CAR_Public/090601.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 106

                           Headlines

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Court Certifies Class in Contact Lens Lawsuit
AMERICAN TOWER: Securities Litigation in Mass. Ended in Jan. '09
ARGUS GROUP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Madoff-Related Suit
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: Faces N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Names Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Suit

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Calif. Franchises Face Lawsuit Over Tips
HUNTSMAN CORP: 2011 Trial Set for Consolidated Antitrust Suit
HUNTSMAN CORP: California Antitrust Lawsuit Remains Stayed
HUNTSMAN CORP: Shareholder Suits Over Merger Pending in Delaware

HUNTSMAN CORP: Urethane Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
IBASIS INC: To Defend Consumer Suit Over Prepaid Calling Cards
INTERSTATE HOTELS: Expects Settlement Payments Fulfilled by Dec.
INVENTIV HEALTH: June 5 Hearing Set for "Weisz" Suit Settlement
MERCK & CO: Faces Vioxx-Related Litigation in Australian Court

MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Reaffirms Miss. Funds' Appointment to Suit
NETFLIX INC: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in California
NETFLIX INC: Faces "Nunez" Suit for Calif. Marketing Violations
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Securities Suit Settlement Approved on Feb. 27
OPPENHEIMER CORE: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo.

PEABODY ENERGY: Defends Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla.
STAMPS.COM: Awaits N.Y. Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
U.S. CONCRETE: Accrued $4M for Damages in Drivers' Lawsuits
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Alder Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AKEENA SOLAR: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Milberg LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Court Certifies Class in Contact Lens Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Mr. Justice Butler of the British Columbia Supreme Court
has certified a national class action for Canadians injured by
COMPLETE All-In-One Contact Lens Care Solution.  The product was
recalled from the Canadian market on May 28, 2007 following
reports linking it to a serious eye infection known as
acanthamoeba keratitis.

     The case was brought by Trina Chalmers and Michelle Hutton
who were both infected with this disease after using the contact
lens solution.  The class action was certified against the
manufacturers of the product, Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. and
AMO Canada Company.  Ms. Chalmers underwent six months of round
the clock treatments with harsh chemicals in effort to eradicate
the infection.  Ms. Hutton lost vision in her right eye due to
the infection.

     Acanthamoeba keratitis is a parasitical infection. Its
symptoms may include eye pain or redness, blurred vision, light
sensitivity, sensation of something in the eye or excessive
tearing.  Acanthamoeba keratitis may lead to vision loss, or
even loss of the eye, with some patients requiring a corneal
transplant.  The B.C. Centre for Disease Control recorded 32
cases of Acanthamoeba keratitis in the province between January
2005 and May 2008, with a spike in cases coinciding with the
marketing of the Defendants' product.  In Ontario, Toronto
Western Hospital also recorded a spike in cases, with 41 cases
diagnosed at just one hospital over a similar period.  The total
number of cases across Canada is unknown. Health Canada has
recorded 90 complaints of adverse effects related to the contact
lens solution.

     Ms. Chalmers and Ms. Hutton are represented by the
Vancouver class action firm, Klein Lyons.  Their lawyer, David
Klein, says "Our clients are very pleased with the court's
decision.  It has been exactly two years now since this product
was recalled. Canadians rely upon drug companies to ensure that
their products are safe and effective.  Acanthamoeba keratitis
is a very painful and debilitating disease.  It is time for the
Defendants to compensate Canadians who have been injured by this
product. The decision of Mr. Justice Butler clears the way for
Trina and Michelle, and other Canadians like them, to bring this
case to trial."

For more details, contact:

          David Klein,
          Klein Lyons, Barristers and Solicitors,
          Suite 1100, 1333 West Broadway,
          Vancouver, B.C.,
          Phone: (604) 874-7171
          Fax: (604) 874-7180
          Web site: http://www.kleinlyons.com


AMERICAN TOWER: Securities Litigation in Mass. Ended in Jan. '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action litigation captioned "In re American Tower
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 06 CV 10933 (MLW) (D.
Mass.)," in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusettshas ended, according to defendant American Tower
Corp.'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 was filed by John S. Greenebaum in 2006.  Also named as
plaintiff in the case is Steamship Trade Association-
International Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund.

The complaint names the company, James D. Taiclet Jr., and
Bradley E. Singer as defendants.  It alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with public
statements made relating to the company's stock option practices
and related accounting.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  It seeks monetary relief.

In December 2006, the court appointed the Steamship Trade
Association-International Longshoreman's Association Pension
Fund as the lead plaintiff.

On March 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which includes additional current and former officers
and directors of the company as defendants.

In December 2007, the company announced that it had reached a
settlement in principle regarding the securities class action.

The settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the court in
February 2008, provided for a payment by the company of $14
million and would lead to a dismissal of all claims against all
defendants in the litigation.

The company paid $250,000 of the settlement amount to an escrow
account controlled by the plaintiffs during the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

In April 2008, the company paid the remaining settlement amount
of $13.8 million into escrow and received $12.5 million in
insurance proceeds.

In May 2008, the original plaintiff, Mr. Greenebaum, filed an
objection to the settlement.  Following a hearing in June 2008,
the Court dismissed Mr. Greenebaum's objection and approved the
settlement.

In July 2008, Mr. Greenebaum filed an untimely request to opt-
out of the settlement class certified by the Court, which the
Court denied in August 2008.  Mr. Greenebaum filed a notice of
appeal of the Court's final order approving the settlement
agreement and of the Court's decision denying his untimely
request to opt out of the settlement class.

In December 2008, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with Mr. Greenebaum providing for payment by the
company of $5,000, which the Court approved in January 2009.

In January 2009, the lead plaintiff also entered into a
settlement agreement with Mr. Greenebaum.  As a result of these
settlements, Mr. Greenebaum withdrew his appeals, effectively
ending the litigation.

The suit is "In re American Tower Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 06 CV 10933 (MLW)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Mark L. Wolf,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Jason B. Adkins, Esq. (jadkins@akzlaw.com)
         Adkins, Kelston and Zavez, P.C.
         90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02114
         Phone: 617-367-1040
         Fax: 617-742-8280

              - and -

         David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
         Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017-5563
         Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the company is:

         Michael T. Gass, Esq. (mgass@eapdlaw.com)
         Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP
         111 Huntington Avenue
         Boston, MA 02199
         Phone: 617-239-0100
         Fax: 617-227-4420


ARGUS GROUP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Madoff-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argus Group Holdings Ltd. agreed in principle to settle a class-
action lawsuit pending in a New York court relating to losses
stemming from the Bernard Madoff fraud, Jonathan Kent of the
Royal Gazette reports.

According to Argus chief executive officer Gerald Simons, the
settlement, which is subject to documentation and court
approval, would eliminate the expense and uncertainty of
continuing litigation, reports the Royal Gazette.

The Royal Gazette reported that the terms of settlement include
no financial settlement to be paid to policyholders.  The
agreement comprises "a broad package of relief, including loans
to policyholders, the assignment of certain Argus International
claims to a litigation trust, and cooperation by Argus
International in connection with litigation of the assigned
claims," according to the company.

"In exchange, the Argus Group and Argus International will
obtain broad releases relating to the claims in the litigation
and other protections and relief," according to the Royal
Gazette report.

On Jan. 20, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class-action suit in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Variable Universal Life Insurance (VUL) Policies
issued by Tremont International Insurance Limited or Argus
International Bermuda Limited [AGH BH] (collectively, the
"Insurer") from Jan. 1, 2003 through the present (the "Class
Period"), against Argus International Life Bermuda Limited,
Argus Group Holdings Limited, Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance Co., Oppenheimer Acquisition Corporation, Rye
Investment Management, Rye Select Broad Market Fund L.P., Rye
Select Broad Market Insurance Portfolio, LDC, Tremont [Bermuda]
Limited, Tremont Capital Management Inc., Tremont Group
Holdings, Inc., Tremont International Insurance Limited, and
Tremont Partners Inc., and arising out of the $50 billion Ponzi
scheme orchestrated by Bernard Madoff.

The complaint asserts that, during the Class Period, the
Insurer, originally an entity owned by Tremont Capital
Management Inc., breached its fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and
the Class by offering Tremont-related funds as viable investment
options for the variable investment account component of the VUL
policies.

Despite the fact that the income streams from the variable
investment accounts are often used by VUL policyholders to pay
premiums under the policy, the Insurer offered Tremont-related
funds without investigating the suitability of such investments
for policyholders and concealed that the Tremont-related funds
in fact were heavily invested in Madoff.

The Complaint further alleges that the Defendants failed to
perform the necessary due diligence that they were being
compensated to perform as investment managers and fiduciaries.
Defendants allowed billions of dollars of their clients' money
to be invested with Madoff and his related entities without
performing adequate due diligence despite the abnormally high
and stable positive investment results reportedly obtained by
Madoff regardless of market conditions; the inconsistencies
between Madoff's publicly available financial information and
the purported amounts that Madoff managed for clients; and the
fact that Madoff's firm was audited by a small, obscure
accounting firm with no experience auditing entities of that
apparent size and complexity.  These red flags should have
alerted Defendants that Madoff's returns were suspiciously
aggressive despite the performance of the overall market.

Defendants either knew or should have known that the Tremont-
related fund assets were employed as part of a massive Ponzi
scheme and took no steps in a good faith effort to prevent or
remedy that situation, proximately causing billions of dollars
of losses.

By acting with gross negligence, recklessness and/or in breach
of fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and other Class members,
Defendants caused and/or permitted Plaintiff and other class
members to choose improper and inappropriate investments that
have decimated the variable investment account component of
their VULs, and, most egregiously, placed these VUL policies at
risk of lapsing.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused to the Class by
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and to protect the
VULs, and the associated death benefits, from premature lapsing.

The case name is styled, "Chateau Fiduciare S.A. as Trustee of
the Map Trust v. Argus International Life Bermuda Ltd., et al."

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phgone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: Faces N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Ltd., its chairman
Charles Goode, and top executives, past and present, face a
class-action suit from U.S. investors for misleading and
deceptive conduct in relation to the fallen stock lender Opes
Prime, Michael West of The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Previously, the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody announces that
it filed a class-action lawsuit on December 29, 2008 on behalf
of purchasers of the American Depositary Receipts of Australia
and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (PINKSHEETS: ANZBY) during
the period March 2, 2007 through July 27, 2008.  The action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Case No. 08-CV-11278 (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 23, 2009).

The complaint alleges that the Company and its top executives
violated the federal securities laws.  It charges that ANZ
failed to adequately disclose the range of risks arising from
its loans to Opes Prime Group Limited, an Australian stock
brokerage firm that lent money to customers on margin.

ANZ had lent hundreds of millions of dollars to this failed
brokerage house, but without adequate disclosure of the risks
the loans posed to ANZ.  The day before the Company announced
its losses stemming from exposure to Opes Prime, its stock
(ADRs) closed at a high of $17.24. The following day, after
ANZ's announcement, ANZ's stock price dropped to $14.57.  ANZ's
stock is currently trading at $9.90.

For more details, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          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


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Names Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved the selection of a United Food and Commercial Workers
pension fund as the lead plaintiff, and the firm Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP to serve as lead counsel, in a
putative securities class-action lawsuit over alleged omissions
in financial information for Chesapeake Energy Corp., Law360
reports.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on May 28, 2009,
according to the Law360 report.

Previously, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Chesapeake Energy Corporation stock issued
pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
Chesapeake's July 2008 secondary public stock offering (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2009).

The complaint charges Chesapeake, certain of its officers and
directors, and certain underwriters of the Offering with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

Chesapeake is the third largest independent producer of natural
gas in the United States.  Chesapeake's strategy is focused on
discovering, acquiring and developing conventional and
unconventional natural gas reserves onshore in the United
States, east of the Rocky Mountains.

According to the complaint, on July 15, 2008, Chesapeake
completed a secondary public offering of 28.75 million shares of
common stock at $57.25 per share, receiving approximately $1.65
billion in gross proceeds, with net proceeds of $1.586 billion.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Offering was materially false and misleading
because it failed to disclose numerous facts which were required
to be stated therein, including:

       -- that the Company's exposure to natural gas price
          declines had not been adequately limited by the
          hedging actions the Company had undertaken prior to
          the Offering, including its decision to increase its
          hedge position from 20% to 80% of its production, as a
          growing proportion of the hedging agreements on
          Chesapeake's 2009 production contained so-called
          "knockout" provisions that eliminated the counter-
          party's financial obligation once the price of natural
          gas fell below a certain benchmark;

       -- though the Company disclosed it had entered into
          hedging contracts to protect its production from
          falling prices, the Registration Statement failed to
          disclose that a significant proportion of these
          contracts had been made with one of the underwriters
          in the Offering, Lehman Brothers, though based on
          Lehman Brothers' rapidly declining financial
          condition, Lehman Brothers would be unable to fulfill
          its financial commitment - rendering Chesapeake's
          "protection" meaningless;

       -- in the months leading up to the Offering, Chesapeake's
          aggressive hedging activities (and those of certain of
          the underwriter defendants) had been significantly
          running up the price of natural gas and Chesapeake's
          stock price, which moves in tandem with natural gas
          prices;

       -- that Chesapeake's "land men," i.e., lease brokers, had
          been aggressively bidding up the prices Chesapeake was
          obligated to pay in leases and royalty agreements in
          the months leading up to the Offering, causing
          Chesapeake to pay unreasonably high prices for certain
          leases and royalty contracts;

       -- that the Company was failing to write down impaired
          goodwill on the assets it was acquiring, causing its
          balance sheet and financial results to be artificially
          inflated; and

       -- that the Company's internal controls were inadequate
          to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its
          goodwill.

During late 2008 and early 2009, as these omitted facts were
revealed to the market, the price of Chesapeake stock declined
to less than $12 per share, approximately 80% below the Offering
price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Chesapeake stock issued pursuant to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with Chesapeake's July 2008
Offering.

For more details, contact:

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/chesapeake/


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC announced on
May 28, 2009 that Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the federal district
court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) has
denied Countrywide Financial Corp.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action complaint against the lender, with the
exception of the claims of a single plaintiff whose claims were
dismissed due to lack of standing.

     The plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation have accused
Countrywide of steering borrowers into risky and inappropriate
subprime mortgages irrespective of their suitability to
borrowers in order to maximize profits.

     Judge Sabraw, who is overseeing the litigation against
Countrywide entitled, "In Re Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, case number 08-md-
01988," sustained all of plaintiffs' claims except those of a
plaintiff who filed for bankruptcy and failed to substitute his
bankruptcy trustee as a plaintiff.  The claims of plaintiffs in
the consolidated actions "Levas v. Bank of America Corp.,"
"Jackson v. Countrywide Financial Corp.," and "White v.
Countrywide Financial Corp.," include violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to
violate RICO, violation of California's unfair competition and
false advertising statutes, and unjust enrichment.

     Judge Sabraw rejected Countrywide's argument that the RICO
enterprise the plaintiffs had alleged among independent mortgage
brokers and Countrywide was not valid because the plaintiffs had
not alleged connections between the independent mortgage
brokers.  In a previous motion to dismiss, the defendants had
argued that the so-called "hub-and-spoke" structure of that
enterprise was invalid under RICO.  Judge Sabraw had previously
rejected that argument on a prior motion to dismiss, noting that
the Ninth Circuit does not require a specific organizational
structure for RICO enterprises, and stated in his May 18
decision that the court found "no reason to depart from its
previous conclusion."

     "We are pleased that we are helping the ultimate victims of
the mortgage scheme that has nearly destroyed our economy," said
Joe R. Whatley of the firm Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC, co-lead
interim class counsel in the multidistrict litigation.  He
added, "We intend to continue to prosecute this action until
those who obtained subprime mortgages from Countrywide are
adequately compensated."

     Countrywide had also requested that the court reconsider
its decision on an earlier motion to dismiss wherein it
sustained an alternative RICO enterprise the plaintiffs had
alleged, the "Countrywide Enterprise," consisting solely of
Countrywide and its subsidiaries.  Countrywide argued that the
court had previously misapplied the law concerning RICO
enterprises among parents and subsidiaries, but Judge Sabraw
stated that he found Countrywide's arguments on this point
"unpersuasive."

     Judge Sabraw also denied Countrywide's motion to strike an
allegation of unfair conduct under California state law,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which permits
the striking of "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or
scandalous matter."  Judge Sabraw noted that it appeared that
the motion was actually directed at the legal sufficiency of the
allegations under Rule 12(b)(6), but concluded that the
allegations were both sufficient under 12(b)(6) and proper under
12(f), and thus denied the motion to strike.

For more details, contact:

          Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
          Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC
          Phone: 212-447-7011
          Web site: http://www.wdklaw.com


HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Calif. Franchises Face Lawsuit Over Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Several franchises of Hooters of America, Inc. face a purported
class-action lawsuit alleging that some of the tips left by
grateful customers for barmaids and wait staff at Hooters
restaurants in the Bay Area were diverted into managers' "slush
funds," Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune reports.

The suit was filed on May 28, 2009 in the Alameda County
Superior Court by eight former Hooters employees against the
owners and senior managers of the Dublin, Fremont, San Francisco
and Campbell franchises, according to The Oakland Tribune
report.

It also claims "Hooters Girls" weren't granted rest and meal
breaks during their shifts; had to buy their own trademark hot
pants, T-shirt and pantyhose uniforms from the restaurants; had
to pay or face discipline for cash shortages or customer
walkouts; and weren't paid for work at special events, The
Oakland Tribune reported.

The plaintiffs in the suit, who are represented by attorney
Burton Boltuch, Esq., include:

       -- Dina Partridge, 29, of Pleasanton, who was a Hooters
          Girl, bartender and assistant manager at the Dublin
          eatery; and

       -- Jessica Rose, 23, of San Ramon, who worked as a
          Hooters Girl and bartender at the Dublin restaurant
          last year.

The damages sought will depend on how many former employees join
the class-action litigation, Mr. Boltuch tells The Oakland
Tribune.  Any nonsupervisory workers at the four restaurants in
the past four years may be eligible, he adds.

Atlanta-based Hooters of America Inc., which is not named in the
lawsuit, owns 122 restaurants and franchises 328 others in 43
states and more than two dozen countries.  The chain is known as
much for its scantily-clad female servers as for its signature
chicken wings, reports The Oakland Tribune.


HUNTSMAN CORP: 2011 Trial Set for Consolidated Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A May 3, 2011 trial has been set for the consolidated antitrust
class-action lawsuit filed against Huntsman Corp. and several
other defendants over an alleged conspiracy to fix prices in the
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, toluene di-isocyanate, and
polyether polyols industries.

The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases"
in multi-district litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by
virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases
filed on Aug. 23, 2004.  The case is currently pending with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are
Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell.  These cases purport to be
brought on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers of MDI,
TDI and polyether polyols.

The Kansas court has ruled that plaintiffs may prosecute the
Polyether Polyols cases on behalf of a class of all direct
purchasers of polyether polyol products in the U.S.

Bayer has entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs' class
and has been dismissed as a defendant.

Merits discovery is underway, and trial has been set for May 3,
2011, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616,
Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq. (malioto@tatp.com)
         Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP
         2280 Union Street
         San Francisco, CA 94123
         Phone: 415-563-7200
         Fax: 415-346-0679

              - and -

         Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. (artlaw@alltel.net)
         Arthur N. Bailey & Associates
         111 West Second Street, Suite 4500
         Jamestown, NY 14701
         Phone: 716-664-2967
         Fax: 716-664-2983

Representing the defendants are:

         Floyd R. Finch, Jr., Esq. (ffinch@blackwellsanders.com)
         Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP
         4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O. Box 219777
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Phone: 816-983-8128
         Fax: 816-983-8080

              - and -

         James S. Jardine, Esq. (jjardine@rqn.com)
         Ray, Quinney & Nebeker
         36 South State Street, Suite 1400
         Salt Lake City, UT 84111
         Phone: 801-323-3337
         Fax: 801-532-7543


HUNTSMAN CORP: California Antitrust Lawsuit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit pending in a California state
court against Huntsman Corp. and several other defendants over
an alleged conspiracy to fix prices of certain rubber and
urethane products remains stayed.

The other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases,"
also known as "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," are also defendants in
this case.

The California action has been stayed pending disposition of the
"Polyether Polyols Cases."

Huntsman Corp. reported no further development regarding the
matter in its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is a manufacturer
of differentiated chemical products and inorganic chemical
products.  The company operates in four segments: Polyurethanes,
Materials and Effects, Performance Products and Pigments.  Its
products are used in a range of applications, including those in
the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products,
durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical,
packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining,
synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries.  The
company's products include methyl diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI),
amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer formulations, textile
chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and titanium dioxide.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Shareholder Suits Over Merger Pending in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corp. continues to face three putative shareholder
class-action complaints in Delaware in relation to the company's
then-proposed sale to Basell AF and the receipt of a superior
proposal from Hexion Specialty Chemicals.

From July 5 to July 13, 2007, four putative shareholder class-
action complaints were filed against the company and its
directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with
its proposed sale to Basell and the receipt of Hexion's
proposal.

Three actions were filed in Delaware:

   -- Cohen v. Archibald, et al., No. 3070, in the Court of
      Chancery for the State of Delaware (filed July 5, 2007);

   -- Augenstein v. Archibald, et al., No. 3076, in the Court of
      Chancery for the State of Delaware (filed July 9, 2007);
      and

   -- Murphy v. Huntsman, et al., No. 3094, in the Court of
      Chancery for the State of Delaware (filed July 13, 2007).

Another action was filed in Texas, captioned, "Schwoegler v.
Huntsman Corporation, et al., Cause No. 07-07-06993-CV."   It
was filed in the 9th Judicial District Court of Montgomery
County, Texas on July 6, 2007.

As subsequently amended, these lawsuits together allege that the
company and its directors breached fiduciary duties to the
stockholders by, among other things, engaging in an unfair sales
process, approving an unfair price per share for the Merger with
Hexion, and making inadequate disclosures to stockholders, and
that Basell, Hexion and MatlinPatterson entities aided and
abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuits sought to enjoin the stockholder vote on the
Merger.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware and Texas
actions to settle these four lawsuits.  As part of the proposed
settlement, the defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing,
but the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures in
the final proxy statement that was mailed to its stockholders on
or about Sept. 14, 2007.  In connection with the settlement, the
parties also reached an agreement with respect to any
application that the plaintiffs' counsel would have made for an
award of customary attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
following the completion of the Merger.

The Memorandum of Understanding is now null and void and of no
force and effect because the Merger was not consummated.  The
Texas action has been voluntarily dismissed, but there have been
no further developments in the Delaware actions at this time,
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.

Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is a manufacturer
of differentiated chemical products and inorganic chemical
products.  The company operates in four segments: Polyurethanes,
Materials and Effects, Performance Products and Pigments.  Its
products are used in a range of applications, including those in
the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products,
durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical,
packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining,
synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries.  The
company's products include methyl diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI),
amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer formulations, textile
chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and titanium dioxide.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Urethane Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corp. and certain other firms continue to face putative
antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada, alleging a conspiracy
to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-
isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries.

The lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Justice in
Ontario, Canada, on May 5, 2006, and with the Superior Court in
Quebec, Canada, on May 17, 2006.

According to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended March
31, 2009, there has been little activity in these cases since
they were filed.

Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is a manufacturer
of differentiated chemical products and inorganic chemical
products.  The company operates in four segments: Polyurethanes,
Materials and Effects, Performance Products and Pigments.  Its
products are used in a range of applications, including those in
the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products,
durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical,
packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining,
synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries.  The
company's products include methyl diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI),
amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer formulations, textile
chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and titanium dioxide.


IBASIS INC: To Defend Consumer Suit Over Prepaid Calling Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
iBasis, Inc. intends to defend against the claims asserted in a
putative consumer class-action complaint filed on behalf of Mr.
Orlando Ramirez in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The company was named in a putative consumer class-action
complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The company was served on May 27, 2008.

The putative class-action plaintiff, Orlando Ramirez, asserted
violations of consumer protection statutes in New Jersey and
other states on behalf of an asserted nationwide class of
purchasers due to an alleged failure to adequately disclose the
actual calling time available on iBasis' prepaid calling cards.

The company filed a motion to change venue to the Eastern
District of New York where named plaintiff resides and purchased
the card.

Plaintiffs were granted a voluntary dismissal, without
prejudice, on July 9, 2008.

On Dec. 19, 2008, a substantially similar complaint was filed
against the company on behalf of Mr. Ramirez in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The company was served with the summons and complaint on April
16, 2009.

The company believes that it has substantial defenses to the
claims alleged in the complaint, according to its May 8, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2009.

iBasis, Inc. -- http://www.ibasis.com/-- is a wholesale carrier
of international long distance telephone calls and a provider of
retail prepaid calling services and enhanced services for mobile
operators.  The company's operations consist of wholesale
trading business (Trading), in which it connects buyers and
sellers of international telecommunications services, and retail
services business (Retail).


INTERSTATE HOTELS: Expects Settlement Payments Fulfilled by Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. expects payments for
settlement of a labor-related class action lawsuit and related
legal and administrative fees to be made by Dec. 31, 2009.

During the third quarter of 2008, the company reached a
settlement with plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed
against numerous defendants including, Sunstone Hotel
Properties, Inc., its subsidiary management company.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants did not compensate
hourly employees for break time in accordance with California
state labor requirements.

The company's portion of the gross settlement agreed upon was
$1.7 million, which includes approximately $0.5 million to be
paid for the plaintiffs' legal costs and other various
administrative costs to oversee payment to the individuals who
will participate in the settlement.  The remaining $1.2 million
of the gross settlement is the maximum amount that the company's
subsidiary has agreed to pay out to participating plaintiffs in
the aggregate.

As part of this settlement, the company has guaranteed that it
will make a minimum payment to all participating plaintiffs of
at least 50 percent of the proposed settlement, or approximately
$0.6 million, according to its May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. -- http://www.ihrco.com-- is
a hotel real estate investor and an independent operator.  The
company operates in two segments: hotel ownership (through
whole-ownership and joint ventures) and hotel management.


INVENTIV HEALTH: June 5 Hearing Set for "Weisz" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 5, 2009 hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement in the matter "Weisz v. Albertsons, Inc., Case No.
GIC 830069," which names as defendant Adheris, Inc. -- a
business segment of inVentiv Health, Inc. -- has been set.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on May 17, 2004, in
the San Diego Superior Court, California, by Utility Consumer
Action Network against Albertsons, Inc., and its affiliated drug
store chains and 17 pharmaceutical companies.

The litigation alleged, among other claims, violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act arising from the
operation of manufacturer-sponsored, pharmacy-based compliance
programs similar to Adheris' refill reminder programs.

An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 4, 2004, adding Adheris
as a defendant to the lawsuit.  A subsequent amendment to the
complaint substituted plaintiff Kimberly Weisz as the class
representative to the purported class action.

After several rounds of pleading challenges to the plaintiff's
various renditions of the complaint, all but one pharmaceutical
manufacturing company, AstraZeneca LP, were dismissed from the
case, leaving only Albertsons Inc., Adheris, and AstraZeneca as
the remaining defendants in the action.

In pleading challenge to the plaintiff's fifth amended
complaint, the remaining defendants were successful in
eliminating a number of claims, including fraud-based and breach
of privacy claims.  The plaintiff's class allegations were
stricken as improper with leave to amend.

An operative sixth amended complaint was filed on Jan. 6, 2008.
The defendants moved to strike certain of the plaintiff's claims
and the plaintiff's class allegations as improper.  These
motions were denied.

In conjunction therewith, the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration as to her breach of privacy claim was granted.

As a result, there are four live claims alleged against Adheris:

       -- violation of the CMIA;
       -- breach of fiduciary duty;
       -- unjust enrichment; and
       -- breach of privacy.

On July 9, 2008, Albertsons filed a motion for summary judgment
on the grounds that all of the plaintiff's claims were barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.  Adheris intends to join
in these arguments.  This motion currently is set to be heard on
Oct. 3, 2008.

On July 11, 2008, the counsel for the parties entered into a 60-
day litigation standstill to pursue settlement through
mediation.  The agreement included taking off calendar all
pending motions, discovery and depositions for 60 days.  The
parties are in the process of selecting a mediator and preparing
for mediation.

On Feb. 8, 2009, the remaining parties to the Weisz action
entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release.  Under the
terms of the Weisz Settlement, which has been preliminarily
approved by the court but remains subject to final court
approval after a fairness hearing, Adheris would agree to
refrain from knowing participation in any refill reminder
programs, targeted mailings or notifications regarding medical
conditions of specific California residents except those
residents who have expressly opted in to the communication or as
otherwise permitted by California law.  Adheris currently does
not conduct significant business in California of the type
encompassed by Weisz Settlement.  It is expected that Adheris'
financial contribution to the settlement in excess of its
retention amount will be funded by insurance.  The company's
insurer, AIG, is defending this action under reservation of
rights.

The hearing to consider final approval of the Weisz Settlement
is scheduled for June 5, 2009.  The court-ordered period for
objection to the settlement expired on April 27, 2009 and to
date no objections to the settlement have been received by the
company, 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.

inVentiv Health, Inc. -- http://www.inventivhealth.com/-- is a
provider of value-added services to the pharmaceutical, life
sciences and healthcare industries.  The company supports a
range of clinical development, communications and
commercialization activities that are critical to its customers'
ability to complete the development of drug products and medical
devices and commercialize them.  inVentiv provides services to
over 325 client organizations, including all top 20 global
pharmaceutical companies, specialty biotechnology companies and
payors.  The company's service offerings reflect the changing
needs of its clients as their products move through the late-
stage development and regulatory approval processes and into
product launch, and then throughout the product lifecycle.


MERCK & CO: Faces Vioxx-Related Litigation in Australian Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharp &
Dohme, are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Australia
in connection with Vioxx, The Australian reports.

The lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson, who filed the suit on behalf
of more than 1,000 Australians, blames Vioxx for his heart
attack in December 2003.  Mr. Peterson says Merck knew of the
cardiovascular risks of the blockbuster anti-arthritis drug but
played it down in the lead-up to Vioxx's voluntary withdrawal in
2004, according to The Australian report.

Kate Hagan of The Age previously reported that the suit, which
is pending in the Federal Court of Australia, was brought on
behalf of every Australian who had cardiovascular conditions
after completing at least one prescription of Vioxx between June
30, 1999, and its worldwide recall in 2004.


MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Reaffirms Miss. Funds' Appointment to Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of New York reaffirmed a Mississippi public pension
fund as lead plaintiff in a consolidated class-action suit over
subprime mortgage-backed investments offered by Merrill Lynch &
Co. Inc., Law360 reports.

Citing a retainer agreement between a rival fund and its
counsel, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Judge
Rakoff issued the expanded ruling on May 26, 2009 after naming
the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as the
lead plaintiff in the case, according to the Law360 report.


NETFLIX INC: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. faces a consolidated purported anti-trust class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

In January and February 2009, a number of purported anti-trust
class action suits were filed against the company.  Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC were also named as
defendants in these suits.

Most of the suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and other federal district
courts around the country.  A number of suits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County.

The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers,
generally allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an
agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of
DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix
subscription prices.

The complaints, which assert violation of federal and/or state
antitrust laws, seek injunctive relief, costs (including
attorneys' fees) and damages in an unspecified amount.

On Jan. 16, 2009, plaintiffs from one of the Northern District
of California actions filed a motion before the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to have all cases that have been
filed in federal court coordinated or consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the Northern District of California.

On April 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered all cases pending in federal court
transferred to the Northern District of California to be
consolidated or coordinated for pre-trial purposes.

The company has not responded to the complaints, according to
its May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online
movie rental subscription service in the United States to
approximately 10 million subscribers.  The company offers a
variety of plans and provides subscribers access to over 100,000
digital versatile disc (DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than
12,000 streaming content choices.


NETFLIX INC: Faces "Nunez" Suit for Calif. Marketing Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit over
alleged violations by certain of the company's marketing
statements in California.

On April 1, 2009, Jay Nunez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated in California, filed a purported
class-action lawsuit against the company in California Superior
Court, County of Orange.

The complaint asserts claims of unlawful, unfair and deceptive
business practices and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act relating to certain of the company's
marketing statements.

The complaint seeks restitution, injunction and other relief.

The company has not responded to the complaint, according to its
May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online
movie rental subscription service in the United States to
approximately 10 million subscribers.  The company offers a
variety of plans and provides subscribers access to over 100,000
digital versatile disc (DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than
12,000 streaming content choices.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Securities Suit Settlement Approved on Feb. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement in the matter, "In re: Openwave Systems
Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," was approved
on Feb. 27, 2009, according to Openwave Systems, Inc.'s May 8,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Previously, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York set a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement for
Feb. 27, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. before the Honorable Denise Cote, at
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 11B, New York, NY 10007 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 17, 2008).

                         Case Background

Initially, between Feb. 21 and March 27, 2007, four
substantially similar securities class-action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Openwave and four current and former officers
of the company.

The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002,
through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the class period,
the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and
issued materially false and misleading statements in the
company's public filings and press releases regarding the manner
in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options.

Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of
action -- one against all defendants for violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and a second against the individual defendants for violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On April 25, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern
District of California where the related shareholder derivative
class actions are pending.

On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the
four securities class action suits into a single action
captioned "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master
File 07-1309 (DLC))," and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint.

The consolidated and amended complaint adds 17 additional
defendants, including:

     * several current and former Openwave officers and
       directors,

     * KPMG LLP,

     * Merrill Lynch,

     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     * Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and

     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for
violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 arising out
of the company's 2005 public offering.  It seeks money damages,
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company is required under contracts with the individual
defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System was appointed as lead
plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead
counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions and the
class.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated and amended class action complaint.  On Oct. 31,
2007, the court granted the motions to dismiss claims asserted
under the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants against
whom those claims were asserted, and granted the motion to
dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims against
certain of the officer and director defendants.

However, the motion to dismiss the Exchange claims asserted
against Openwave and certain of the other director and officer
defendants was denied.

As a result of the court's decision, KPMG LLP, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan
Securities, and Thomas Weisel Partners have all been dismissed
as defendants from the consolidated lawsuit.

The remaining defendants are the company, certain former
officers of the company, and certain former and current
directors of the company.

The parties commenced discovery with respect to class
certification and the merits.  On June 23, 2008, the lead
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.  On July 18,
2008, the company filed its opposition to the lead plaintiff's
motion, and all of the individual defendants joined in that
opposition.

On Oct. 24, 2008, while the motion for class certification was
pending and discovery was ongoing, the lead plaintiff and
defendants reached an agreement to settle the action.

On Nov. 5, 2008, the court entered a preliminary order approving
the settlement.  The settlement will be funded in part by
insurance and in part by the company.  The settlement is subject
to court approval (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2009).

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, on Dec. 5,
2008, the company contributed $5.0 million and the insurance
carriers contributed $15.0 million to the settlement fund.  This
$20.0 million estimated liability was recorded in the fiscal
quarter ending June 30, 2008, with a corresponding $15.0 million
recorded in Insurance receivable for legal settlement on the
consolidated balance sheet, and $5.0 million recorded in Legal
settlement costs on the consolidate statement of operations
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009).

On Feb. 27, 2009, after a hearing concerning the proposed
settlement and related matters, the court entered an order
approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate to the
settlement class members and subsequently entered a final
judgment.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement,
the company contributed $5.0 million and the insurance carriers
contributed $15.0 million to the settlement fund.  This $20.0
million estimated liability was recorded in the fourth quarter
of fiscal 2008, with a corresponding $15.0 million recorded in
Insurance receivable for legal settlement on the consolidated
balance sheet, and $5.0 million recorded in Legal settlement
costs on the consolidated statement of operations.

The suit, "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master
File 07-1309 (DLC))," is filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise L. Cote,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laura Helen Gundersheim, Esq. (Laurag@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1463
          Fax: 212-554-1444

               - and -

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Marshall Ross King, Esq. (mking@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: 212-351-3905
          Fax: 212-351-5243

               - and -

          Andrew W. Stern, Esq. (astern@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-839-5300
          Fax: 212-839-5599


OPPENHEIMER CORE: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund has filed a
proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
investors of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (NASDAQ: OPIGX)
(NASDAQ: OIGBX) (NASDAQ: OPBCX) against Oppenheimer Core Bond
Fund, OppenheimerFunds, and others over alleged violations of
Federal Securities Laws.

     The Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund was promoted as appropriate
for, and was offered by, several 529 college savings plans, such
as the Illinois 529 Bright Start plan, the Oregon College
Savings Plan, the Texas Lonestar 529 Plan, Maine's NextGen
College Investing Plan, the New Mexico Scholar's Edge and
College Sense 529 plans and Nebraska's State Farm College
Savings Plan. The Fund was also offered by several retirement
plans and annuities.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendants violated 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.  Specifically the plaintiff accuses 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 names as defendants Oppenheimer Core Bond
Fund, Oppenheimer Funds and certain of its officers and
directors. Oppenheimer Funds is a subsidiary of Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Company.


PEABODY ENERGY: Defends Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class-action lawsuits filed against one of Peabody Energy
Corp.'s subsidiaries, Gold Fields Mining, LLC, are still pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, 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.

Gold Fields and two other companies are defendants in two class
action lawsuits allegedly involving past operations near Picher,
Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of
intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking
compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of
medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected
individuals.

Peabody Energy Corp. -- http://www.peabodyenergy.com/-- is a
coal company.  It sells coal to over 340 electricity generating
and industrial plants in 19 countries.  The Company owns
majority interests in 31 coal operations located throughout all
the United States coal producing regions and in Australia.  In
addition, it owns a minority interest in one Venezuelan mine,
through a joint venture arrangement.  Most of the production in
the western United States is low-sulfur coal from the Powder
River Basin.  Peabody owns and operates six mines in Queensland,
Australia, and five mines in New South Wales, Australia.


STAMPS.COM: Awaits N.Y. Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new proposed settlement relating to purported class-action
lawsuits filed against Stamps.com Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York is still pending
approval.

In 2001, the company was named, together with certain of its
current and former board members and/or officers, as a defendant
in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act in connection with the company's initial public
offering and a secondary offering of the company's common stock.

Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation, including
interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

In 2003, the company reached a proposed settlement that would
not have required it to make any payments, which was ultimately
terminated in 2007 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit determined that the class could not be certified
as defined.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and proposed an
alternative class definition in related litigation.

In 2009, the company approved a new proposed settlement which
has been documented and filed with the court for its review and
approval.  As with the company's previously proposed settlement,
this proposed settlement would not require the Company to make
any payments, 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.

Stamps.com Inc. -- http://www.stamps.com/-- is a provider of
Internet-based postage solutions.  Its customers use the
company's service to mail and ship a variety of mail pieces,
including postcards, envelopes, flats, and packages, using a
range of United States Postal Service (the USPS) mail classes
including First Class Mail, Priority Mail, Express Mail, Media
Mail, Parcel Post, and others.  The company's customers include
home businesses, small businesses, corporations, and
individuals.  It is an USPS-licensed vendor that offers personal
computer (PC) Postage in a software-only business model.


U.S. CONCRETE: Accrued $4M for Damages in Drivers' Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Concrete, Inc., at March 31, 2009, accrued $4.1 million for
potential damages associated with four separate class-action
suits pending against the company in Alameda Superior Court
(California).

The class-action suits were filed between April 6, 2007 and
Sept. 27, 2007 on behalf of various Central Concrete Supply
Company, Inc. ready-mixed concrete and transport drivers,
alleging primarily that Central failed to provide meal and rest
breaks as required under California law.

The company has entered into settlements with one of the classes
and a number of individual drivers.

The company's accrual is based on those prior settlement values,
according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
March 31, 2009.

U.S. Concrete, Inc. -- http://www.us-concrete.com/-- is a
producer of ready-mixed concrete, precast concrete products and
concrete-related products in select markets in the United
States.  The company operates its business through its ready-
mixed concrete and concrete-related products segment, and its
precast products concrete segment.  As of March 12, 2009, the
Company had 132 fixed and 12 portable ready-mixed concrete
plants, seven precast concrete plants, one concrete block plant
and seven producing aggregates facilities (including 27 fixed
ready-mixed concrete plants and one masonry block plant operated
by its 60%-owned Michigan subsidiary).  The company operates in
two business segments: ready-mixed concrete and concrete-related
products, and precast concrete products.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Alder Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The agreement in principle to settle a purported antitrust
class-action lawsuit against Weyerhaeuser Co. over alder logs
and lumber is pending approval by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon.

The suit was filed in 2004 before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon.  It claims that as a result of the
company's alleged monopolization of what was claimed to be the
alder sawlog market in the Pacific Northwest, the company also
had monopolized or controlled an alleged market for finished
alder and charged monopoly prices for finished alder lumber.

In 2004, the judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as
class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder
lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for the
purpose of awarding monetary damages.

In 2005, the class counsel notified the court that 5% of the
class members opted out of the class-action lawsuit.

In 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a
second amended complaint, extended the claims period to Dec. 31,
2006, and scheduled trial on the matter for April 2008.  In the
same year, the court denied the company's motion to decertify
the class.

Also, in 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request to file
a third amended complaint, which eliminated all allegations of
overbidding and overbuying of alder sawlogs as a mechanism to
affect the price of alder lumber.  In turn, the company filed a
motion for summary judgment.

In April 2008, a jury found in favor of the class and imposed
trebled damages of $84 million.  The company will appeal the
judgment. Post-trial motions were briefed and argued to the
court.

In March 2009, the company reached an agreement in principle
through mediation with Class Counsel to settle this matter.  The
settlement will not be final until approved by the District
Court. Proceedings in this matter that are not related to the
settlement have been suspended.

The company established a reserve of $20 million during the
first 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.

Weyerhaeuser Co. -- http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/-- is an
integrated forest products company.  The company's business
segments are Timberlands, which includes logs, chips and timber;
Wood Products, which includes softwood lumber, engineered
lumber, structural panels, hardwood lumber, and building
materials distribution; Cellulose Fibers, which comprises pulp
and liquid packaging board; Real Estate, which comprises real
estate development, construction and sales, and Corporate and
Other. The Company grows and harvests trees, builds homes, and
makes wood and paper products.  It has operations in 13
countries and has customers worldwide.  The company manages 22
million acres of forests.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AKEENA SOLAR: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf all persons or
entities who purchased shares of Akeena Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ:
AKNS) between December 26, 2007 and March 13, 2008.

     The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company
made false and misleading statements to the public with regard
to a credit line increase Akeena had received, and the complaint
also alleges Akeena misrepresented its sales figures.

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

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832


OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Milberg LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Milberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B
and/or Class C shares of the Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals
(NASDAQ: OPTAX) (NASDAQ: OTFBX) (NASDAQ: OMFCX) during the
period from May 13, 2006 to October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint charges OppenheimerFunds, Inc.,
OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the Fund and certain of its
trustees and officers with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibit materially
false and misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in the Fund.  The
Fund invests primarily in municipal securities.

     According to the complaint, during the Class Period the
Fund failed to disclose risk factors associated with the Fund's
investments, including, but not limited to:

       -- the Fund's investments in "inverse floater" securities
          that exposed it to the risk that it would be forced to
          sell, upon certain occurrences relating to the inverse
          floater securities, other securities in its portfolio
          at fire-sale prices. This amounted to hundreds of
          millions of dollars in undisclosed potential
          liabilities; and

       -- the Fund's overconcentration of investments in
          illiquid securities in violation of its cap of 15% by
          investing in illiquid tobacco bonds and ordinary
          municipal bonds/notes that could turn illiquid
          quickly.

     On October 21, 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus supplement
alerting investors of the true liquidity risks of its
investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007 and
throughout 2008. By October 2008, however, those risks had
already manifested, dealing substantial losses to investors.  On
October 21, 2008, AMT-Free Fund shares traded at approximately
$5.96 per share, down from $8.93 per share at the beginning of
the year, an approximate 33.3% decline per share for the year.
The AMT-Free Fund was among the worst performing in its peer
group.

      According to the complaint, after the end of the Class
Period, the AMT-Free Fund belatedly disclosed liabilities and
residual exposure from the inverse floaters, which investors
were not previously told about.  On December 18, 2008, the AMT-
Free Fund reported in its Quarterly Schedule of Portfolio
Holdings for the period ending October 31, 2008, filed on Form
N-Q with the SEC ("October 31, 2008 Form N-Q"), that the amount
of its exposure to the effects of leverage from its investments
in inverse floaters exceeded $240.7 million as of October 31,
2008.  In addition, the AMT-Free Fund also reported that its
municipal bond holdings with a value of approximately $402.4
million were held by Trusts created by the inverse floaters and
served as collateral for approximately $324.1 million in short-
term floating rate notes issued and outstanding at that date,
and its residual exposure to the inverse floating rate
securities was estimated at nearly $218.7 million.  The massive
liabilities and exposure of more than $500 million were not
disclosed in any Registration Statements issued during the Class
Period.

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

For more details, contact:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Ted Swiecichowski, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (800) 320-5081
          e-mail: contactus@milberg.com
          Web site: http://www.milberg.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  * * *