CAR_Public/090602.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 106

                           Headlines

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Suits v. Pharmaceutical Makers Pending
ANDY WARHOL: N.Y. Judge Allows Lawsuit Over Paintings to Proceed
APAC CUSTOMER: Faces Suit in Wisconsin Alleging FLSA Violations
ARRIS GROUP: Contesting C-COR Ex-Workers' Suit for Overtime Pay

ARVINMERITOR INC: Suits by Auto Filter Purchasers Still Pending
CHEMTURA CORP: Continues to Defend Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire
CHEMTURA CORP: June 12 Hearing Set for Deal in Securities Suit
CHEMTURA CORP: Pursuing Settlement of Suits Over Urethanes Sale
CLAYTON HOMES: Ark. Court Gives Final Approval to Suit Agreement

CME GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motions in Suits Over NYMEX Merger
CME GROUP: Ruling on Settlement of CBOT Suit Over ERPs Pending
CROSS COUNTRY: MedStaff Unit Defends Calif. Employees' Lawsuit
ELI LILLY: Faces La. Litigation Over Side Effects of Byetta Drug
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Reimbursements
MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y Judge Explains Choices in Subprime Litigation
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Eleventh Circuit Sends Case Back to Ga. Judge
OCCAM NETWORKS: Still Faces Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Defends Wage, Hour Litigation in California

PRINCETON REVIEW: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Security Incident
QWEST COMMS: Colo. Judge Gives Final OK to $695M in Settlements
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Ill. Suit Over Several Fatal Crashes
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Venue Fight Occurs in Scalping Suits
WORLD WRESTLING: Opposes Bid to Alter Dismissal of "Levy" Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MRU HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation
OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Lawsuit


                           *********

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated amended complaint with respect to derivative
claims brought on behalf of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.
remains pending, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Oct. 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et
al.," was filed against, among others, AllianceBernstein L.P.,
AllianceBernstein Holding L.P., and AllianceBernstein
Corporation.

The Hindo Complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to
disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and
other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and
"market timing" of certain of the company's U.S. mutual fund
securities, violating various securities laws.

Following Oct. 2, 2003, additional lawsuits making factual
allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint
were filed in various federal and state courts against
AllianceBernstein and certain other defendants.

On Sept. 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund
shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative
claims brought on behalf of Holding; and claims brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA") by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for
Employees of AllianceBernstein.

On April 21, 2006, AllianceBernstein and attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund
derivative claims, and ERISA claims entered into a confidential
memorandum of understanding containing their agreement to settle
these claims.  The agreement will be documented by a stipulation
of settlement and will be submitted for court approval at a
later date.  The settlement amount ($30 million), which the
company previously accrued and disclosed, has been disbursed.

The derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding, in which
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, remain
pending.

AllianceBernstein -- http://www.alliancebernstein.com/-- is an
investment manager that administers about 80 domestic and
international mutual funds.  It serves such institutional
investors as pension funds, foundations, endowments, government
entities, and insurance firms.  For retail investors, the
company provides private client services, managed accounts,
annuities, retirement plans, and college savings plans.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Suits v. Pharmaceutical Makers Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corp. continues to be a class member in
pending class-action lawsuits filed against certain brand
pharmaceutical manufacturers.

During the last several years, numerous class action lawsuits
have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical
manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in
concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent
generic drugs from entering the market.

The company has not been a named plaintiff in any of these
class-action actions, but has been a member of the direct
purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly
from these pharmaceutical manufacturers).

None of the class-action suits have gone to trial, but some have
settled in the past with the company receiving proceeds from the
settlement funds.

Currently, there are several such class actions pending in which
the company is a class member.

During the six months ended March 31, 2008, the company
recognized a gain of $1.6 million relating to the class-action
lawsuits, 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.

AmerisourceBergen Corp. -- http://www.amerisourcebergen.com/--
is a pharmaceutical services company, with operations in the
United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.  Servicing both
healthcare providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers in the
pharmaceutical supply channel, the company provides drug
distribution and related services.  It distributes an offering
of brand name and generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter
healthcare products, home healthcare supplies and equipment, and
related services to a variety of healthcare providers located in
the United States and Canada, including acute care hospitals and
health systems, independent and chain retail pharmacies,
institutional pharmacies, mail order facilities, physicians,
medical clinics, alternate site facilities and other customers.
AmerisourceBergen also provides pharmaceuticals and pharmacy
services to workers' compensation and specialty drug patients.
The company operates in two business segments: Pharmaceutical
Distribution and Other.


ANDY WARHOL: N.Y. Judge Allows Lawsuit Over Paintings to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ruled that a class-action lawsuit charging fraud and other
misconduct could proceed against the The Andy Warhol Foundation
For The Visual Arts, Inc., and the board that authenticates Mr.
Warhol's work, Randy Kennedy of The New York Times reports.

The suit was filed on July 13, 2007 on the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under the caption,
"Simon-Whelan v. The Andy Warhol Foundation For The Visual Arts,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-06423."

Aside from, The Andy Warhol Foundation For The Visual Arts,
Inc., others named as defendants in the lawsuit are, The Estate
of Andy Warhol, Vincent Fremont, Vincent Fremont Enterprises,
The Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc., John Does, Jane
Does and Richard Roes.

The New York Times reported that the litigation was filed by a
filmmaker, Joe Simon-Whelan, who bought a Warhol painting,in
1989 only to see it later declared inauthentic on two occasions
by the board, even though, he contends, Mr. Warhol's estate
determined earlier that it was real.  Mr. Simon-Whelan maintains
that beyond his case the foundation and board have conducted a
20-year conspiracy to inflate the prices for Warhol works -- and
thus the value of the foundation's holdings -- by denying the
authenticity of a certain number as a way to create artificial
scarcity.

The board and foundation have denied the accusations and sought
to have the suit dismissed, reports The New York Times.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that Mr. Simon-Whelan had
asserted his allegations "plausibly" enough for the case to
continue to the discovery phase on many of its claims, accoridng
to The New York Times report.

For more details, contact:

          Brian C. Kerr, Esq. (bkerr@bwgfirm.com)
          Browne Woods George, LLP
          49 West 37th Street
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 354-4901
          Fax: (212) 354-4904

          Seth Eric Redniss, Esq. (sr@redniss.com)
          Redniss & Associates, LLC
          185 Franklin Street
          5th Flr.
          New York, NY 10013
          Phone: (212) 334-9200

               - and -

          Gary Douglas Sesser, Esq. (sesser@clm.com)
          Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
          2 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-732-3200
          Fax: 212-732-3232


APAC CUSTOMER: Faces Suit in Wisconsin Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
APAC Customer Services, Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit claiming that workers worked up to 45 minutes a day on
"essential company tasks" without pay, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Kevin Murphy of The La Crosse
Tribune reports.

The suit was filed on May 26, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin Tiffany Sharpe, under the
caption, "Sharpe v. APAC Customer Services, Inc., Case No.
3:2009-cv-00329."

According to George Hanson, Esq., the plaintiff's attorney, APAC
has a company-wide policy that requires workers to log onto
their computers, review work notices, and complete other
"essential tasks," before their shift and compensation begins.
"The typical amount of time they're not compensated on a daily
basis is 45 minutes," Mr. Hanson said, The La Crosse Tribune
reported.

The suit claims the employees are required to continually update
themselves with frequently changing billing rates, equipment
prices and repair policies in order to answer questions from
client customers.  However, time spent reviewing the notices and
training material generally is not recorded or compensated, The
La Crosse Tribune reports.

Instead, the employees are expected to update themselves before
or after their shifts or while on breaks, according to The La
Crosse Tribune report.

In addition to seeking damages for uncompensated hours worked in
the past three years, the suit also seeks a court order to
prohibit APAC from further violations of state and federal wage
laws, reports The La Crosse Tribune.

For more details, contact:

          Daniel Bach, Esq. (dbach@lawtoncates.com)
          Lawton & Cates, S.C.
          10 East Doty Street, Ste. 400
          P.O. Box 2965
          Madison, WI 53701
          Phone: (608) 282-6200


ARRIS GROUP: Contesting C-COR Ex-Workers' Suit for Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARRIS Group, Inc. continues to contest the class-action suit
filed by sixteen former employees of a former subsidiary of C-
COR, Inc., according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The company acquired C-COR in late 2008.

In February 2008, a Fair Labor Standards Act suit was filed
against the former subsidiary of C-COR and C-COR alleging that
the plaintiffs were not properly paid for overtime.

The suit was filed as a class action and the proposed class
could include 1,000 cable installers and field technicians.

ARRIS Group, Inc. -- http://www.arrisi.com/-- is a global
communications technology company specializing in integrated
broadband network solutions that include products, systems and
software for content and operations management, and professional
services.  It develops, manufactures and supplies cable
telephony, video and high-speed data equipment.  In addition, it
is a supplier of infrastructure products used by cable system
operators to build-out and maintain Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial (HFC)
networks.  It provides products and equipments to cable system
operators and multiple systems operators (MSOs).  Its products
allow MSOs and other broadband service providers to deliver a
range of integrated voice, video and high-speed data services to
their subscribers.


ARVINMERITOR INC: Suits by Auto Filter Purchasers Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. continues to face claims raised in several
purported class-actions filed on behalf of purchasers of
filters, 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 29, 2009.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including a prior
subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix
prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket
automotive filters.

This suit is a purported class-action on behalf of direct
purchasers of filters from the defendants.

Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of
indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other
plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States
and Canada.

On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida
filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois based on these same allegations.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- is a
global supplier of a range of integrated systems, modules and
components serving commercial truck, light vehicle, trailer and
specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and certain
aftermarkets.  ArvinMeritor serves a range of OEM customers
worldwide, including truck OEMs, light vehicle OEMs, trailer
producers and specialty vehicle manufacturers, and certain
aftermarkets.  The company operated 82 manufacturing facilities
in 22 countries worldwide as of Sept. 30, 2008, including
facilities operated by joint ventures, in which it has
interests.  Sales from continuing operations outside North
America accounted for approximately 59% of total sales from
continuing operations in fiscal 2008.


CHEMTURA CORP: Continues to Defend Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. continues to defend several purported class-
action lawsuits in connection with a fire that struck its
Conyers, Georgia warehouse on May 25, 2004.

The company and certain of its former officers and employees
were named as defendants in five putative state class action
suits filed in three counties in Georgia and one putative class
-action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia pertaining to the fire.  These lawsuits seek
recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly
suffered as a result of the fire (Class Action Reporter, May 4,
2007).

Of the five putative state class-action lawsuits, the plaintiffs
in two cases voluntarily dismissed theirs, leaving three
lawsuits remaining.

These remaining putative state class-action lawsuits, as well as
the putative class-action suit pending in federal district court
seek recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly
arising from the fire.

Punitive damages are sought in the Davis case in Rockdale
County, Georgia and the Martin case in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  The Martin case also
seeks a declaratory judgment to reform certain settlements, as
well as medical monitoring and injunctive relief.

No further developments regarding the matter were reported by
the company in its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a producer of
specialty chemicals and polymer products, and a supplier of home
pool and spa chemicals in the U.S.


CHEMTURA CORP: June 12 Hearing Set for Deal in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 12, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the
settlement in the consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
captioned "In Re Crompton Corp Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:03-cv-01293-EBB," according to Chemtura 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 lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its
former officers and directors (Crompton Individual Defendants),
and certain former directors of the company's predecessor, Witco
Corp., on July 20, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.  It was brought by the plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all purchasers or
acquirers of the company's stock between October 1998 and
October 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the
company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the
company to issue false and misleading statements that violated
the federal securities laws by reporting inflated financial
results resulting from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price-
fixing conspiracy.

The putative class includes former Witco Corp. shareholders who
acquired their securities in the Crompton Corp.-Witco merger
pursuant to a registration statement that allegedly contained
misstated financial results.

The complaint asserts claims against the company and the
Crompton Individual Defendants under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs also assert claims for control person liability
under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Section
20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Crompton Individual Defendants.

The complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against certain former directors of Witco Corp. for actions they
allegedly took as Witco Corp. directors in connection with the
Crompton-Witco merger.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on Sept. 17, 2004, which motion is now fully
briefed and pending.  The former directors of Witco Corp. filed
a motion to dismiss in February 2005, which motion is pending.

On July 22, 2005, the court granted a motion by the company and
the Crompton Individual Defendants to stay discovery in the
related Connecticut shareholder derivative lawsuit, pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss by the company and Crompton
Individual Defendants.

On April 30, 2008, the parties entered a memorandum of
understanding to settle the lawsuit.  Under the proposed
settlement, the defendants will pay or cause to be paid $21
million and deny any wrongdoing or liability.

On Nov. 28, 2008, the parties signed a settlement agreement.
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement on Dec. 12, 2008 and scheduled a June 12, 2009 final
approval hearing.  The settlement, agreement provided for
payment by or on behalf of defendants of $21 million.

The suit is "In Re Crompton Corp Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:03-cv-01293-EBB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Ellen Bree Burns, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nancy@snlaw.net)
        Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq. (jnobel@snlaw.net)
        Schatz & Nobel
        One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700
        Hartford, CT 06103
        Phone: 860-493-6292
        Fax: 860-493-6290

Representing the defendants are:

         Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com)
         Robinson & Cole
         280 Trumbull St.
         Hartford, CT 06103-3597
         Phone: 860-275-8209
         Fax: 860-275-8299

         Andrew J. Frackman, Esq. (afrackman@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
         7 Times Square
         New York, NY 10033
         Phone: 212-326-2000
         Fax: 212-326-2061

              - and -

         Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. (tdgoldberg@dbh.com)
         Day, Berry & Howard
         One Canterbury Green
         Stamford, CT 06901-2047
         Phone: 203-977-7383
         Fax: 203-977-7301


CHEMTURA CORP: Pursuing Settlement of Suits Over Urethanes Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. continues to pursue settlement of several
purported antitrust class-action lawsuits involving the sale of
urethanes and urethane chemicals, according to its May 8, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Chemtura Corp. and its subsidiary, Uniroyal Chemical Company,
Inc. -- now merged into Chemtura Corp. -- were named as
defendants in certain indirect purchaser antitrust class-action
lawsuits filed in state courts involving the sale of urethanes
and urethane chemicals.

The complaints in these actions principally allege that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
for urethanes and urethane chemicals, sold in the U.S. in
violation of certain antitrust statutes and consumer protection
and unfair or deceptive practices laws of the relevant
jurisdictions and that this caused injury to the plaintiffs who
paid artificially inflated prices for such products as a result
of such alleged anticompetitive activities.

There are currently 13 state complaints pending.

On Sept. 12, 2008, the company received final court approval of
a settlement agreement covering one of these actions.

In addition, on Dec. 23, 2008, the company received preliminary
court approval of a settlement agreement covering the remaining
12 complaints, all of which are pending in a coordinated
proceeding in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Francisco.

Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a global
producer of specialty chemicals and polymer products and
supplier of home pool and spa chemicals.  The products are used
in a variety of markets, including automotive, transportation,
construction, packaging, agriculture, lubricants, plastics for
durable and non-durable goods, electronics and the home pool and
spa chemical markets.  The segments of the company include
Polymer Additives, Performance Specialties, Consumer Products,
Crop Protection, and Other.


CLAYTON HOMES: Ark. Court Gives Final Approval to Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit alleging mobile home manufacturer Clayton
Homes, Inc. profited by reselling wheels and axles to recyclers
has been settled, Lynn LaRowe of The Texarkana Gazette reports.

On May 29, 2009, Circuit Judge Kirk Johnson of Arkansas' 8th
Judicial District South, which serves Miller and Lafayette
counties, gave final approval to an agreement that ends the
court's involvement in the suit against Clayton Homes, according
to The Texarkana Gazette report.


CME GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motions in Suits Over NYMEX Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
CME Group, Inc. awaits the Delaware Court of Chancery's decision
on all outstanding motions in purported class-action lawsuits
filed in connection with the proposed sale of NYMEX Holdings,
Inc., to the company.

There are two purported class action complaints pending against
the former NYMEX Holdings, the former NYMEX Holdings board of
directors and CME Group in the Delaware Court of Chancery
related to the merger between CME Group and NYMEX Holdings.

The first complaint, amended as of Oct. 6, 2008, is a purported
consolidated class action on behalf of former NYMEX Holdings'
shareholders, which alleges, among other things, that the NYMEX
Holdings board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the merger agreement by exclusively negotiating a
transaction with CME Group without regard to the fairness of the
transaction to the NYMEX Holdings shareholders, failing to take
steps to maximize shareholder value, capping the minimum price
of NYMEX Holdings' stock, failing to properly value NYMEX
Holdings, making changes to NYMEX Holdings' change of control
severance plan weeks before announcing that it was engaged in
discussions with CME Group, requiring the Class A members to
execute a waiver and release that allegedly is coercive because
it is intended to deprive them of their rights to participate in
this lawsuit as well as their rights to past, present and future
royalty payments under Section 311(G) of the former bylaws of
NYMEX, and failing to fully disclose material information
related to the merger, including financial information and
information necessary to prevent statements contained in the
preliminary proxy from being misleading.  The shareholder
complaint further alleges that CME Group aided and abetted the
alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The shareholder plaintiffs initially sought to enjoin the
merger; however, they pulled the preliminary injunction hearing
from the court's calendar on Aug. 5, 2008 after becoming
satisfied that there had been adequate disclosures by NYMEX
Holdings and CME Group.  The shareholder plaintiffs now seek
damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and a
declaration that the waiver and release is invalid and
unenforceable.  On Oct. 24, 2008, CME Group moved to dismiss the
shareholder plaintiffs' complaint.

The second complaint, amended as of Sept. 18, 2008, is a
purported consolidated class action on behalf of NYMEX Class A
members which alleges claims substantially similar to those
raised in the shareholder complaint.  The member plaintiff
initially sought to enjoin the merger; however, she pulled the
preliminary injunction hearing from the court's calendar on Aug.
5, 2008 after becoming satisfied that there had been adequate
disclosures by NYMEX Holdings and CME Group.  The member
plaintiff now seeks damages for the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties and a declaration that the waiver and release
is invalid and unenforceable.  On Sept. 22, 2008, CME Group
filed a motion to dismiss and stay discovery.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the member plaintiff, jointly with the
shareholder plaintiffs, filed a motion for declaratory judgment
and requested an expedited hearing on their motions.  On Oct. 2,
2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request for expedition
and granted CME Group's request to stay discovery in both
actions.  On March 17, 2009, the court heard all outstanding
motions (the company's motion for summary judgment and motion to
dismiss and the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment).  The company is currently awaiting the court's
decision, 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.

CME Group Inc. -- http://www.cmegroup.com/-- formerly Chicago
Mercantile Exchange Holdings Inc., offers a range of products
available across all asset classes, including futures and
options on futures based on interest rates, equity indexes,
foreign exchange, agricultural commodities and alternative
investments, such as weather and real estate.  The Company is
the holding company for Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., Board
of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., and their subsidiaries.


CME GROUP: Ruling on Settlement of CBOT Suit Over ERPs Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CME Group Inc. awaits the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware's ruling on the settlement of a putative class-action
lawsuit filed by CBOT Holdings, Inc. and the Board of Trade of
the City of Chicago, Inc. (CBOT), along with a class consisting
of certain CBOT full members, against the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc. (CBOE).

On Aug. 23, 2006, CBOT Holdings and CBOT, along with a class
consisting of certain CBOT full members, filed a lawsuit against
CBOE, seeking to enforce and protect the exercise right
privileges (ERP).

The lawsuit alleges that these ERPs allow CBOT's full members
who hold them to become full members of CBOE and to participate
on an equal basis with other members of CBOE in CBOE's announced
plans to demutualize.

On June 2, 2008, the parties reached a settlement in principle.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, holders of ERPs could
submit a claim to participate in the settlement as a Class A or
Class B settlement participant up until Oct. 14, 2008.

Participating Class A members will share in an equity pool equal
to 18 percent of the total common stock issued by CBOE in its
demutualization and will share in a cash pool of up to $300.0
million, subject to a cap of $600,000 per individual.

Participating Class B members would be paid $250,000 per ERP.

In December 2008, the judge heard objections to the proposed
settlement.  The company is currently awaiting the court's
ruling on the approval of the settlement, according to CME
Group's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

In connection with the CBOT Holdings merger, the company
provided holders of ERPs the option of tendering their ERP to
the company for $250,000 payable following the closing of the
merger or to participate in the CBOE lawsuit with a guaranteed
payment of up to $250,000 from the company if the lawsuit
results in a recovery of less than that amount.  The maximum
possible aggregate payment under the company's guarantee,
assuming that all outstanding ERPs are paid $250,000 by the
company, is $293.0 million.

CME Group Inc. -- http://www.cmegroup.com/-- formerly Chicago
Mercantile Exchange Holdings Inc., offers a range of products
available across all asset classes, including futures and
options on futures based on interest rates, equity indexes,
foreign exchange, agricultural commodities and alternative
investments, such as weather and real estate.  The Company is
the holding company for Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., Board
of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., and their subsidiaries.


CROSS COUNTRY: MedStaff Unit Defends Calif. Employees' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.'s MedStaff subsidiary defends a
purported class-action lawsuit styled, "Maureen Petray and
Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc.," in the Superior Court of
California in Riverside County.

On Feb. 18, 2005, the company's MedStaff subsidiary became the
subject of the purported class-action lawsuit, which only
relates to MedStaff corporate employees working in California.

The claims alleged under this lawsuit are generally similar in
nature to those brought by Darrelyn Renee Henry in a lawsuit
against the company, which was dismissed (Darrelyn Renee Henry
vs. MedStaff, Inc., et. al.).

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and
penalties.

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, MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate
employees in California.

The Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, purport to
sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
and allege that MedStaff failed, under California law, to
provide meal periods and rest breaks and pay for those missed
meal periods and rest breaks; failed to compensate the employees
for all hours worked; failed to compensate the employees for
working overtime; failed to keep appropriate records to keep
track of time worked; failed to pay Plaintiffs and their
purported class as required by law.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining MedStaff
from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint and
for full restitution of all monies, for interest, for certain
penalties provided for by the California Labor Code and for
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Feb. 5, 2007, the court granted class certification.

On Oct. 16, 2008, MedStaff filed a Motion to Decertify the
class, which was denied on Dec. 19, 2008.

Boca Raton, Fla.-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. -- http://
www.crosscountryhealthcare.com/ -- provides healthcare staffing
services.  The company offers a suite of staffing and
outsourcing services to the healthcare market, which include
being a national provider of nurse and allied staffing services
and multi-specialty locum tenens services; a provider of
clinical trials services to global pharmaceutical and
biotechnology customers; and a provider of other human capital
management services focused on healthcare.


ELI LILLY: Faces La. Litigation Over Side Effects of Byetta Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co., Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. and Amylin-Lilly
Partnership are facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging
that they failed to warn that their diabetes drug, Byetta, can
cause sometimes-fatal pancreatitis, The Courthouse News Service
reports.

The suit was filed on May 28, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana under the caption,
"Jackson v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-
03672."

Ralph Jackson, who is represented by Michael Hinglem, Esq. Of
Slidell, La., claims that post-marketing reports to the FDA in
2008 revealed six cases of hemorrhagic of necrotizing
pancreatitis, two fatal, and all requiring hospitalization,
according to The Courthouse News Service report.

Mr. Jackson claims a 2007 FDA review showed 30 reports of acute
pancreatitis "and suspected an association between Byetta and
acute pancreatitis."  He says the FDA asked the defendants to
include "stronger warnings for acute pancreatitis," but the
defendants' 2007 label mentioned only "acute pancreatitis,"
without warning of its severity, and no "warning or precautions
whatsoever regarding acute hemorrhagic and necrotizing
pancreatitis," The Courthouse News Service reported.

The plaintiff later claims the FDA asked the defendants again in
2008 for "stronger and more prominent warnings with Byetta," but
they still failed to disclose the risk of acute hemorrhagic and
necrotizing pancreatitis, reports The Courthouse News Service.

According to the complaint, which demand refunds, disgorgement,
stronger warning labels and punitive damages, more than 4
million prescriptions for Byetta have been written, The
Courthouse News Service reports.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d73

For more details, contact:

          Waldon Michael Hingle, Esq. (servewmh@hinglelaw.com)
          Michael Hingle & Associates, Inc. (Slidell)
          220 Gause Blvd.
          Suite 200
          P.O. Box 1129
          Slidell, LA 70459
          Phone: 985-641-6800


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
iStar Financial, Inc. seeks to dismiss a consolidated amended
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

                     Citiline Litigation

On April 14, 2008, Citiline Holdings, Inc., filed a suit on
behalf of purchasers of common stock in iStar's Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

                    Christenson Litigation

On April 24, 2008, Dennis Christenson filed suit on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock on its Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

Both suits were purportedly filed on behalf of the same putative
class of investors who purchased common stock in the Company's
Dec. 13, 2007 public offering.

The two complaints were consolidated on April 30, 2008.

On June 13, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings, Inc. filed an unopposed Motion for
Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and their chosen counsel as
Lead Counsel, which was granted by the Court on Nov. 17, 2008.

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on Feb. 2,
2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of investors who
purchased iStar common stock between Dec. 6, 2007 and March 6,
2008 (the "Complaint").

The Complaint named as defendants the company, certain of its
current and former executive officers, and certain investment
banks who served as underwriters in the company's Offering.

The Complaint reasserted claims for alleged violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and added claims for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

Plaintiffs allege the defendants made certain material
misstatements and omissions relating to the company's continuing
operations, specifically with regard to the deterioration in the
value of the company's loan portfolio and certain debt
securities held by the company  during the fourth quarter of
2007.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees, and
rescission of the public offering.

No class has been certified and discovery has not begun.  The
company and its current and former officers filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint on April 27, 2009, 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.

iStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.istarfinancial.com/-- is a
finance company focused on the commercial real estate industry.
The company provides custom-tailored financing to private and
corporate owners of real estate, including senior and mezzanine
real estate debt, senior and mezzanine corporate capital,
corporate net lease financing and equity.  It has two primary
lines of business: lending and corporate tenant leasing.  Its
primary sources of revenues are interest income, which is the
interest that borrowers pay on loans, and operating lease
income, which is the rent that corporate customers pay to lease
corporate tenant lease properties.  The lending business
primarily consists of senior and mezzanine real estate loans
that range in size from $20 million to $150 million, and have
maturities ranging from 3 to 10 years.  The company's corporate
tenant leasing business provides capital to corporations and
others who control facilities leased primarily to single credit-
worthy customers.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan faces a purported class-action
lawsuit accusing the plan of not reimburse policyholders for
their co-payments after getting third-party settlements, and
thus pocketing more money than it is actually owed, Maria Dinzeo
of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on May 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by Nicole Glaus, under
the caption, "Glaus v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Case No.
3:2009-cv-02232."

Ms. Glaus claims that Kaiser refused to credit her for the co-
payment she made when she was treated for injuries from a car
accident. She says Kaiser demanded reimbursement from the
settlement from her personal injury action against the driver
who rear-ended her, according to The Courthouse News Service
report.

According to Ms. Glaus, Kaiser was required to reimburse her for
her co-payment under terms of its own policy handbook, reports
The Courthouse News Service.

"Kaiser is breaking its own rules by taking money they're not
entitled to," the plaintiff's lead attorney Daniel Feinberg,
Esq., of Oakland told The Courthouse News Service.

The proposed class, which Feinberg estimates in the thousands,
asks that Kaiser be ordered to repay them for co-payments, and
be enjoined from violating its own policies, The Courthouse News
Service reported.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d74


MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y Judge Explains Choices in Subprime Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a 12-page opinion explaining why he
chose the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
(MissPERS) and its lawyers from Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann to lead a securities class-action lawsuit brought on
behalf of investors who purchased certificates backed by pools
of subprime mortgages from Merrill Lynch, Andrew Longstreth of
The Litigation Daily reports.

John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reported that on April 23, 2009,
Judge Rakoff appointed the Public Employees' Retirement System
of Mississippi in a lawsuit against a group of financial
institutions.  The judge also named the pension fund and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman of New York, as lead
plaintiff and lead counsel in a case that includes Merrill Lynch
and J.P. Morgan and those who sold mortgage-backed certificates
to investors, according to the Legal Newsline report (Class
Action Reporter, May 18, 2009).

According to The Litigation Daily report, in early April,
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins and Bernstein Litowitz
were vying to become lead counsel in the case.  However, at a
hearing that month Judge Rakoff was shocked upon learning that
Coughlin Stoia has a monitoring agreement with its client -- the
Iron Workers Local 25 -- in which the firm notifies the pension
fund about potential securities litigation opportunities its
investment portfolio offers.  "If that isn't a gross conflict of
interest in violation of the most elementary fiduciary duties, I
don't see what is," the judge had  said.

In his recently issued 12-page opinion, Judge Rakoff explained
that the "choice presented a classic dilemma, in the sense of a
choice between two less-than-perfect plaintiffs," reports The
Litigation Daily.

His opinion contends that Coughlin Stoia's monitoring agreement
with the Iron Workers fosters the sort of tactics the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act was supposed to curtail.  It
also voices skepticism that the Iron Workers' administrator
could adequately oversee the litigation.  "The court, from its
own observation of the testimony and demeanor of the fund's
administrator, readily perceived that he was not particularly
sophisticated in evaluating securities class actions and,
indeed, had only a rough idea of what this lawsuit was all
about," Judge Rakoff wrote.  "But who were the 'sophisticated
advisers, financial and legal,' who would advise him and the
fund 'in determining whether to bring suit'? Why, the very
lawyers who would be bringing the suit, Coughlin Stoia," The
Litigation Daily reported.

MissPERS, Judge Rakoff conceded in his ruling, has a similar
monitoring agreement with its law firms.  But on the key issue
Coughlin Stoia raised against MissPERS in the lead plaintiff
fight -- that the Mississippi fund had violated a provision in
the PSLRA that restricts a party from serving as lead plaintiff
in more than five class actions in any three-year period --
Judge Rakoff did not find compelling evidence to disqualify the
Bernstein Litowitz client.  In fact, Coughlin Stoia's argument
appears to have backfired completely, given Judge Rakoff's
comparison of its client's qualifications with those of
MissPERS, according to The Litigation Daily.

"It would seem that [the PSLRA's restrictive] provision might
apply with less force when the plaintiff is a state agency," the
judge wrote.  "After all, a state regularly brings suit in
hundreds of cases--and, as already noted, in this case, where
the alternative lead plaintiff, the Iron Workers Fund, seems to
have little expertise in handling such cases, the accumulated
experience of MissPERS in pursuing multiple securities fraud
actions seems a benefit more than a detriment," The Litigation
Daily reports.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Eleventh Circuit Sends Case Back to Ga. Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit by Mohawk Industries, Inc. workers claiming the
company depressed wages by hiring illegal immigrants has been
returned to a federal judge to reconsider his denial of class-
action status, The Fort Mill Times reports.

On May 28, 2009, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit ruled that Judge Harold Murphy of U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia erred in deciding
there were no predominate common issues among thousands of
employees at various Mohawk plants to constitute a class.  A
three-judge panel said Judge Murphy needs to consider expert
testimony, according to The Fort Mill Times report.

Four plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in January 2004.  The case,
captioned, "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. Case No.
4:04-cv-00003-HLM," purports that the plaintiffs are former and
current employees of the company and that the actions and
conduct of the company, including the employment of persons who
are not permitted to work in the U.S., have damaged them and the
other members of the purported class by suppressing the wages of
the company's hourly employees in Georgia (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 18, 2008).

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including:

      -- treble damages;
      -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and
      -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

According to the original complaint, the company sent its
employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville,
Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the
U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North
Georgia.

The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the company.  It even charges that although some of
the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped
others evade detection.

Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under
different names.  It claims that the company destroyed documents
in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal
workers.

One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to
inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers,
thereby depressing wages.  Another was to reduce the number and
expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal
employees are unlikely to file," the suit states.

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was denied by the District Court in April 2004.
Following appellate review, the case was returned to the
District Court and discovery began.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.

On March 3, 2008, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
class certification motion.  The plaintiffs then appealed the
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on
March 17, 2008.  Discovery has been stayed at the District Court
while the appeal is pending.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No.
4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Georgia, Judge Harold L. Murphy, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bobby Lee Cook, Esq. (LisaDodd@alltel.net)
         Cook & Connelly
         P.O. Box 370
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370
         Phone: 706-857-3421

              - and -

         Ronan P. Doherty, Esq. (doherty@bmelaw.com)
         John Earl Floyd, Esq. (floyd@bmelaw.com)
         Nicole G. Iannarone, Esq. (iannarone@bmelaw.com)
         Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq. (thorpe@bmelaw.com)
         Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
         1201 West Peachtree St., N.W.
         3900 One Atlantic Ctr.
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
         Phone: 404-881-4100

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Thomas Cottreau, Esq. (scottreau@sidley.com)
         Juan P. Morillo, Esq. (jmorillo@sidley.com)
         Virginia A. Seitz, Esq. (vseitz@sidley.com)
         Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
         1501 K. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000

              - and -

         R. Carl Cannon, Esq. (ccannon@constangy.com)
         Rosemary C. Lumpkins, Esq. (rlumpkins@constangy.com)
         Constangy Brooks & Smith
         230 Peachtree St., N.W.
         2400 Peachtree Center Tower
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1557
         Phone: 404-525-8622


OCCAM NETWORKS: Still Faces Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Occam Networks, Inc. continues to face an amended complaint in
the consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class-action
complaints were filed before the district court against the
company and certain of its officers.  The complaints allege that
the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect revenue recognition.

The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf
of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the
period from May 2, 2006, and April 17, 2007.

On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated the
actions into a single case, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund --
The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  This consolidated complaint adds as defendants
certain of the company's current and former directors and
officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead
underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006,
and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the
company.

The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated
sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that
required restatement.

The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during the period from
April 29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified
amount.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On July 1, 2008, Judge Christina A.
Snyder issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motions.  This order dismissed all claims against
certain of the company's current and former directors, the 20A
claim in its entirety, the section 10(b) claim against the
auditors and venture capital firms, and the section 11 claims
against the venture capital firms.

On July 16, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
to conform to the court's July 1 order.  Defendants answered
this amended complaint on Aug. 29, 2008.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit were disclosed by the
company in its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

The suit is "Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-02750," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-785-0800

               - and -

          Matthew Isaac Alpert, Esq. (malpert@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants are:

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300

               - and -

          Philip T. Besirof, Esq. (pbesirof@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-6091


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Defends Wage, Hour Litigation in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-
action lawsuit by Charlia Cornish, alleging class-wide wage and
hour issues at its California hospice programs, according to its
May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2009.

The suit was filed on Nov. 6, 2008, in Superior Court of
California, Los, Angeles County.  It alleges failure to provide
overtime compensation, meal and break periods, accurate itemized
wage statements, and timely payment of wages earned upon leaving
employment.

The purported class includes all persons employed by the Company
in California as an admission nurse, a case manager registered
nurse, a licensed vocational nurse, a registered nurse, a home
health aide, a medical social worker, a triage coordinator, an
office manager, a patient care secretary or a spiritual
counselor at anytime on or after Nov. 6, 2004.

The lawsuit seeks payment of unpaid wages, damages, interest,
penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2009, the company successfully moved the lawsuit to
Federal District Court in the Central District of California.

Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- is a
provider of hospice care in the U.S. in terms of both patient
census and number of Medicare-certified hospice programs. On
March 6, 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of
VistaCare, Inc.  After the completion of the VistaCare
acquisition, it serves approximately 12,000 patients and their
families each day through approximately 110 Medicare-certified
hospice locations in 30 states.


PRINCETON REVIEW: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Security Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Princeton Review, Inc., in April 2009, entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle a putative class-action
suit relating to a security incident that occurred in August
2008.

In August 2008, the Company learned that certain of its web
pages that appeared to contain confidential information were
available to the public on the Internet for a short period of
time ("Security Incident").

On Sept. 19, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit captioned,
"Virginia B. Townsend v. The Princeton Review, Inc. (Case No.
8:08-CIV-1879-T-33TBM)," was filed against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division relating to the Security Incident alleging negligence,
breach of contract and unfair trade practices.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief including the provision of personal data monitoring and
identify theft insurance and unspecified enhancement of the
security of the Company's computer data systems, together with
attorneys' fees and costs.

In April 2009, the parties have entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the litigation.  Under the memorandum of
understanding, subject to the approval by the Court of a
definitive settlement agreement, the company will provide a
specified identity protection service to the class members that
elect to participate and pay the fees and expenses of
plaintiffs' counsel as approved by the Court.  The company said
that it believes that the full cost of the settlement will be
within the limits of its applicable insurance policies,
according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
29, 2009.

The Princeton Review, Inc. -- http://www.princetonreview.com/--
provides integrated classroom-based, print and online products
and services that address the needs of students, parents,
educators and educational institutions.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated through the three divisions:
the Test Preparation Services division, which provides
classroom-based, as well as online test preparation courses; the
Supplemental Education Services (SES) division, which provides
tutoring and No Child Left Behind supplemental educational
services, and the K-12 Services division, which provides a range
of services to K-12 schools and school districts to help primary
and secondary school students and teachers improve academic
performance, including online and print-based assessment,
professional development and materials to support school-based
intervention programs.  In July 2008, the Company completed the
acquisition of The Princeton Review of Orange County, Inc.


QWEST COMMS: Colo. Judge Gives Final OK to $695M in Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado gave final approval to $695 million in
settlements to shareholders suing Qwest Communications
International, Inc. for securities fraud, Robert Boczkiewicz of
Reuters reports.

Shareholders, predominantly pension funds, filed numerous class-
action lawsuits beginning 2001 when multibillion dollar
accounting discrepancies began surfacing, according to the
Reuters report.

The investors had reached a proposed settlement with Qwest of
$400 million in 2005.  But payment of that sum was held up by
appeals by the company's former chief executive and chief
financial officer, reports Reuters.

In August 2008, former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio and former CFO
Robert Woodruff agreed to add an extra $5 million from insurance
proceeds to the settlement, while Qwest pitched in another $40
million, Reuters reported.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also contributed
$250 million to the settlement pot, after Qwest paid the
commission $250 million to settle a similar securities fraud
lawsuit the SEC had filed earlier, according to Reuters.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Ill. Suit Over Several Fatal Crashes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. is facing a purported class-action suit
in connection to several fatal crashes in the 1980s and 1990s,
The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Chancery Department, First District by Barb Jozwick, Billie
Beason, and Terry Beason, who are represented in the case by
attorney Aaron Radbil, Esq. with Krohn & Moss.

According to the suit, the company flew 46 Boeing 737s on more
than 60,000 flights though they were long overdue for fuselage-
crack inspections, and six of them did have cracks.  The
plaintiffs claim the defects caused the crashes, The Courthouse
News Service reported.

The suit claims Southwest repeatedly violated FAA safety rules
but got away with it due to its cozy relationship with FAA
inspectors, reports The Courthouse News Service.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d72

For more details, contact:

          Aaron Radbil, Esq. (aradbil@consumerlawcenter.com)
          Krohn & Moss, Ltd.
          Phone: 1-800-875-3666
          Web site: http://www.krohnandmoss.com/


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Venue Fight Occurs in Scalping Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A venue battle has broken out in the mounting litigation over
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.'s alleged practice of
redirecting online shoppers for concert tickets to the Web site
of a subsidiary, TicketsNow.com, Inc., that sells them at a big
markup, Charles Toutant of The New Jersey Law Journal reports.

In recent months, 10 putative class-action suits have been filed
in federal courts in six states.  Three are in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, where the plaintiffs'
lawyers are asking the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer the other seven, according to The New
Jersey Law Journal report.

However, Ticketmaster, which is based in California, moved to
dismiss the New Jersey cases as duplicative, or, in the
alternate, to transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, where the earliest suits were
filed, reports The New Jersey Law Journal.

Four other suit have been filed, in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, and North Carolina, The New Jersey Law Journal
reported.

John Keefe, Jr., Esq., the plaintiffs' lawyer in the first of
the three New Jersey suits, which is captioned, "Vining v.
Ticketmaster, Case No. 2:09-cv-2096," said in petition filed
with the MDL panel that New Jersey is the proper venue because
the suits were prompted by the state's investigation of the
Springsteen tickets after customers complained to the New Jersey
Attorney General's Office about Bruce Springsteen tickets,
according to The New Jersey Law Journal report.

His petition also pointed out that an ongoing investigation by
the Attorney General's Office into the company's practices,
which involves other tickets besides those of the Bruce
Springsteen concert, is a big factor in venue choice.

Mr. Keefe is joined on the petition by the lawyers in the two
other N.J. cases, William Mergner Jr., Esq. of Leary, Bride,
Tinker & Moran of Cedar Knolls and Bruce Nagel, Esq. of Nagel
Rice in Roseland, The New Jersey Law Journal reports.

However, Ticketmaster countered that the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California said New Jersey District
Judge Frieda Wolfson could use her inherent power to dismiss the
New Jersey cases as duplicative, reports The New Jersey Law
Journal.

The company's attorney, Kenneth Friedman, Esq. of Manatt, Phelps
& Phillips in New York, also moved before Judge Wolfson to
transfer the New Jersey cases to California, saying the three
cases pending there were filed before the others, reports The
New Jersey Law Journal.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported that Mr. Friedman cited the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's First Filed
Doctrine, which holds that the court of first filing decides the
matter in cases of concurrent jurisdiction with the same parties
and issues.

In addition, the company said that because its West Hollywood
headquarters is within the Central District of California, its
personnel would be inconvenienced by a New Jersey venue.  It
also said, that two non-party, crucial witnesses, the company's
former president and former chief financial officer, could not
be compelled to testify in New Jersey, The New Jersey Law
Journal reports.

According to The New Jersey Law Journal, Mr. Keefe dismisses
Ticketmaster's emphasis on the First Filed Doctrine, saying it
is not a "doctrine the MDL court gives great weight to.  They
look at the totality of the circumstances."


WORLD WRESTLING: Opposes Bid to Alter Dismissal of "Levy" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. opposes a motion to alter or
amend and/or for relief from judgment dismissing a purported
class-action suit filed by former independent contract wrestlers
who claimed the organization cheated them out of health care and
other benefits.

The wrestlers -- Scott "Raven" Levy, Christopher "Kanyon"
Klucsarits and "Above Average" Michael Sanders -- said the level
of control exerted over them by the WWE qualified them as full-
time employees.

The plaintiffs -- who sought class-action status -- claim that
they signed contracts that dictated their compensation, physical
training regimens, dates and sites of matches, costumes and
storylines for their wrestling personae.  WWE also reserved the
right to use their images and submitted them to drug screenings,
the wrestlers said.

According to the suit, the WWE avoided withholding federal taxes
from their paychecks by not classifying them as full-time
employees.  The company did not pay Social Security and Medicare
taxes, nor did it pay for performers' benefits such as health
care and vacation time, the suit said.

The suit was filed in July 2008 in state Superior Court and then
was moved to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

On Feb. 24, 2009, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss, dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims with
prejudice.

On March 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or
amend and/or for relief from judgment.

The company filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion on
March 31, 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.

The suit is "Levy et al v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-01289-PCD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, Judge Peter C. Dorsey,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David S. Golub, Esq. (dgolub@sgtlaw.com)
          Silver, Golub & Teitell
          184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389
          Stamford, CT 06904
          Phone: 203-325-4491
          Fax: 203-325-3769

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Hosking, Esq. (richard.hosking@klgates.com)
          K & L Gates, LLP-PA
          Henry W. Oliver Building
          535 Smithfield Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2312
          Phone: 412-355-8612
          Fax: 412-355-6501

               - and -

          Douglas W. Bartinik, Esq. (dwbartinik@daypitney.com)
          Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT
          242 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-1212
          Phone: 860-275-0278
          Fax: 860-275-0343


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MRU HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of all purchasers of MRU Holdings, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: UNCLQ)
formerly (NASDAQ: UNCL) securities during the period between
July 9, 2007 and September 18, 2008, inclusive.

     The Complaint alleges that certain of MRU's officers and
directors violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false statements to
the marketplace concerning MRU's business and financial results.

     In particular, it alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that:

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

       -- the illusion of liquidity created by the broker-
          dealers allowed MRU 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

       -- 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.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 19, 2009.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Labaton Sucharow 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 Fund (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 over concentration of investments in
          illiquid securities in violation of its 15% cap by
          investing in illiquid tobacco bonds and ordinary
          municipal bond and 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, causing substantial losses to investors.  On
October 21, 2008, the Fund's shares traded at approximately
$5.96 per share, down from $8.93 per share at the beginning of
the year, an approximate decline of 33.3%per share for the year.
The Fund was among the worst performing in its peer group.

     According to the complaint, after the end of the Class
Period, the Fund belatedly disclosed liabilities and residual
exposure from the inverse floaters, about which investors were
not previously told.  On December 18, 2008, the 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.

     Additionally, the 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
that 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:

          Alan I. Ellman, Esq. (aellman@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 800-321-0476 or (212) 907-0700
          Web site: http://www.labaton.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  * * *