CAR_Public/090604.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, June 4, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 109

                           Headlines

BANK OF AMERICA: Sept. 21 Hearing Set for $8.5M Suit Settlement
BIG POPPA'S: Firm, Others Face Nev. Suit Over Extortion Scheme
BRISCONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT: AUD1.3B Lawsuit Thrown Out of Court
CALIFORNIA: SEIU Files Lawsuit Over Home Care Workers' Wage Cuts
CLEARVIEW FEDERAL: Faces Pa. Litigation Over ATM Disclosures

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Nev. Suit For Backdating Stock Options
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Kentucky Sex Abuse Lawsuit Concluded
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Bid to Dismiss Merged Securities Suit Pending
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Pending in N.Y.
GOODMAN GLOBAL: Settlement of Merger Suit Still Pending Approval

INTERNATIONAL COAL: Saratoga Advantage Lawsuit Pending in W.Va.
PHILADELPHIA: Settles Strip-Search Litigation For $5.9M
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Prilosec OTC Health Risks
QC HOLDINGS: Mulls Appeal to Ruling on Removal of Ferrell Case
QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans Remains Stayed

QC HOLDINGS: Unsecured Loans Lawsuit Proceeds to Discovery Stage
QC HOLDINGS: "Winters" Suit v. Calif. Unit in Preliminary Stages
SOUTH FINANCIAL: Judge Okays Settlement on Retirement Pay Issue
STAR GAS: Ruling on Securities Fraud Suit Appeals Still Pending
STARBUCKS CORP: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses $86M Judgment

SUPERVALU INC: Faces Ill. Suit Over Fees Charged to Cash Checks
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over Budeprion XL Side Effects
WINDSTREAM CORP: Trial in Suit v. Aliant Retirees Set for 3Q09


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AKEENA SOLAR: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing
SUNTRUST BANKS: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

BANK OF AMERICA: Sept. 21 Hearing Set for $8.5M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma will hold a
fairness hearing on Sept. 21, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "David B. Magill and John R.
Roberson v. Shawmut Bank N.A., as Trustee under Collateral Trust
Indenture dated as of June 1, 1984 a/k/a Fleet National Bank,
a/k/a Bank of America, N.A., Case No. CJ-94-1387."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable J. Michael
Gassett, District Judge for the District Court of Tulsa County,
Oklahoma, 500 S. Denver Ave., Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

The class-action lawsuit concerns alleged breaches by the bond
trustee of a Collateral Trust Indenture arising out of a default
by Reading & Bates Corp. on a lease in 1982.

A proposed settlement has been preliminary approved by the court
whereby the successor trustee, Bank of America, has agreed to
pay $8.5 million to settle the case.

For more details, contact:

          Pinkerton & Finn, P.C.
          15 East Fifth Street
          Penthouse Suite
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Phone: (918) 587-1800
          Fax: (918) 582-2900
          Web site: http://www.pinkertonfinn.com


BIG POPPA'S: Firm, Others Face Nev. Suit Over Extortion Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action lawsuit filed on June 2, 2009 alleges a
wide-ranging extortion scheme involving Las Vegas' most
prominent adult entertainment clubs and taxi and limousine
companies.

     The suit, which was filed in federal court in Las Vegas,
alleges that taxi and limousine companies extorted more than $40
million in illegal kickbacks from local strip clubs.

     According to the complaint, taxi and limousine drivers
demanded payments from the clubs of as much as $100 per male
passenger.  If the clubs refused to pay, the drivers would
simply divert passengers to a different club.

     The lawsuit claims that the kickback scheme hurts Las Vegas
at a time when the city is already suffering economically.

     "Vegas has been one of the top tourist destinations in
America for families, but its position is being threatened,"
says Jay Edelson, lead attorney for the lawsuit.  "This is
precisely the type of activity that keeps families away."

     As taxi drivers prefer to pick up men who are more likely
to go to strip clubs, the suit claims that families and women
were snubbed by drivers and found it hard to hail a cab at
night.  The suit also claims that millions of dollars in tax
revenue have gone unpaid to the local, state, and federal
government.

     The allegations of a wide-ranging extortion scheme have
been hotly discussed locally.  An recent expose by George Knapp,
a nationally recognized Las Vegas investigative reporter, found
that cabbies routinely lied to passengers-telling them that
certain clubs are undesirable or unsafe ("riddled with bullet
holes" was one description) in hopes of diverting them to a
"paying" location.  After state legislators attempted to put an
end to this practice, the cab drivers responded by flexing their
muscles.  They shut down the strip and threatened to crash
ground transportation at the airport.

"The vast majority of taxi and limo drivers are honest and
hardworking people, but this minority has a stranglehold on the
city," says Edelson.  "It is finally time to put this practice
to an end."

     The suit is being brought on behalf of Theodore Trapp who
lives in Southern California, and as a nationwide class.  The
suit names several defendants, including, Big Poppa's, LLC, Sky
Top Vending, Inc., La Fuente, Inc., C.P. Food and Beverage,
Inc., Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, LLC, Palomino Club, Inc.,
SHAC, LLC, K-Kel, Inc., D.2801 Westwood, Inc., Little Darlings
Of Las Vegas, LLC, O.G. Eliades, A.D. LLC, Las Vegas
Entertainment, LLC, Michael A. Saltman, Rick's Las Vegas, Frias
Management, LLC, Western Cab Company, Nevada Checker Cab
Corporation, Nevada Star Cab Corporation, Nevada Yellow Cab
Corporation, Lucky Cab Company of Nevada, Sun Cab, Inc., CLS
Nevada, LLC, On Demand Sedan Services, LLC, BLS Limousine
Service of Las Vegas, Inc., Desert Cab, Inc., Bell Trans and
Tony Chong, an individual taxi driver who, according to the
suit, has publicly admitted his involvement in the extortion
scheme.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d80

For more details, contact:

          Jay Edelson, Esq. (jedelson@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com


BRISCONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT: AUD1.3B Lawsuit Thrown Out of Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The AUD1.3 billion class-action case headed by Sydney investor
Jim Byrnes against BrisConnections Management Company Ltd. and
Macquarie Capital Advisors has been thrown out of court after
defects were revealed in the case, The Australian reports.

On June 2, 2009, Mr. Byrnes' lawyers were in the Federal Court
seeking a three-week adjournment to further amend the case and
to remove Mr. Byrnes as the applicant because of the "baggage"
associated with him, and replace with him another investor,
Cynthia Lachat, according to The Australian report.

However, the case was thrown out and costs awarded after a
number of blunders emerged, one of which being that Mr. Byrnes
was not even a member of the group on whose behalf he was acting
-- as defined by his own legal team.

BrisConnection's barrister, Tony Bannon SC, said the group was
defined as being people who were allotted units in the trust
pursuant to the product disclosure statement and people who
bought units on the market, reports The Australian.

"Mr. Byrnes acquired his units off-market and at a price of less
than one cent," Mr. Bannon told the court.  Mr. Bannon also said
the group of investors Mr. Byrnes sought to represent, as
defined, would include Macquarie Capital -- who Mr. Byrnes is
suing.

Ms. Lachat was described as a "French-speaking person of
Filipino descent" living in Australia and Mr. Bannon said she
"doesn't necessarily speak English or understand it."  There was
no claim by her of any specific loss, The Australian reported.

"The simplest way to deal with these proceedings should be to
get rid of them," Mr. Bannon said.  "And the costs to date
should fall on Mr. Byrnes."

Mr. Byrnes' barrister, John Rowe, said Mr. Byrnes did want to
continue as a member of the group, but Ms. Lachat was to replace
him, because "she is not coming, shall we say, with the baggage
that Mr. Byrnes does," according to The Australian.

Judge Arthur Emmett struck out the proceedings, noting part of
the pleadings appeared "misconceived."  Mr. Byrnes was not a
member of the group as defined, and there was no evidence before
him as to why Mr. Byrnes wanted to remove himself from the case.
"Nothing you have done so far is of any use," Justice Emmett
said.  "You have got to start all over again in terms of
particulars, formulate the group and formulate the causes of
action," The Australian reports.

The Australian Associated Press previously reported that A major
stakeholder in the troubled builder and operator of Brisbane's
airport link toll road says it has launched a AUD1.3 billion
class-action lawsuit against BrisConnections Management Company
Ltd. and Macquarie Bank (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2009).

The claim was filed in the Federal Court in Sydney in April 2009
by lawyers for Brisbane Toll Road Link -- owned by U.S.-based
New Hampton Distressed Asset Fund and represented by Sydney
businessman Jim Byrnes -- which owns 15.2% of BrisConnections,
according to the Australian Associated Press report.

Mr. Byrnes says the class-action suit was launched on behalf of
all past and present unit holders.  It alleged misleading
statements and errors in the product disclosure statement.

"We're saying, stay in the class action and we'll fight for your
rights," Mr. Byrnes told the Australian Associated Press.

Lawyer Raymond Whitten of Whittens confirmed the court had
accepted the statement of claims seeking AUD1.3 billion, the
Australian Associated Press reported.


CALIFORNIA: SEIU Files Lawsuit Over Home Care Workers' Wage Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) filed a
purported class-action lawsuit, seeking a preliminary junction
to stop the State of California and Fresno County from slashing
the wages of home care workers to near-poverty levels and from
to reducing the hours of care seniors and people with
disabilities receive from going into effect, Kate Thomas of SEIU
Blog.

The lawsuit was filed on May 26, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, under the caption,
"Martinez et al v. Schwarzenegger et al., Case No. 4:2009-cv-
02306."

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are Mikesha Martinez, Lydia
Dominguez, Alex Brown, Donna Brown, Chloe Lipton, Herbert M.
Meyer, Leslie Gordon, Charlene Ayers, Willie Beatrice Sheppard,
Andy Martinez, Service Employees International Union United
Health Care Workers West, Service Employees International Union
United Long-Term Care Workers, Service Employees International
Union Local 521, and Service Employees International Union
California State Council.

Specifically listed as defendants in the matter are Arnold
Schwarzenegger, John A. Wagner, David Maxwell-Jolly, John
Chiang, Fresno County, and Fresno County In-Home Supportive
Services Public Authority.

The suit charges that the planned cuts put seniors and people
with disabilities at risk and violate the American with
Disabilities Act and Federal Medicaid Law, according to posting
at SEIU Blog.


CLEARVIEW FEDERAL: Faces Pa. Litigation Over ATM Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------
Clearview Federal Credit Union faces a purported class-action
lawsuit over alleged lapses in its disclosures at an ATM, which
allegedly violates the Fair Debt Collection Act, David Morrison
of The Credit Union Times reports.

The suit was filed on May 19, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, under the caption,
"Helkowski v. Clearview Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2:2009-
cv-00609."

According to court documents obtained by The Credit Union Times,
the plaintiff, Daniella Helkowski, withdrew cash from the credit
union's headquarters branch in Moon Township, Pa., on May 7,
2009, and alleged Clearview charged her $2.25 for the
transaction.

Ms. Helkowski charged that the credit union did not have a
notice posted about the fee "on or at" the ATM as required by
the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.  Without such a written
notice, Ms. Helkowski argued, the credit union is forbidden to
charge a fee for the transaction, and she has filed a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of herself and everyone else who was
charged a fee for a transaction at the ATM, according to The
Credit Union Times report.

For more details, contact:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. (bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com)
          Carlson Lynch
          P.O. Box 367
          231 Melville Lane
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Phone: (412) 749-1677

               - and -

          Rhonda J. Sudina, Esq. (rsudina@rlmlawfirm.com)
          Robb Leonard Mulvihill LLP
          One Mellon Center
          500 Grant Street, 23rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-5431
          Fax: (412) 281-3711


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Nev. Suit For Backdating Stock Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit
over the alleged backdating of stock options for executives,
employees and directors, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun
reports.

The suit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed on May
29, 2009 by shareholder Shirley Morefield in the Clark County
District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Ms. Morefield alleges in the suit that CSC and current and
former board members deceived shareholders by failing to
disclose that many of the stock options granted from 1997 to
2004 were backdated -- meaning recipients of the options could
earn extra profits by buying stock at prices lower than the
market price on the option grant dates, according to The Las
Vegas Sun report.

The Las Vegas Sun reported that options typically are awarded to
executives to give them an incentive to push a company's share
price higher. With an option, an executive can immediately
profit by buying a security at the option grant date's low price
and then selling it at the current higher price -- assuming the
value of the stock has risen.

The proxy statement for the CSC annual meeting in 2007 was among
the deceptive disclosures provided to shareholders, Mr.
Morefield charges.

It was "false and misleading because those individual defendants
failed to disclose that many of the options that the company had
issued were backdated, misdated or mispriced and thus carried
exercise prices less than fair market value at the date of the
grant," according to the suit.

The suit seeks certification it is a class action representing
all CSC shareholders as of May 29, 2009; a judgment voiding all
outstanding options, restricted stock and equity awards issued
under CSC's options plans for 1997, 1998, 2001 and 2004; and an
order barring CSC from issuing CSC stock under the 2001 and 2004
plans, reports The Las Vegas Sun.

The lawsuit was filed by Las Vegas attorneys G. Mark Albright,
Esq., D. Chris Albright, Esq., and Martin Muckleroy, Esq., of
the firm Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright along with
attorneys from Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, The Las
Vegas Sun reports.

For more details, contact:

          Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright
          801 South Rancho Drive
          Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-3854
          Phone: (702) 384-7111
          Fax: (702) 384-0605
          Web site: http://www.albrightstoddard.com/

               - and -

          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: (925) 945.0770
          Fax: (925) 945.8792
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com
          Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com/


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Kentucky Sex Abuse Lawsuit Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit between victims of sexual abuse and the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington in northern Kentucky has
concluded, according to a report by The Fort Mill Times.

The Kentucky Enquirer reports that Circuit Judge Robert McGinnis
filed the final order of dismissal on May 27, 2009 in Boone
Circuit Court.

The case was settled for $84 million in 2005.  The court
document says all victims who received awards have been paid in
full and have signed releases acknowledging payment and
releasing their claims, reports The Fort Mill Times.

In his dismissal order, Judge McGinnis wrote that the diocese
and Bishop Roger Foys had fulfilled all of their obligations
under the settlement agreement and that no further claims would
be accepted, The Fort Mill Times reports.

The Fort Mill Times reported that attorney Bob Steinberg, Esq.,
who represented the victims, says 252 victims received awards of
up to $1 million.


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Bid to Dismiss Merged Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The First Marblehead Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts remains
pending.

In April 2008, six purported class-action complaints were filed
against the company, certain of its current and former officers,
and certain of its directors.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in various U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, press releases and other public statements.

The complaints allege various claims under the U.S. Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  They seek, among other
relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

In August 2008, the court consolidated these cases and appointed
lead plaintiffs and a lead counsel.

On Nov. 28, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by
the lead plaintiffs and contained similar allegations as the
earlier complaints.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
company's motion to dismiss on April 13, 2009.  The company
plans to respond in May 2009.  A class had not been certified in
the actions as of May 8, 2009, the date of the company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The First Marblehead Corp. -- http://www.firstmarblehead.com/--
provides outsourcing services for private education lending in
the U.S.  It meets the demand for private education loans by
providing national and regional financial institutions and
educational institutions, as well as businesses, education loan
marketers and other enterprises, with an integrated suite of
design, implementation and securitization services for student
loan programs.  The Company is engaged on loan programs for
undergraduate, graduate and professional education, and on the
primary and secondary school market.  The Company is engaged in
program design and marketing coordination, borrower inquiry and
application, loan origination and disbursement, loan
securitization and loan servicing.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., continues to face a consolidated
antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York over guaranteed investment contracts (GIC).

Between March and July 2008, the company was named along with
several other GIC industry participants as defendant in several
class-action suits, alleging federal antitrust violations
involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking treble
damages.

In June 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation consolidated the federal cases for pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under the case name, "In re Municipal Derivative
Antitrust Litigation."

The putative class action initiated in December 2008, which case
was removed to the U.S. District Court for Central California,
"Fresno County Financing Authority, et al. v. AIG Financial
Products Corp., et al.," has now been fully transferred by the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the Southern
District of New York for consolidation into "In re Municipal
Derivatives Antitrust Litigation."

Certain plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class-action
complaint, which the company's subsidiary (along with many other
defendants) moved to dismiss.  On April 30, 2009, the Court
dismissed all the claims from that complaint, but provided the
plaintiffs 20 days to amend their complaint, 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.

Genworth Financial, Inc. -- http://www.genworth.com/-- is a
financial security company dedicated to providing insurance,
investment and financial solutions that help meet the
homeownership, life security, wealth management and retirement
security needs of more than 15 million customers, with a
presence in more than 25 countries.  The Company operates
through three segments: Retirement and Protection, International
and U.S. Mortgage Insurance. Retirement and Protection segment
offers a variety of protection, wealth accumulation, retirement
income and institutional products.  Through the International
segment the Company is a provider of mortgage insurance products
in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Japan and multiple
European countries.  In the U.S., the company offers mortgage
insurance products predominantly insuring prime-based,
individually underwritten residential mortgage loans, also known
as flow mortgage insurance.


GOODMAN GLOBAL: Settlement of Merger Suit Still Pending Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a consolidated class-action suit over
Chill Acquisition, Inc.'s merger with and into Goodman Global,
Inc. is pending court approval, according to the company's May
8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Oct. 26, 2007, a putative class action was filed on behalf of
all similarly situated stockholders of the company in the Harris
County District Court, Houston, Texas, styled, "Call4U, Ltd. v.
Carroll, Case Number 2007-66888."

A similar case, styled, "Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined
Benefit Plan vs. Goodman," was later filed and then consolidated
with the Call 4U, Ltd. case.

The lawsuits named as defendants the company, all of its
directors and Hellman & Friedman LLC, and asserted claims for
breach of fiduciary duty against the directors and aiding and
abetting such breaches against Hellman & Friedman.

The plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining the closing of
the merger, reimbursement of associated attorneys' and experts'
fees and other relief that the court deems proper.

On Jan. 4, 2008, Goodman entered into a memorandum of
understanding setting out an agreement in principal to settle
all claims in the litigation, which settlement is subject to
certain conditions precedent, including court approval.

As of March 31, 2009, the matter is still pending.

Goodman Global, Inc. -- http://www.goodmanglobal.com/-- is a
domestic manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air
conditioning products for residential and light commercial use.


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Saratoga Advantage Lawsuit Pending in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Coal Group, Inc. continues to face a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by Saratoga Advantage Trust in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
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 Jan. 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust filed a class-action
lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements in
the registration statements filed in connection with the
company's November 2005 reorganization and December 2005 public
offering of common stock.

In addition, the complaint challenges other of the company's
public statements regarding its operating condition and safety
record.

International Coal Group, Inc. -- http://www.intlcoal.com/--
produces coal in Northern and Central Appalachia with a range of
mid to high British thermal unit (Btu), low to medium sulfur
steam and metallurgical coal.  The Company is headquartered  in
Scott Depot, W.V.


PHILADELPHIA: Settles Strip-Search Litigation For $5.9M
-------------------------------------------------------
The City of Philadelphia agreed to pay $5.9 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit involving thousands of people strip
searched by prison guards after being jailed for misdemeanors,
traffic violations, or other minor crimes, The Associated Press
reports.

The settlement, which was recently filed in federal court,
provides for payments of about $600 to $900 per person to as
many as 38,000 people strip-searched by city prison guards
between 2003 and 2007, according to AP report.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Prilosec OTC Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Procter & Gamble and AstraZeneca PLC are facing a purported
class-action lawsuit that claims that the heartburn drug
Prilosec OTC causes increased risk of contracting food-borne
diseases, and that they failed to warn consumers of it, The
Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed by Thomas Mitchell on May 29, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under the
caption, "Mitchell v. Procter & Gamble et al., Case No. 2:2009-
cv-00426."

The plaintiff claims that the defendants "intentionally and
uniformly hid from consumers that use of Prilosec OTC increases
the risk of food-borne illnesses," according to The Courthouse
News Service report.

Prilosec OTC is the brand name for omeprazole magnesium delayed-
release tablets, which was released by the defendants in 2003.
Before the release in 2003, it was a prescription drug, and
still is available at prescription strength, according to the
complaint, The Courthouse News Service reports.

The drug is a "proton pump inhibitor" that reduces "the amount
of hydrochloric acid produced by the stomach," the complaint
states.  This reduces the stomach's ability to kill harmful
bacteria, it states, The Courthouse News Service reported.

The suit claims that the defendants "issued uniformly misleading
advertisement and materials that failed to warn users of
Prilosec OTC of their increased risk for food-borne diseases,"
reports The Courthouse News Service.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d82

For more details, contact:

          Rex H. Elliott, Esq. (rexe@cooperelliott.com)
          Cooper & Elliott
          2175 Riverside Drive
          Columbus, OH 43221
          Phone: 614-481-6000
          Fax: 614-481-6001


QC HOLDINGS: Mulls Appeal to Ruling on Removal of Ferrell Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. anticipates that it will appeal the Fifth
Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas in South Carolina's
decision on removal of Carl G. Ferrell's putative class action
lawsuit to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 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.

On Oct. 30, 2008, a subsidiary of the company was sued in the
Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas in South Carolina
in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Carl G. Ferrell, a
customer of the South Carolina subsidiary.

Mr. Ferrell alleges that the subsidiary violated the South
Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act by including an
arbitration provision and class action waiver in its loan
agreements.

Mr. Ferrell alleges further that the subsidiary did not
appropriately take into account his ability to repay his loan
with the subsidiary, and it is his contention that this alleged
failure violates the South Carolina Deferred Presentment
Services Act, is negligent, breaches the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and serves as the basis for a civil
conspiracy.

Mr. Ferrell makes the same allegations in their case against
several other lenders.

On Dec. 11, 2008, the subsidiary removed the case from state
court to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina based upon the diversity of citizenship between the
subsidiary and the proposed class.

On Dec. 18, 2008, the subsidiary filed a motion to dismiss the
case based upon the parties' arbitration agreement.

Mr. Ferrell has challenged both the removal of the case to
federal court and the subsidiary's motion to dismiss.

In March 2009, the federal court ruled against the company's
efforts to remove the case to federal court and remanded the
case to state court.  It did not rule on the company's motion to
dismiss.

As of May 2009, the federal court had not issued a formal
written ruling, however, on the matter of removal.  Once it
does, the company anticipates that it will appeal the decision
on removal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides
short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative consumer fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, against QC
Holdings, Inc., remains stayed, 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 Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including
its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early,
the company's chairman of the board and chief executive officer,
were named defendants in a putative class-action suit filed in
the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, by
James B. Torrence Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline.

The plaintiffs were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank
for whom the company provided certain services in connection
with the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina,
prior to the closing of the company's North Carolina branches in
fourth quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance
Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina
Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and
the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by
the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail
locations in North Carolina.

The suit also alleges that the company is not viewed as the
"actual lenders or makers" of the payday loans and its services
to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina
statutes.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorney fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.

The plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this matter and have
specifically stated in the complaint that they do not challenge
the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North
Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state may
permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law.
This case is in preliminary stages.

                       Similar Litigation

There are three similar purported class action complaints filed
in North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to QC
Holdings.

In December 2005, the judge in those three cases:

       -- granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported
          class action lawsuits and to compel arbitration in
          accordance with the terms of the arbitration
          provisions contained in the consumer loan contracts

       -- ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer
          loan contracts are valid, and

       -- denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications.

The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the
same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
company, have appealed that ruling.

The judge handling the lawsuit against the company is the same
judge who issued these three orders in December 2005.

In January 2007, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard the
appeal in the three companion cases.  In May 2008, the appellate
court remanded the three companion cases to the state court to
review its ruling in light of a recent North Carolina Supreme
court's decision.

The trial court will hear additional evidence in the three
companion cases before issuing its new ruling.  That ruling is
not expected before 2009.

While the three companion cases are pending until the trial
court's decision, it is expected that the company's case will
remain stayed.  The judge handling the lawsuit against the
company in North Carolina is the same judge who is handing the
three companion cases.  The company has not had a ruling on the
similar pending motions by the plaintiffs and the company in its
North Carolina case.  There is a stay in the North Carolina
lawsuit, pending the final outcome in the other three North
Carolina cases concerning the enforceability of the arbitration
provision in the consumer contracts.  Accordingly, there will be
no ruling on the company's motion to enforce arbitration in
North Carolina during the pendency of that issue in the three
companion cases.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides
short-term  consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: Unsecured Loans Lawsuit Proceeds to Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit filed against QC Holdings, Inc.,
over unsecured loans is proceeding with the discovery stage.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006, by one of the company's
Missouri customers as a purported class action.  It alleges
violations of the Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans
under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment
that the arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not
enforceable on a variety of theories.

The company has not filed an answer, but has moved to compel
arbitration of this matter.  The plaintiff secured the right to
have discovery regarding the company's arbitration provision,
however, prior to the court's ruling on the company's motion.

The court heard oral arguments on the company's motion in June
2007.  On Dec. 31, 2007, the court entered an order striking the
class action waiver provision in the company's customer
arbitration agreement, ordered the case to arbitration and
dismissed the lawsuit filed in Circuit Court.

In July 2008, the company filed its appeal of the court's order
before the Missouri Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals heard arguments on Nov. 4, 2008.  On Dec.
23, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
trial court. It ordered the case to arbitration, but struck the
class action waiver provision.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the company asked the Court of Appeals to
rehear the matter or, in the alternative, transfer it to the
Missouri Supreme Court for rehearing.  In February 2009, the
Court of Appeals denied this request.  The company petitioned
the Missouri Supreme Court for rehearing of this matter.  In May
2009, the Missouri Supreme Court denied the Company's request.

The case will move to the class discovery stage, according to
the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides
short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: "Winters" Suit v. Calif. Unit in Preliminary Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action lawsuit filed by Jennifer M. Winters
against a QC Holdings, Inc. subsidiary is in its preliminary
stages.

On Sept. 5, 2008, a subsidiary of the company was sued in the
Superior Court of California, San Diego County in a putative
class-action lawsuit filed by Jennifer M. Winters, a customer of
the California subsidiary.

Ms. Winters alleges that the subsidiary violated California's
Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, Unfair Competition Law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Ms. Winters alleges that the company's subsidiary improperly
charged California consumers a fee to extend or "roll over"
their loan transactions, that the subsidiary did not have
authority to deduct funds electronically, and that the
subsidiary's use of a class action waiver in its loan agreements
is unconscionable.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the Company's California subsidiary filed its
answer, denying all allegations.  It also filed a claim against
Ms. Winters for failing to pay her final loan.

Because this case is in its preliminary stages, it is unlikely
any ruling on the merits of the claims will occur until late
2009 or later, 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.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides
short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


SOUTH FINANCIAL: Judge Okays Settlement on Retirement Pay Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward W. Miller of the Greenville County Court of Common
Pleas judge approved a settlement related to the retirement pay
of former South Financial Group, Inc. Chairman and CEO Mack
Whittle, Scott Miller of Charleston Regional Business reports.

In that same ruling, the judge denied two objections from
shareholders who wanted to opt out of the class-action suit and
potentially pursue their own legal actions against the company
and Whittle, according to Charleston Regional Business report.

Judge Miller had delayed ruling on the settlement last month to
give those dissenters an extra week to file objections, reports
Charleston Regional Business.

In an order issued on June 1, 2009, Judge Miller said that the
settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best
interests of TSFG and its shareholders," Charleston Regional
Business reported.

Under the proposed settlement, The South Financial Group agreed
to pay the plaintiffs' lawyers $500,000 and to amend its bylaws.
The amendments would, among other governance changes, give
shareholders more input into the selection of future board
members and ban company executives from serving as board chairs,
Charleston Regional Business reports.

In addition, Mr. Whittle agreed to return $250,000 of his
retirement pay to the bank and resign from the company's board
of directors.

Lee Rudy, attorney for the plaintiffs, said during the
settlement hearing on May 21, 2009 that the nonmonetary
agreements related to governance were more valuable to
shareholders than the monetary payments, Charleston Regional
Business reports.

Previously, the South Carolina court set May 7, 2009, as the
deadline for filing objections to the proposed settlement of the
putative shareholder class-action lawsuit filed against The
South Financial Group, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, May 6,
2009).

The company and certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers have been named as parties in two shareholder
lawsuits, one filed on Nov. 7, 2008, in South Carolina State
Court in Greenville County having Vernon A. Mercier as the named
plaintiff, and one filed on Nov. 26, 2008, in the Court having
John S. McMullen on behalf of Andros Associates, Inc. as named
plaintiff.

On March 24, 2009, all parties to the Litigation executed an
Agreement in Principle providing for the settlement of the
Litigation.

The Court entered the Order granting, among other things,
preliminary approval to the Stipulation and the proposed notices
to shareholders and class members, and setting:

   (1) May 7, 2009 as the deadline for filing objections with
       the Court, and

   (2) May 21, 2009 as the date for a hearing to consider, among
       other things, final approval of the proposed settlement.

The Notice will be mailed to all shareholders of record as of
April 1, 2009, according to the company's Current Report Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
April 2, 2009.

The South Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.thesouthgroup.com/
-- is a bank holding company.  TSFG operates principally through
Carolina First Bank, a South Carolina-chartered commercial bank,
which conducts banking operations in South Carolina and North
Carolina (as Carolina First), in Florida (as Mercantile), and on
the Internet (as Bank CaroLine).  TSFG's subsidiaries provide a
range of financial services, including deposits, loans, treasury
management, merchant processing, full-service brokerage and
investments, business and personal insurance, trust, investment
management, and financial planning.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, TSFG
conducted business through 82 branch offices in South Carolina,
71 in Florida, and 27 in North Carolina.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant
to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA, according to the
company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

               - and -

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


STARBUCKS CORP: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses $86M Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
The 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego threw out an $86
million judgment against Starbucks Corp. that had faulted the
company for allowing supervisors to share in tip pools over the
past eight years, Greg Moran of The San Diego Union Tribune
reports.

In a 3-0 ruling, the appeals court reversed the award made last
year by Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett.  The court said
Judge Cowett erred in applying the state law covering employee
tips, according to The San Diego Union Tribune report.

The San Diego Union Tribune reported that the appellate court
drew a distinction between what state law bans, and what
Starbucks does. Customers who leave tips in a collective "tip
jar" intend that it be shared among the team of workers, the
court wrote in a 27-page opinion, including shift supervisors.

When Judge Cowett made her ruling in March 2008, the award
against Starbucks was believed the largest ever in a tip-pooling
case.  With interest, the company was on the hook for an
estimated $106 million, reports The San Diego Union Tribune.

David Lowe, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement
that the appeals court, not Judge Cowett, misinterpreted the
law.  He told The San Diego Union Tribune that he will ask the
California Supreme Court to review the decision and reinstate
the money award.

                         Case Background

On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed
the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California
Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2009).

More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors
direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the
company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under
California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and
their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons
for other employees.

It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate
the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips
distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under
California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay
wages due.  The plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 30, 2006, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of
all persons employed as baristas in the state of California
since Oct. 8, 2000.

In March 2007, notice of action was sent to approximately
120,000 potential members of the class.  Trial is currently set
for February 2008.

At the February 2008 trial for the class action, "Jou Chau v.
Starbucks Coffee Co.," Judge Cowett ordered Starbucks to pay its
California baristas more than $100 million in back tips the
coffee retailer paid to shift supervisors (Class Action
Reporter, March 25, 2008).

The judge said baristas were entitled to $86 million plus
interest in back tips.  She added that Starbucks' practice was a
violation of a state law.

However, Chief executive Howard Schultz said that the ruling was
unfair and said that the media grossly mischaracterized the
company s standard practice of shift supervisors to share in
tips left for baristas.

Mr. Schultz vowed that the company would appeal the ruling and
defend itself against two similar lawsuits filed this week in
Minnesota and Massachusetts (Class Action Reporter, April 1,
2008).

On March 20, 2008, the court ordered the company to pay
approximately $87 million in restitution, plus interest.

On Dec. 8, 2008, the company filed its initial appellate brief
with the California Court of Appeals, according to its Feb. 4,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Starbucks said there is no money to be refunded or returned from
Starbucks.

Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, various complementary food items, coffee-
related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas
and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-operated
retail stores.


SUPERVALU INC: Faces Ill. Suit Over Fees Charged to Cash Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit in Madison
County Circuit Court, alleging that it charges illegal fees to
cash checks, Joe Harris of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit is captioned, "Mary Voyles, et al. v. Supervalu, Inc.,
d/b/a/ Shope N. Save, Case No. 09-L-542," and was filed on May
28, 2009 in the Circuit Court - Third Judicial Circuit - Madison
County, Illinois by Mary Voyles.

Ms. Voyles claims that the Supervalu grocery chain -- which
includes Shop N Save and Albertsons -- charge more than the
greater of 50 cents, or 1 percent of the face value of the
check, which are the maximum fees allowed by the Illinois Check
Cashing Act, according to The Courthouse News Service report.

The class period begins June 1, 2004 and includes all Illinois
citizens who cashed a check at any Supervalu store for a fee
greater than 50 cents or 1 percent of the face value of the
check, The Courthouse News Service reported.

Supervalu stores include Shop N Save, Save-A-Lot, Acme,
Albertsons, Biggs Bristol Farms, Cub, Farm Fresh, Hornbacher's,
Jewel-Osco, Shaw's/Star Market and Shoppers.

The plaintiff, who is represented by Thomas G. Maag, Esq., seeks
damages and an injunction, reports The Courthouse News Service.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d81

For more details, contact:

          Thomas G. Maag, Esq.
          Wendler Law P.C.
          900 Hillboro, Suite 10
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: (618) 692-0011
          Fax: (618) 692-0022


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over Budeprion XL Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit in California claiming that the company's
Budeprion XL, a generic form of Wellbutrin, delivers the drug
much more rapidly, making "less effective in treating
depression" and "much more likely to cause certain dangerous
side effects," The Courthouse News Service reports.

Also named as defendants are Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Anchen
Pharmaceuticals, according to The Courthouse News Service
report.

The plaintiffs -- represented by Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. with
Milstein, Adelman & Kreger of Santa Monica -- seek restitution,
disgorgement, damages, and an injunction, reports The Courthouse
News Service.

For more details, contact:

          Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
          Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, California 90405
          Phone: 888.835.8055 or 310.396.9600
          Fax: 310.396.9635
          e-mail: info@maklawyers.com
          Web site: http://www.maklawyers.com/


WINDSTREAM CORP: Trial in Suit v. Aliant Retirees Set for 3Q09
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a class-action complaint for declaratory judgment filed
by Windstream Corporation, Windstream Nebraska, Inc., Windstream
Systems of the Midwest, Inc., and Windstream Benefits Committee
has been tentatively scheduled for the third quarter of 2009.

On Aug. 14, 2008, Windstream Corporation, Windstream Nebraska,
Inc., Windstream Systems of the Midwest, Inc., and Windstream
Benefits Committee filed a class action complaint for
declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska against the local bargaining unit for the
Communication Workers of America and several former Aliant
retirees individually and as representatives of persons
similarly situated, requesting the court to declare that the
company had a unilateral right to make certain amendments to its
postretirement, medical and life insurance plans.

On Dec. 3, 2008, the Court entered the company's Notice of
Agreed Dismissal dismissing its claims against the local
bargaining unit for the Communication Workers of America.

On Nov. 26, 2008, the individual defendants moved for a
preliminary injunction that sought to prevent the company from
implementing the amendments to its postretirement, medical and
life insurance plans on Dec. 30, 2008.  The Court entered an
order denying the individual defendants' motion for a
preliminary injunction on Dec. 30, 2008.

The company intends to assert and defend its position in this
matter, 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.
  
Windstream Corporation -- http://www.windstream.com/-- is a
provider of telecommunications services in rural communities in
the United States.  The company owns subsidiaries that provide
local telephone, high-speed Internet, long distance, network
access, and video services in 16 states.  As of Dec. 31, 2008,
Windstream served more than three million communications
customers in 16 states.  Additionally, Windstream provides data
services to more than 978,000 high-speed Internet customers.
Windstream delivers one-stop shopping to customers with a range
of communications products and services that include voice and
related features, high-speed Internet, long distance, network
access and video.  The company's operations consist of its
wireline and product distribution segments.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AKEENA SOLAR: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of Akeena Solar, Inc. (Nasdaq: AKNS) publicly traded securities
during the period December 26, 2007 through March 13, 2008.

     The Complaint alleges that Akeena and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's sales, financial performance and condition.

     Defendants failed to disclose the following facts:

       -- the backlog number the Company had previously reported
          was unreliable;

       -- Akeena's gross profit margins were declining;

       -- the Company's net losses were dramatically increasing;
          and

       -- the $17.5 million "increase" in Akeena's credit line
          announced on December 26, 2007 was merely a cash
          collateralization agreement which simply increased the
          Company's restricted cash.

     When the truth was finally revealed, Akeena's common stock,
which had traded as high as $16.80 on January 7, 2008, fell to a
close of $6.15 per share on March 13, 2008.

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

For more details, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685


SUNTRUST BANKS: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class
action in the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
purchasers of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred
Securities (NYSE: STI) (NYSE: PZ) of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
February 2008 initial public offering of the Securities.

     The complaint charges SunTrust and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     SunTrust is a financial holding corporation, providing a
range of financial products and services to consumer and
corporate customers in the United States and internationally.

     The complaint alleges that defendants consummated the
Offering pursuant to the false and misleading Registration
Statement, selling 27.6 million units of the Securities at $25
per share, for proceeds of over $690 million.  The Registration
Statement incorporated SunTrust's financial results for 2007 and
Form 8-K dated February 12, 2008.

     In November 2008, SunTrust received $3.5 billion in funds
from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and an additional $1.4
billion in December 2008.  Then on January 22, 2009, when
SunTrust released its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2008,
SunTrust reported its first quarterly loss in at least two
decades, cut its quarterly dividend from $0.54 to $0.10 per
common share, and announced a significant increase in its
provision for loan losses.  When this became public, the price
of the Securities declined significantly.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statement were:

       -- the Company's assets, including loans and mortgage-
          related securities were impaired to a greater extent
          than the Company had disclosed;

       -- defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting its
          impaired assets; and

       -- the Company's capital base was not as well capitalized
          as it had represented.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of the Securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
Offering.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 14, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Casey M. Preston, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000
          Fax: 215-875-4604
          Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com
          e-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net


                            *********

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  * * *