CAR_Public/090617.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 17, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 118

                           Headlines

AU OPTRONICS: Defends Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in Calif.
BASIN WATER: $7M Suit Settlement Subject to Final Agreement
CERRO FLOW: Faces Illinois Litigation Over Sauget Pollution
COLUMBIA GAS: Settles W.Va. Suit Over T16 Pipeline Contamination
DAHN YOGA: Faces Arizona Litigation Alleging RICO ACT Violations

DATA DOMAIN: Shareholders File Delaware Lawsuit v. Directors
DOLLAR TREE: Defends Ex-Store Manager's FLSA Lawsuit in Alabama
DOLLAR TREE: Defends Female Store Managers' Suit for Equal Pay
DOLLAR TREE: No Trial Date Yet for Calif. Store Managers' Suit
DIAMOND FOODS: Appeal to Nixed Claims in Calif. Lawsuit Pending

DICK'S SPORTING: Settlement of Parks' FLSA Suit Pending Approval
HUTCHINSON TELECOMM: Israel Unit, Partner Face Various Claims
ITURAN LOCATION: Certification Hearing Not Yet Set for Pa. Suit
KING OF DIAMONDS: Faces Minn. Suit Over Dancers' Classification
KINGATE GLOBAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme

MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal to Bateman Certification Ruling Pending
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: $7.25M Securities Suit Deal Okayed in April
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Suit Pending
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Appealing Ruling on Suit Over 401(k) Plan
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Defends Suit by N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: To Defend Claims in N.Y. Suit v. J.P. Morgan
PETROBRAS: IAP Suit Over Pipeline Rupture Still Pending Appeal
PLANTRONICS INC: Mulls Bluetooth Headsets Suit Deal OK in 2010
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Settlement of 2 Calif. Suits Pending Approval

TARGET CORP: Hearing Set For "Immunity Supplement" Products Suit
TOUSA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. Pending
TOUSA INC: Responds to Notice of Alleged Chinese Drywall Defects
TOUSA INC: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Suit Over Vista Lakes Homes
WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KEXENA CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

AU OPTRONICS: Defends Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AU Optronics Corp. intends to defend a consolidated putative
antitrust class-action suit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

There are over 100 civil lawsuits filed against AUO and/or its
subsidiaries in the United States and several civil lawsuits in
Canada alleging, among other things, antitrust violations.

The putative antitrust class-action lawsuits filed in the United
States have been consolidated for discovery in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

In the amended consolidated complaints, the plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and an
enjoinment from the alleged antitrust conspiracy.

AUO has retained counsel to handle the related matters.

These civil lawsuits are still in the preliminary phase.

Management is reviewing the merits of these civil lawsuits on an
on-going basis, according to the company's May 27, 2009 Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

AU Optronics Corp. -- http://auo.com/auoDEV/?ls=en- designs,
develops, manufactures, assembles and markets flat panel
displays.  The company's principal products are thin-film
transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels.  Its panels
are used in computer products, such as notebook computers and
desktop monitors; consumer electronics products, such as mobile
phones, digital photo frames, digital still cameras, portable
navigation display, portable digital video disc players, LCD
televisions, and industrial displays.  The company sells its
panels primarily to original equipment manufacturing service
providers or brand customers.  The company groups its business
into three marketing channels: Information Technology Displays,
Consumer Products Displays and Television Displays.


BASIN WATER: $7M Suit Settlement Subject to Final Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The proposed $7,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Basin
Water, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. Cv-07-08359-
GW(FFMx)," is still subject to preparation of a final settlement
agreement,  according to the company's May 22, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter on May 15,
2009, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 13, 2009 at 8:30
a.m. for proposed settlement.

The hearing will be held before Judge George H. Wu at the U.S.
Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, Calif.

On Feb. 19, 2009, Basin Water, Inc. reached an agreement in
principle to settle a consolidated purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Class Action Reporter, April 22,
2009).

On Dec. 27, 2007, and Jan. 2, 2008, two purported securities
class-action complaints were filed against Basin Water, Inc.,
Peter L. Jensen, Michael M. Stark and Thomas C. Tekulve for
violations of the Exchange Act.

These suits, which contain similar allegations, are captioned,
"Poulos v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 07-8359 GW (FFMx),"
and "Nofer v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 08-0002 SGL
(JCRx)."

The suits, among other things, allege that the Basin defendants
"issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results" because the company
"had not adequately accounted for reserves in connection with
its legacy system contracts."

The plaintiffs allege a putative class period between May 14,
2007, and Nov. 13, 2007, and do not claim a specific amount of
damages.

The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated, and on Oct. 3,
2008, a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) was filed which
alleges that the company deliberately understated the reserves
it took for certain unprofitable contracts, and committed
various intentional violations of GAAP during a putative class
period between Nov. 14, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2008.

The suit does not state a specific amount of damages.

On Feb. 19, 2009, the company and its insurance carriers reached
an agreement in principle to settle the class action with
representatives of the class.  The settlement is still subject
to preparation of a final settlement agreement, following which
the company would intend to seek preliminary approval from the
Court so that class members can receive notice of the
settlement, providing them with the opportunity to accept its
terms or to opt out and choose whether to pursue their own
individual claims.  Following a fair period of notice to the
class, it would be the company's intention to seek final Court
approval of the settlement and the dismissal of all claims
against Basin Water.

The company denies all of the allegations in the lawsuit and
believes that its disclosures were appropriate under the law.
Nevertheless, it has agreed to settle the litigation in order to
avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.  The company does
not expect a cash effect of the settlement as the entire
settlement amount is expected to be paid by its liability
insurers.

For more details, contact:

          Joy Ann Bull, Esq. (joyb@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway
          Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Daniel J. Tyukody, Jr., Esq. (dtyukody@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe
          777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-629-2020


CERRO FLOW: Faces Illinois Litigation Over Sauget Pollution
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Pharmacia Corp., Solutia, Inc.,
Pfizer and Monsanto AG Products are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit filed by a group of residents who live in or near
Sauget, Illinois over the release of various hazardous
substances they claim has created a severe health risk and has
contaminated their properties, Kelly Holleran of The St. Clair
Record reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 10, 2009 in St. Clair County Circuit
Court.  In it, plaintiffs argue that three release sites - a 90-
acre landfill operated by Sauget and Co., a 314-acre W.G.
Krummrich Plant and property owned by Cerro Flow Products - have
released PCBs and other various substances, including dioxins
and furans, into the atmosphere for more than 70 years,
according to The St. Clair Record report.

"According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
a lifetime dose of one milligram of PCBs is sufficient to cause
cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases," the
suit states.  "According to the World Health Organization, there
is not safe level of exposure to PCBs," adds the suit.


COLUMBIA GAS: Settles W.Va. Suit Over T16 Pipeline Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. settled a purported class-action
suit filed in Roane Circuit Court in West Virginia concerning
damages caused by the company's T16 pipeline, Steve Korris of
The West Virginia Record reports.

In an April 1, 2009 settlement, Columbia Gas agreed to pay 111
other landowners about $6 a yard for damage along 28 miles of
pipeline.  It also agreed to pay the lead plaintiff, Emogene
Helmick, approximately $50,000, according to The West Virginia
Record report.

Ms. Helmick's lawyer, Harry Bell, Esq. of Bell & Bands in
Charleston, and Columbia Gas' lawyer, Amy Smith, Esq. of Steptoe
& Johnson in Charleston, moved to approve the settlement,
reports The West Virginia Record.

Chief Judge Joseph Goodwin presides over the case.  He hasn't
set a hearing, The West Virginia Record reported.

Chris Dickerson of The West Virginia Record previously reported
that the suit was filed by attorneys Tim J. Yianne and Harry F.
Bell Jr. of Bell & Bands on Oct. 17, 2007 on behalf of Emogene
Helmick, who is seeking compensatory damages and injunctive
relief for property damage caused by contamination from Columbia
Gas pipelines located, among other places, on her property in
Little Pigeon (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 29, 2007).

According to the suit, which has been assigned to Judge Thomas
Evans, Columbia Gas has operated a natural gas pipeline system
in the northeastern part of the United States since the 1890s.
Presently, the company now has about 12,750 miles of such
pipeline and 36 natural gas storage fields.

Columbia Gas, according to the suit, no longer uses the line to
transmit gas, but it has attempted to transfer ownership of the
line for the portion of pipeline that crosses Ms. Helmick's
property.

"However, as a condition of transferring the pipeline, Columbia
has attempted to have plaintiff sign an 'Ownership Transfer of
Abandoned Pipeline' contract where plaintiff makes certain
warranties if she should remove any equipment, scrap or other
materials," the suit states.

The complaint maintains that these warranties are a violation of
the Federal Resource Conversation and Recovery Act, an actual or
threatened release of hazardous substance under the Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act or a violation of other environmental laws, rules and
regulations.

The potential class would consist of all individuals who own
property in West Virginia that has been contaminated by the T16
pipeline.

The complaint says factors that would be considered include
whether contaminants have caused a diminution of property value
and, if so, by how much.  The amount of damages for the cost of
removal and disposal of the contaminants also would be
considered.

Ms. Helmick is seeking class action status for the case.  She is
also seeking an order creating and implementing a court-
supervised defendant-funded program to pay for the removal and
disposing of contaminants from the pipelines, attorney fees,
court costs - including medical monitoring administration - as
well as other relief.

For more details, contact:

          Tim J. Yianne, Esq.
          Harry Bell Jr., Esq.
          Bell and Bands
          30 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723
          Charleston, West Virginia 25326
          Phone: (304) 345-1700 and (800) 342-1701
          Fax: (304) 345-1715
          Web site: http://www.belllaw.com


DAHN YOGA: Faces Arizona Litigation Alleging RICO ACT Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dahn Yoga & Health Centers, Inc. and several others are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by 26 former members who
claim they were subjected to "psychological manipulation," WBZ-
TV reports.

The suit was filed on May 22, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona, under the caption, "Barba et al v.
Lee et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-01115."

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are, Ricardo Barba, Lily
Christian, Heather Cleary, Marjory Gargosh, Chun Hwa Ha, Jessica
Harrelson, Woo Seok Jang, Hun Kim, Alexa Krieger, Alana Lee,
Seung Hee Lee, Cherie Mar, Liza Miller, Nina Miller, Ariadne
Nevin, Meredith Potter, Alexandra Romero, Karina Rosado, Amy
Shipley, Heather Simeral, Julia Simonson, Michael Starace,
Michael-John Tavantzis and, Lucie Vogel.

Aside from Dahn Yoga others named as defendants in the lawsuit
include, Seung Huen Lee, Tao Fellowship, BR Consulting, Inc.,
Mago Earth, Inc., Vortex, Inc., CGI, Inc., and Does.

Two of the plaintiffs, Jade Harrelson and Liza Miller are
attractive, young women who say they were also idealistic enough
to join Dahn Yoga.  "I feel I have some sort of mission to help
people on this earth," Ms. Miller told WBZ-TV.

But soon she and Ms. Harrelson say they were coerced into
devoting their lives to Dahn Yoga, isolated from family and
friends.  They claim the mission to heal the earth quickly
turned into something else, bringing more money into the
organization, according to WBZ-TV.

Workshops and retreats began to cost tens of thousands of
dollars as they say they felt pressure to delve deeper into the
organization and become Dahn Yoga masters themselves, reports
WBZ-TV.

The lawsuit claims the members were subjected to "thought
reform, coercive persuasion and undue influence."  In general,
it alleges violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.

For more details, contact:

          Ryan A. Kent, Esq. (ryan@ryankentlaw.com)
          Law Office of Ryan Kent
          30 Mitchell Blvd.
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Phone: 415-479-4356
          Fax: 415-479-4358


DATA DOMAIN: Shareholders File Delaware Lawsuit v. Directors
------------------------------------------------------------
     Shareholder Rights Law Firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") and Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. ("G&E")
announced the filing of a shareholder class action lawsuit
against members of the board of directors of Data Domain, Inc.
(NASDAQ: DDUP), and NetApp Inc. (NASDAQ: NTAP) and its
acquisition entities on behalf of the Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit and similarly situated
shareholders of Data Domain.  The lawsuit, which was filed on
Friday, June 12, 2009 in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware, is captioned, "Police & Fire Retirement System of the
City of Detroit v. Bernal, C.A. No. 4663-VCL."

     The lawsuit alleges that the members of the Board of
Directors of Data Domain are breaching their fiduciary duties to
their shareholders by refusing to negotiate with a potential
acquirer, EMC Corporation, and for agreeing to sell Data Domain
to NetApp without taking any steps to maximize the price paid to
Data Domain's shareholders.  On May 20, 2009, just days after
EMC privately disclosed its desire to acquire Data Domain,
NetApp agreed to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, allowing
NetApp to acquire Data Domain for $25 per share in a mix of cash
and stock.  On June 1, 2009, EMC launched a competing proposal
to acquire Data Domain in a $30 per share all-cash deal.
Shortly thereafter, NetApp increased its bid to $30, comprised
of the same amount of stock and an increased percentage of cash,
which the Data Domain Board immediately approved.

     According to the lawsuit, Data Domain's Board of Directors
violated their fiduciary duties by approving the original and
the restructured deals with NetApp, both of which give NetApp an
improper bidding advantage in the form of a termination fee, a
no-shop/no-talk provision and matching rights.  The Board
granted each of these deal protections before any value-
maximizing process took place, in a blatant effort to ensure
that their favored merger partner is Data Domain's ultimate
acquirer.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the revised NetApp
transaction "until such time as the Data Domain Directors have
fully complied with their fiduciary duties and taken all readily
available steps to maximize shareholder value."

     Today, following the filing of the lawsuit, Data Domain's
Board announced that it has recommended that Data Domain
shareholders reject the $30 per share EMC offer and vote in
favor of the revised merger agreement with NetApp that the
plaintiffs seek to enjoin.  Detroit P&F and its counsel intend
to vigorously prosecute the claims in the lawsuit in order to
protect shareholders' rights and obtain the best possible
consideration for their shares, without favoring one bidder over
another.

For more details, contact:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq. (jerry@blbglaw.com)
          BLB&G
          Phone: (212) 554-1400
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. (jeisenhofer@gelaw.com)
          G&E
          Phone: (646) 722-8500
          http://www.gelaw.com


DOLLAR TREE: Defends Ex-Store Manager's FLSA Lawsuit in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. continues to defend a collective action filed
by a former store manager in 2006, in Alabama federal court.

The plaintiff claims that she and other store managers should
have been classified as non-exempt employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and received overtime compensation.

The Court preliminarily allowed nationwide (except California)
notice to be sent to all store managers employed for the three
years immediately preceding the filing of the suit.

Approximately 760 individuals have opted in to the collective
action.

The company expects the Court to decide whether to decertify the
collective action late this summer, according to its May 27,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- formerly
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.
At Jan.31, 2009, the company operated 3,591 discount variety
retail stores in 48 states.  Approximately 3,450 of these stores
sell substantially all items for one dollar or less.  The
remaining stores, operating as Deal$, sell most items for one
dollar or less but also sell items for more than one dollar.
Dollar Tree's stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree,
Deal$ and Dollar Bills.


DOLLAR TREE: Defends Female Store Managers' Suit for Equal Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. is defending itself in a putative class-action
suit filed by female store managers under the Equal Pay Act in
Alabama federal court.

In 2008, the company was sued under the Equal Pay Act in Alabama
federal court by two female store managers alleging that they
and other female store managers were paid less than male store
managers.

Among other things, they seek monetary damages and back pay.

The Court ordered that notice be sent to potential plaintiffs
and 354 individuals opted in.

The company expects that the Court will consider a motion to
decertify the collective action at a future date, according to
its May 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Subsequent to the filing of the original action, plaintiffs
sought to amend the case to include the Title VII charges as a
class-action suit.

The Court presently has the amendment under consideration and is
expected to issue a ruling in June 2009 or soon thereafter.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- formerly
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.
At Jan.31, 2009, the company operated 3,591 discount variety
retail stores in 48 states.  Approximately 3,450 of these stores
sell substantially all items for one dollar or less.  The
remaining stores, operating as Deal$, sell most items for one
dollar or less but also sell items for more than one dollar.
Dollar Tree's stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree,
Deal$ and Dollar Bills.


DOLLAR TREE: No Trial Date Yet for Calif. Store Managers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been scheduled for a class action by brought
by California store managers against Dollar Tree, Inc.,
according to the company's May 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 2, 2009.

In 2007, two store managers filed a class action against the
company in California federal court, claiming they and other
California store managers should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under California and federal law.

The Court has allowed notice to be sent to all California store
managers employed since Dec. 12, 2004.

The plaintiffs estimate the class to be approximately 655
individuals.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- formerly
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.
At Jan.31, 2009, the company operated 3,591 discount variety
retail stores in 48 states.  Approximately 3,450 of these stores
sell substantially all items for one dollar or less.  The
remaining stores, operating as Deal$, sell most items for one
dollar or less but also sell items for more than one dollar.
Dollar Tree's stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree,
Deal$ and Dollar Bills.


DIAMOND FOODS: Appeal to Nixed Claims in Calif. Lawsuit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the San Joaquin County Superior Court
in California's ruling striking the class allegations in a
complaint against Diamond Foods, Inc., over walnut deliveries
remains pending.

In March 2008, a former grower and an organization named Walnut
Producers of California filed suit against the company in San
Joaquin County Superior Court claiming, among other things,
breach of contract relating to alleged underpayment for walnut
deliveries for the 2005 and 2006 crop years.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of walnut growers
who entered into contracts with the company.

In May 2008, the company argued a motion in front of the judge
in the case requesting, among other things, that all class
action allegations be struck from the plaintiffs' complaint.

In August 2008, the court granted the company's motion.

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's ruling striking the
class allegations from the complaint, according to the company's
May 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

Diamond Foods, Inc. -- http://www.diamondfoods.com-- is a
branded food company specializing in processing, marketing and
distributing culinary, in-shell and ingredient nuts and snack
products.  The company's products are sold in over 60,000 retail
locations in the U.S. and in over 100 countries.  Diamond offers
all of its products in an array of packages to meet different
market needs.  The company's snack nut products are sold in
various on-the-go package styles, including resealable foil bags
and resealable plastic containers.  Diamond also offers snack
products in 20-ounce to 40-ounce polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) containers and bags for the club channel.  The company
offers its microwave popcorn products in various package sizes,
including 100-calorie snack size.  It has four product lines:
culinary; snack; in-shell, and ingredient/food service.  Sales
to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. accounted for approximately 22% of its
net sales during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008 (fiscal
2008).


DICK'S SPORTING: Settlement of Parks' FLSA Suit Pending Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of Daniel Parks' purported class-action
suit that accuse Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. of failing to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act is
pending approval.

Two purported class-action cases were filed in May and November
2005, with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York.  They are captioned:

       -- "Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. and
          Galyan's Trading Company, Inc.," and

       -- "Daniel Parks v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc."

Because until September 2006 none of these cases were certified
as class actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were
incidental to its business.

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases, which the court upheld.

In the Barrus case, the parties and the Court agreed to stay the
litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through
mediation.

Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007 and
November 2008.

In the Barrus case, attempts to resolve the case through
settlement at mediation were unsuccessful, and litigation has
resumed.

In the Parks case, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the case on a class-wide basis, subject to execution
of formal settlement documents and court approval of the
proposed settlement, according to its May 22, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


HUTCHINSON TELECOMM: Israel Unit, Partner Face Various Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited's subsidiary
in Israel and Partner Communications Company Ltd. continue to
face class action claims for either alleged violation of
antitrust law, consumer complaints, or unauthorized erection of
cellular antennas, causing environmental damages.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, a total of 18 claims against the company's
subsidiary in Israel, Partner, and, in some such claims,
together with other cellular operators in Israel, each with a
motion to certify as class action.

At this stage, and until the claims are recognized as class
actions, the company and Partner are unable to evaluate the
probability of success of such claims and therefore no provision
has been made, according to its May 27, 2009 Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited --
http://www.htil.com/-- is a provider of mobile and fixed-line
telecommunications services.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company
operated telecommunications services in five markets: Israel,
Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Using second
generation (2G) global system for mobile communications (GSM),
code division multiple access (CDMA), global packet radio
service (GPRS), and third generation (3G) platforms, it offers
customers a variety of telecommunications services, such as
basic voice and data services to multimedia services using
mobile technology.  It uses the 3 brand in Indonesia, and the
Hutch brand in Thailand and Sri Lanka. In Israel, it uses the
orange brand, and in Vietnam, it uses the Vietnamobile brand.


ITURAN LOCATION: Certification Hearing Not Yet Set for Pa. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A certification hearing is yet to be scheduled in a class-action
suit filed against a subsidiary of Ituran Location and Control
Ltd., Ituran Florida Corporation, according to the company's May
27, 2009 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On July 8, 2005, the class action was filed against Ituran
Florida in the First Judicial District Court in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit claims that Ituran Florida sent fax advertisements
to the named plaintiff and the other members of the class
allegedly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991.

Ituran Florida filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings that
such claims should not be heard as part of a class action.  Such
motion was denied by the court, the pre-certification discovery
process was completed and a certification hearing is yet to be
scheduled.

The plaintiff agreed to limit the class action to Pennsylvania
actions only and the maximum potential amount of damages that
the company estimate that the subsidiary may be liable for
pursuant to the provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act if the plaintiffs prevail ranges between $500,000 to
$750,000 in the aggregate for all class plaintiffs, plus
punitive damages and expenses.

Based in Israel, Ituran Location and Control Ltd. --
http://www.ituran.com/ituranfront/-- is mainly engaged in the
area of location-based services, consisting of stolen vehicle
recovery and tracking services.  The company operates in two
segments: location-based services and wireless communication
products.  The company provides its services and sells its
products in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and the United States.
Mapa Mapping and Publishing Ltd. and Mapa Internet Ltd. are the
subsidiaries of the Company.


KING OF DIAMONDS: Faces Minn. Suit Over Dancers' Classification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The King of Diamonds, a strip club near Minneapolis, Minnesota
is facing a purported class-action lawsuit claiming that the
club is violating federal and state laws by classifying the
dancers as independent contractors rather than employees, Jon
Franklin of digitalcity.com reports.

According to the complaint, the classification benefits the club
as it requires the dancers to pay a fee of $20 to $100 a night
to work.  The dancers do not get a wage and work for tips only,
reports digitalcity.com.

Digitalcity.com reported The plaintiffs attorney, E. Michelle
Drake, Esq., argues that employers cannot require employees to
pay to work and that the employees cannot work for tips only.
She also argues that people who wait tables also get a wage and,
therefore, those who give table dances should also get a wage.

For more details, contact:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq. (drake@nka.com)
          Nichols Kaster, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 877-448-0492 or 612.256.3249
          Fax: 612.338.4878


KINGATE GLOBAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on June
12, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who continued to
have an investment in the Kingate Global Fund Ltd. fund on
December 10, 2008.  The putative Class seeks a recovery of
billions of dollars in damages.

     The complaint's principal allegation is that Defendants
were negligent and reckless in investing substantially all of
the assets of the Kingate Global Fund Ltd. with Bernard L.
Madoff ("Madoff") and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC ("BMIS") without conducting reasonable and adequate due
diligence.

     The Defendants include: (i) Kingate Management Ltd.; (ii)
FIM Ltd.; (iii) FIM Advisers LLP; (iv) FIM (USA) Inc.; (v)
PricewaterhouseCoopers; (vi) PricewaterhouseCoopers Bermuda;
(vii) Citi Hedge Fund Services, Ltd.; (viii) Bank Of Bermuda
Ltd.; (ix) Graham H. Cook; (x) Federico M. Ceretti; (xi) John E.
Epps; (xii) Carlo Grosso; (xiii) Michael G. Tannenbaum; and
(xiv) Christopher Wetherhill.

For more details, contact:

          Jennifer Bankston, Esq. (jbankston@labaton.com)
          Javier Bleichmar, Esq. (jbleichmar@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: +1 212 907-0887 or +1 212 907-0700
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal to Bateman Certification Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal to the denial of his renewed motion for
class certification of the matter, "Michael Bateman v. American
Multi-Cinema, Inc. Case No. CV07-00171," which names Marquee
Holdings, Inc., as a defendant, is pending.

The class-action complaint was filed in January 2007, against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on receipts given to customers.  It imposes significant
penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have
been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses
incurred by the card holder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The District Court stayed all proceedings in the case pending
the outcome of the Ninth Circuit case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the
situation where more than five digits of the credit card are
printed on a receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.

Plaintiff has appealed this decision and the case is stayed
pending this appeal, according to the company's May 26, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for fiscal year ended April 2, 2009.

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California Judge Gary A. Feess,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spiromoss.com)
         Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com)
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Phone: 213-576-8097
         Fax: 213-576-8080


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: $7.25M Securities Suit Deal Okayed in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, on
April 28, 2009, approved the proposed $7.25 million settlement
in the matter, "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS."

The Kansas City Business Journal previously reported NovaStar
Financial, Inc. has agreed to pay $7.25 million to settle a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit.  The
settlement agreement, filed on Dec. 8, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, includes no
admission of wrongdoing by Kansas City-based NovaStar (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 12, 2008).

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities
class action complaint were filed against the company and three
of its executive officers (Class Action Reporter, June 19,
2008).

On Aug. 23, 2004, Judge Ortrie D. Smith issued an order
consolidating all related cases into one class action as, "In re
NovaStar Financial Securities Litigation," and appointed lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  The lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated class action complaint on Nov. 12, 2004.

The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants
made public statements that were misleading or failed to
disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters.

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- the company;

     -- Lance W. Anderson, president, and chief operating
        officer;

     -- Michael L. Bamburg, senior vice president and chief
        investment officer;

     -- Scott Hartman, chairman of the board and chief executive
        officer; and

     -- Rodney E. Schwatken, vice president, secretary,
        treasurer, and controller.

The plaintiffs purported to bring the consolidated action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during
the period Oct. 29, 2003, through April 8, 2004.

According to the complaint, NovaStar fostered an aggressive-
growth culture throughout the class period.  NovaStar touted its
rapid growth in earnings, production, and its securities
portfolio and highlighted the increasing number of NovaStar-
affiliated branch offices.

The suit notes that in 2003, the company had reported that it
had doubled the number of branch offices in operation and that
its earnings had more than doubled in 2003 to $112 million.

On April 28, 2009, the Court approved the settlement, according
to the company's May 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, Judge Ortrie D. Smith,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          (jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
          1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-607-6871
          Fax: 404-876-4476

               -- and --

          William W. Wickersham, Esq.
          Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Phone: 212-894-7200

Representing the defendants are:

          Erin Bansal, Esq. (ebansal@orrick.com)
          William F. Alderman, Esq. (walderman@orrick.com)
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: 415-773-5759


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri's dismissal of a consolidated
amended putative class action complaint is pending, according to
Novastar Financial, Inc.'s May 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In February 2007, a number of substantially similar putative
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

The complaints name the company and three of its former and
current executive officers as defendants and generally allege,
among other things, that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results.

The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock during the period May 4, 2006 through Feb. 20,
2007.

Following consolidation of the actions, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on Oct. 19, 2007.

On Dec. 29, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss all of
plaintiffs' claims.

On June 4, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints
without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Court's ruling.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Appealing Ruling on Suit Over 401(k) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. is appealing the class certification
order in the lawsuit filed in relation to the company's 401(k)
plan, according to its May 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jennifer Jones filed a purported
class action case in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri against the company, certain of its former
and current officers, and unnamed members of its "Retirement
Committee."

Plaintiff, a former employee of the company, seeks class-action
certification on behalf of all persons who were participants in
or beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) plan from May 4, 2006
until Nov. 15, 2007 and whose accounts included investments in
its common stock.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages alleging that the company's
common stock was an inappropriately risky investment option for
retirement savings, and that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by allowing investment of some of the assets contained in
the 401(k) plan to be made in the company's common stock.

On Nov. 12, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss which
was denied by the Court on Feb. 11, 2009.

On April 6, 2009 the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The company sought permission from the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals to appeal the order granting class certification.  On
May 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals granted the company
permission to appeal the class certification order, according to
the company's May 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Defends Suit by N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. expects to defend the purported class-
action case filed by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund,
according to the company's May 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class-action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.

Defendants in the case include NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation and its individual directors, several securitization
trusts sponsored by the company, and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and plaintiff has filed a motion to remand
the case to state court.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and
the purported class members.

Pursuant to a stipulation, the company has not yet filed its
initial responsive pleading, and discovery is not yet underway.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: To Defend Claims in N.Y. Suit v. J.P. Morgan
----------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. expects to defend any claims asserted
in relation to a putative class action lawsuit filed against
J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp., according to the company's May 27,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On May 6, 2008, the company received a letter written on behalf
of J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acceptance Corp. and certain affiliates
demanding indemnification for claims asserted against Morgan in
a case entitled, "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local #562 Supplemental
Plan and Trust v. J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp. et al.," filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau.

The case seeks class action certification for alleged violations
by Morgan of sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
on behalf of all persons who purchased certain categories of
mortgage backed securities issued by Morgan in 2006 and 2007.

Morgan's indemnity demand alleges that any liability it might
have to plaintiffs would be based, in part, upon alleged
misrepresentations made by the company with respect to certain
mortgages that make up a portion of the collateral for the
securities at issue.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


PETROBRAS: IAP Suit Over Pipeline Rupture Still Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit filed by the Instituto Ambiental do
Parana (IAP) against Petroleo Brasileiro SA-Petrobras is still
pending appeal, according to the company's May 22, 2009 Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Feb. 16, 2001, the company's Araucaria-Paranagua pipeline
ruptured as a result of an unusual movement of the soil and
spilled approximately 15,059 gallons of fuel oil into several
rivers located in the State of Parana.  Within four days, the
company cleaned the river surfaces, recovering approximately
13,738 gallons of fuel oil.

As a result of the accident, the IAP filed a class action
against the company seeking damages of approximately BRL150
million.

This legal proceeding has been suspended due to a jurisdictional
conflict between the state and federal courts.

Headquartered in Brazil, Petroleo Brasileiro SA-Petrobras --
http://www2.petrobras.com.br/-- is an integrated oil and gas
company.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company's
average domestic daily hydrocarbons production was 2,176
thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day (mboe/d).
Approximately 84% of its proved reserves are in fields in the
offshore Campos Basin.  The company operates the refining
capacity in Brazil.  The company's domestic refining capacity is
1,942 thousand barrels per day (mbbl/d).  Its domestic refining
production is 1,787 mbbl/d and sales of oil products to domestic
markets is 1,748 mbbl/d.  The company is also involved in the
production of petrochemicals and fertilizers.  The company
distributes oil products through its own BR network of retailers
and to wholesalers.


PLANTRONICS INC: Mulls Bluetooth Headsets Suit Deal OK in 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plantronics, Inc. anticipates that the settlement of a
consolidated class action suit alleging that the defendants'
Bluetooth headsets may cause noise-induced hearing loss will be
approved in the second quarter of fiscal 2010, according to the
company's May 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 28,
2009.

Initially, six purported class-action complaints were filed.
These are:

      1. "Shannon Wars et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was
         filed on Nov. 14, 2006, before the U.S. District Court
         for the Eastern District of Texas.

      2. "Lori Raines, et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was
         filed on Oct. 20, 2006, before the U.S. District Court
         for the Central District of California.

      3. "Kyle Edwards, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was
         filed on Oct. 17, 2006, before the U.S. District Court
         for the Middle District of Florida.

      4. "Ralph Cook vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was filed on
         Feb. 8, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of Virginia.

      5. "Randy Pierce vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was filed
         on Jan. 10, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for
         the Eastern District of Arkansas.

      6. "Bruce Schiller, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which
         was filed on Oct. 10, 2006, before the Superior Court
         of the State of California in and for the County of Los
         Angeles.

The complaints state that they do not seek damages for personal
injury to any individual.  These complaints seek various
remedies, including injunctive relief requiring the company to
include certain additional warnings with its Bluetooth headsets
and to redesign the headsets to limit the volume produced, or,
alternatively, to provide the user with the ability to determine
the level of sound emitted from the headset.

The plaintiffs also seek unspecified general, special, and
punitive damages, as well as restitution.

The federal cases have been consolidated for all pre-trial
purposes with the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of Los Angeles before Judge Fischer.  The California State Court
case was dismissed by the plaintiffs.

The parties agreed in principle to settle their claims.  The
Court granted preliminary approval of their proposed nationwide
settlement.  The parties are in process of providing notice of
the proposed settlement to the nationwide class.  Objections to
and opt outs of the settlement are being received.  The Court is
scheduled to hear the objections in early July 2009.

Plantronics, Inc. -- http://www.plantronics.com/-- is a
worldwide designer, manufacturer, and marketer of lightweight
communications headsets, telephone headset systems, and
accessories for the business and consumer markets under the
Plantronics brand.  It is also a manufacturer and marketer of
docking audio products, computer and home entertainment sound
systems, and a line of headphones for personal digital media
under the Altec Lansing brand.  In addition, it manufactures and
markets under its Clarity brand specialty telephone products,
such as telephones for the hearing impaired, and other related
products for people with special communication needs.  The
company ships a range of communications products to over 80
countries through a worldwide network of distributors,
retailers, wireless carriers, original equipment manufacturers
and telephony service providers. It has developed distribution
channels in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand,
where use of its products is widespread.


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. faces a consolidated amended
complaint filed as a putative class action on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's units from July 17, 2007 to July 17,
2008, according to Semgroup's May 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Between July 21, 2008 and Sept. 4, 2008, these class action
complaints were filed:

   1. Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed July 21,
      2008).   The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on
      Aug. 26, 2008;

   2. Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of Oklahoma
      (filed July 22, 2008);

   3. Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o Charles
      D. Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-cv-6598, in the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed July 25,
      2008);

   4. Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
      Civil Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the United States District
      Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 8,
      2008);

   5. Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
      Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the U.S. District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 25,
      2008); and

   6. William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et
      al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the United States
      District Court for the Southern District of New York
      (filed Sept. 4, 2008).

Pursuant to a motion filed with the MDL Panel, the Maurer case
has been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and
consolidated with the Carson case.  The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman
cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held
in the Carson case on Oct. 17, 2008.  At that hearing, the court
granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for
pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now
pending as "In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-425-GKF-PJC."

The court entered an order on Oct. 27, 2008, granting the motion
of Harvest Fund Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in
the consolidated litigation.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the court entered a Scheduling Order
providing, among other things, that the lead plaintiff may file
a consolidated amended complaint within 70 days of the date of
the order, and that defendants may answer or otherwise respond
within 60 days of the date of the filing of a consolidated
amended complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to modify
the stay of discovery provided for under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The court granted Plaintiff's motion,
and the company and certain other defendants filed a Petition
for Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that
was denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.

The lead plaintiff obtained an extension to file its
consolidated amended complaint until May 4, 2009; defendants
have 60 days from that date to answer or otherwise respond to
the complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
May 4, 2009.  In that complaint, filed as a putative class
action on behalf of all purchasers of the company's units from
July 17, 2007 to July 17, 2008 (the "class period"), lead
plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws
against the company, its general partner, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, certain underwriters in its
initial and secondary public offerings, and certain entities who
were investors in the Private Company and their individual
representatives who served on the Private Company's management
committee.

Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges that the
company's financial condition throughout the class period was
dependent upon speculative commodities trading by the Private
Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and
that Defendants negligently and intentionally failed to disclose
this speculative trading in the company's public filings during
the class period.

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges claims for
violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 for damages and rescission with respect to all
persons who purchased our units in the initial and secondary
offerings, and also asserts claims under section 10b, Rule 10b-
5, and section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory and
rescissory damages for class members, pre-judgment interest,
costs of court, and attorneys' fees.

SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. -- http://www.SGLP.com/-- owns
and operates a diversified portfolio of complementary midstream
energy assets.  SemGroup Energy Partners provides crude oil and
liquid asphalt cement terminalling and storage services and
crude oil gathering and transportation services.


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Settlement of 2 Calif. Suits Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of two actions filed against SiRF
Technology Holdings, Inc. and other defendants in the Superior
Court of California, Santa Clara County, is pending approval.

On May 22, 2009, SiRF, the other named defendants and the
plaintiffs to the actions identified below executed a memorandum
of understanding (the "MOU") to settle:

   (i) a class action relating to the transactions contemplated
       by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of Feb. 9,
       2009, among SiRF, CSR plc ("CSR") and Shannon
       Acquisition, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of CSR (the
       "Merger Agreement"); and

  (ii) a pre-existing shareholder derivative action, which
       actions had been consolidated and entitled In re SiRF
       Technology Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Derivative
       Litigation, Case No. 1:08-CV-106395.

The Actions named as defendants SiRF and certain current and
former SiRF officers and directors.

The proposed settlement of the Action remains subject to
negotiation of final documentation, confirmatory discovery,
court approval, final SiRF board approval and consummation of
the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

Pursuant to the MOU, the plaintiffs have agreed that the Actions
will be dismissed with prejudice against all defendants, and
SiRF has agreed to make certain disclosures relating to the
merger requested by the plaintiffs.

In addition, the proposed settlement provides that SiRF will pay
plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses, as awarded by the
court, in an amount not to exceed $385,000.

According to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated May 26, 2009, although
SiRF and the other defendants to the Actions denied and continue
to deny the substantive allegations made in the Actions, SiRF
agreed to settle the Actions in order to avoid costly litigation
and eliminate the risk of any delay to the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.sirf.com/-- is a
supplier of Global Positioning System (GPS)-based location
technology solutions designed to provide location awareness
capabilities in high-volume mobile consumer and commercial
applications.  The company's products use GPS to provide
longitude, latitude, and time information to GPS-enabled
devices.  SiRF offers GPS chip sets, standalone, and system on
chip (SoC), chip sets, and software products for high-volume GPS
markets.  SiRF markets and sells its products in four major
markets: wireless handheld devices such as mobile phones;
automotive electronic systems, including navigation and
telematics systems; consumer electronics products, such as
recreational GPS handhelds, mobile gaming machines, digital
cameras and wearable devices; and mobile computing systems,
including personal digital assistants, notebook computers,
universal mobile personal computers, and mobile Internet
devices.


TARGET CORP: Hearing Set For "Immunity Supplement" Products Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative August hearing is set for a purported class-action
lawsuit Target Corp. over an immunity supplement sold by Target
stores, Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record reports.

Kelly Holleran of the St. Clair Record previously reported that
Target Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in St. Clair
County Circuit Court alleging that it engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices designed to mislead the public when
marketing its "Immunity Supplement" products (Class Actrion
Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).

The suit was filed on Dec. 31, 2008 by Brian Buehlhorn, under
case number 08-L-667.  It alleges the retailer misled the public
into believing Immunity Supplement products protects users from
airborne viruses, is a form of immune system defense and
decreases a person's likelihood of getting sick.

Attorneys Paul M. Weiss, Esq., and George K. Lang, Esq., of
Freed and Weiss of Chicago, Richard J. Burke, Esq. of Richard J.
Burke in St. Louis and Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq., and Brian T.
Kreisler, Esq. of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson in
Belleville represent Mr. Buehlhorn and the putative class,
report the St. Clair Record.

According to the complaint, "Target's acts and omission
constitute, inter alia: (1) violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act, and (2) unjust enrichment."

Mr. Buehlhorn claims Target's "unfair and deceptive" scheme has
caused him and the class to incur substantial damages.  He also
alleges Target has benefited at the expense of its consumers,
according to the St. Clair Record.

The complaint states, "the profits and/or benefits obtained by
Target through sales of immunity supplement are to the determent
of Plaintiff and the class, and violate the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience."

The St. Clair Record reported that Mr. Buehlhorn is asking that
the case be certified as a class-action and that the court award
him and the class damages, attorneys' fees, costs of the suit
and other relief the court deems just.

For more details, contact:

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq. (paul@freedweiss.com)
          George K. Lang, Esq. (george@freedweiss.com)
          Freed and Weiss LLC
          111 W. Washington Street
          Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312 220 0000 and 312 855 2628
          Fax: 312 220 7777

               - and -

          Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson, P.C.
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, Illinois 62226
          Phone: (618) 235-0020 or (618) 271-1600
          Fax: (618) 235-8558
          Web site: http://bphtlaw.com/


TOUSA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOUSA, Inc. seeks to dismiss the amended complaint in a
purported securities fraud class-action suit pending with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under
the caption, "Durgin, et al., v. TOUSA, Inc., et al., No. 06-
61844-CIV."

Beginning in December 2006, various stockholder plaintiffs
brought lawsuits seeking class action status in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  At a
hearing held on March 29, 2007, the Court consolidated these
actions and heard arguments on the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the Court appointed Diamondback Capital
Management, LLC, as the lead plaintiff and approved
Diamondback's selection of counsel.  Pursuant to a scheduling
order, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on Nov.
2, 2007.

The consolidated complaint names TOUSA, all of TOUSA's
directors, David Keller, Randy Kotler, Beatriz Koltis, Lonnie
Fedrick, Technical Olympic S.A., UBS Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and JMP
Securities LLC, as defendants.  The alleged class period is Aug.
1, 2005, to March 19, 2007.

The consolidated complaint alleges that TOUSA's public filings
and other public statements that described the financing for the
Transeastern Joint Venture as non-recourse to TOUSA were false
and misleading.  It also alleges that certain public filings and
statements were misleading or suffered from material omissions
in failing to disclose fully or describe the completion and
carve-out guaranties that TOUSA executed in support of the
Transeastern Joint Venture financing.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of
the Securities Act against all defendants other than Ms. Koltis
for strict liability and negligence regarding the registration
statements and prospectus associated with the September 2005
offering of 4 million shares of stock.

The consolidated complaint asserts related claims against
Technical Olympic, S.A., and Konstantinos Stengos, Antonio B.
Mon, David Keller and Tommy L. McAden as controlling persons
responsible for the statements in the registration statements
and prospectus.

The consolidated complaint also alleges claims under Section
10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act for fraud with respect to various
public statements about the non-recourse nature of the
Transeastern debt and alleged omissions in disclosing or
describing the Guaranties.

These claims are alleged against TOUSA, Messrs. Mon, McAden,
Keller and Kotler and Ms. Koltis.

Finally, the consolidated complaint asserts related claims
against Messrs. Mon, Keller, Kotler and McAden as controlling
persons responsible for the various alleged false disclosures.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, plus fees and costs,
on behalf of themselves and the putative class of purchasers of
TOUSA common stock and purchasers and sellers of options on
TOUSA common stock.

On Jan. 30, 2008, TOUSA filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint on the grounds that the
plaintiffs:

        -- could not establish materially false or misleading
           statements or omissions;

        -- could not establish loss causation;

        -- failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise
           to a strong inference of scienter; and

        -- lacked standing to pursue a Section 11 claim.

Many of the other defendants also filed motions to dismiss and
signed on to TOUSA's dismissal request.

On Feb. 4, 2008, TOUSA filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy notifying the Court that TOUSA filed for bankruptcy
on Jan. 29, 2008.

On Feb. 5, 2008, the Court entered an order staying the action
as to TOUSA pursuant to Section 362 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
The action continues with respect to defendants other than
TOUSA.

On April 30, 2008, Diamondback Capital moved to withdraw as lead
plaintiff, and was permitted by the court to do so.  On July 15,
2008, the Court entered an order appointing the Bricklayers &
Trowel Trades International Pension Fund as the new lead
plaintiff.

On July 30, 2008, the new plaintiff filed a notice of intent to
file an amended complaint.  Following this notice of intent, the
Court denied as moot, without prejudice, the defendants'
previously filed motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Bricklayers filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint.  This amended complaint dropped many of
the parties previously named as defendants in the consolidated
complaint, including TOUSA, leaving only Antonio B. Mon, Tommy
McAden, David J. Keller and Randy L. Kotler as defendants in the
suit.  The amended complaint also dropped the Section 11 and
Section 15 claims, leaving the claims under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as the claims made under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Defendants Mon, Keller and Kotler filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on Nov. 21, 2008.  Defendant McAden had not
yet been served, but his counsel recently entered an appearance
and filed a motion to dismiss on March 2, 2009.  The plaintiff
filed its opposition to the motions to dismiss on March 24,
2009.  Defendants' replies in support of their motions to
dismiss were due on May 13, 2009.  A trial date has not yet been
set, according to the company's May 26, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Durgin v. Technical Olympic USA, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:06-cv-61844-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Kenneth A. Marra, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq. (jvianale@vianalelaw.com)
          Vianale & Vianale
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-4750
          Fax: 561-392-4775

Representing the defendants are:

          David Paul Ackerman, Esq. (dackerman@alslaw.com)
          Ackerman Link & Sartory
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1250
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-838-4100
          Fax: 561-838-5305

          Francis A. Anania, Esq. (FAnania@anania-law.com)
          Anania Bandklayder Blackwell & Baumgarten
          100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 4300
          Miami, FL 33131-2144
          Phone: 305-373-4900
          Fax: 305-373-6914

               - and -

          Tracy Ann Nichols, Esq. (tracy.nichols@hklaw.com)
          Holland & Knight
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-374-8500X7717
          Fax: 305-789-7799


TOUSA INC: Responds to Notice of Alleged Chinese Drywall Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOUSA, Inc. is in the process of responding to notice of the
alleged defect in the drywall pursuant to Florida Statutes
chapter 558, according to the company's May 26, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

TOUSA Homes, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of certain homeowner
plaintiffs in Southwest Florida. (Karen Vickers, et al., v.
TOUSA Homes, Inc., et al., No. 09-20510-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY).

The complaint alleges the plaintiff homeowners were sold homes
containing drywall that is inherently defective ("Chinese
Drywall"), because it emits various sulfide gasses and/or other
chemicals through "off gassing" that purportedly causes property
damage and potential health hazards.

The plaintiffs have voluntarily withdrawn the complaint without
prejudice.

TOUSA Homes, Inc. was named, but has not been served in an
additional purported class action lawsuit making similar
allegations in the Lee County, Florida Circuit Court (Joyce
Dowdy Revocable Trust, et. al v. Engle Homes, Inc. et. al, No.
09-CA-1158).

TOUSA, Inc. -- http://www.tousa.com/-- designs, builds and
markets detached single-family residences, town homes and
condominiums.  The company conducts homebuilding operations
through its consolidated subsidiaries and unconsolidated joint
ventures in various metropolitan markets in nine states, located
in four geographic regions, which are also its segments:
Florida, the Mid-Atlantic, Texas and the West.  The company
markets its homes to a diverse group of homebuyers, including
first-time homebuyers, move-up homebuyers, homebuyers who are
relocating to a new city or state, buyers of second or vacation
homes, active-adult homebuyers and homebuyers with grown
children who want a smaller home (empty-nesters).  On Jan. 29,
2008, TOUSA and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization relief under the provisions of
Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort
Lauderdale Division.


TOUSA INC: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Suit Over Vista Lakes Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOUSA Financial Services, a unit of TOUSA, Inc., seeks to
dismiss the third amended complaint in a purported class action
lawsuit in Florida over homes that were built on the site of a
former bombing range, according to the company's May 26, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The plaintiffs, purchasers of homes in the Vista Lakes community
near Orlando, Florida, filed the class-action complaint.  They
seek recovery under theories of fraud, breach of contract,
strict liability, negligence, and civil conspiracy.

Because the plaintiffs named debtor defendants TOUSA, Inc.,
TOUSA Homes, Inc. -- d/b/a Engle Homes Orlando -- and TOUSA
Homes, LP, as defendants in this action, it was removed to
federal court.

The plaintiffs then agreed to dismiss the debtor-defendants and
the parties entered into a stipulation for remand.

The state court case has been re-opened and the parties still
remaining as defendants include TOUSA Financial Services (which
has not been served) and Universal Land Title, Inc.

The plaintiffs have granted an extension on the response to the
complaint and the discovery requests up to and including Aug.
18, 2008 in order to re-evaluate their claims against the
defendants and amend their complaint.

Universal Land Title, Inc. and Preferred Home Mortgage Company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On Feb.
13, 2009, the court dismissed all nine counts of the second
amended complaint as to both Universal Land Title, Inc. and
Preferred Home Mortgage Company, but granted Plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint.

On March 23, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended
Complaint and, with the exception of the claim for strict
liability, re-alleged eight of the previously dismissed causes
of action against Universal Land Title, Inc. and Preferred Home
Mortgage Company.  On April 29, 2009, Preferred Home Mortgage
Company and Universal Land Title, Inc. filed their motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.  On April 30, 2009,
Plaintiffs filed a notice voluntarily dismissing certain counts,
and the only claims that remain pending as to Preferred Home
Mortgage Company and Universal Land Title, Inc. are counts for
negligence and civil conspiracy.

TOUSA, Inc. -- http://www.tousa.com/-- designs, builds and
markets detached single-family residences, town homes and
condominiums.  The company conducts homebuilding operations
through its consolidated subsidiaries and unconsolidated joint
ventures in various metropolitan markets in nine states, located
in four geographic regions, which are also its segments:
Florida, the Mid-Atlantic, Texas and the West.  The company
markets its homes to a diverse group of homebuyers, including
first-time homebuyers, move-up homebuyers, homebuyers who are
relocating to a new city or state, buyers of second or vacation
homes, active-adult homebuyers and homebuyers with grown
children who want a smaller home (empty-nesters).  On Jan. 29,
2008, TOUSA and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization relief under the provisions of
Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort
Lauderdale Division.


WILLING HOLDING: Fees & Damages in "Hosking" Still Undetermined
---------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of damages and attorney's fees in "Gary Hosking v.
New World Mortgage, Inc. and New World Capital Holdings, Inc.,
Case No. 2007cv02200," remains to be determined by the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of New York, according to
Willing Holding, Inc.'s May 27, 2009 Amendment No. 3 to the
Registration Statement on Form 10 filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 21, 2008, a default judgment against the company's
subsidiary, New World, was entered in the Eastern District of
New York in Gary Hosking's case for failure to appear in a
class-action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
allegedly unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, and
damages owed to certain loan officers formerly employed by New
World.

Willing Holding, Inc. was organized in 2005, as a technology
company with a focus on the telecommunications industry.  Since
inception, the company has conducted various consulting and
other startup activities in the telecommunications sector but
have not yet generated any revenues and only incurred minimal
expenses relating to those activities.  With the acquisition of
its wholly-owned subsidiary, New World, in April 2008, a
significant portion of the company's operations has consisted of
providing mortgage and e-commerce products and services through
its Telemarketing Group and sales organization.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KEXENA CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of
Kenexa Corp. (Nasdaq:KNXA) common stock between between May 8,
2007 and November 7, 2007, inclusive for violations of the
federal security laws.

     The Complaint charges that Kenexa and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following adverse facts:

       -- that sales cycles for the Company's Employment Process
          Outsourcing ("EPO") and assessments lines of business
          were lengthening, causing sales to be pushed out and
          revenue growth to slow;

       -- that Kenexa was experiencing problems with its
          international sales and would need to revamp that
          sales force;

       -- that the Company was experiencing problems with a
          significant EPO client such that the client was
          requesting to be released from its contract with the
          Company; and

       -- based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable
          basis for their positive statements about the Company,
          its earnings, operations and prospects.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 10, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.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  * * *