CAR_Public/090608.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 8, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 111

                           Headlines

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending
BLU JAY: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Workers' Pay, Camp Conditions
BODISEN BIOTECH: Consolidated Securities Case in N.Y. Closed
CENTERLINE HOLDING: "Off" Still Stayed Pending "Carfagno" Result
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Seeks Dismissal of Federal Securities Suit

GEORGIA NATURAL: Ga. Appeals Court Reinstates Overcharging Suit
LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Pending Final OK
LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit in Discovery Stage
MEDIACOM COMMS: Unit Mulls Filing Motions on "Ogg" Case Verdict
MELT INC: Appeal to Junked California Franchisees' Suit Pending

MELT INC: "Jong Han" Franchise Acts Violations Lawsuit Pending
ROGERS INT'L: Bids to Dismiss "Lane" Suit Still Pending in Ill.
ROGERS INT'L: Watkins' Suit Still Stayed Pending Outcome in Lane
SOUTHSTAR ENERGY: Ga. Appeals Court Revives Overcharging Lawsuit
STERLING CHEMICALS: Sept. 2009 Trial Set for Tex. Workers' Suit

STONE & WEBSTER: Aug. 12 Hearing Set For $6.5M Suit Settlement
TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Set for June 15 Conference
ULTA SALON: Ill. Court Give Preliminary OK to Suit Settlement
UNITED AIRLINES: EEOC Sues Over Handling of Disabled Workers
WILLIAM LYON: California Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed

WILLIAM LYON: Shareholder Case Still Ongoing in Delaware Court


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIDZ.COM INC: Barroway Topaz Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
BIDZ.COM INC: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., is a defendant in one remaining lawsuit
arising out of the company's "no late fees" program, according
to its May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2009.

On March 4, 2005, Beth Creighton filed a putative class-action
suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging
that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.

The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable
and injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for District of Oregon.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- provides in-
home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over
9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other
countries.  The company operates in the home video and home
video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as
theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-video product)
and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-
store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite
providers.


BLU JAY: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Workers' Pay, Camp Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blu Jay Farms and Macrie Bros. Blueberry Farm face a purported
class-action lawsuit brought Haitian workers who claim that the
defendants brought them into the country with false promises,
then paid them less than minimum wage for working 10 to 12 hours
a day seven days a week and housed them in a poorly maintained,
bug-infested camp, The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court on New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County on May 28, 2009 on behalf of 26 named
plaintiffs, under Docket No. L-1885-09.

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are Dacosta Blueberry
Farms Inc., Bluebuck Blueberry Farms Inc., Bluebuck Blueberry,
Joseph Martinelli, Paul Macrie, and Andre Joseph, according to
The Courthouse News Service report.

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

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

For more details, contact:

          Katherine S. Colon, Esq.
          Legal Services of New Jersey
          Workers Legal Rights and Farmworkers Projects
          6 Sound Laurel St., 2nd Floor
          Bridgeton, NJ 08302
          Phone: 1-888-576-5529
          Web site: http://www.lsnj.org/


BODISEN BIOTECH: Consolidated Securities Case in N.Y. Closed
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against Bodisen
Biotech, Inc. and the company's management in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York is closed.

In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight
purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and certain of
its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.

The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations
about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal
controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York
Global Group.

The eight actions are:

      1. "Stephanie Tabor v. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13220 (filed November 2006),"

      2. "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13254 (filed November 2006),"

      3. "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13454 (filed November 2006),"

      4. "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         13567 (filed November 2006),"

      5. "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13739 (filed December 2006),"

      6. "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006),"

      7. "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         15179 (filed December 2006)," and

      8. "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No.
         06-15399 (filed December 2006)."

The plaintiffs have not specified an amount of damages they
seek.  In 2007, the Court consolidated each of the actions into
a single proceeding.

In October 2008, the New York Federal Court presiding over the
eight consolidated class-action lawsuits against Bodisen and its
management granted the company's initial motion to dismiss the
cases.

In addition, the court has notified Bodisen that it also granted
the company's second motion to dismiss, which challenged the
subject matter jurisdiction of the court over about 40% of the
class and thus sought to reduce the number of potential class
plaintiffs significantly.

The Court entered a judgment in favor of the company and closed
the case.  Plaintiff had 30 days after the judgment to file an
appeal but did not file a notice of appeal.  Plaintiff's time to
appeal the Court's decision has expired, according to the
company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
         The Rosen Law Firm, PA
         Phone: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Judd Burstein, Esq. (jburstein@burlaw.com)
         Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P.
         1790 Broadway
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 974-2400
         Fax: 212-974-2944


CENTERLINE HOLDING: "Off" Still Stayed Pending "Carfagno" Result
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class and derivative action lawsuit entitled "Off
v. Ross, CA No. 3468-VCP," remains stayed pending resolution of
the "Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al." case, according to Centerline
Holding Co.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

On Jan. 15, 2008, the first of the state law cases, a putative
class and derivative action, entitled "Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468-
VCP," was filed against the company, its board of trustees and
The Related Companies, LP, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The lawsuit concerns the company's sale of a new issue of
convertible preferred stock to an affiliate of TRCLP.  It
alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustees
and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages from
them as well as injunctive relief against all defendants.

Thereafter, seven other derivative lawsuits asserting the same
or similar claims were filed in state and federal courts in New
York and in the Delaware Chancery Court.

Four of these later-filed actions also allege that the trustees
breached their fiduciary duties to the company by allegedly
violating the federal securities laws.

The company is named solely as a nominal defendant in all eight
derivative actions and no monetary relief is sought against the
company in any of those cases.

The seven derivative actions filed subsequent to the Off case
are:

      1. On Jan. 18, 2008, "Kramer v. Ross, et al., Index. No.
         100861-08," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees, in New York County Supreme Court;

      2. On Jan. 25, 2008, "Carfagno v. Schnitzer, et al., No.
         08 CV 00912," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees with the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York;

      3. On Jan. 30, 2008, "Ciszerk v. Ross, et al., CA No.
         3511," was filed against the company, its board of
         trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. with the
         Delaware Court of Chancery;

      4. On Feb. 22, 2008, "Kanter v. Ross, et al., 08 Civ.
         01827," was filed against the company, its board of
         trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. with the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of New York;

      5. "On Feb. 27, 2008, "Broy v. Centerline Holding Company
         et al., No. 08 CV 01971," was filed against the
         company and certain of its officers and trustees with
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York;

      6. On April 10, 2008, "Kastner v. Schnitzer et al, Index
         No. 601043-08," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court; and

      7. On April 10, 2008, "Kostecka v. Schnitzer et al, Index
         No. 601044-08," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court.

On April 28, 2008, a consolidated amended verified complaint
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due
care, fair dealing, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment, was filed against the company and its board of
trustees in "Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and
Broy v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS)," pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action is styled both as a derivative suit and as a class-
action suit on behalf of all holders of Centerline securities
who qualified to purchase our 11.0% preferred shares under the
rights offering but who did not do so.

In late March 2009, the plaintiffs and defendants reached a
basis of settlement which would require a reduction in the rate
payable on the 11.0% Convertible Preferred Shares held by TRCLP
and its affiliates to 9.5% and an increase in the conversion
price from $10.75 to $12.35.  A Stipulation of Settlement was
filed with the U.S. District Court (SDNY) on April 8, 2009 and a
fairness hearing for approval of the settlement has been
scheduled for May 18, 2009.

A settlement with the plaintiff in the Off case based on the
rights offering was negotiated, but on Nov. 26, 2008, the
Delaware Court of Chancery rejected the settlement and stayed
any further proceedings in the action, pending resolution of the
Carfagno case.  As a result, several of the other derivative
lawsuits that had been voluntarily stayed by the plaintiffs,
including the Kramer, Ciszerk and Kanter actions are  now
subject to various stipulations deferring further activity in
those actions until a decision on the Stipulation of Settlement
in Carfagno or, in the case of Kastner and Kostecka, pending
further activity in the consolidated securities class action.
The Carfagno Stipulation of Settlement is contingent upon the
dismissal with prejudice of the overlapping Off and Ciszerk
actions pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Should
the District Court find the Carfagno settlement to be fair, it
will enter the Final Judgment approving the Settlement, which
will become effective once the Delaware Court of Chancery
dismisses the Off and Ciszerk matters with prejudice.  Upon
entry of the Final Judgment by the District Court, defendants
intend to move for dismissal in the Court of Chancery of the Off
and Ciszerk matters with prejudice.  A fairness hearing has been
scheduled by the District Court for May 18, 2009.

In addition, the outside members of the Board of Trustees have
received a letter from one of our purported shareholders
demanding that they investigate potential claims against the
company's officers and others arising out of the allegations
asserted in the federal securities litigation.  The independent
Trustees determined, at their meeting on March 11, 2009, to
defer further consideration of the letter until after the
District Court had decided the motion to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint.

Centerline Holding Co. -- http://www.centerline.com/-- formerly
CharterMac, is an alternative asset manager focused on real
estate funds and financing.  The Company had $11.9 billion of
assets under management as of Dec. 31, 2007.  Organized as a
statutory trust, the Company conducts substantially all of its
business through its subsidiaries generally under the
designation Centerline Capital Group.  The Company operates in
four groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  The Affordable
Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through
a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt
and equity investments. The Portfolio Management group monitors
and services the investments within its funds and servicing
portfolio.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products investing
in syndicated corporate debt.

    
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Seeks Dismissal of Federal Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Co. seeks to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint in the matter "In re Centerline Holding Company
Securities Litigation, Case No. 08 CV 00505," according to the
company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities cases was
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  Five other, essentially duplicative putative class-
action suits were then filed in the same court.

The complaint in each case asserted that the Company and other
defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by failing
to disclose in a timely fashion its December 2007 transaction
with Freddie Mac.

On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group,
which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for
these cases.

Under the Court's stipulation and order dated March 3, 2008, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 7, 2008 in
this action, "In re Centerline Holding Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08 CV 00505."

The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with its announcement of
the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the Company's business
model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common
stock of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12,
2007 through Dec. 28, 2007.

The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008, and the plaintiff's
brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss is due by Nov. 14,
2008.  The defendant's reply brief will then be due Dec. 12,
2008.

The motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted by
U.S District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin on Jan. 12, 2009.
Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiff leave to replead, and the
plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 13,
2009.  On April 30, 2009, the Defendants in this case filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. The lead
Plaintiff has until June 12, 2009, to file his opposition to
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Defendants have been given
until June 30, 2009, to file their reply to any opposition
motion filed by the Plaintiffs.

The suit is "In re Centerline Holding Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00505-SAS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477

               - and -

          James Clayton Kelly, Esq. (jkelly@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-451-9635
          Fax: 212-486-2093

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer Fletcher Beltrami, Esq.
          (jbeltrami@wolfblock.com)
          Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen, LLP
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: 212-883-4955
          Fax: 212-672-1155

               - and -

          Daniel J. Leffell, Esq. (dleffell@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-373-3218
          Fax: 212-492-0218


GEORGIA NATURAL: Ga. Appeals Court Reinstates Overcharging Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Georgia appeals court overturned a lower court's ruling to
dismiss a case that sought class-action status for customers of
Georgia Natural Gas, who said they were overcharged by the
natural gas marketer, P‚ralte C. Paul of The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution reports.

The ruling -- issued on June 2, 2009 -- means the lead
plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Charles H. Ellison and Susan B.
Bresler, can go back to the lower court to seek class-action
status, reports The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

More than 300,000 customers could be included in the class,
according to Jason Doss, Esq. and Anne Lewis, Esq., the Atlanta
attorneys representing the plaintiffs, The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution reported.


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Pending Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to grant final approval of the settlement of a
consolidated securities class action suit against Leadis
Technology, Inc.

On March 2, 2005, a securities class-action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Leadis Technology, Inc., certain of its officers and its
directors.

The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements in the company's registration statement
and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004 for Leadis' initial public
offering.

A similar additional action was filed on March 11, 2005.

On April 20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, the parties to this litigation
reached a tentative settlement of all claims.  The District
Court preliminarily approved the settlement in February 2009,
and the company anticipates that the District Court will provide
final approval of the settlement in the second quarter of 2009,
according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

Leadis Technology, Inc. -- http://www.leadis.com/-- designs,
develops and markets analog and mixed-signal semiconductor
products that enable and enhance the features and capabilities
of portable and other consumer electronic products.  The
company's product offerings include light-emitting diode (LED),
drivers, power management, touch technology and consumer audio
analog integrated circuits (ICs).


LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class-action suit styled,
"Global Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc.," pending in
King County (Washington) Superior Court.

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. (GES) filed a
consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against the company in King
County (Washington) Superior Court.

GES has alleged in its complaint that the company's use of
activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.

GES is seeking injunctive relief against our use of the checks,
as well as a judgment in an amount equal to three times the
alleged damages sustained by GES and the members of the class.

LiveDeal has denied the allegations.

Legal proceedings in the matter are ongoing, and discovery began
in late January 2009, according to the company's May 15, 2009
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com-- delivers best of
breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium-
sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow
Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way
for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local,
relevant customers via the Internet.  Through its online
property, www.livedeal.com, LiveDeal delivers local search
engine marketing (SEM) through its LiveAdvisor TM and LiveClicks
TM products that combine best-of-breed technology with a strong
partnership model and an inside sales team to create an
efficient platform local businesses need to create and optimize
their Internet search advertising campaigns.  Livedeal partners
with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK, Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com
and others. LiveDeal, Inc. is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


MEDIACOM COMMS: Unit Mulls Filing Motions on "Ogg" Case Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom LLC, one of Mediacom Communications Corporation's
wholly owned subsidiaries, intends to file motions with respect
to the verdict in a putative class action in favor of Gary and
Janice Ogg.

Mediacom LLC is named as a defendant in a putative class-action
lawsuit, captioned, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC,"
pending in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri,
originally filed in April 2001.

The lawsuit alleges that Mediacom LLC, in areas where there was
no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from landowners
to place the company's fiber interconnection cable
notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from
other third parties.

While the parties continue to contest liability, there also
remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.  Based on
a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim compensatory
damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal fees, prejudgment
interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could
increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.

The plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory of $42.0
million in compensatory damages.

Prior to trial, the company's experts estimated its liability to
be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to $2.3
million.  This estimate does not include any estimate of damages
for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.

On March 19, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary
and Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and
punitive damages of $35,000.  This verdict is not yet final,
according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

Mediacom Communications Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com-- is
a cable television company serving smaller cities and towns in
the United States.  The company provides its customers with an
array of products and services, including video services, such
as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television (HDTV) and
digital video recorders (DVR); high-speed data (HSD), also known
as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service, and phone
service.


MELT INC: Appeal to Junked California Franchisees' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by the plaintiffs in a dismissed purported class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of several of Melt, Inc.'s
franchisees remains pending in California.

On Sept. 19, 2007, a punitive class-action lawsuit was filed
against the company, its affiliates, and its officers and
employees alleging damages and injunctive relief under state
Franchise Acts, restitution and injunctive relief under unfair
business practices act, damages and injunctive relief under the
"Cartwright" act, fraud, interference with prospective economic
advantage, and declaratory relief.

The suit, "David Gold, Elena Gold, EAOA, Inc., Steven Field, MMS
Management, LLC, MMS Coconut Point, LLC, Jong Han, Yon Ho Kim,
Young Suk Kim, Kang Won Lee, Yoo & Lee Enterprises, Inc.,
Charindra Liyanage, Liyange Investments, LLC v. Melt, Inc., Melt
(California), Inc., Melt Franchising, LLC, Clive V. Barwin,
Brandon Barwin, Michael Zorehkey, Rick Zorehkey, Eddie Ollman,
Scott Miller, and Alin Cruz," purports to represent a class of
the company's franchisees.

As of June 30, 2008, the court tentatively dismissed five of the
six allegations contained in the complaint.  The plaintiffs
thereafter made an application to dismiss the action in its
entirety. The company has filed a motion for attorneys' fees and
costs.

On June 30, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit.

On Aug. 26, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

Kang Won Lee, You & Lee Enterprises Inc, Yon Ho Kim and Young
Suk Kim have withdrawn their appeals, according to the company's
May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as a
holding company for its operating subsidiaries.  Its wholly
owned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and Melt
Franchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchises
to allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading under
the name of Melt - gelato italiano, Melt - caf‚ & gelato bar and
Melt - gelato & crepe caf‚ as well as the sale and distribution
of product to franchisees, marketing and the collection of
royalties.


MELT INC: "Jong Han" Franchise Acts Violations Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melt, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit styled, "Jong Han v.
Melt, Inc., Melt (California), Inc., Melt Franchising, LLC,
Clive V. Barwin, Brandon Barwin, Michael Zorehkey, Rick
Zorehkey, Eddie Ollman,and Alin Cruz."

On Aug. 22, 2008, Jong Han filed a Complaint against the company
similar to the purported class action suit filed on behalf of
several of Melt, Inc.'s franchisees that was dismissed by the
California court.

According to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, Han seeks damages in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief under state franchise acts, restitution
and injunctive relief under the unfair business practices act,
damages and relief under the Cartwright Act, fraud, interference
with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief.

In October 2008, the company filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

On or about Dec. 8, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion
to compel arbitration.

As of April 20, 2009, no arbitration has been filed, according
to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as a
holding company for its operating subsidiaries.  Its wholly
owned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and Melt
Franchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchises
to allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading under
the name of Melt - gelato italiano, Melt - caf‚ & gelato bar and
Melt - gelato & crepe caf‚ as well as the sale and distribution
of product to franchisees, marketing and the collection of
royalties.


ROGERS INT'L: Bids to Dismiss "Lane" Suit Still Pending in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motions to dismiss the consolidated amended derivative and
class-action complaint remain pending, according to Rogers
International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.'s May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Beeland Management Company L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
Allen D. Goodman, and James Beeland Rogers Jr. have been named
as defendants, and Rogers International as a nominal defendant,
in a class-action and derivative action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Steven
L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust
dated April 10, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Rogers International in terms of management
and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Rogers
International assets to Refco Capital Markets.  The suit seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of Rogers
International's limited partners.

Following the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Lanes
voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and
filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Walter Thomas Price was not
named as a defendant in the state court complaint.

The defendants successfully moved to have the case reassigned to
the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes'
suit in light of a related case pending in the Southern District
of New York.

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs certain
discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James
Rogers in the matter.  This personal jurisdiction dispute
between the plaintiffs and defendant Rogers is still ongoing.

On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
derivative and class action complaint.  The amended complaint
adds Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins as plaintiffs.

All defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The
court has entered a briefing schedule on these motions which
shall be completed by Dec. 4, 2008.

Oral argument on the motions was held May 7, 2009.

Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois
limited partnership that was established in May 2000.  It trades
a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts,
principally on recognized exchanges.  The Company's General
Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management
Company, L.L.C.


ROGERS INT'L: Watkins' Suit Still Stayed Pending Outcome in Lane
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Rogers
International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership) remains
stayed, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
James Beeland Rogers, Jr., Robert Mercorella and Allen Goodman
have been named as defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal
defendant in a lawsuit filed by Connie M. Watkins and John V.
Watkins.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary obligations to the Partnership in causing or allowing
the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets.

The Watkinses seek judgment and other relief declaring the
defendants responsible for the loss of any Partnership assets,
or, alternatively, compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, the plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees and other
relief.

Following several status hearings, the Court set April 2, 2007,
for the Watkinses to file any further amendments to their
complaint, and May 15, 2007 for the defendants to respond.

On April 9, 2007, the case was stayed at the Watkinses' request
pending the resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in a
similar case filed by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as
Trustees of the Lane Family Trust, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

                         The Lane Case

The Lanes filed a class-action and derivative action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the
Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer
of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's
limited partners.

Following the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Lanes
voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and
filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.

The Defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in
light of the Watkinses' case pending in the Southern District of
New York.

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes certain discovery
related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers.

On May 4, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes leave to file an
amended complaint.  A status hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8,
2007.

The Watkins matter is stayed pending the resolution of personal
jurisdiction issues in the Lane case.

Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. is an Illinois
limited partnership that was established in May 2000.  It trades
a portfolio of commodity futures and forward contracts,
principally on recognized exchanges.  The Company's General
Partner and commodity pool operator is Beeland Management
Company, L.L.C.


SOUTHSTAR ENERGY: Ga. Appeals Court Revives Overcharging Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia reinstated a
proposed class-action lawsuit filed against natural gas marketer
Southstar Energy Services LLC, alleging that the company
overcharged its customers under the Natural Gas Competition and
Deregulation Act, Law360 reports.

In a split decision, the court on June 2, 2009, reversed a
decision by a lower court, which dismissed the case, according
to the Law360 report.


STERLING CHEMICALS: Sept. 2009 Trial Set for Tex. Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for a purported class-action filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against Sterling
Chemicals, Inc. is scheduled for September 2009.

On Feb. 21, 2007 the company received a summons naming it as a
defendant in a class action titled, "Evans et al. v. Sterling
Chemicals, et al., Case No. H-07-0625."

The plaintiffs comprising the proposed class are employees and
retired employees of Sterling Fibers, Inc., one of the company's
former subsidiaries that was sold in connection with its Plan of
Reorganization in 2002.

They are alleging that the company was not permitted to increase
their premiums for retiree medical insurance based on a
provision contained in the asset purchase agreement between the
company, and Cytec Industries Inc. governing its purchase of
Sterling Chemicals' former acrylic fibers business in 1997.  At
the time of Sterling Chemicals' bankruptcy, it specifically
rejected this asset purchase agreement.

The plaintiffs are asserting claims for breach of contract and
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
seek damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

The company moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in their
entirety on July 6, 2007, based on the rejection of the asset
purchase agreement in its bankruptcy case.

However, the court denied the company's motions for dismissal,
for reconsideration and to allow the company to take an
interlocutory appeal.

The parties expect to complete discovery in the next few months.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and for class
certification related to their claims for denial of benefits
under our retiree medical plans.  The defendants filed a cross-
motion for summary judgment on the denial of the benefits claim.

The court certified the class of plaintiffs for the denial of
benefits claim, but denied both motions for summary judgment and
identified issues for trial, according to the company's May 15,
2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Evans et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case
No. H-07-0625," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ronald Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          (mweber@davis-davislaw.com)
          Davis & Davis, 1301 McKinney, Ste. 3500
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: 713-781-5200
          Fax: 713-781-2235


STONE & WEBSTER: Aug. 12 Hearing Set For $6.5M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 12, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $6,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Stone &
Webster, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. Case No. 00-CV-
10874-RWZ."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Rya W. Zobel in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, 1
Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210.

Shareholders sued Stone & Webster for violating Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
that the company fraudulently concealed the loss of a contract
with another company and inflated revenues (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 23, 2006).

The district court dismissed the shareholders' original
complaint, and the shareholders appealed.  The shareholders were
then allowed to submit an amended complaint on remand.  The
shareholders moved to file a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint.

In the proposed amended complaint, the shareholders alleged that
the company paid an undisclosed $147 million kickback to a third
party in a contract that it signed with them.  Section 10(b)
violations must be brought within one year of alleged fraud.

The court noted that the kickback allegations were new and did
not relate back to save the claim.

The district court denied the shareholders' motion to amend
their complaint, ruling that the new claim was time-barred, and
the original claims were insufficient.

For more details, contact:

          Stone & Webster, Inc.
          Claims Administrator
          c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
          P.O. Box 170500
          Milwaukee, WI 53217-8042
          Phone: 800-254-2939
          Web site: http://swsecuritiessettlement.com

               - and -

          Cynthia A. Calder, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 622-7010
          e-mail: ccalder@gelaw.com


TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Set for June 15 Conference
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported shareholder class-action suit styled "Huberman v.
Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352," is set for a
status conference on  June 15, 2009.

Talon International Inc. was formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the shareholder class-action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934,as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov.
14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
the purported class period.

The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1,
2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification.  The
plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also
sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class
certification.

Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007.  In
addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the
other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007 -
- the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and
his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007.  The
company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007.

The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments on Oct. 23, 2008.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished
memorandum, instructing the District Court to certify a class,
reversing the District Court's grant of summary judgment, and
remanding for further  proceedings consistent with its decision.
The District Court has scheduled a status conference for May 4,
2009 (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009).

The District Court has rescheduled the status conference for
June 15, 2009, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California Judge Manuel L. Real,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         Jules Brody, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com)
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq. (pbinkow@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

              - and -

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
         (pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com)
         Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
         695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-668-6200


ULTA SALON: Ill. Court Give Preliminary OK to Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (NASDAQ:ULTA),
announced that it had reached a preliminary settlement in its
class action lawsuit.

     The Company previously disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit was filed on December 17, 2007 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in
which the Company and its CEO and CFO were named as defendants.

     On May 29, 2009, the Company and its primary insurance
carrier engaged in a mediation with counsel representing the
putative class.  Although defendants continue to deny
plaintiffs' allegations, in the interest of putting this matter
behind it, the Company and its insurer have reached a tentative
settlement with plaintiffs, subject to agreement on
comprehensive settlement documentation and approval by the
Court.  All amounts to be paid under the tentative settlement
will be paid out of proceeds of the Company's D&O insurance
coverage.

The suit is "Mirsky v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:2007cv07083," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Robert W.
Gettleman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. (LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com)
          Miller Law LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-332-3400
          Fax: 312-676-2676

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq. (cgilden@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-357-0370
          Fax: 312-357-0369

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          The Wanamaker Building
          100 Penn Square East, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600

Representing the defendants is:

          Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq. (sean.berkowitz@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins LLP (IL)
          233 South Wacker Drive
          5800 Sears Tower
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-876-7700
          Fax: 312-993-9767


UNITED AIRLINES: EEOC Sues Over Handling of Disabled Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a
purported class-action lawsuit against United Airlines, saying
the airline made it too hard for workers who became disabled to
switch to other jobs they could still perform.

The agency's San Francisco office named five plaintiffs for the
class-action lawsuit.  Five others appeared to be victims as
well, according to EEOC attorney William Tamayo.

Mr. Tamayo told AP that the agency held settlement talks with
United Airlines before filing the lawsuit but no deal resulted.

In general, the lawsuit accuses United Airlines of "malicious
and reckless conduct" and seeks lost wages and punitive damages
for victims and an order that United stop discriminating against
disabled workers.


WILLIAM LYON: California Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit that challenges a tender offer
by one of William Lyon Homes, Inc.'s stockholders remains
stayed.

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

On that same day, the complaint, "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
v. William Lyon Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CC-00047," was
filed before the Superior Court of the state of California,
County of Orange.

The complaint in the California Action names the company and
certain of its directors as defendants and alleges, among other
things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
to the public stockholders.

The plaintiff in the California Action also sought to enjoin the
tender offer, and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees
and expenses related to the litigation.

On April 20, 2006, the California court denied the request of
the plaintiff in the California Action to enjoin the Tender
Offer.  The plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class in the
California Action, which was later taken off calendar, and the
company filed a motion to stay the California Action.

On July 5, 2006, the California Court granted the company's
motion to stay the California Action.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.


WILLIAM LYON: Shareholder Case Still Ongoing in Delaware Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded case captioned "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092" is proceeding in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.

                        Case Background

On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced
a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the
company's common stock not already owned by the principal
holder.  Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per
share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share.

Two purported class-action complaints were filed on behalf of
the public stockholders of the company, challenging the tender
offer and challenging related actions of the company and the
directors of the company.  The suits are:

      1. "Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
         Action No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and

      2. "Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et
         al., Civil Action No. 2017-N" was filed on March 21,
         2006.

Both suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The Delaware Complaints name the company and its directors as
defendants.  They allege, among other things, that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
plaintiffs in connection with the tender offer and other related
corporate activities.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among
other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to
the litigation.

On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had
appointed a special committee of independent directors who are
not members of the company's management or employed by the
company to consider the tender offer.  The members of the
Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence M. Higby, and
Dr. Arthur Laffer.

The company also announced that the Special Committee had
retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel.

                  Consolidation and Settlement

On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the
Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William
Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N."

On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware
Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a
proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's
approval.

Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per
share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer
to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended
Schedule Tender Offer.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have
determined that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class."

The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per
share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the
company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and
tender their shares.

Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the
closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006, to April
28, 2006.

                   Certification & Dismissal

On April 23, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court conditionally
certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a
stipulation of settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware
Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware
Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated
Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the
class.

On Feb. 16, 2007, the fee award to the plaintiffs' counsel was
appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.

On July 18, 2007, a three-judge panel of the Delaware Supreme
Court heard oral argument, and later referred the matter for
consideration by the Court en Banc.

In December 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court remanded the matter
to the Chancery Court for further proceedings regarding the fee
award to the plaintiff's counsel.  Under the appealed award, the
company has no expected liability for the plaintiffs' counsel
fees, which are expected to be paid by General Lyon.

On Dec. 1, 2008, the Chancery Court heard oral argument and
reserved decision regarding the fee award to Plaintiffs'
counsel, which is expected to be paid by General Lyon, according
to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

William Lyon Homes -- http://www.lyonhomes.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the design, construction and sale of single-family
detached and attached homes in California, Arizona and Nevada.
The company offers a range of homes designed to meet the
specific needs of each of its markets, although it primarily
emphasizes sales to the entry-level and move-up homebuyer
markets.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIDZ.COM INC: Barroway Topaz Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&S
TORY=/www/story/06-04-2009/0005038921&EDATE=
     The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
has been updated filed a a class-action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of securities of Bidz.com, Inc. (Nasdaq:
BIDZ) between August 13, 2007 and November 27, 2007 inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Bidz.com and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Bidz.com is an online retailer of jewelry, featuring a live
auction format.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

       -- that the Company engaged in a practice known as "shill
          bidding" which artificially raised the auction price
          of its products;

       -- that the Company was not forthright with its customers
          regarding "retail value" or "appraised value" of its
          products;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls;

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          financial statements were materially false and
          misleading at all relevant times; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being and future
          business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
          basis when made.

     On November 26, 2007, a Citron Research ("Citron") article
appeared on the website, Stocklemon.com, which revealed a number
of problems with the Company's business model.  Among other
things, the article exposed the Company's questionable bidding
and appraisal practices.  Then, on November 28, 2007, a second
Citron article was published providing additional details
regarding the Company's questionable bidding practices including
the practice known as "shill bidding" in order to drive up the
price of items up for auction.  The article disclosed that
certain items were bid on hundreds of times by the same few
bidders.

     On the negative news regarding the Company's business
practices, the Company's stock dropped from a closing price of
$19.94 per share on Friday, November 23, 2007, to a low of
$10.10 per share on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, for a loss of
nearly 50 percent on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com


BIDZ.COM INC: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0507883.
htm
     Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Bidz.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDZ) common stock between
August 13, 2007 and November 27, 2007, inclusive.

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

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Bidz
investors.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.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  * * *