquidity created by the broker-
          dealers allowed the Company to securitize its student
          loans on favorable terms;

       -- that once the true nature of the ARS market became
          known, the terms of future securitizations by the
          Company would not be favorable to the Company; and (4)

       -- that without the favorable terms available in the ARS
          market as a result of manipulation by the broker-
          dealers, the Company would not have sufficient capital
          to originate loans, making the Company's business
          model untenable.

     On July 7, 2008, the Company revealed the unfavorable terms
of its second securitization, causing the price of its
securities to drop to $2.27 per share - a one day decline of
$0.23 per share, or 9.2%.  Then, on August 18, 2008, Moody's
Investors Service placed the ARSs issued by MRU on review for
downgrade, driving the price of MRU shares even further, to
$1.05 per share.  After the market closed on September 5, 2008,
the Company ceased originating student loans, which caused MRU's
stock price to fall even further, closing on September 6, 2008
at $0.71.  Finally, on February 9, 2009, MRU announced that it
had filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy.  The Company's
shares have been delisted from the NASDAQ stock exchange, and
currently trade at less than $.01 per share.

For more details, contact:

          Eva Hromadkova
          Brian Brooks
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Phone: 212-682-1818 or 800-497-8076
          e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com


SIMON PROPERTY: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Gift Card Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Property Group, L.P. continues to face two purported
class-action suits involving gift card sales, according to the
company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

For several years, the company has been defending actions
brought by the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, New Hampshire
and Connecticut in their respective state courts and similar
litigation brought by other parties alleging that the sale of
co-branded, bank-issued gift cards by Simon Property's
affiliate, SPGGC, Inc., at certain of the company's properties,
violated state gift certificate and consumer protection laws.

The New Hampshire litigation has been dismissed.  During the
fourth quarter of 2008, the complaint in the Massachusetts
litigation was dismissed and the company settled the Connecticut
litigation.

The only remaining legal proceedings involving gift card sales
are two purported class actions brought by private parties in
New York.

Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group, L.P. is a Delaware
limited partnership and the majority-owned subsidiary of Simon
Property Group, Inc.  The company owns, develops, and manages
retail real estate properties in five retail real estate
platforms: regional malls, Premium Outlet Centers(R), The
Mills(R), community/lifestyle centers, and international
properties.


UTSTARCOM INC: June 19 Hearing Set for "Rudolph" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 19, 2009 preliminary approval hearing has been set for
the tentative settlement of the remaining claims in a class-
action lawsuit entitled "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-04578-SI."

The purported shareholder class-action lawsuit was filed on
Sept. 4, 2007, against UTSTARCOM, Inc. and some of its current
and former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  It alleges violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed
improper accounting practices concerning the company's
historical equity award grants.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between July
24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court appointed James R. Bartholomew as
lead plaintiff.  On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint and in April, the court granted a motion by
the company to dismiss the amended complaint.

The court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second
amended complaint no later than May 16, 2008, which the lead
plaintiff did so.  On June 6, 2008, the defendants again filed a
motion to dismiss, this time pertaining to the second amended
complaint.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement in the case,
subject to final documentation and court approval.  A
preliminary approval hearing is currently set for June 19, 2009.
The tentative settlement reached by the parties is 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 period ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-04578-SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

               - and -

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. (ekt@ftllaw.com)
          Attorney at Law
          1050 30th Street
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000

Representing the defendants is:

          Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100


UTSTARCOM INC: Securities Litigation Remains Ongoing in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," is ongoing in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class-action
complaints alleging federal securities violations were filed
against the company and various officers and directors.  The
actions were later consolidated as "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on July 26, 2005, alleging violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit was brought
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the
company's stock after April 16, 2003, and before Sept. 20, 2004.

On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of the
class period to Oct. 6, 2005.  In addition to the company
defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank.  The
plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an
unspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On March 21,
2007, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the
second amended complaint.  The court, however, granted the
plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which the
plaintiffs did on May 25, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the third
amended complaint.  This was granted by the court, but with
leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which the plaintiffs
also did on May 14, 2008.

On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008
dismissal order, the company and the individual defendants filed
objections to the form and content of the fourth amended
complaint.

On July 24, 2008, the court overruled the objections, but stated
that the company and the individual defendants would be
permitted to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the
fourth amended complaint.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain
allegations from the Fourth Amended Complaint.

On March 27, 2009, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss and granted defendants' motion to strike, according to
the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
March 31, 2009.

The suit is "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

              - and -

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100

              - and -

         Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. (halls@sullcrom.com)
         Sullivan & Cromwell
         1870 Embarcadero Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94303
         Phone: 650-461-5600
         Fax: 650-461-5700


WAL-MART STORES: LakinChapman LLC Files Suit Over Return Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LakinChapman, LLC has filed a class action complaint in the
circuit court of Madison County, Illinois against Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. alleging that it has failed to live up to the terms
of its return policy.

     LakinChapman, LLC has filed a class action complaint (Cause
No. 09-L- 525) in the circuit court of Madison County, Illinois
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging that it has failed to
live up to the terms of its return policy.

     The Complaint alleges that while Wal-Mart promises to
refund to its customers what they paid for merchandise, it fails
to do so if the merchandise is returned to a Wal-Mart store
location with a lower applicable sales tax rate than where the
merchandise was originally purchased.

     LakinChapman, LLC Managing Partner Brad Lakin, in
denouncing Wal-Mart's practices, said, "If a consumer buys
merchandise at the Collinsville Wal Mart and returns it to the
Glen Carbon Wal Mart he or she should get back exactly what they
paid for the merchandise.  What he or she receives should not
depend on the sales tax rate of the store where the merchandise
is returned.  That's the promise Wal Mart has made to its
customers and the one it should keep.  We filed this class
action to recover what rightfully belongs to consumers and force
Wal Mart to stop this practice.  Other retailers keep their
promise and return exactly what was paid for merchandise no
matter where it's returned.  Why shouldn't Wal Mart?"

For more details, contact:

          LakinChapman, LLC
          300 Evans Avenue
          P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, IL 62095-0229
          Phone: (618) 208-4240 or (866) 839-2021
          Fax: (618) 254-0193
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/

  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER CORE: Girard Gibbs LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Girard Gibbs has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund
(OPIGX, OIGBX, OPBCX).

     The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund,
while representing itself as conservative and appropriate as "a
long-term investment" and as "part of a retirement plan
portfolio" was exceeding its own risk controls by investing in
high-risk, highly leveraged bets that directly conflicted with
its stated conservative strategy.  The Core Bond Fund lost more
than 35 percent of its value in 2008 and another 10 percent in
the first three months of 2009 alone.

     The class action, entitled "Ferguson v. OppenheimerFunds
Inc. et al," is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  It names as defendants Oppenheimer
Core Bond Fund, OppenheimerFunds and certain of its officers and
directors.  OppenheimerFunds is a subsidiary of Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Company ("MassMutual").  Defendants are
charged with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Investment Company Act of 1940 for issuing false and misleading
statements as to the Fund's overall strategy and investment
objectives in the Fund's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 22, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Regina A. Sandler, Esq. (ras@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/opigx


POPULAR INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOPN)
during the period between January 23, 2008 and January 22, 2009,
inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company's
deferred tax assets related to its U.S. operations were
materially overstated; that the Company was experiencing
increasing loan losses in Puerto Rico and the U.S. construction
sectors; that the quality of the Company's remaining mortgage-
related loans in its U.S. mainland portfolios and other assets
were deteriorating and were materially overstated; that the
Company was experiencing a higher percentage of non-performing
loans; that the Company's new loan originations were declining;
and that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would soon
be facing liquidity concerns and would be forced to cut or
eliminate paying a dividend to shareholders.

     According to the complaint, on January 22, 2009, after the
Company revealed a net loss of over $700 million from, among
other things, high provisions for loan losses, for the fourth
quarter of 2008, the value of Popular's stock declined
significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com

                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *