CAR_Public/090603.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 3, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 108

                           Headlines

ACE LTD: Final Approval Sought For $2M Securities Suit Agreement
BANK OF AMERICA: California Supreme Court Dismisses $1B Verdict
EXPEDIA INC: Judge Issues $184M Judgment in Wash. Litigation
FIDDLER'S CREEK: Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit in Florida
JP MORGAN: Plaintiffs Seek Voluntary Dismissal of N.Y. Lawsuit

LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Appeals Court Upholds "Press" Certification
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Consolidated Brokers' Suit Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Defends "Saunders" Mutual Fund Suit in Md.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in New Jersey

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss "Garcia" Suit on Benefits
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss State Claims by Agents
RCN CORP: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Misclassification of Workers
SCI FUNERAL: Fla. Judge OKs Distribution of Settlement Checks
SKYBUS AIRLINES: Del. Court Approves $925,000 WARN Lawsuit Deal

SOURCEFIRE INC: June 12 Hearing Set for "Katz" Suit Settlement
SUPERVALU INC: Settles Minn. Litigation Over Loading Practices
TD AMERITRADE: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Consolidated ARS Lawsuit
TD AMERITRADE: Sept. 10 Hearing Set for "Elvey" Spam Suit Deal
TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces "Ross" Lawsuit Over Yield Plus Fund

THINKORSWIM GROUP: To Contest Lawsuit Over TD AMERITRADE Merger
WCI COMMUNITIES: Fla. Suit Over Sale of Condo Units Still Stayed
WCI COMMUNITIES INC: Lawsuit Over Defective Drywall Dismissed
WILLIS GROUP: Defending Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance
WILLIS GROUP: Discovery in Gender Discrimination Case Ongoing


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHARTER COMMS: Walden Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
IDEARC INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
NORTEL NETWORKS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

ACE LTD: Final Approval Sought For $2M Securities Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have sought final court approval of a nearly $2
million settlement in multidistrict class-action securities
litigation accusing insurer ACE Ltd. of failing to disclose its
participation in contingent commission kickbacks and bid-rigging
schemes, Law360 reports.

Recently, lead plaintiffs the Sheet Metal Workers' National
Pension Fund and the Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust filed a
motion with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, seeking approval for the settlement.


BANK OF AMERICA: California Supreme Court Dismisses $1B Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court dismissed a billion-dollar class-
action verdict against Bank of America Corp. on the grounds that
the bank's charges did not violate state law, Jonathan Stempel
of Reuters reports.

On June 1, 2009, the high court ruled that Bank of America need
not pay a potential $1 billion or more to customers who claimed
the bank illegally raided Social Security benefits to collect
fees, according to the Reuters report.

Plaintiffs in the class-action case, who are represented by
James Sturdevant, Esq., had accused the largest U.S. bank of
dipping into their Social Security direct deposit accounts
between 1994 and 2003 to collect fees for overdrafts and other
debts.

In 2004, a San Francisco trial court ordered the Charlotte,
North Carolina bank to pay $284.4 million of damages, plus up to
$1,000 to each customer who suffered substantial emotional or
economic harm, reports Reuters.

Reuters reported that the case was filed on behalf of more than
1.1 million customers, many of whom were elderly or disabled.
Paul Miller, a disabled former photojournalist, was the original
plaintiff in the case, and a jury had awarded him $275,000.

In 1974, the California Supreme Court had ruled that a bank may
not satisfy a credit card debt by deducting fees owed from a
separate checking account containing deposits that "derived from
unemployment and disability benefits."

However, in a unanimous ruling, the high court distinguished the
current case by saying the transactions at issue occurred
"within a single account" rather than in multiple accounts,
Reuters reports.

California's highest court said policy concerns about setting
off independent debt, such as the importance of providing people
"with a stream of income to defray the cost of their
subsistence," were not present in this case.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the court, "We do not agree with
plaintiffs that there is no meaningful difference between
satisfying a debt external to an account and recouping an
overdraft of an account from funds later deposited into that
same account," reports Reuters.

In essence, the ruling upheld a 2006 appeals court decision that
had reversed the trial court ruling, according to the Reuters
report.

For more details, contact:

          The Sturdevant Law Firm
          A Professional Corporation
          354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415.477.2410
          Fax: 415.477.2420
          e-mail: intake@sturdevantlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.sturdevantlaw.com/


EXPEDIA INC: Judge Issues $184M Judgment in Wash. Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
     A King County Superior Court judge ruled on May 28 that
Expedia, Inc. (Nasdaq: EXPE), the world's leading online travel
booking site, pay $184 million for repeatedly breaching its
contractual obligations to consumers by charging service fees
under false pretenses in millions of hotel transactions.

     The judgment is the largest in Washington state history for
a consumer class action.

     Filed in 2005 by Steve Berman, managing partner of the
Seattle law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (HBSS) on behalf of
Expedia customers, the suit claimed that the travel giant paid
taxes based on the wholesale price, but collected taxes from
consumers based the higher retail price, pocketing the
difference.

     According to Andrew Volk, a partner at HBSS, the firm found
that Expedia's scheme went further, involving the addition of a
'service fee' to each transaction, purporting to cover the
company's expenses incurred in servicing a reservation.

     According to court documents, Expedia bundled the service-
fee charges with taxes into a single line item, failing to
disclose the separate amounts of each to consumers.

     "Because Expedia only remits taxes based on the wholesale
price -- which it never disclosed to consumers -- the taxes
appear higher to consumers than they actually are, and Expedia
is able to mask the considerable size of its service fees," Volk
added.

     In its Terms of Use agreement, which governs every hotel
transaction, Expedia promised that it would collect service fees
only to "cover the costs" of servicing a given hotel
reservation. The Court found that Expedia breached that promise
by collecting service fees as pure profit.

     Superior Court Judge Monica Benton ruled that Expedia
collected a total of $184,470,452 in service fees, which she is
ordering the company return to consumers who purchased hotel or
travel packages including a hotel stay from Feb. 18, 2003 to
Dec. 11, 2006.

     "In actuality, Expedia used the service fees to sweeten the
deal for the company at the direct expense of the consumer,"
Berman noted. "They apparently thought no one would notice if
they padded each transaction by a few dollars, money that went
straight to profit."

     In the court's ruling, the judge includes an excerpt from
an e-mail dated Dec. 2001 between employees at Expedia
explaining the additional fees, "As a company, this will add
between $2-3 million in our net profit (the bottom line) next
quarter."

     "This case revolved on the issue of transparency and
honesty," said Steve Berman, managing partner of HBSS.
"Consumers deserve to know what they are paying for, and
companies like Expedia have an obligation to be upfront."

     The complaint also claimed that Expedia intentionally
designed its invoices and Web site to de-emphasize the service-
fee charges, and to lead consumers to believe the service fees
are associated with legitimate expenses incurred as the result
of a particular reservation.

     "We are obviously very pleased with the ruling and are
heartened that we were able to help millions of Expedia
consumers through this action," Berman added.  "This is the
largest judgment in a consumer class action in Washington state
history."

     In her seven-page summary judgment ruling, Judge Benton
ruled that Expedia breached its contract with its customers.

     Expedia still must defend charges it violated Washington's
Consumer Protection Act in a trial slated for July in Kent.

     "Our goal is to get the money in the hands of consumers as
quickly as possible," Volk noted.

More about this lawsuit and court documents are available at:

http://www.hbsslaw.com/expedia

For more details, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq. (Steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292


FIDDLER'S CREEK: Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Fiddler's Creek, LLC and several others are facing a purported
class-action lawsuit by two couples who purchased golf
membership contracts accusing defendants of taking more than $10
million they say was to be held in escrow, Aisling Swift of
Naples Daily News reports.

The suit was filed on May 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida by Glenn S. Vician, Dawn J.
Vician, Richard Lohmeyer, and Kristi Lohmeyer, under the
caption, "Vician et al. v. Fiddler's Creek, LLC et al., Case No.
2:2009-cv-00314."

Aside from Fiddler's Creek, the other defendants listed in the
suit are: GBP Development, LTD, GBP Development, LLC, The Golf
Club at Fiddler's Creek, 951 Land Holdings, LTD., 951 Land
Holdings, LLC, FC Golf, LTD and Aubrey Ferrao.

The plaintiffs are alleging that the exclusive, private golf
club they paid $90,000 to join as Gold Members, on top of paying
$7,800 in annual dues, has been operated as a public golf course
since last year, with the public being allowed to play through,
paying daily greens fees and no initiation deposit, according to
the Naples Daily News report.

Responding to the allegations, one of the defendants, contends
the conditions for keeping the money in escrow have been
fulfilled and the lawsuit is baseless because it leaves out many
facts, reports Naples Daily News.

According to the suit, members learned the escrow account was
empty at a recent advisory board meeting, but were not told why
after demanding an accounting of their deposits, which were to
be held in escrow until a second course and clubhouse were
completed.

"Their explanation was that despite what they put in writing,
they don't have to put the funds in escrow," Robert Stochel,
Esq., an Indiana lawyer, who along with Thomas Candler Chase,
Esq. of Fort Myers, are serving as co-counsels in the case,
tells Naples Daily News.

The lawsuit says the defendants' conduct and breach of contract
has caused irreparable damage and financial loss to plaintiffs.
By allowing the public to pay a minor "seasonal" rate, the
lawsuit says, the defendants have effectively eliminated new
Gold Members, since virtually no one has an interest in paying a
$90,000 initiation deposit if they can have full access without
paying that.

The plaintiffs are seeking recision of their membership
agreement and a full refund, return of all annual dues for the
2008 and 2009 golf seasons, and compensation for the breach of
contract.  The lawsuit also seeks damages for breach of
fiduciary duty, dissipation of escrow funds, conversion, and
theft, Naples Daily News reported.

In addition, the suit alleges that Ms. Ferrao and GBP
Development have failed or refused to pay real estate taxes and
assessments on "scores of properties" owned by them in Fiddler's
Creek development over the past eight months, "indicating that
they are grossly mismanaging the economic operations...,"
according to Naples Daily News report.

Naples Daily News reported that the lawsuit asks that a judge
determine whether the defendants promised to maintain a private
golf club, if they contracted with gold members to keep deposits
in escrow until all golf facilities were built, whether they
charged a deposit for a private course that was converted to a
public course, and if Gulf Bay published false and misleading
written information about the club and escrow of deposits.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas C. Chase, Esq. (tchase@tchaselaw.com)
          Law Office of Thomas C. Chase, PA
          Suite 200
          1404 Dean St
          Ft Myers, FL 33901-2858
          Phone: 239/334-8850
          Fax: 239/334-1963

          Robert E. Stochel, Esq.
          Hoffman & Stochel
          One Professional Center, Suite 306
          Crown Point, IN 46307
          Phone: 219/662-0165
          Fax: 219/662-2151 (fax)

               - and -

          Glenn S. Vician, Esq.
          Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, PC
          8605 Broadway
          Merillville, IN 46410
          Phone: 219/769-6671
          Fax: 219/738-3044 (fax)


JP MORGAN: Plaintiffs Seek Voluntary Dismissal of N.Y. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several plaintiffs in the matter, "In Re JP Morgan Chase Cash
Balance Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-0732," have filed a
proposed voluntary dismissal in connection to a portion of the
case, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

According to a recently issued notice, plaintiffs John Berotti,
Annette Falchetti, Terri Melli and Perry Shapiro filed the
proposed voluntary dismissal petition.

The proposed voluntary dismissal, together with the court's
December 2008 dismissal of certain claims in the case, will
terminate all certified class claims in the action.

The putative consolidated class-action complaint names the
JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan (together with the predecessor
plans of the JPMorgan Chase & Co. predecessor companies) and the
JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Director of Human Resources as defendants
(Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2008).

Current and former participants in the Plans filed the lawsuit,
alleging various claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.  The plaintiffs' claims are based on alleged
violations of ERISA arising from the conversion to and use of a
cash balance formula under the Plans to calculate the
participants' pension benefits.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that:

      -- the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula
         under the Plans violated ERISA's proscription against
         age discrimination (age discrimination claim);

      -- the conversion to a cash balance formula violated
         ERISA's proscriptions against the backloading of
         pension benefits and created an impermissible
         forfeiture of accrued benefits; and

      -- defendants failed to adequately communicate to Plan
         participants the conversion to a cash balance formula
         and in general the nature of the Plan.

In October 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the firm's motion to dismiss the age
discrimination and notice claims, but granted its dismissal
request as it pertains to the backloading and forfeiture claims.

On May 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified a class in this action.  The
class includes current participants in the JPMorgan Chase
Retirement Plan with claims relating to inadequate notice of
plan changes for the current period back to Jan. 1, 2002, and
age discrimination claims going back as far as Jan. 1, 1989.
The class excludes former participants who have elected to
receive a lump sum cash payment of their retirement benefits.

The Court reserved the right to revisit class certification
pending resolution of a similar case that is now before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On July 31, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
reconsideration and certification of the May 30, 2007 Order.

Fact discovery, which was limited to the period Jan. 1, 2002,
and thereafter, is now complete, and expert discovery is
ongoing.

On March 17, 2008, the District Court stayed the original cash
balance plan litigation for up to one year pending a decision by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in "Hirt v. The
Equitable Ret. Plan of Employees, Manager & Agents, No. 06-cv-
4757," a case in which the company is not involved but which
raises similar issues, including the question of whether the
conversion to, and use of, a cash balance formula violates
ERISA's proscription against age discrimination.  The Hirt
appeal was argued on April 22, 2008.

The suit is "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case
No. 06-732," filed before the District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

For more about this case, please visit
http://www.JPMCCashBalanceLitigation.com/.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter S. Linden, Esq. (plinden@kmslaw.com)
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          Fax: 212-751-2540

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-224-7562
          Fax: 206-623-3384

               - and -

          Edgar Pauk, Esq. (pauk@tiac.net)
          144 East 44th Street, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-4000
          Fax: 212 808-9808

Representing the defendants is:

          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. (jyoungwood@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-455-2000
          Fax: 212-455-2502


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Appeals Court Upholds "Press" Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the
certification of a class-action lawsuit against Louisiana
Citizens Property Insurance Corp. that charges the state-
sponsored insurer of failing to pay contractor overhead and
profit on claims from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Rebecca
Mowbray of The Times-Picayune reports.

The Orleans Parish case, "Stephanie Press v. Louisiana Citizens
Fair Plan Property Insurance Corp.," is one of three hurricane
class actions pending against Citizens.  In total, the cases
have the potential to award tens of millions to policyholders
and create financial problems for Citizens, which can pass on
bills to taxpayers if it does not have enough cash on had to
fulfill its obligations, according to The Times-Picayune report.

John Wortman, chief executive of Citizens, told The Times-
Picayune that the insurer plans to appeal the decision to the
Louisiana Supreme Court.

According to Mark Smith, Esq., an attorney for the plaintiffs,
the is one of a number of cases nationwide involving what is
called contractor overhead and profit.

Mr. Smith explains to The Times-Picayune that anytime a repair
job requires three or more tradesmen, such as a plumber, a
roofer and an electrician, a policyholder is entitled to hire a
general contractor to coordinate all the parties.   The
insurance company is supposed to pay an extra 20 percent on top
of labor and material costs to cover the contractor's services
and profit, he said.

Mr. Smith alleged that Citizens paid contractor overhead and
profit for a while after the 2005 storms, stopped doing so for a
period of time and then resumed payment at some point, The
Times-Picayune reported.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissed claims against Prudential Financial,
Inc. in the matter tagged, "In re Employee Benefit Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," are still pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Purported class-action lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs
have been consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In August and September 2007, the court dismissed the anti-trust
and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims.

In January 2008, the court dismissed the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act claims with prejudice.

In February 2008, the court dismissed the state law claims
without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. (Class Action Reporter, March 18, 2009)

No further developments in the consolidated matter were
disclosed in the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company with operations in United States,
Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,
pension and retirement-related services and administration,
investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.

  
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Consolidated Brokers' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A multidistrict litigation remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, accusing
Prudential Financial, Inc. of improperly classifying
stockbrokers as exempt employees under state and federal wage
and hour laws.

The suits -- recently consolidated in California for coordinated
trial proceedings -- also name as defendants Prudential
Securities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC.

Two of the complaints -- "Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC,
and Prudential Securities Incorporated," and "Goldstein v.
Prudential Financial, Inc." -- were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Goldstein complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of
a nationwide class.  The Janowsky complaint alleges a class of
New York brokers.

Three complaints were filed in the California Superior Court and
purport to have been brought on behalf of classes of California
brokers.

These suits are captioned:

       1. "Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential
          Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;"

       2. "DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated,
          Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia
          Securities;" and

       3. "Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and
          Prudential Securities Inc."

The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn without
prejudice in May 2006.

In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, captioned "Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al."

The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the company failed to
pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal
law and that improper deductions were made from the
stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law.

In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in "Badain v.
Wachovia Securities, et al.," a purported nationwide class-
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay
overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law
and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers'
wages in violation of state law.

In December 2006, all cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California by the
Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages,
recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.
(Class Action Reporter, March 18, 2009)

No further developments in the consolidated matter were
disclosed in the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company with operations in United States,
Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,
pension and retirement-related services and administration,
investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Defends "Saunders" Mutual Fund Suit in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. remains a defendant in a mutual fund
class action entitled, "Saunders v. Putnam American Government
Income Fund, et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.

In October 2004, the company and Prudential Securities were
named as defendants in several class actions brought on behalf
of purchasers and holders of shares in a number of mutual fund
complexes.

The actions are consolidated as part of a multi-district
proceeding, "In re: Mutual Fund Investment Litigation," pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The complaints allege that the purchasers and holders were
harmed by dilution of the funds' values and excessive fees,
caused by market timing and late trading, and seek unspecified
damages.

In August 2005, the company was dismissed from several of the
actions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, but
remains a defendant in other actions in the consolidated
proceeding.

In July 2006, in one of the consolidated mutual fund actions,
"Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.,"
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted
plaintiffs leave to refile their federal securities law claims
against Prudential Securities.

In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging
federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory
and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.

In June 2008, the company was dismissed with prejudice from the
remaining actions consolidated in In re: Mutual Fund Investment
Litigation other than Saunders v. Putnam American Government
Income Fund, et al.

In July 2008, the company moved for summary judgment and
plaintiffs moved for class certification in Saunders, 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.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company with operations in United States,
Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,
pension and retirement-related services and administration,
investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. and several of its executives are
facing purported class-action lawsuits in New Jersey, alleging
that the insurer violated federal securities laws in a June 2008
public offering of junior subordinated notes.

In March 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit, "Bauer v.
Prudential Financial, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The case names as defendants, the company, certain company
Directors, the Chief Financial Officer, Controller and former
Chief Executive Officer and former Principal Accounting Officer,
underwriters and the company's independent auditors.

The complaint, brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's
9% Junior Subordinated Notes (retail hybrid subordinated debt),
alleges that the company's March 2006 Form S-3 Registration
Statement and Prospectus and the June 2008 Prospectus
Supplement, both of which incorporated other public filings,
contained material misstatements or omissions.

In light of the company's disclosures in connection with its
2008 financial results, plaintiffs contend that the earlier
offering documents failed to disclose impairments in the
company's asset-backed securities collateralized with subprime
mortgages and goodwill associated with certain subsidiaries and
other assets, and that the company had inadequate controls
relating to such reporting.

The complaint asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
alleging Section 11 claims against all defendants, Section 12(a)
(2) claims against the company and underwriters and Section 15
claims against the individual defendants, and seeks unspecified
compensatory and recessionary damages, interest, costs, fees,
expenses and such injunctive relief as may be deemed appropriate
by the court.

In April 2009, two additional purported class-action complaints
were filed in the same court, "Haddock v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. et al.," and "Pinchuk v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al."
The complaints essentially allege the same claims and seek the
same relief as Bauer, according to the company's May 8, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Bauer v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:09-cv-01120-jll-ccc," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Judge Jose L. Linares, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. (psp@njlawfirm.com)
          Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Phone: (201) 845-9600


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss "Garcia" Suit on Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. seeks to dismiss a purported
nationwide class-action suit, "Garcia v. Prudential Insurance
Company of America," in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The complaint, which was filed in November 2008, is brought on
behalf of beneficiaries of Prudential policies whose death
benefits were placed in retained asset accounts.  It alleges
that by investing the death benefits in these accounts,
Prudential wrongfully delayed payment and improperly retained
undisclosed profits.

It alleges claims of breach of the contract of insurance, breach
of contract with regard to the retained asset accounts, breach
of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

The suit seeks an accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

In March 2009, Prudential filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company with operations in United States,
Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,
pension and retirement-related services and administration,
investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss State Claims by Agents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. seeks to dismiss certain state claims
in a consolidated purported nationwide class-action complaint
filed on behalf of agents in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

"Bouder" Lawsuit

In October 2006, a class-action lawsuit, "Bouder v. Prudential
Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, claiming that the Prudential Insurance failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents who were registered representatives
in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law, and that improper
deductions were made from these agents' wages in violation of
state law.

The complaint seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages,
recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.

In March 2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide
class.

"Wang" Litigation

In March 2008, a purported nationwide class-action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Insurance," on behalf of agents who sold the company's financial
products.

The complaint alleges claims that the company failed to pay
overtime and provide other benefits in violation of California
and federal law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts.

Consolidated Proceeding

In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the
Bouder matter.

In January 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated matter which adds wage claims based on the laws of
thirteen additional states.

In March 2009, a second amended complaint was filed, which
dropped the breach of contract claims.

The company moved to dismiss certain of the state claims in the
consolidated complaint, 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.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company with operations in United States,
Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds,
pension and retirement-related services and administration,
investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.


RCN CORP: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Misclassification of Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
RCN Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a
former cable installer who is seeking unpaid overtime, insurance
benefits, compensation for medical bills for an on-the-job-
injury, and expenses for using his own vehicle and tools, Donna
Goodison of The Boston Herald reports.

The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by Fritz Elienberg
of Roxbury on June 1, 2009 in th U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Mr. Elienberg, who is represented by Harold Lichten, Esq., is
claiming that the company misclassified him and as many as 1,000
other U.S. installers as "independent contractors" so it could
deprive them of overtime and other benefits, reports The Boston
Herald.

According to his complaint, from 2005 until February 2009, Mr.
Elienberg was employed as an "independent contractor" in
Massachusetts by Pennsylvania-based Custom Cable Concepts, which
provided installation work solely for RCN, The Boston Herald
reported.

The lawsuit alleges that RCN, RCN Telecom Services of
Massachusetts, and Custom Cable Concepts violated the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts' independent
contractor and overtime laws, according to The Boston Herald
report.

For more details, contact:

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, Massachusetts 02114
          Phone: 617-994-5800
          Fax: 617-994-5801
          Web site: http://www.llrlaw.com/


SCI FUNERAL: Fla. Judge OKs Distribution of Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Members of the 2001 Menorah Gardens class-action suit will soon
be receiving checks after the presiding judge approved
recommendations that would facilitate the distribution of
settlement.

On Dec. 19, 2001, Plaintiffs brought a case in Broward County
Circuit Court, Fort Lauderdale, FL, against SCI Funeral Services
of Florida, Inc. and Service Corporation International, who own
and operate Jewish cemeteries known as "Menorah Gardens."  The
cemeteries are located at 21100 West Griffin Road, Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33332, and 9321 Memorial Park Road, West Palm
Beach, FL 33412.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants buried the remains of
their relatives in the wrong locations and/or in a way that
encroached on other plots.  They also claimed that the
defendants plotted and sold burial plots with insufficient space
so there was inadequate room to place bodies in their proper
locations.

On Dec. 2, 2003, counsel for all parties reached an agreement on
a class-wide settlement.  The settlement agreement provides for
$65 million ($40 million for compensatory damages and $25
million for punitive damages) to be divided among class members.

On April 27, 2009, Broward County Circuit Judge Ronald
Rothschild approved final recommendations that clears the way
for payments to about 350 remaining members of the litigation.

For more details, contact:

          Menorah Gardens Settlement Administrator
          The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 8856
          Melville, NY 11747-8856
          Phone: 1-866-808-3581
          e-mail: cemeteryclaimsinquiry@gardencitygroup.com
          Web site: http://www.cemeteryclaims.com/


SKYBUS AIRLINES: Del. Court Approves $925,000 WARN Lawsuit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware approved a $925,000
settlement reached in a purported class-action lawsuit against
Skybus Airlines, Inc., alleging it violated federal employment
law when it abruptly cut its work force upon filing for
bankruptcy protection in 2008, The Business First of Columbus
reports.

Under the settlement, $5,000 will be split between the two
workers who led the 342-person class, while more than $300,000
is headed to the lawyers for the plaintiffs.  The remaining more
than $613,000 will be split with employees, coming out to about
$1,800 a person, according to The Business First of Columbus
report.

Previously, The Associated Press reported that Skybus Airlines
agreed to settle a class-action suit filed by former employees
who say they weren't properly told of the airline's plan to shut
down in 2008 (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2009).

Attorney James Huggett, who represents the employees, tells The
Associated Press that the amount of the settlement will likely
be disclosed in an upcoming court filing.  He also says the
agreement must be approved in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

The Associated Press previously reported that former employees
of Skybus Airlines filed a class-action lawsuit against the
company with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware on April 15, 2008, saying they were not properly told
of the airline's plan to shut down operations (Class Action
Reporter, April 21, 2008).

According to the lawsuit, Skybus violated the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires
companies to notify employees at least 60 days in advance of any
mass layoffs.

AP says that in a court filing dated April 4 -- the last day
Skybus was in operation -- the Columbus-based airline said it
planned to lay off 450 employees in several phases, with the
majority losing their jobs as of April 7.  Of those, 365 were
based in Columbus, with the remainder in Greensboro, N.C.

Former Skybus Chief Executive Officer Mike Hodge told The
Columbus Dispatch that the company believes it complied with the
law.  He cited a section of the WARN Act that grants an
exception to companies that are actively seeking capital or
business that, if obtained, would have allowed those companies
to avoid or postpone a shutdown.

Passed by Congress in 1988, the WARN Act was intended to protect
workers and their families, the report explains.  The law says
employees who don't receive proper notice of plant closings or
layoffs are entitled to 60 days pay.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking unpaid wages, bonuses,
retirement benefits and holiday pay that they would have
received during the 60-day period.

AP recounts that Skybus declared bankruptcy less than a year
after beginning service.  The low-cost carrier was known for its
$10 fares and a la carte, pay-per-service flying.  Like other
airlines, it struggled with rising fuel prices and a slowing
economy.


SOURCEFIRE INC: June 12 Hearing Set for "Katz" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland will hold a
fairness hearing on June 12, 2009 at 2:15 p.m for the proposed
settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit pending against Sourcefire, Inc.

A putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
company and certain of its officers and directors.  The suit is
captioned, "Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01210-WMN" (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).

Since then, two other putative class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland against the company
and certain of its officers and directors and other parties
making similar allegations.

These two additional suits are:

       1. "Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc.. et al., Case No.
          1:07-cv-01351-JFM," and

       2. "Joan Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.
          1:07-cv-01425-WMN."

In addition, a fourth putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its officers and directors
and other parties making similar allegations.  The fourth suit
is captioned, "Barry Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH."

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and in an order entered
on June 29, 2007, by the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of New York, the Pincus case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the company's initial public offering.

The lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 and
Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in
connection with allegedly material misleading statements and
omissions contained in the registration statement and
prospectus.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of
class action status, compensatory and rescission damages, a
rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and
costs on behalf of a putative class.

On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidate
the four cases, to appoint her as lead plaintiff, and to approve
her choice of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, and
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel.  The court granted
Ms. Amrhein's request.

On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been
asserted in one or more of the four original actions.

On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint, which motion was granted in part and
denied in part.

In May 2008, the defendants filed an answer denying all
liability, and later, the court entered a scheduling order.

On or about June 18, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, for the appointment of class representative
and for the appointment of class counsel and liaison counsel for
the class.  The defendants' opposition to that motion is due on
or before Nov. 19, 2008, and any replies are due on or before
Jan. 9, 2009.

On July 16, 2008, the court granted the parties' motion to amend
the prior scheduling order to provide the parties with an
opportunity to conduct a mediation.  The initial meeting with
the mediator took place on Oct. 17, 2008.

On Feb. 11, 2009, the company filed a settlement stipulation and
related papers with the Court, tentatively settling all claims
in the litigation.  If finally approved, the settlement will
result in the dismissal of the claims against all defendants.
The proposed settlement will include a cash payment of $3.2
million by the defendants, $3.1 million of which will be paid by
the company's insurer and $0.1 million of which will be paid by
Sourcefire.  Neither the company nor any of the other defendants
admitted any wrongdoing in connection with the proposed
settlement.  The settlement will require final approval from the
Court before it becomes effective.  A hearing at which the Court
will consider whether to approve the settlement has been
scheduled for June 12, 2009.  No assurances can be given that
the settlement ultimately will be approved, according to the
company's May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Howard Katz, et al. v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-01210-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714
          e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD, 21202
          Phone: 410-752-9700
          Fax: 410-757-5460
          e-mail: webmaster@tydingslaw.com


SUPERVALU INC: Settles Minn. Litigation Over Loading Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. settled a purported class-action lawsuit that
accused the grocery retail giant of coercive unloading
practices, Sandi Soendker of Land Line Magazine reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota on Dec. 6, 2006 by Joe Rajkovacz and Carl Schaefer
Jr., under the caption, "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. et al v. Supervalu, Inc., Case No. 0:05-cv-
02809-JRT-JJG."

It challenged Supervalu's policy of requiring drivers to show
proof of insurance coverage grossly over and above what was
required by federal statute and regulation.  Without that
insurance, truckers had no choice but to use the only lumping
service available to unload Supervaluís cargo; they could not
unload it themselves, according to the Land Line Magazine
report.

For more details, contact:

          Paul D. Cullen, Jr., Esq. (pxc@cullenlaw.com)
          The Cullen Law Firm
          1101 30th St NW Ste 300
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-944-8600

               - and -

          Andrew J. Morrison, Esq. (morrison@kmchlaw.com)
          Koll Morrison Charpentier & Hagstrom
          332 Minnesota St Ste W-1430
          St Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: 651-291-9155
          Fax: 651-223-5362
  

TD AMERITRADE: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Consolidated ARS Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. seeks to dismiss an amended
complaint in consolidated class-action lawsuit captioned, "In re
Humphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp." pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, 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.

Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against various
financial services firms by customers related to their
investments in auction rate securities.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to
customers about investments in ARS and the manner in which the
ARS market functioned in violation of provisions of the federal
securities laws.

Two purported class-action complaints have been filed alleging
such conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp.

The first case, filed on March 19, 2008, is captioned, "Humphrys
v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al."  The second case, filed
on April 17, 2008, is captioned, "Silverstein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp. et al."

Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchased
ARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008.  The complaints
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that the
proceedings in the lawsuits against the various financial
services firms in effect be consolidated before one judge.  The
company and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in other
cases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation.

The company and parties in other cases filed oppositions to the
motion.

The cases, which are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, have been consolidated under the
caption, "In re Humphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp."

An amended complaint was filed in February 2009.  The amended
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, equitable
relief, interest and attorneys' fees.  In April 2009, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors.  The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers.  As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc..  The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services.  The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.


TD AMERITRADE: Sept. 10 Hearing Set for "Elvey" Spam Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 10, 2009 final hearing has been set for the proposed
settlement of a lawsuit against TD Ameritrade Inc. that accuses
the company of illegally selling e-mail addresses to spammers.

Initially, one purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Elvey
v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ," was filed on
May 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges that TDA Inc.
disclosed, inadvertently or intentionally, the e-mail addresses
of account holders to spammers, who then sent the account
holders e-mail solicitations promoting certain stocks.

The suit includes claims of alleged violations of California and
federal statutes and alleged breach of fiduciary duty and
requests injunctive and other equitable relief and damages.

As disclosed in a press release dated Sept. 14, 2007, the
company discovered and eliminated unauthorized code from its
systems that allowed access to an internal database.  The
discovery was made as the result of an internal investigation of
stock-related spam.  The company hired an independent consultant
to investigate whether identity theft occurred as a result of
the breach.

The consultant conducted four investigations over the last 12
months and found no evidence of identity theft.

A second lawsuit, captioned "Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.," was
filed on Sept. 26, 2007, in the same jurisdiction on behalf of a
purported nationwide class of account holders.  The factual
allegations of this complaint and the relief sought are
substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit.

The cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re TD
Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation."

The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a
class basis subject to court approval.

A hearing on a motion requesting preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement was held on June 12, 2008.  At the hearing,
one of the three plaintiffs objected to the proposed settlement.
Thus, the court entered an order denying the motion for
preliminary approval without prejudice and directed the parties
to provide supplemental information to assist the court in
evaluating the proposed settlement.

On July 10, 2008, TDA Inc. and two of the plaintiffs provided
supplemental information in response to the court's direction
and in further support of the proposed settlement.

After additional submissions were made by the parties, the Court
held a further hearing on Oct. 7, 2008.

On May 1, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, which had been revised, and set a hearing
on final approval for Sept. 10, 2009.  The settlement is not
expected to have a material effect on the company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows, according to the
company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
02852-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com)
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-202-6364

               - and -

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
          2757 Leonis Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Phone: 323-585-8696
          Fax: 323-585-8198
          e-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net


TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces "Ross" Lawsuit Over Yield Plus Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. continues to face a purported class
action lawsuit captioned "Ross v. Reserve Management Company,
Inc. et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In November and December 2008, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed with respect to the Reserve Yield Plus Fund.

The lawsuits are captioned:

   -- Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. in the
      U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York;
      and

   -- Hamilton v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al. in the U.S.
      District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiff in the Hamilton case dismissed his complaint
without prejudice on March 2, 2009.

The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of
Reserve Yield Plus Fund.  The complaint names as defendants a
number of entities and individuals related to The Reserve.  The
company is also named as a defendant.

The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectus and in other statements regarding the
fund.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, interest and attorneys' fees, 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.

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors.  The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers.  As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc..  The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services.  The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.


THINKORSWIM GROUP: To Contest Lawsuit Over TD AMERITRADE Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
thinkorswim Group Inc. intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims
in three purported class actions lawsuits filed in relation to
the proposed merger with TD AMERITRADE Holdings Corporation.

On Jan. 8, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with TD AMERITRADE, Tango Acquisition Corporation One,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of TD AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub One")
and Tango Acquisition Corporation Two, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of TD AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub Two") pursuant to which TD
AMERITRADE would acquire the company, pursuant to a merger, for
a combination of cash and shares of TD AMERITRADE common stock
valued at that time at approximately $606 million (the "TD
AMERITRADE Merger").

In January and February 2009, three purported class actions
lawsuits were filed on behalf of thinkorswim stockholders
related to the TD Ameritrade Merger.

No further details regarding the suits were provided in the
company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

thinkorswim Group Inc. -- https://www.thinkorswim.com --
formerly Investools Inc., operates in two segments: Brokerage
Services and Investor Education.  The company offers online
brokerage, investor education and brokerage and related
financial products and services for self-directed investors and
traders.


WCI COMMUNITIES: Fla. Suit Over Sale of Condo Units Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against WCI Communities, Inc.,
and its subsidiary, The Resort at Singer Island Properties,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, remains stayed, according to the company's May 8, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit was filed in January 2008 on behalf of all persons who
purchased one or more of the 239 hotel condominium units in the
Singer Island Resort.  The Singer Island Resort is located in
Palm Beach, Florida (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 4, 2008).

These purchasers have entered into rental management agreements
with respect to those condominium units, whose purchase price
aggregated to approximately $138.7 million.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Section 12(a)
(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77(l)(a)
(1), by failing to register with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission the public offering of the Hotel Units.

The complaint also alleges that defendant WCI violated Section
15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77o, by controlling
the operations of its wholly owned subsidiary, defendant Singer
Island Resort, in offering the Hotel Units for sale without
registering them with the SEC.

The plaintiffs seek to rescind their acquisition of the Hotel
Units and want rescissory or other damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.  The complaint seeks rescission of the
condominium purchase agreements and rental management
agreements.

On Aug. 4, 2008, WCI and 126 of its subsidiaries (excluding its
Watermark real estate brokerage, its WCI Mortgage business and
certain other joint ventures in which it is a partner) filed
voluntary petitions for reorganization relief under the
provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in
Wilmington, Case No. 08ó11643 (KJC).

The case has been stayed as a result of the company's Chapter 11
filing.

The suit is "Mastrella et al. v. WCI Communities, Inc. et al.,
Case Number: 9:2008cv80055," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley,
presiding.


WCI COMMUNITIES INC: Lawsuit Over Defective Drywall Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-60371), has
been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, according to WCI
Communities, Inc.'s May 8, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

On March 10, 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No.
09-CV-60371), against Knauf Plasterboard, Tianjin Co., Knauf
Gips KG, Rothchilt International Ltd., and WCI Communities, Inc.
on behalf of all owners who purchased homes in Florida from WCI
Communities, Inc. that allegedly contain defective drywall.

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the
company, without prejudice, after the plaintiffs were notified
of the company's pending Chapter 11 proceeding.

WCI Communities, Inc. -- http://www.wcicommunities.com/-- is a
homebuilding and real estate services company engaged in the
design, construction and operation of leisure-oriented, master-
planned communities.  The company's principal business lines
include single and multi-family (traditional) homebuilding, mid-
and high-rise (tower) homebuilding, and real estate services.
It also develops and operates amenity facilities, sell selected
land parcels, and enter into real estate joint ventures,
generally within its communities.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, WCI
conducted development and homebuilding operations in Florida,
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia and
Maryland.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company had 54 locations,
where it is building single- and multi-family homes or mid- and
high-rise residential units or operating amenity facilities.  In
total, WCI controls over 12,000 acres of land.


WILLIS GROUP: Defending Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. continues to defend the purported
class-action suits filed against the company and its newly
acquired Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Company (HRH), 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.

Since August 2004, the company and HRH (along with various other
brokers and insurers) have been named as defendants in purported
class-action suits in various courts across the United States.

All of these actions have been consolidated or are in the
process of being consolidated into a single action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey ("MDL").

There are two amended complaints within the MDL, one that
addresses employee benefits ("EB Complaint") and one that
addresses all other lines of insurance ("Commercial Complaint").

HRH was a named defendant in the EB Complaint, but has since
been voluntarily dismissed.  HRH is a named defendant in the
Commercial Complaint.  The company is a named defendant in both
MDL Complaints.

The EB Complaint and the Commercial Complaint seek monetary
damages, including punitive damages, and equitable relief and
make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that have
been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys general
and insurance commissioners, including allegations that the
brokers have breached their duties to their clients by entering
into contingent compensation agreements with either no
disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated in
other improper activities.

The Complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among
insurance carriers and brokers and allege violations of federal
antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) statute and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

In separate decisions issued in August and September 2007, the
antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice and the
state claims were dismissed without prejudice from both
Complaints.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal regarding these
dismissal rulings and oral arguments on this appeal were heard
in April 2009.

In January 2008, the Judge dismissed the ERISA claims with
prejudice from the EB Complaint.

Additional actions could be brought in the future by individual
policyholders.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Discovery in Gender Discrimination Case Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action suit against
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., filed by a former female employee,
alleging gender discrimination.

The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female employees alleging that the company
discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of
trial.

The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the
Court did not grant the Company permission to immediately file
an appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss.

The suit was recently amended to include two additional
plaintiffs.  The parties are still in the discovery phase of the
litigation, 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.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHARTER COMMS: Walden Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Walden Law Firm, PLLC announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of purchasers of Charter
Communications, Inc. securities between October 23, 2006, and
February 12, 2009.

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

     Charter operates a broadband communications business in the
United States.

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

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose, among other
things, that Charter would not be able service its debt to
September 2010, but rather Charter would file bankruptcy in
March of 2009.

     Also, the Defendants issued misleading statements about
Charter's potential for mergers.  As a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements, Charter's securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $4.800 on July 19, 2007.

     On February 12, 2009, Charter issued a press release
stating that it would file for bankruptcy before April 1, 2009.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Charter's securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

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


IDEARC INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased shares of Idearc, Inc. (PINKSHEETS:
IDARQ) between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009.

     The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that certain
executives and officers of Idearc made false and misleading
statements to the public with regard to its credit and
collection policies.

     The lawsuit alleges the Company artificially increased its
revenue by selling its products to customers who were not
credit-worthy which, the lawsuit alleges, resulted in millions
of dollars of receivables being written off.

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


NORTEL NETWORKS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Nortel Networks Corp.
(PINKSHEETS: NRTLQ) during the period between May 2, 2008 and
September 17, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that demand for the
Company's products was declining; that the Company's financial
results were materially overstated from a failure to properly
write down goodwill; that notwithstanding restructuring, the
Company was struggling to cut costs and improve profitability;
and as a result of the foregoing, that defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, earnings and prospects.

     According to the complaint, on September 17, 2008, after
the Company announced its preliminary view on certain third
quarter results and that it was engaging in a comprehensive
review of its business, the value of Nortel's stock declined
significantly.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 20, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *