CAR_Public/090618.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, June 18, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 119

                           Headlines

AETNA INC: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Nears Deal in Securities Suit Over Plavix
CASH MONEY: Settles Ontario Litigation Over Excessive Interest
COOK COUNTY: Sued Over Shackling of Inmates During Childbirth
COOPER COS: Consolidated Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2010 Trial

DAIRY FARMERS: Cheese Market Manipulation Lawsuits Consolidated
DATA DOMAIN: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger
ENGINEERED SUPPORT: Investors' Suit Moved to Mo. Federal Court
ERNST & YOUNG: AL Court OKs $109M Settlement in Healthsouth Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Dec. 2009 Trial Set for "Rich" Consumer Lawsuit

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Ill. Suit Over EEPROM Chip Nixed Last Dec. 2008
HEWLETT-PACKARD: June 8 Hearing Set for "Baggett" Class Status
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Pursue Renewed Certification Motion
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Plaintiffs Appeal Denied Certification
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Suits Remain Pending in Canada
KBR INC: Faces Several Suits Over Burn Pits in Iraq, Afghanistan
LIBERTY LEAGUE: Faces Ariz. Litigation Over $5M Pyramid Scheme
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Madoff Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: July 27, 2009 Hearing Set for Suit Settlement

NEW YORK: Continues to Face Lawsuit Public Defense Services
OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Sued Over Junk Bonds, Risky Derivatives
PIMA COUNTY: Faces Ariz. Suit Over "Blanket" Strip-Search Policy
STANDARD CHARTERED: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Fees in Madoff Money
PORT OF SEATTLE: Burien, SeaTac Residents Sue Over Third Runway

STEEL MAKERS: Ill. Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Antitrust Case
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal in "Sepulveda" Stayed Pending "Dukes"
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to Award in "Savaglio" Remains Stayed
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Approval of Wage & Hour Suits Settlement

WAL-MART STORES: "Braun" Settlement Still Pending Final Approval
WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Gender Discrimination Suit Still Pending
WAL-MART STORES: EEOC's Discrimination Suit Set for 2010 Trial
WIRELESS CARRIERS: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Texting Costs


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTEL NETWORKS: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Milberg LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
RAYMOND JAMES: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

AETNA INC: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas N. O'Neill Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a putative securities
class-action lawsuit over an alleged scheme to inflate insurer
Aetna, Inc.'s stock value that allowed insiders to sell off more
than 1.2 million shares in the company for $61 million in
February 2006, Law360 reports.

On June 9, 2009, Law360 reported that Judge O'Neill Jr. signed
off on a memorandum and order granting the defendants' motion to
dismiss the case.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Nears Deal in Securities Suit Over Plavix
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. has reached the outline of a settlement
in a securities class-action lawsuit that accuses the drugmaker
of duping shareholders and causing a stock drop when it failed
to properly disclose a patent deal for a generic version of its
blood-thinning drug Plavix, Law360 reports.

In an endorsed letter dated June 3, 2009, but entered into the
docket on June 15, 2009, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
Salvatore Graziano of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP,
said that the parties were close to settling the matter.


CASH MONEY: Settles Ontario Litigation Over Excessive Interest
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action has been certified, and settlement has been
approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the class
action brought against payday lender Cash Money Cheque Cashing
Inc., in respect of all claims related to the payment of
excessive interest, other than in the Provinces of British
Columbia and Quebec.  The settlement has been made without any
admission of liability by Cash Money.

     Under the terms of the settlement, every person who was a
Cash Money payday loan customer up to June 15, 2009 will be
entitled to receive a voucher valued at $50.00 which will be
fully transferable, and may be used to pay for any payday loan
services provided by Cash Money, including as partial repayment
of any current outstanding loan, or future loan.  Based on the
estimated class size, up to $5,700,000.00 worth of vouchers will
be available to be claimed by the Class Members.  To qualify to
receive a payment, customers must complete a voucher claim form
and submit it to Cash Money.  Claim forms will be available at
any Cash Money location outside of British Columbia, and will be
available for download at http://www.cashmoneyclassaction.com.

     In addition to the vouchers, Cash Money will pay to the
Ontario Class Proceedings Fund an amount equivalent to 10% of
each redeemed voucher.  The settlement has a total potential
value of up to $6,270,000.00, plus legal costs to be paid to
Class Counsel.

Further information regarding the settlement is available at.

For more details, contact:

          Margaret Waddell
          Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
          Phone: 416-646-4329
          Web site: http://www.paliareroland.com/


COOK COUNTY: Sued Over Shackling of Inmates During Childbirth
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sheriff of Cook County and Cook County, Illinois are facing
a purported class-action lawsuit filed by former inmates  who
alleged that they were shackled during childbirth, according to
a United Press International report.

The suit was filed on Dec. 4, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by Catherine Zaborowski
and Simone Jackson, under the caption, "Zaborowski et al v.
Sheriff of Cook County et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-06946" with
Judge Amy J. St. Eve, presiding.

More than 100 former inmates in the county may have been
handcuffed or chained while giving birth, according to the
plaintiffs' attorneys Thomas Morrissey, Esq. and Kenneth
Flaxman, Esq., who are both asking for federal class-action
status to include the other women, UPI reported.

Illinois law bans the use of leg and waist shackles on any
pregnant female who is in labor, the lawyers told The Southtown
Star in a story published on June 16, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas Gerard Morrissey, Esq. (tgmlaw@ameritech.net)
          Thomas G. Morrissey
          10249 South Western Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60643
          Phone: (773) 233-7900

          Kenneth N Flaxman, Esq. (knf@kenlaw.com)
          Kenneth N. Flaxman, P.C.
          200 South Michigan Avenue
          Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60604-6107
          Phone: (312) 427-3200

               - and -

          Patrick Stephen Smith, Esq.
          (pasmith@cookcountygov.com)
          Cook County State's Attorney
          500 Richard J. Daley Center
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 603-6461


COOPER COS: Consolidated Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2010 Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against The Cooper Cos., Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California has been set for Feb. 17,
2010.

On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC, against:

     -- the company;

     -- A. Thomas Bender, its chairman of the board, president
        and chief executive officer and a director;

     -- Robert S. Weiss, its executive vice president, chief
        operating officer and a director; and

     -- John D. Fruth, a director.

Shortly after the filing of the Levine lawsuit, two similar
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Case Nos. SACV-06-
306 CJC and SACV-06-331 CJC.

On May 19, 2006, the Court consolidated all three actions under
the heading, "In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities
Litigation," and selected a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31,
2006.  The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between July 28, 2004,
and Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who received Company
securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular in the January
2005 merger pursuant to which the Company acquired Ocular.

In addition to the Company, Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth,
the consolidated complaint names as defendants several of the
Company's other current officers and directors and one former
officer.

On July 13, 2007, the Court granted Cooper's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave
to amend to attempt to state a valid claim.

                 Amended Consolidated Complaint

On Aug. 9, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  As before, the amended consolidated
complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities between July 28, 2004, and Dec. 12, 2005, including
persons who received Company securities in exchange for their
shares of Ocular in the January 2005 merger pursuant to which
the Company acquired Ocular.

In addition to the Company, the amended consolidated complaint
names as defendants Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Fruth, Steven M.
Neil, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, and Gregory A. Fryling, CooperVision's former President
and Chief Operating Officer.

The amended consolidated complaint purports to allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by, among other things, contending that the
defendants made misstatements concerning the Biomedics product
line, sales force integration following the merger with Ocular,
the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses and financial
projections.

The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the Company
improperly accounted for assets acquired in the Ocular merger by
improperly allocating $100 million of acquired customer
relationships and manufacturing technology to goodwill (which is
not amortized against earnings) instead of to intangible assets
other than goodwill (which are amortized against earnings), that
the Company lacked appropriate internal controls and issued
false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the Court granted in-part and denied in-part
Cooper and the individual defendants motion to dismiss.

The Court dismissed the claims relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act certifications and the Company's accounting of assets
acquired in the Ocular merger.

The Court denied the motion as to the claims related to alleged
false statements concerning the Biomedics® product line, sales
force integration, the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses and
the Company's financial projections.

On Nov. 28, 2007, the Court also dismissed all claims against
Mr. Fruth with leave to amend.

Plaintiff did not amend their consolidated amended complaint
within the time permitted by the Court.

On Dec. 3, 2007, the Company and Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Neil and
Fryling answered the amended consolidated complaint.

On April 8, 2008, the Court granted a motion by Mr. Neil for
judgment on the pleadings as to him.  A Feb. 17, 2010, trial
date has been set and discovery has commenced, according to the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The certified class consists of those persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Cooper common stock between
July 28, 2004 and Nov. 21, 2005.

The suit is "In re Cooper Companies Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 8:06-cv-00169-CJC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac
J. Carney with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         X. Jay Alvarez, Esq.
         Rudman and Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

         Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2350
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         E-mail: mfurukawa@ssbla.com

              - and -

         Eben O. McNair, Esq.
         Schwarzwald and McNair, 1330 East
         Ninth Street, 616 Penton Media Building
         Cleveland, OH 44114-1503
         Phone: 216-566-1600

Representing the defendants is:

         Charles W. Cox, II, Esq.
         Latham and Watkins
         633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
         Phone: 213-485-1234
         E-mail: chuck.cox@lw.com


DAIRY FARMERS: Cheese Market Manipulation Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Heyburn, II of the U.S. Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated five purported class-action lawsuits
against Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. that accuses the dairy
cooperative and some of its former executives of manipulating
the price of cheese sold on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to
reap higher profits on raw milk sales, Law360 reports.

Judge Heyburn ordered the consolidation of four proposed class-
action suits, according to the Law360 report.


DATA DOMAIN: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
challenging the proposed acquisition of Data Domain, Inc
(Nasdaq: DDUP).

     The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Data Domain
stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with NetApp, Inc.  Under the terms of the proposal, Data
Domain's shareholders would receive $30.00 to be paid in a
combination of cash and NetApp stock.  In addition, NetApp
offered positions on its board to certain Data Domain officers
and there are rumors that the Data Domain CEO Slootman could be
the next CEO of NetApp.  This raises questions as to whether the
sales process conducted by the Board was fair and open.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street -15th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com


ENGINEERED SUPPORT: Investors' Suit Moved to Mo. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against former directors of
defense contractor Engineered Support Systems, Inc., the
directors of a rival that merged with ESSI, and global
accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Law360 reports.

The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court for the City
of St. Louis, but transferred on June 15, 2009 to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, according
to the Law360 report.

Previously, Heather Ratcliffe of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reported that Engineered Support Systems, Inc., former CEO
Michael Shanahan, and other top executives, are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by shareholders of
the company in the St. Louis Circuit Court (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 10, 2008).

The lawsuit claims that company leaders breached their fiduciary
duty by selling the business in 2006 at an under-valued price in
an attempt to distance themselves from the risk of prosecution
in the backdating.

Darren J. Robbins, Esq., of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and
Robbins LLP, which filed the case, told The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that more than 600 investors, who would qualify for the
class, lost up to $250 million in the sale of Engineered Support
to DRS Technologies Inc., of New Jersey.

Mark S. Newman, CEO of DRS Technologies Inc., is accused in the
suit of knowing about the backdating scandal when he bought the
company and distributing false information to shareholders at
the time, according to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.


ERNST & YOUNG: AL Court OKs $109M Settlement in Healthsouth Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
approved a $109 million class-action settlement between Ernst &
Young and the $43.3 billion State of Michigan Retirement System
and other plaintiffs, Christine Williamson of Pensions &
Investments reports.

In general, the lawsuit alleged that the accounting firm's
audits failed to uncover massive fraud by HealthSouth Corp. from
1996 to 2002, Pensions & Investments reported.

There were no objections to the settlement, approved on June 11,
2009 by Judge Karon Bowdre, according to the Pensions &
Investments report.

News of the settlement was announced by Michigan Attorney
General Mike Cox and Treasurer Robert Kleine.  The Michigan fund
was a lead plaintiff in the case, which affected about 46,000
shareholders, reports Pensions & Investments.

Previously, it was reported that the the law firm of Labaton
Sucharow LLP, along with Co-Counsel Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins LLP, announced that they have reached a settlement of
$109 million with Ernst & Young LLP in a securities class action
against HealthSouth Corporation (Class Action Reporter, March
27, 2009).

The action, entitled, "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities
Litigation," is being prosecuted for the benefit of a class of
investors led by, among others, Lead Plaintiffs the New Mexico
State Investment Council and the Educational Retirement Board of
New Mexico.  The action is pending before the Honorable Karon O.
Bowdre in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, and the proposed settlement requires
Court approval.

Lead Plaintiffs alleged that, during a period of several years,
the defendants manipulated their accounting in various ways,
which caused HealthSouth's financial statements to be materially
false and misleading causing investors to overpay for
HealthSouth's securities and suffer hundreds of millions of
dollars of damages.

Lead Plaintiffs alleged the following accounting errors and
irregularities against Ernst & Young LLP (E&Y):

       -- E&Y knew that HealthSouth's financial statements were
          materially overstated.

       -- E&Y failed to conduct audits of HealthSouth that were
          in compliance with Generally Accepted Auditing
          Standards.

       -- E&Y did not test a single nonstandard journal entry or
          test the general ledger of HealthSouth.

       -- E&Y permitted HealthSouth to impose scope limitations
          on its audit of the Company.

Thomas A. Dubbs, Senior Partner at Labaton Sucharow LLP, stated
that "We are pleased with this settlement, which is one of the
largest settlements ever obtained against an outside auditor in
a class action securities fraud case."

Lead Plaintiffs previously settled with former defendant
HealthSouth Corporation in January 2007 for $445 million.

For more details, contact:

          Jennifer Bankston (jbankston@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 212-907-0659


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Dec. 2009 Trial Set for "Rich" Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative December 2009 trial is slated for a purported class-
action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Hewlett-Packard Co.

The suit is "Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:06-cv-
03361-JF," which is a consumer class action filed against the
company on May 22, 2006.

It alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to
unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when
printing black and white images and text.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of
a nationwide class.

The Court has granted HP's motion to dismiss several of the
plaintiffs' claims, and HP answered the remaining claims in
February 2007.

The Court set a deadline of Jan. 23, 2009, by which plaintiffs
need to file a motion for class certification.

Trial has been set for December 2009.

No further developments on the lawsuit were reported in the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The suit is "Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:06-cv-
03361-JF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
         Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213/217-5000
         Fax: 213/217-5010

              - and -

         Stephen Michael Garcia, Esq. (jmobley@lawgarcia.com)
         Garcia Law Firm
         Suite 1950
         One World Trade Center
         Long Beach, CA 90831
         Phone: 562-216-5270

Representing the defendants is:

         Christopher Chorba, Esq. (cchorba@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         Fax: 213-229-7520


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Ill. Suit Over EEPROM Chip Nixed Last Dec. 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action suit, "Schorsch v. HP," was dismissed
by the Illinois state court with prejudice on Dec. 20, 2008,
according to Hewlett-Packard Co.'s June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2009.

The purported class-action alleges violations of Illinois state
law in its inclusion of an electrically erasable programmable
read only memory (EEPROM) chip in certain of its LaserJet
printers that prematurely advises the user that the drum kit
needs replacing.

The suit, "Schorsch v. HP," was filed against HP on Oct. 28,
2003, in Illinois state court.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint seeking
to expand the class from purchasers of drum kits to purchasers
of all HP printer consumables that contain EEPROM chips.

The most current amended complaint seeks certification of an
Illinois-only class and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a provider of
products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and
large enterprises, including in the public and education
sectors.  HP's offerings span personal computing and other
access devices; imaging and printing-related products and
services; enterprise information technology infrastructure,
including enterprise storage and server technology and software
that optimizes business technology investments, and multi-vendor
customer services, including technology support and maintenance,
consulting and integration and outsourcing services.  During the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007 (fiscal 2007), its operations
were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise Storage
and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), HP Software, the Personal
Systems Group (PSG), the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), HP
Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: June 8 Hearing Set for "Baggett" Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 8, 2009 certification hearing was set for a purported
class-action suit in California that contains allegations that
Hewlett-Packard Co. employs a technology in its LaserJet color
printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely,
preventing customers from using the toner that is stranded in
the cartridge.

On June 6, 2007, a separate consumer class action captioned,
"Baggett v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The plaintiffs allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers
that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the
cartridge after the printer shuts down.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of
purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
scheduled for June 8, 2009, according to the company's June 5,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The suit is "Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al.,
Case No. 8:07-cv-00667-AG-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge Andrew J.
Guilford.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
         Kabateck Brown Kellner
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-217-5000

              - and -

         Darren T Kaplan, Esq. (dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com)
         Chitwood Harley Harnes
         1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900

Representing the defendant are:

         Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. (sliversidge@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000

              - and -

         Robert Particelli, Esq. (rparticelli@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-963-5000
         Fax: 215-963-5001


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Pursue Renewed Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification in a
lawsuit entitled "In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No.
5:05-cv-03580-JF," which was filed against Hewlett-Packard Co.
over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer cartridges.

The purported class-action lawsuit is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2009.

In general, the consolidated suit claims that the "smart chips"
erroneously signal to the customer that certain inkjet printer
cartridges need to be replaced before they are really empty, and
include an expiration date that is allegedly not documented in
marketing materials provided to consumers.

                        Feder Litigation

The suit, "Feder v. HP (formerly Tyler v. HP)," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
June 16, 2005, asserting breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and deceptive advertising and unfair business practices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a
"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge
unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.

The plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

                        Ciolino Litigation

On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit captioned, "Ciolino v. HP," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

                          Consolidation

The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical
to those in "Feder," and the two cases have been formally
consolidated in a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption, "In
re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation."

On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion
for summary judgment.  On July 25, 2008, the court denied all
three motions.

On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
class certification.

The suit is "In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. 5:05-
cv-03580-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Bruce Lee Simon, Esq. (bsimon@cpsmlaw.com)
         Cotchett Pitre & Simon
         S.F. Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Phone: 650-697-6000
         Fax: 650-692-3606

Representing the defendants is:

         Sally J. Berens, Esq. (sberens@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
         1881 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-5300
         Fax: 650-849-5333


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Plaintiffs Appeal Denied Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing the decision that denied the class
certification motion in a lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. in
California with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s
Pentium 4 processor.

The suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard
Co.," generally alleges that the company along with Intel,
misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged
material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are
less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III
processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel.

The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004.  It was
initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California,
based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois
cases.

The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class.

The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in
Santa Clara County, California.

The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 27, 2008, but granted plaintiffs' leave
to file a new motion for class certification.

On Feb. 27, 2009, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs'
motion for nationwide class certification for a third time.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision, according to the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a provider of
products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and
large enterprises, including in the public and education
sectors.  HP's offerings span personal computing and other
access devices; imaging and printing-related products and
services; enterprise information technology infrastructure,
including enterprise storage and server technology and software
that optimizes business technology investments, and multi-vendor
customer services, including technology support and maintenance,
consulting and integration and outsourcing services.  During the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007 (fiscal 2007), its operations
were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise Storage
and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), HP Software, the Personal
Systems Group (PSG), the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), HP
Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Lawsuit Still Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. is still facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in California over its use of "smart chips" in its
inkjet printer cartridge, according to the company's June 5,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The suits claim that the "smart chips" erroneously signal to the
customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be
replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration
date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials
provided to consumers.  Some of these lawsuits have been
dismissed by without prejudice by the plaintiffs.

                    Blennis Litigation

On Jan. 17, 2007, the purported class-action lawsuit, entitled
"Blennis v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California with allegations substantially
the same as those consolidated in "In re Inkjet Printer
Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages
(including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Blennis et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No.
5:07-cv-00333-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
          Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          Fax: 213-217-5010

Representing the defendants is:

          Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
          (sliversidge@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: 213-229-7000


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Suits Remain Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face several purported class-
action lawsuits over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet
printer cartridge, according to the company's June 5, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The suits clam that the "smart chips" erroneously signal to the
customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be
replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration
date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials
provided to consumers.  Some of these lawsuits have been
dismissed by without prejudice by the plaintiffs.

Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and
its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian
class actions, one commenced in British Columbia in February
2006, two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, all
seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and
punitive damages.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a provider of
products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and
large enterprises, including in the public and education
sectors.  HP's offerings span personal computing and other
access devices; imaging and printing-related products and
services; enterprise information technology infrastructure,
including enterprise storage and server technology and software
that optimizes business technology investments, and multi-vendor
customer services, including technology support and maintenance,
consulting and integration and outsourcing services.  During the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007 (fiscal 2007), its operations
were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise Storage
and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), HP Software, the Personal
Systems Group (PSG), the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), HP
Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments.


KBR INC: Faces Several Suits Over Burn Pits in Iraq, Afghanistan
----------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., Kellogg, Brown
& Root LLC, and Halliburton Co. are facing several purported
class-action lawsuit filed by veterans who believe they became
sick after exposure to the smoke from open-air burn pits in Iraq
and Afghanistan, Kelly Kennedy of AirForceTimes.com reports.

The lawsuits were filed in Florida, Kansas, Ohio, South Carolina
and Utah federal courts.  They accuse the defendants, who
operated many of the burn-pit sites for the military, of
exposing troops to toxins from giant burn pits used to dispose
of garbage on bases, according to AirForceTimes.com report.

At Joint Base Balad, Iraq, 250 tons of garbage were burned every
day at one point, including 90,000 plastic bottles each day.
Troops have also documented the burning of petroleum products,
amputated limbs of Iraqis, benzene, and Styrofoam, as well as
other materials known to produce cancer-causing toxins when
burned, AirForceTimes.com reported.

The lawsuit in Florida includes the family of Air Force Maj.
Kevin Wilkins, who died of brain cancer five days after a tumor
was discovered.  He had served at Balad, and when his doctor
asked if he had been exposed to any toxins, Maj. Wilkins
immediately suggested the burn pit, reports AirForceTimes.com.

That lawsuit was filed on June 11, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under the caption,
"Callue et al v. KBR, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-21590"
with Judge Judge Jose E. Martinez, presiding.

Aside from Maj. Wilkins others plaintiffs listed in the Florida
lawsuit are: Maurice Callue, Dennis Wayne Briggs, Edward Lee
Buquo, Wayne E. Fabozzi, Sharlene S. Jaggernauth, Floyd James
Johnson, Sr., Tamra C. Johnson, Richard Lee Keith, Daniel
Santiago Morales, Phillip McQuillan, Ildebbrando Perez, Luigi
Antonio Provenza, Ruth Ann Reece, Eduardo Saavedra, Sr., Jill R.
Wilkins, Michael Donnell Williams, and Jermaine Lynell Wright.

In a press statement, attorney Elizabeth Burke, Esq. said, "KBR
utterly disregarded the safety of the troops when they chose to
use open air burn pits and failed to use incinerators and other
safer methods of waste disposals.  The hazards of operating
large open-air burn pits were well-known, and KBR promised to
minimize the environmental effects of the burn sites they
operated in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Instead, by forsaking safety
for money, KBR willfully endangered these men and women who
honorably served their country in military service or in support
of the military."

The burn pits were created by the military, however, in most
instances, contractors later took over the operations of the
pits.  According to military regulation, burn pits should be
used as short-term waste management solutions, but many of the
pits have been running since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
began, AirForceTimes.com reports.


LIBERTY LEAGUE: Faces Ariz. Litigation Over $5M Pyramid Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty League International, LLC is facing a purported class-
action suit alleging it took more than $5 million in a pyramid
scheme that promised its "members" could make up to $181,000 a
year working at home for less than 4 hours a day, Jamie Ross of
The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on June 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona by Jen Mann, John Leach, and David
Ferguson, under the caption, "Mann et al v. Liberty League
International, LLC et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-01260-GMS."

Aside from Liberty League, other defendants named in the suit
include Beyond Freedom Publishing, Brent Payne, Shane Krider,
Liberty League Holdings, and Big Ass Britches Holdings,
according to The Courthouse News Service report.

The plaintiffs -- represented by Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. and
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. with Bonnett, Fairbourn & Friedman
and David Brower with Brower Piven of New York -- claim that
Liberty League said it would cost just $49.95 to join the sales
program, then pressured its "members" to spend another $22,400
for "conferences" and a "personal development course," The
Courthouse News Service report.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by  the
Courthouse News Service, Liberty League advertised on its Web
site that the only purchase needed was a $49.95 start-up kit --
then the company pushed its $1,495 personal development course,
$7,995 three-day conference and $12,995 five-day conference.
The only way around purchasing the products -- for $22,485 --
was to sell other people five of each, the suit claims.

The company promised that its members could make "multiple
$1,000 profits daily," working for one to four hours a day, the
class claims.  And it claimed that many members made as much as
$181,000 a year, reports The Courthouse News Service.

The plaintiffs claim Liberty League fails to tell them that to
make a profit they had to recruit others into the program and
get them to buy its products.  They demand an injunction and
damages, The Courthouse News Service reports.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3df3

For more details, contact:

          David AP Brower, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Ave
          9th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-4600

               - and -

          Patricia Nicole Syverson, Esq. (psyverson@bffb.com)
          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com)
          Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
          2901 N Central Ave.
          Ste. 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
          Phone: 602-776-5903 or 602-274-1100
          Fax: 602-274-1199


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Madoff Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An investor in a hedge fund controlled by Massachusetts Mutual
Life Insurance Co. filed an amended putative class-action
complaint in federal court against the firm and related
entities, including the Bank of New York Mellon Corp., for
allegedly carelessly investing all of the fund's assets into
Bernard L. Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme, Law360 reports.

Lead plaintiff Lawrence J. Rothschild filed an amended complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
shortly after the case was removed from the Suffolk County
Superior Court, according to Law360 report.

Beth Healy of The Boston Globe previously reported the law firm
of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a class-
action lawsuit against a hedge fund controlled by Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Co. for placing all of the fund's assets
with Bernard Madoff, who is facing life in prison for conducting
a massive fraud (Class Action Reporter, April 15, 2009).

According to the suit filed on April 15, 2009 in Massachusetts
Superior Court, the lead plaintiff is Lawrence J. Rothschild, a
Needham businessman who invested about $1.1 million with the Rye
Select Broad Market XL Fund.

The suit alleges that Rye did not explicitly say that it placed
all of its assets with Mr. Madoff, and that the firm's parent,
Tremont Partners Inc. (also part of MassMutual), ignored red
flags about Mr. Madoff's activities, according to The Boston
Globe.

Also named in the suit are MassMutual and several individuals
and businesses linked to the Springfield insurer.  Bank of New
York Mellon Corp. is named as well, as administrator of the
hedge fund, reports The Boston Globe.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: July 27, 2009 Hearing Set for Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas will hold a
fairness hearing on July 27, 2009 for the proposed settlement in
the matter, "Alexander v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case
No. CV-2009-120-3," Business First of Columbus reports.

In general, the suit alleges that Nationwide Mutual and certain
affiliates improperly withheld payments of general contractor's
overhead and profit from amounts paid on claims for structural
losses under home owner's policies (Class Action Reporter, June
5, 2009).

It essentially alleges that Nationwide Mutual underpaid
customers who filed structural damage claims for more than a
decade, according to the Business First of Columbus report.

According to a Web site established to notify potential class
members at http://www.alexanderclassactionsettlement.com,the
suit includes homeowner’s policyholders who submitted a claim
for structural damage from 1996 through March 20 of this year or
received a payment during that period.  The original lawsuit
claimed Nationwide's claims payouts didn't cover fees
contractors charged to do the work, reports Business First of
Columbus.

Business First of Columbus reported that customers in the class
will receive 20 percent of the amount previously paid for
repairs, though emergency remediation costs and any contractors'
fees paid will be subtracted from the settlement.

For more details, contact:

         Alexander v. Nationwide Claims
         P.O. Box 6659,
         Portland, Oregon 97229
         Phone: 1-8880287-1333
         Web site: http://www.AlexanderClassActionSettlement.com


NEW YORK: Continues to Face Lawsuit Public Defense Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
The State of New York and the counties of Onondaga, Ontario,
Schuyler, Suffolk, and Washington continue to face a purported
class-action lawsuit based on the failure to provide
constitutionally acceptable public defense services, The North
Country Gazette reports.

Previously, it was reported that the State of New York is facing
a class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of Albany accusing it of failing in its constitutional
duty to provide effective counsel to New Yorkers accused of
crimes who cannot afford to pay private lawyers (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 14, 2007).

This civil rights lawsuit was brought by the New York Civil
Liberties Union and the law firm of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
seeking to remedy the State of New York's alleged persistent
failure to guarantee meaningful and effective legal
representation to indigent people accused of crimes, as required
by the New York State Constitution and laws and the United
States Constitution.

The plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Article 9 of
the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules on behalf of all
indigent persons who have or will have criminal felony,
misdemeanor, or lesser charges pending against them in New York
state courts in Onondaga, Ontario, Schuyler, Suffolk and
Washington counties who are entitled to rely on the government
of New York to provide them with meaningful and effective
defense counsel.  The Class includes all indigent persons
against whom criminal charges will be brought in the Counties
during the pendency of this action.

Plaintiffs and the members of the class have allegedly suffered
or are at imminent, severe and unacceptably high risk of
suffering irreparable harm because of the Defendant's failure to
remedy the financial and administrative deficiencies that plague
the provision of public defense.

The suit raises these claims:

     (1) Violation of Article I, SS 6 of the Constitution of the
         State of New York;

     (2) Violation of New York State Statutes Guaranteeing the
         Right to Counsel for Indigent Defendants;

     (3) Violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
         United States Constitution and 42 USC S 1983;

It asks for the certification of this action as a class action;
a declaration pursuant to CPLR SS 3001 that the plaintiffs'
rights are being violated; a preliminary and a permanent
injunction requiring the defendant to provide a system of public
defense consistent with the Constitution and laws of the State
of New York and the United States Constitution; and an award of
the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Corey Stoughton, Esq.
          Palyn Hung, Esq.
          Donna Lieberman, Esq.
          Arthur Eisenberg, Esq.
          Christopher Dunn, Esq.
          125 Broad St., 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 607-3300
          Fax: (212) 607-3318

          Gary Stein, Esq.
          Danny Greenberg, Esq.
          Sena Kim-Reuter, Esq,
          Estee Konor, Esq.
          Ximena Naranjo, Esq.
          Michelle Paris, Esq.
          Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 756-2000
          Fax: (212) 593-5955


OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Sued Over Junk Bonds, Risky Derivatives
-------------------------------------------------------------
OppenheimerFunds, Inc. faces a putative class-action lawsuit
claiming that a mutual fund focused on investment-grade
Pennsylvania municipal bonds instead parked money in junk bonds
and risky derivatives, resulting in steep losses for investors,
Law360 reports.

The suit was filed on June 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, according to the
Law360 report.


PIMA COUNTY: Faces Ariz. Suit Over "Blanket" Strip-Search Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pima County and Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that a blanket
strip-search policy at the county jail violates an individual's
constitutional rights, KVOA.com reports.

The suit was filed on June 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona by John K. Bennett, Silviano G.
Cocio, and Denise Acevedo, under the caption, "Bennett et al v.
Pima County et al., Case No. 4:2009-cv-00342."

It states that over the past two years people in custody were
subject to "strip and visual body cavity searches before they
are arraigned and without having any reasonable suspicion that
the searches will be productive of contraband," according to the
KVOA.com report.

Mark Merin, Esq., a California-based attorney presenting the
class-action suit estimates that nearly 10,000 people were strip
searched at Pima County Jail in cases that had nothing to do
with drugs, violence or weapons and in when there was no
reasonable suspicion the searches would be productive, reports
KVOA.com.

According to the complaint, searches in that manner violate an
individuals 4th and 14th amendment rights, KVOA.com reported.

Mr. Merin, believes that Pima County Jail had a blanket strip-
search policy, irregardless of offense and circumstances and
that nearly every arrestee processed at the Pima County Jail was
strip searched, according to KVOA.com.

For more details, contact:

          Mark E. Merin, Esq. (mark@markmerin.com)
          Law Office of Mark E Merin
          2001 P St
          Ste 100
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Phone: 916-443-6911
          Fax: 916-447-8336


STANDARD CHARTERED: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Fees in Madoff Money
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Limited, and
Standard Chartered Private Bank are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit that targets "phantom fees" charged by managers
of Bernard Madoff's feeder funds, Paul Brinkmann of the South
Florida Business Journal reports.

The suit was filed on June 12, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida by Jose Antonio Pujals and
Rosa Julieta A. De Pujals, under the caption, "Pujals et al v.
Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Limited et al.,
Case No. 1:09-cv-21611-JLK."

According to the suit, the Mexican couple was charged $758 in
November by Standard Chartered Bank for investing money into a
large Madoff feeder fund, the Sentry Fund, which at one point
had $7 billion in it, reports South Florida Business Journal.

The fees allegedly were to service the Pujalses' $609,547
account with Sentry.  But, after Madoff imploded, the Pujalses
discovered this year that their fund was really worth no more
than $4.52, according to the South Florida Business Journal
report.

The suit asks that $5 million in fees allegedly charged by
Standard Chartered be returned to members of class that the
Pujalses represent, the South Florida Business Journal reported.

"Such payments were neither legal nor equitable, and the parties
that received those phantom fees … should be required to return
them," according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained
by the South Florida Business Journal.

For more details, contact:

          David Alan Rothstein, Esq. (drothstein@dkrpa.com)
          Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein
          2665 South Bayshore Drive
          PH-2B
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Phone: 305-374-1920
          Fax: (305) 374-1961


PORT OF SEATTLE: Burien, SeaTac Residents Sue Over Third Runway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Port of Seattle, the owner of Sea-Tac Airport is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit over the airport's third runway,
whose construction was delayed for years by legal challenges,
John Gillie of The News Tribune reports.

Two Burien residents and one City of SeaTac resident sued the
Port of Seattle, contending the new runway's airline traffic is
diminishing the value of their homes and those of dozens of
other residents near the airport, according to The News Tribune.

The three are asking King County Superior Court to make their
suit a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all Sea-Tac neighbors
affected by noise.  They contend that third runway usage far
exceeds what the port projected when it proposed the runway 15
years ago, reports The News Tribune.

The plaintiffs claim the port misled them into believing that
the new runway would be used only when the weather was causing
delays on the other runways, The News Tribune reports.

The News Tribune reported that in addition to monetary damages,
the suit asks the court to prohibit planes from flying over
their homes at less than 1,500 feet and from entering the
airspace over their homes more than once an hour.  The suit
seeks a curfew between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. weekdays and from 10
p.m. Fridays until 9 a.m. Mondays.


STEEL MAKERS: Ill. Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Antitrust Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied a motion by nine steel makers to dismiss a antitrust
class-action lawsuit filed by Standard Iron Works and other
steel buyers, according to a Platts Steel Markets Daily report.

In a decision announced on June 12, 2009, Judge James B. Zagel
determined that there was sufficient evidence that the group of
steelmakers including ArcelorMittal USA, U.S. Steel Corp., Nucor
Corp., Gerdau Ameristeel, Steel Dynamics, Inc., AK Steel
Holding, SSAB Swedish Steel, and Commercial Metals coordinated
production schedules and undertook other schemes intended to
inflate the price of steel between January 2005 and the present,
reports Platts Steel Markets Daily.

Bloomberg previously reported that steel fabricator Standard
Iron Works claimed in its complaint that the steel companies
conspired to "restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and
maintain at artificially high levels the prices they charged for
steel products in the U.S." (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 18,
2008).

The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 12, 2008, in Chicago federal court,
seeks class-action status for anybody who has bought steel from
the any of the defendants since January 2005, together with
unspecified money damages.

Platts Steel Markets Daily reported that in arguing for the
dismissal of the case, the steelmakers said that plaintiffs'
complaint was factually insufficient because it fails to supply
either direct or inferential allegations sufficient to justify a
hope that the discovery process of a trial will reveal evidence
to support a claim.  They maintained that it is not surprising
that executives of steel companies, like many stock analysts and
reporters, discussed the profound changes that occurred
throughout and following the restructuring of the steel industry
since 2005.

However, the court determined that the steelmakers' reaction to
the new market conditions was markedly different than behavior
previously found legal by various precedent court decisions,
namely "Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly," reports Platts Steel
Markets Daily.

Judge Zagel said that "The industrial culture here,
characterized by fierce competition and a longstanding strategy
of maximizing utilization and output, does not similarly explain
the massive, unprecedented and coordinated output cuts by
defendant steel manufacturers," according to Platts Steel
Markets Daily.

In his 44-page opinion, the judge wrote that "If the drastic
output cuts were so clearly and obviously in each defendant's
own self interest, if the cuts were as 'natural and predictable'
as defendants claim, then why didn't each manufacturer implement
them sooner?  And why were the curtailments imposed in
coordination with one another?  The parallel and drastically
novel conduct in the context presented here at least suggests
some sort of preceding agreement among the actors involved,"
Platts Steel Markets Daily reports.

Thus, Judge Zagel concluded that "Defendants' attempt to parse
the complaint and argue that none of the allegations i.e.,
quoted public statements, parallel capacity decisions, trade
association and industry meetings, support a plausible inference
of conspiracy is contrary to the Supreme Court's admonition that
the character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by
dismembering it and viewing its separate parts," Platts Steel
Markets Daily reported.


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal in "Sepulveda" Stayed Pending "Dukes"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit's decision in the matter, "Daniel Sepulveda,
et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al." remains stayed pending
the final disposition of the appeal in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.

The suit was originally filed in filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California back in 2004.

Generally, the suit -- involving more than 2,750 assistant
managers -- is alleging violations of California's meal break
and overtime laws.  It seeks certification of a class of
salaried managers who challenge their exempt status under state
and federal laws (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008).

Class certification was denied by the trial court on May 5,
2006.

On April 25, 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling
in part and reversed it in part, and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

On May 16, 2008, the company filed a petition seeking review of
that ruling by a larger panel of the court.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the court entered an Order staying all
proceedings in the Sepulveda appeal pending the final
disposition of the appeal in "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."
Class certification has not been addressed in the other cases,
according to the company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2009.

The suit is "Daniel Sepulveda, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-E," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Dale Fischer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq. (rdrexler@quislaw.com)
          Quisenberry Law Firm
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909
          Phone: 310-785-7966

               - and -

          Steven G. Pearl, Esq. (sgpearl@sgpearl.com)
          Pearl Law Offices
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 625
          Encino, CA 91436-2412
          Phone: 818-995-8300

Representing the defendants is:

          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.
          Jones Day
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 35
          Chicago, IL 60601-1692
          Phone: 312-782-3939


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to Award in "Savaglio" Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to an award made in the class-
action suit, "Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," remains stayed
pending the outcome in a similar case, according to the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The plaintiffs allege that they were not provided meal and rest
breaks in accordance with California law, and seek monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

A jury trial on the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages
concluded on Dec. 22, 2005.  The jury returned a verdict of
approximately $57 million in statutory penalties and $115
million in punitive damages.

Following a bench trial in June 2006, the judge entered an order
allowing some, but not all, of the injunctive relief sought by
the plaintiffs.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the judge entered an order awarding the
plaintiffs an additional amount of approximately $26 million in
costs and attorneys' fees.

The company believes it has substantial arguments on appeal, and
on Jan. 31, 2007, the company filed its Notice of Appeal.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the court of appeals issued an Order staying
further proceedings in the Savaglio appeal pending the decision
of the California Supreme Court in a case involving similar
issues, entitled Brinker v. Superior Court.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to a $188 million judgment in the
matter, "Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," remains
pending, according to the company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The case is containing class-action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly associates who allege
that the company forced or encouraged them to work "off the
clock," failed to provide rest breaks or meal periods, or
otherwise failed to pay them correctly.  It generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.

A trial was commenced in the matter on September 2006, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege that the
company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and
prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks.  The jury found in favor
of the company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.

On Nov. 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in
the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the
jury's back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment
interest and attorneys' fees.

The company believes it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims at issue, and on Dec. 7, 2007, the
company filed its Notice of Appeal.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Approval of Wage & Hour Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s settlement agreements with plaintiffs in
63 wage-and-hour class-action lawsuits are still pending court
approval, according to the company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The company is a defendant in numerous cases containing class-
action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and
former hourly associates who allege that the company forced or
encouraged them to work "off the clock," failed to provide rest
breaks or meal periods, or otherwise failed to pay them
correctly.

The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief, or both.

Class or collective-action certification has yet to be addressed
by the court in a majority of these cases.

In the majority of wage-and-hour class actions filed against the
company in which the courts have addressed the issue, class
certification has been denied.

On Dec. 23, 2008, the company and the attorneys for the
plaintiffs in 63 wage-and-hour class actions announced that they
had entered into a series of settlement agreements in connection
with those matters.  Each of the settlements is subject to
approval by the court in which the matter is pending.  The total
amount to be paid by the company under the settlement agreements
will depend on whether such approvals are granted, as well as on
the number and amount of claims that are submitted by class
members in each matter.  If all of the agreements are approved
by the courts, the total to be paid by the company under the
settlement agreements will be at least $352 million, but no more
than $640 million, depending on the number and amount of claims.
The company may also incur additional administrative expenses
and other costs in the process of concluding the settlements.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WAL-MART STORES: "Braun" Settlement Still Pending Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the matter, "Braun v. Wal-Mart Inc., 19-CO-01-
9790," which generally alleges violations of the state's labor
laws, ir pending final court approval.

The class-action suit, "Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," was
brought by four women on behalf of 56,000 Wal-Mart and Sam's
Club hourly employees.

The plaintiffs listed in the suit are:

       -- Nancy Braun, who worked at a Wal-Mart store in Apple
          Valley, Minnesota;

       -- Debbie Simonson and Cindy Severson, who worked in
          Brooklyn Park; and

       -- Pamela Reinert, who worked at stores in the
          Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

It specifically alleges that Wal-Mart managers, with severely
understaffed stores and under pressure to cut costs, inserted
unused breaks on timecards and asked employees to start work
before clocking in and stay late after clocking out.  It also
alleges that the company tied bonuses for store managers to
store profitability.

The plaintiffs further claim that Wal-Mart allegedly committed
more than 14 million violations of company policies and
Minnesota wage and hour laws, amounting to $27 million in unpaid
wages.

They are seeking back pay to 1998 and as much as $1,000 each for
millions of missed breaks.  Punitive damages in the case will be
allowed if the judge finds against Wal-Mart, and thus damages
could total billions of dollars.

A trial commenced on Sept. 24, 2007, in the First Judicial
District Court for Dakota County, Minnesota, on the plaintiffs'
claims that class members worked off the clock and were not
provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with Minnesota law.
Testimony concluded on Dec. 11, 2007.

On June 30, 2008, the trial judge issued an Order awarding the
class approximately $6.5 million in compensatory and liquidated
damages.  The judge also set the plaintiffs' claims for punitive
damages and statutory penalties for trial on Oct. 20, 2008, but
invited the parties to seek an immediate appeal of the findings
made thus far.

On July 29, 2008, the company filed a petition with the
Minnesota Court of Appeals requesting immediate appeal.  No
ruling has been received.

The company agreed in October 2008, to settle the case by paying
up to approximately $54 million, part of which is to be paid to
the State of Minnesota and part to the class members and their
counsel.

On Jan. 14, 2009, the trial court entered an Order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and directing that
notices be mailed to class members.  The exact amount that will
be paid by the company depends on the number and amount of
claims that are submitted by class members in response to the
notices, according to the company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The case is "Braun v. Wal-Mart Inc., 19-CO-01-9790," which was
filed in the District Court, Dakota County, First Judicial
District, Minnesota (Hastings), Judge Robert King, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jonathan S. Parritz, Esq. (jon.parritz@maslon.com)
          Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP
          3300 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
          Phone: 612.672.8334
          Fax: 612.642.8334
          Web site: http://www.maslon.com


WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Gender Discrimination Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a gender-discrimination
class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc."

The purported class-action suit was commenced in June 2001 and
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  It was brought on behalf of all past and present
female employees in all of the company's retail stores and
warehouse clubs in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments.  It seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be
subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female associates.

The company believes that the district court's ruling is
incorrect.

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's petition for discretionary review
of the ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of
Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's
certification order.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the
decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court.  On
Dec. 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of
February 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion.   As a result,
Wal-Mart's Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.

Wal-Mart filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8,
2008.

On Feb. 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting
the Petition.  The court of appeals heard oral argument on the
Petition on March 24, 2009.

No further updates regarding the matter were reported in the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WAL-MART STORES: EEOC's Discrimination Suit Set for 2010 Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's gender
discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is set for
trial on March 1, 2010.

The company is a defendant in a lawsuit that was filed by the
EEOC on Aug. 24, 2001, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of Janice Smith and all
other females who made application or transfer requests at the
London, Kentucky, distribution center from 1998 to the present,
and who were not hired or transferred into the warehouse
positions for which they applied.

The complaint alleges that the company based hiring decisions on
gender in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as
amended.  The EEOC can maintain this action as a class without
certification.

The EEOC seeks back pay and front pay for those females not
selected for hire or transfer during the relevant time period,
plus compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

The EEOC has asserted that the hiring practices in question
resulted in a shortfall of 245 positions.

The claims for compensatory and punitive damages are capped by
statute at $300,000 per shortfall position.  The amounts of back
pay and front pay that are being sought have not been specified,
according to the company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2009.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WIRELESS CARRIERS: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Texting Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several dozen class-action lawsuits have been filed against
wireless carriers over the increasing costs of texting, WISN.com
reports.

The suits allege the companies conspired to "fix prices" for
text messages, which the companies vehemently deny, according to
the WISN.com report.

WISN.com reported that lawmakers on Capitol Hill are questioning
cell phone carriers about the increasing costs of texting.
Democratic Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl is among the group asking
questions.

"From 2006 to 2008 for the four major carriers the price has
increased by 100 percent from 10 to 20 cents a message,"
according to Senator Kohl.

Text messaging uses less bandwidth than almost any other service
on a wireless network.  Lawmakers want to know why the increase
in use of texting has seen a corresponding increase in rates,
reports WISN.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTEL NETWORKS: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by former Federal Judge Joe Kendall,
announces that a class action has been filed on behalf of stock
purchasers of Nortel Networks Corporation (PINKSHEETS: NRTLQ).
According to the complaint, certain officers of Nortel violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for their failure to
disclose material adverse facts about Nortel's true financial
condition, business
and prospects.

     On September 17, 2008, Nortel issued a press release
announcing its "preliminary view on certain third quarter
results."  The Company also announced that it was engaging in a
"comprehensive review" of Nortel's business and that "planning"
was "underway for further restructuring and other cost reduction
initiatives." In response to the Company's announcement, the
price of Nortel stock declined from $5.30 per share to $2.68.

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

For more details, contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq. (hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com)
          Kendall Law Group
          Phone: 877-744-3728
          Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com


OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Milberg LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Milberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B
and/or Class C shares of the Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal
Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ: ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX) during the
period from April 24, 2006 to October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint charges OppenheimerFunds, Inc.,
OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the Fund and certain of its
trustees and officers with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibit materially
false and misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in the Fund. The
Fund invests primarily in municipal securities.

     According to the complaint, during the Class Period the
Fund failed to disclose risk factors associated with the Fund's
investments, including, but not limited to the Fund's
investments in "inverse floater" securities that exposed it to
the risk that it would be forced to sell, upon certain
occurrences relating to the inverse floater securities, other
securities in its portfolio at fire-sale prices.  This amounted
to hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed potential
liabilities.

     On October 21, 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus supplement
alerting investors of the true liquidity risks of its
investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007 and
throughout 2008.  By October 2008, however, those risks had
already manifested, dealing substantial losses to investors.  On
October 21, 2008, as the Prospectus Supplement was issued, NJ
Muni Fund shares traded at approximately $7.90 per share, down
from $11.17 per share at the beginning of the year on January 2,
2008, an approximate 29% decline per share for the year.  NJ
Muni Fund was among the worst performing in its peer group.

     According to the complaint, after the end of the Class
Period, NJ Muni Fund belatedly disclosed liabilities and
residual exposure from the inverse floaters, which investors
were not previously told about.  On December 19, 2008, NJ Muni
Fund reported in its Quarterly Schedule of Portfolio Holdings
for the period ending October 31, 2008, filed on Form N-Q with
the SEC ("December 19, 2008 Form N-Q"), that the amount of its
exposure to the effects of leverage from its investments in
inverse floaters exceeded $94.39 million as of October 31, 2008.
In addition, NJ Muni Fund also reported that its municipal bond
holdings with a value of approximately $145 million were held by
trusts created by the inverse floaters and served as collateral
for approximately $110.7 million in short-term floating rate
notes issued and outstanding at that date, and its residual
exposure to the inverse floating rate securities was estimated
at another $18 million.  The massive liabilities and exposure of
more than $223 million, representing nearly half of the Fund's
net asset value of $523.8 million, were not disclosed in any
Registration Statements issued during the Class Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 23, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Ted Swiecichowski, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (800) 320-5081
          e-mail: contactus@milberg.com
          Web site: http://www.milberg.com/


RAYMOND JAMES: Izard Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Raymond James Financial, Inc.
(NYSE: RJF) between April 22, 2008 and April 14, 2009,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Raymond James and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, it is alleged that defendants repeatedly touted
Raymond James' supposedly conservative management practices and
avoidance of risky assets associated with subprime residential
mortgages.  Defendants, however, failed to disclose that Raymond
James understated the credit risks of its wholly owned
subsidiary's commercial and residential loan portfolios, and
failed to set aside adequate reserves for the losses that
Raymond James knew, or recklessly disregarded, were forthcoming.

     On April 14, 2009, Raymond James announced that results for
the second fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, would be well
below the consensus analysts' estimates and that both its
commercial and residential portfolios would require higher loss
reserves, with the loan loss provision tripling from the
previous quarter. On this news, Raymond James stock fell $2.57
per share, or 13.48%, to close at $16.49 per share on April 15,
2009.

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




While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the
defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class
action or for more information about the case, and your rights,
visit: www.izardnobel.com/raymondjames/, or contact Izard Nobel
LLP toll-free at (800) 797-5499, or by e-mail:
firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action
cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.

CONTACT:
Nancy A. Kulesa or Wayne Boulton
(800) 797-5499
www.izardnobel.com
Email Contact

                            *********

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  * * *