CAR_Public/090622.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 121

                           Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Labor Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Ross" Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Over Reduced Fuel
BORDERS GROUP: Lawsuit Over Sale of Non-redeemable Cards Pending
BORDERS GROUP: Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations Pending

BRISTOW GROUP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Helicopter Transport
BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Faces FDCA Violations Suit Over WWJD Motto
CHICO'S FAS: "Massey Haefner" Suit Pending in San Diego, Calif.
CITY OF CHICAGO: Suspends Tax Collections Over Bears Tickets
CLEAR CHANNEL: Bid for Reconsideration of Certification Pending

DATA DOMAIN: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger
DELL INC: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sept. 24 Hearing Set Calif. Antitrust Lawsuit
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: June 23 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
EXPEDIA INC: Ga. Court Sides With Columbus in Lawsuit Over Taxes

FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Ariz. Breach of Policy Suit for $3M
GOLDMARK PROPERTY: Faces Discrimination Lawsuit in North Dakota
HOME DEPOT: Settlement of Suits Over Meal Breaks Await Approval
HORIZON LINES: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Del. Securities Suit
KENTUCKY FRIED: Faces Calif. "Bait & Switch" Suit Over Oprah Ad

LA FITNESS: Ill. Residents File Suit Over PT Session Overcharges
LEHMAN BROTHERS: IMF Plans to Fund Suit Over Investors' Losses
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Still Faces Ariz. Suit Over Zicam Product
MORGAN STANLEY: W.Va. IMB Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Litigation
MUTUAL BENEFITS: Judge Recommends Denial of Judgment Motions

NORTHSTAR AEROSPACE: Ontario Court Approves TCE Suit Settlement
OAKLAND ATHLETICS: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit in Calif.
ORACLE CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Judge Nixes Antitrust Claims, Suit to Proceed
SONIC SOLUTIONS: August 6 Hearing Set for Consolidated Suit Deal

SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Approves $9.5M Lawsuit Settlement
STANDARD CHARTERED: Dimond Kaplan Files Suit Over "Phantom Fees"
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Reaches Settlement in "Title IX" Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Mass Reductions of HELOC


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER CORE: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Holzer Holzer Announces Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. are
continuing to litigate the remaining claims in a class-action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles.

The suit was filed by Lisa Hashimoto on June 23, 2006.  She,
along with several other plaintiffs, alleged on behalf of a
putative class of California store managers employed in
Hollister and Abercrombie stores that they were entitled to
receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California
wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21,
2006.  The parties engaged in discovery.

On Dec. 10, 2007, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle certain claims
in the action.

The agreement resulted in a written Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement, effective as of Feb. 7, 2008, settling all claims of
Hollister and Abercrombie store managers who served in the
stores from June 23, 2002, to April 30, 2004 (Class Action
Reporter, June 30, 2008).

On June 23, 2008, the Superior Court approved that proposed
partial settlement.  The partial settlement does not affect
claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing
on April 30, 2004.

The company did not disclose further developments on the case in
its June 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Ross" Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud suit styled "Ross v. Abercrombie
& Fitch Co., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00819-EAS-TPK)," remains
pending.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, on behalf of a purported class of all persons
who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the
company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005.

The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et
al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as
defendants the company's officers.

In September and October of 2005, five other purported class-
action suits were filed against the company and other defendants
with the same court.

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class-actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was
filed on Aug. 14, 2006.  On Oct. 13, 2006, all the defendants
moved to dismiss that complaint.

On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss.  On
Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the
material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their
purported class.  After briefings and argument, the motion was
submitted on March 24, 2009.

No further updates regarding the matter were reported in the
company's June 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00819-EAS-TPK)," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Edmund A. Sargus presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         (kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com)
         Maguire & Schneider
         250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip Albert Brown, Esq. (pabrown@vssp.com)
         Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease
         52 East Gay Street
         Columbus, OH 43216-1008
         Phone: 614-464-6400
         Fax: 614-464-6400

         Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq. (rsugarman@keglerbrown.com)
         Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter
         65 E State Street, Suite 1800
         Columbus, OH 43215-4294
         Phone: 614-462-5400
         Fax: 614-462-5422

              - and -

         Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq. (mrs@mcnamaralaw.us)
         McNamara and McNamara
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-228-6131


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Over Reduced Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerigas Propane, Inc., Amerigas Partners, L.P., Amerigas
Propane, L.P., Ferrellgas, L.P., Ferrellgas, Inc. and Ferrellgas
Partners L.P. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit for
quietly reducing last summer the amount of fuel in propane
canisters that are attached to backyard grills without telling
their customers, David Twiddy of The Associated Press reports.

The propane companies named in the suit said they cut the amount
of fuel in each tank to avoid raising prices last summer when
energy prices soared.  Propane prices have since plunged,
however, yet the practice of putting 15 pounds of gas in a 20-
pound tank continues, according to AP.

The suit was filed on June 4, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by Jack Fuller, Sara
Hook, Derrick Jackson, and Pat Mallaney, under the caption,
"Fuller et al v. Amerigas Propane, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2009-
cv-02493."

Plaintiffs' attorneys say the companies failed to give fair
warning to customers.  Thus, the suit accuses the two companies
of violating consumer protection laws in 36 states and the
District of Columbia, The Associated Press reported.

"The case is about customers being told they were receiving a
full tank when they weren't, and these companies' nondisclosures
that they were short-filling the tanks," attorney Dan Kurowski
tells AP.

For more details, contact:

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          820 North Boulevard, Suite B
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Phone: 708-776-5600
          Fax: 708-776-5601


BORDERS GROUP: Lawsuit Over Sale of Non-redeemable Cards Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Borders Group, Inc. intends to defend an action filed by Amanda
Rudd, on behalf of herself and a putative class consisting of
all other customers who received Borders Gift Cards from March
2005 to March 2009.

In March 2009, Ms. Rudd filed an action in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Diego alleging that
the company sells gift cards that are not redeemable for cash in
violation of California's Business and Professionals Code
Section 17200, et seq.

The Complaint seeks disgorgement of profits, restitution,
attorney's fees and costs and an injunction.

Discovery has not yet commenced, according to the company's June
4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Borders Group, Inc., -- http://www.bordersgroupinc.com/--
through its subsidiaries, operates book, music and movie
superstores, and mall-based bookstores.


BORDERS GROUP: Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Borders Group, Inc. intends to defend the purported class-action
lawsuit over the alleged violation of the California Labor Code.

In February 2009, three former employees, individually and on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and former
employees who work or worked as General Managers in Borders
stores in the State of California at any time from Feb. 19,
2005, through Feb. 19, 2009, have filed an action against the
company in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Orange.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
plaintiffs and the purported class members were improperly
classified as exempt employees and that the company violated the
California Labor Code by failing to (i) pay required overtime
and (ii) provide meal periods and rest periods, and (iii) that
those practices also violate the California Business and
Professions Code.

The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the court deems proper.

Discovery has not commenced yet, according to the company's June
4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Borders Group, Inc., -- http://www.bordersgroupinc.com/--
through its subsidiaries, operates book, music and movie
superstores, and mall-based bookstores.


BRISTOW GROUP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Helicopter Transport
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristow Group, Inc., Era Helicopters LLC, SEACOR Holdings, Inc.,
Era Group, Inc., Era Aviation, Inc., and PHI, Inc. are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit claiming they conspired to jack
up prices for transport to oil rigs, Phil Milford of Bloomberg
News reports.

The suit was filed on June 12, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware by Superior Offshore International,
Inc., under the caption, "Superior Offshore International Inc.
v. Bristow Group Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00438."

"This case arises from a conspiracy among the largest providers
of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico to fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize their prices," according to
plaintiff's lawyers.

The market for Gulf flights is "several hundreds of millions of
dollars per year," with 650 helicopters making as many as 7,500
trips a day to 7,000 oil and gas platforms, according to the
complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and class-action, or
group, status for customers from 2001 through 2005, reports
Bloomberg News.

Superior Offshore contends in its complaint, a copy of which was
obtained by Bloomberg News, "A new entrant would face a
significant hurdle to break into the market in the face of
existing contracts."  If the market was competitive, "purchasers
would naturally resist price increases by shopping around,"
according to the suit.

Bloomberg News reported that the lawsuit alleges that aircraft
charter prices were "relatively stable" until 2001, when the
three companies agreed to raise prices, first, by 30 percent
and, ultimately, by about 50 percent from the base price by the
end of 2005.

For more details, contact:

          A. Zachary Naylor, Esq. (zacharynaylor@chimicles.com)
          Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
          222 Delaware Avenue, 11th Floor
          P.O. Box 1035
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 656-2500
          Fax: (302) 656-9053


BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Faces FDCA Violations Suit Over WWJD Motto
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bullseye Collection Agency, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Act (FDCA), according to a report by Jake Jones of Examiner.com.

The suit was filed on Oct. 22, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the of Minnesota by Sara Neill and Mark Neill, under the
caption, "Neill et al v. Bullseye Collection Agency, Inc., Case
No. 0:2008-cv-05800."

Mr. Neill is the President of one of Bullseye's competitors,
Bureau of Collection Recovery (Minneapolis, MN), LLC.  He and
his wife claim that Bullseye Collection's WWJD motto violates
the federal law, reports Examiner.com.

Examiner.com reported that Bullseye Collection agency is a
small, family owned business that uses the insignia WWJD as a
reminder to act with diligence and respect in an industry
traditionally characterized with ruthlessness and incivility.

The company sent out a general collection letter to Mark and
Sara Neill for $88.00.  The Neills claimed they were offended by
the use of "WWJD" in the upper right corner of the letter.  WWJD
is an acronym that sometime means, "What Would Jesus Do?"  The
Neills filed suit alleging that "WWJD" was intended to frighten
and condemn debtors, according to Examiner.com.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. (tommycjc@aol.com)
          Consumer Justice Center, PA
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Phone: 651-770-9707
          Fax: 651-704-0907

          Stephen M. Crampton, Esq. (scrampton@lc.org)
          Liberty Counsel
          PO Box 540774
          Orlando, FL 32854
          Phone: 800-671-1776

               - and -

          Patrick M. O'Donnell, Esq. (pato.spo@tds.net)
          Smith Paulson O'Donnell & Associates
          P.O. Box 668
          Monticello, MN 55362-0668
          Phone: 763-295-2107
          Fax: 763-295-5165 (fax)


CHICO'S FAS: "Massey Haefner" Suit Pending in San Diego, Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action entitled "Michele L. Massey Haefner v.
Chico's FAS, Inc.," is still pending, according to the company's
June 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

The company was named as defendant in a putative class action
filed in June 2008, in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Diego, "Michele L. Massey Haefner v.
Chico's FAS, Inc."

The complaint alleges that the company, in violation of
California law, requested or required customers to provide
personal identification information in conjunction with credit
card transactions.

The company filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the Complaint.

Chico's FAS, Inc. -- http://www.chicosfas.com-- is a specialty
retailer of private branded, casual-to-dressy clothing,
intimates, complementary accessories, and other non-clothing
gift items under the Chico's, White House |Black Market (WH|BM)
and Soma Intimates (Soma) brand names.  The Chico's brand sells
designed, private branded clothing focusing on women 35 and over
with a moderate to high income level.  The Chico's brand
controls the design process, including choices of pattern,
prints, construction, design specifications, fabric, finishes
and color through in-house designers, purchased designs, and
working with its independent vendors to develop designs.  The
WH|BM brand, sells fashion and merchandise primarily in black
and white, and related shades focusing on women who are 25 years
old and up with a moderate to high income level.  WH|BM utilizes
an in-house design team and also works with its independent
vendors and agents to select, modify, and create its product
offerings.


CITY OF CHICAGO: Suspends Tax Collections Over Bears Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Chicago, Illinois has temporarily suspended efforts
to collect taxes on the resale of licenses that allow people to
buy Bears season tickets, Hal Dardick of The Chicago Tribune
reports.

The suspension came in response to a request by attorneys who
filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of permanent
seat license holders who were told they may owe amusement taxes.
Ticket-holders were informed of the suspension in a letter from
the team, which said it also does not believe the city is
entitled to the taxes, according to The Chicago Tribune.

"We're glad to see the city is going to hold off on this for a
while," Keith Hunt, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys tells The
Chicago Tribune.  He said the suspension is likely to remain in
place until a ruling is issued on "the propriety" of collecting
the taxes, likely within 60 days.

Ed Walsh, a spokesman for the city Revenue Department told The
Chicago Tribune that the suspension was "a courtesy to the
court."  But he added: "The city's position is unchanged. We
believe the tax applies."

Previously, Hal Dardick of The Chicago Tribune reported that the
city is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by five of
2,900 people told by the city that they may owe taxes on
licenses that allow them to buy Bears season tickets (Class
Action Reporter, May 27, 2009).

The five plaintiffs, who own permanent seat licenses, or PSLs,
want to block the city's attempt to collect an amusement tax
from them for allegedly securing the licenses through a transfer
and not originally from the charter member of the National
Football League.  The licenses initially sold for $900 to
$10,000 per seat, but now can go for more than $30,000 a seat,
according to The Chicago Tribune report.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the litigation also seeks to
recover, on behalf of original PSL owners, more than $10 million
in taxes the plaintiffs' lawyers estimate the Bears paid to the
city when the licenses were first sold, under the assumption the
license owners and not the Bears ultimately footed that tab.

According to Keith Hunt, one of three attorneys who filed the
suit, "They are already taxing the people on the tickets, so
this is a form of double taxation," reports The Chicago Tribune.

The Chicago Bears told PSL holders via e-mail recently that the
city sent letters to 2,900 license owners "alleging that
amusement tax is due on permanent seat license transfers.
...Your frustrations and concerns are understandable," The
Chicago Tribune reported.

The suit alleges the city cannot collect an amusement tax on the
licenses because they merely allow the purchase of season
tickets, The Chicago Tribune reports.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Bid for Reconsideration of Certification Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for reconsideration filed by Clear Channel
Communications, Inc., and Live Nation, Inc., before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in relation to a ruling
by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California that certified several lawsuits against the two
companies remains pending.

In general, the suits allege that anti-competitive practices for
concert promotion services by the company caused artificially
high-ticket prices.

Initially, Clear Channel was named a co-defendant with Live
Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in December
2005) in 22 putative class action complaints filed by different
named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the
country.  These actions generally assert that the defendants
monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for live rock
concerts in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The plaintiffs are claiming that they paid higher ticket prices
for rock concerts as a result of the defendants' conduct.  They
are seeking damages in an undetermined amount.

On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multi-district
Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On March 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed motions for class
certification in five template cases involving five regional
markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver.
The district court subsequently issued its decision certifying
the class for each regional market.

On Nov. 4, 2007, the defendants filed a petition for permission
to appeal the class certification ruling before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The District Court then
stayed all proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on
the company's request to appeal.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's
petition to appeal, and the company filed a motion for
reconsideration of the District Court's ruling on class
certification.

On Feb. 20, 2008, defendants filed a Motion with the U.S.
District Court for Reconsideration of its Oct. 22, 2007 order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  A
ruling on the company's Motion for Reconsideration is pending,
and proceedings are stayed until a decision is issued.

According to the company's June 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2009, in the Master Separation and
Distribution Agreement between Clear Channel and Live Nation
that was entered into in connection with the company's spin-off
of Live Nation in December 2005, Live Nation agreed, among other
things, to assume responsibility for legal actions existing at
the time of, or initiated after, the spin-off in which the
company is a defendant if such actions relate in any material
respect to the business of Live Nation.  Pursuant to the
agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify the company with
respect to all liabilities assumed by Live Nation, including
those pertaining to these claims.

San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Communications, Inc. --
http://www.clearchannel.com/-- is a diversified media company
with four segments: radio broadcasting; Americas outdoor
advertising; international outdoor advertising, and other.  It
owns 1,176 radio stations and a national radio network operating
in the United States, and also owns or operates approximately
195,000 Americas outdoor advertising display faces and
approximately 717,000 international outdoor advertising display
faces.  In addition it had equity interests in various
international radio broadcasting companies.


DATA DOMAIN: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware
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


DELL INC: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs continue to appeal the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Dell,
Inc., and several of its current and former directors and
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas.

Initially, four putative securities class-action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas against Dell and certain of its current and former
officers.  These complaints have been consolidated as "In re
Dell Inc. Securities Litigation" and Judge Sam Sparks named
Union Asset Management Holding AG as lead plaintiff in the
matter.

The lead plaintiff has asserted claims under sections 10(b),
20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based
on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions
regarding our financial statements, governmental investigations,
known battery problems, business model, and insiders' sales of
the company's securities.

The action also includes the company's independent registered
public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a
defendant.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's
claims with prejudice and without leave to amend.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Dell
and the officer defendants to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, according to the company's June 4, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 1, 2009.

The suit is "In re Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-00726-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court of for the
Western District of Texas, Judge Sam Sparks, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James M. Hughes, Esq. (jhughes@motleyrice.com)
          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. (lantonino@motleyrice.com)
          Motley Rice LLC
          P.O. Box 1792, 28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: 843-216-9000
          Fax: 843-216-9290


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sept. 24 Hearing Set Calif. Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 24, 2009 hearing is set for the motion that sought
class-action status for the lawsuit, "Geoffrey Pecover, et al.
v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. C08-02820," Ryan Burns of
Tiger Weekly reports.

The company has requested that Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S.
District Court for Northern California, dismiss the plaintiffs'
claims.  Recently, Judge Walker partially denied that request,
according to Tiger Weekly.

In his ruling, Judge Walker denied two of the plaintiffs' six
claims: the ones relating to laws outside California and the
District of Columbia, the plaintiffs' homes.  As such, the only
laws that can be applied to the case are laws from those areas.
However, the other claims were not dismissed, and the case will
proceed from there with the plaintiffs' class certification bid
scheduled to begin Sept. 24, 2009 with a hearing held Jan. 14,
2010, Tiger Weekly reported

The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that Electronic
Arts, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
it has driven competing makers of video football games out of
business by illegal, exclusive arrangements with the National
Football League, the NFL Players Union, the Arena Football
League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (Class
Action Reporter, June 13, 2008).

The plaintiffs  -- Geoffrey Pecover and Jeffrey Lawrence sued
only Electronic Arts, which makes the Madden NFL, NCAA Football
and Arena Football games.  They did not sue the athletics
leagues.

The plaintiffs claim that the illegal, exclusive agreements
allowed Electronic Arts to hike the price for its flagship
"Madden NFL" game from $29.95 to $49.99.

The complaint states Electronic Arts has driven its competition
out of the market for interactive football software, including
most significantly Take Two Interactive Software Inc., the maker
of the interactive football software title NFL 2K5 and has
prevented additional competitors from entering the market.  As a
direct result of this anticompetitive conduct, the price of
interactive football software has soared: Prior to signing
exclusive agreements referred to above, Electronic Arts charged
$29.95 for its flagship product Madden NFL.  Immediately after
the exclusive agreements entered into effect -- and the
effective withdrawal of its only competitor from the market --
Electronic Arts increased its price for that software nearly
70%, to $49.99.

The plaintiffs sue pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons in the United States
who purchased or licensed from Electronic Arts a copy of
interactive football software with a release date of August 2005
or later.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether interactive football software constitutes a
         relevant market;

     (b) whether the defendant has a monopoly on the market of
         interactive football software;

     (c) whether the defendant gained this monopoly unlawfully;

     (d) whether the defendant's actions in entering the
         exclusive agreements alleged violated California law;

     (e) whether consumers and class members have been damaged
         by the defendant's conduct;

     (f) whether punitive damages are appropriate;

     (g) whether the defendant should disgorge unlawful profits;
         and

     (h) the amount of any damages.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- certification of the action as a class action pursuant
        to the California Code of Civil Procedure Rules of
        Court, and appointment of plaintiffs as class
        representatives and their counsel of record as class
        counsel;

     -- restitution or damages to class members for the purchase
        of the software;

     -- actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble
        damages, and such other relief as provided by the
        statutes cited in the complaint;

     -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary
        relief;

     -- equitable relief in the form of restitution or
        disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received
        by defendant as a result of the anticompetitive conduct
        alleged in the complaint;

     -- other appropriate injunctive relief;

     -- the costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees;

     -- a declaration that the relevant agreements are null and
        void; and

     -- all other relief to which plaintiffs and members of the
        class may be entitled at law or in equity.

The suit is "Geoffrey Pecover, et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc.,
Case No. C08-02820," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shane E. Scarlett, Esq. (shanas@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          Fax: 510-725-3001

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq. (stuart@smplegal.com)
          The Paynter Law Firm PLLC
          1200 G Street, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-626-4486
          Fax: 866-734-0622

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: June 23 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 23, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the
settlement of the lawsuit styled "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide
Technologies, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH."

As reported in The Class Action Reporter dated April 1, 2009,
agreed to pay $13.7 million to settle a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit alleging the company deceived
investors with sanguine reports shortly after emerging from
bankruptcy in 2004, Law360 reports.

The settlement, submitted on March 27, 2009 for approval by
Judge Mary L. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, creates a $13.7 million settlement fund to
resolve the case, according to the Law360 report.

                         Case Background

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former
stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately
filed purported class action complaints against the company and
certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations
of certain federal securities laws (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
11, 2009).

The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004, and May 17, 2005.

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20 (a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and
misleading public statements made during this period by the
company and its officers.  The complaints did not specify an
amount of damages sought.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva
Partners and Jarman cases under the caption "Aviva Partners v.
Exide Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC)."

On March 24, 2006, Judge Cooper appointed as co-lead plaintiffs:

     * the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
       Fund, and

     * Lakeway Capital Management.

The judge also appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as co-lead
counsel for the putative class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint in which they reiterated their original claims
but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who purchased
the company's stock between May 5, 2004, and May 17, 2005.

On June 22, 2006, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints.  The court has
granted this request but permitted the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint, which they did.

The defendants again moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but
this time, the Court denied this request.

Discovery in the lawsuit is proceeding and is expected to
continue throughout the remainder of 2008.  No trial date has
been set in this matter.

On Jan. 8, 2009, the Company and Plaintiffs' Court-appointed
representatives (Lead Plaintiffs) reached an agreement in
principle to settle this litigation (Proposed Settlement).  Any
payment under the Proposed Settlement would be made by the
Company's insurers and would have no material impact on the
Company's financial statements or results of operations.

The Proposed Settlement was approved by the Board of Trustees of
co-Lead Plaintiff Alaska Hotel and Restaurant Employees Pension
Trust Fund, and thereafter the company and Lead Plaintiffs
negotiated a definitive agreement.  The Court issued its Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice on
April 13, 2009.  Notice has been given to prospective class
members.  The company's insurer has paid the full $13.7 million
settlement required pursuant to the Proposed Settlement into an
escrow account pending final approval of the Proposed Settlement
by the Court.  The Court's final approval hearing is currently
scheduled for June 23, 2009.  Subject to final approval of the
Proposed Settlement by the Court this litigation will be
dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.  Under the terms of
the Proposed Settlement, the company and the former officers
continue to deny the allegations in Plaintiffs' complaints,
according to its June 4, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Mary L. Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq. (procco@lawssb.com)
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: 973-775-8997

Representing the defendants is:

         Edward T. Kole, Esq. (ekole@wilentz.com)
         Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs.
         90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 - Box 10
         Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
         Phone: 732-636-8000


EXPEDIA INC: Ga. Court Sides With Columbus in Lawsuit Over Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Supreme Court ordered Expedia, Inc. to pay an
undetermined amount to the City of Columbus, Georgia in relation
to a class-action lawsuit that the city filed against the
company, Jon Hood of ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.

The Suit alleged that, while Columbus hotels charged taxes based
on a room's wholesale value, Expedia collected taxes calculated
according to the retail price of the room, and pocketed the
difference.  The exact amount owed by Expedia will be determined
by a trial court, reports ConsumerAffairs.Com.

The company is filing a motion to reconsider the Georgia ruling
and, if that proves unsuccessful, has already announced that it
will appeal the decision, according to ConsumerAffairs.Com.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Ariz. Breach of Policy Suit for $3M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Insurance Co. of Arizona settled for for $3 million a
class-action lawsuit filed in Pima County Superior Court, Kim
Smith of the Arizona Daily Star.

In January 2004, attorneys for Paul Schwam filed a class-action
lawsuit against Farmers Insurance claiming a business practice
enacted in 2001 was a breach of Mr. Schwam's policy and policies
owned by certain other customers who made claims for medical
expense coverage, according to the Arizona Daily Star report.

After he was the victim of a rear-end collision, Mr. Schwam
learned Farmers Insurance only paid his doctors and other
health-care providers at PPO levels even though he wasn't a PPO
member, according to Todd Jackson, Esq., one of Mr. Schwam's
attorneys.  Mr. Jackson along with other attorneys argued the
company acted in "bad faith" between 2001, when the practice
began, and August 2004, when the practice ended, the Arizona
Daily Star reported.

After years of battling in court, attorneys on both sides of the
case decided to settle in March, and Judge Stephen Villarreal
signed off on the settlement on June 17, 2009, reports the
Arizona Daily Star.

According to court documents, obtained by the Arizona Daily
Star, Farmers Insurance agreed to pay the plaintiffs a lump sum
of $3 million.  Mr. Schwam will also receive $100,000 as an
"incentive award."

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs' attorneys will receive $1.3 million
of that amount in attorneys fees, plus an additional $394,000
for the cost of the litigation, court documents indicated.


GOLDMARK PROPERTY: Faces Discrimination Lawsuit in North Dakota
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldmark Property Management, Inc. faces a purported class-
action lawsuit accusing it of a "pattern of discrimination" in
renting apartments to tenants with disabilities, Patrick
Springer of The Forum reports.

The suit was filed on June 16, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of North Dakota by Fair Housing of the Dakotas,
Inc., Stephanie Hasse, Betty Martin and Clarica Martin, under
the caption, "Fair Housing of the Dakotas, Inc. et al v.
Goldmark Property Management Inc., Case No. 3:2009-cv-00058."

The plaintiffs are contending that the Fargo-based company
discriminated against two tenants with companion dogs, according
to The Forum.

The lawsuit seeks to proceed as a class-action case that would
represent disabled tenants or would-be tenants with similar
grievances dating back to June 16, 2007, involving assistance
animals, reports The Forum.

The Forum reported that in both instances of alleged
discrimination, the company is accused of charging extra fees
and higher monthly rents for companion dogs.  Those practices,
the lawsuit contends, violate the U.S. Fair Housing Act and
North Dakota law.

As a result of the complaints over the alleged discriminatory
practices, Fair Housing of the Dakotas sent testers to Goldmark-
managed apartments in Bismarck and Fargo to inquire about
practices involving companion animals.  Those tests "confirmed
that Goldmark committed discriminatory housing practices,"
according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
Forum.

The plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages for loss of
housing opportunities, emotional distress, and mental anguish
for violations of their civil rights, the suit states.

For more details, contact:

          Christopher Brancart, Esq. (cbrancart@brancart.com)
          Brancart & Brancart
          P.O. Box 686
          Pescadero, CA 94060
          Phone: 650-879-0141


HOME DEPOT: Settlement of Suits Over Meal Breaks Await Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement between The Home Depot, Inc. and the
plaintiffs in five current lawsuits remains subject to the
Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles in California's
approval.

The company has reached a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs in five current lawsuits in the Superior Court of the
County of Los Angeles in California, containing multiple class-
action allegations that the company failed to provide meal
breaks.

The complaints were filed by current and former hourly
associates from the first quarter of 2004 through the fourth
quarter of 2008.

Relief sought included unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

Class or collective-action certification was not addressed in
any of these cases.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, the company established a
reserve for this settlement, according to its June 4, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 3, 2009.

The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com-- is a home
improvement retailer.  It, together with its subsidiaries,
operates The Home Depot stores, which are full-service,
warehouse-style stores.  The Home Depot stores sell an
assortment of building materials, home improvement, and lawn and
garden products, which are sold to do-it-yourself customers, do-
it-for-me customers and professional customers.  In addition,
the company operates EXPO Design Center stores, which offer
products and services primarily related to design and renovation
projects.  As of Feb. 3, 2008, the company operated 2,234 stores
in total, which included 1,950 The Home Depot stores, 34 EXPO
stores, five Yardbirds stores and two THD Design Center stores
in the U.S. (including the territories of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands and Guam), 165 The Home Depot stores in Canada,
66 The Home Depot stores in Mexico and 12 The Home Depot stores
in China.


HORIZON LINES: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Del. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware appointed the Police and Fire Retirement System of
the City of Detroit as lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action
securities suit against Horizon Lines Inc. over its alleged
price-fixing, beating out an earlier bid from another group of
investors, Law360 reports.

Previously, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, naming the company and five
current and former employees, including its Chief Executive
Officer, as defendants (Class Action Reporter, May 13, 2009).

The first complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2008, and the second
complaint was filed on Jan. 27, 2009, but was subsequently
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

Each complaint purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock during the period from March 2, 2007
through April 25, 2008.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company made
material misstatements and omissions in connection with alleged
price-fixing in the company's shipping business in Puerto Rico
in violation of antitrust laws.

The company says in its April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 22, 2009, that it has appropriate disclosure practices.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.
(HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones
Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.
The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


KENTUCKY FRIED: Faces Calif. "Bait & Switch" Suit Over Oprah Ad
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court that claims it
reneged on an offer of a free grilled chicken sandwich after a
promotion on the Oprah Winfrey Show was so popular that people
lined up across the country, demanding "millions" of the
sandwiches, The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit calls the KFC promo a "classic example of a bait and
switch."  According to the complaint, KFC ran the promo on the
May 5 Oprah show, and told customers they could download a
coupon from Oprah's Web site for the next 24 hours.  The coupon
would entitle people to a free Kentucky Grilled Chicken meal -
the sandwich, two side orders, and a biscuit, reports The
Courthouse News Service.

The Courthouse News Service reported that the demand was so
great KFC extended it for a day and moved the downloadable to
its own Web site.  But on May 7, 2009, KFC started backing out
of the deal, the class claims.

First it said it would not honor the coupons "today," but
offered a rain check.  Then it said people had to exchange the
downloaded coupons for a rain check, "which will be redeemable
at a later date for a two-week period."

It also demand that requests for rain checks be accompanied by a
downloaded coupon and presented or mailed to a KFC outlet by May
19, according to a KFC press release cited in the complaint, a
copy of which was obtained by The Courthouse News Service.

The suit claims that these terms and conditions are more onerous
than the original offer, and will deprive many people of their
free sandwiches.  Plaintiffs claim KFC knew that people would be
lured to a restaurant by the offer, and when their coupons were
refused, would buy something.  They call that a "classic example
of a bait and switch."

The plaintiffs -- represented by Adam Gutride, Esq. with Gutride
Safier LLP of San Francisco -- demand punitive damages for
fraud, misrepresentation and unfair trade, The Courthouse News
Service reports.

For more details, contact:


          Gutride Safier LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Phone: 415 271-6469
          Fax: 415 449-6469
          e-mail: info@gutridesafier.com
          Web site: http://www.gutridesafier.com/


LA FITNESS: Ill. Residents File Suit Over PT Session Overcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LA Fitness International is facing a purported class action suit
filed by two Oswego, Illinois residents who are alleging that
the fitness club charged for personal training sessions that
never actually occurred, Marian Wang of ChicagoNow reports.

One of the plaintiffs had signed up for 12 half-hour sessions
with a personal trainer, and according to the complaint, LA
Fitness charged him for 94 training sessions in the amount of
$3,760 from September 2008 through February 2009, reports
ChicagoNow.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: IMF Plans to Fund Suit Over Investors' Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation firm IMF intends to fund a AUD$1.2 billion class-
action lawsuit on behalf of small investors that have suffered
hefty losses after investing with Lehman Brothers Australia,
Clancy Yeates of The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

IMF, which is already trying to scuttle an agreement between
Lehman's biggest creditors, told The Sydney Morning Herald that
the action could benefit up to 600 investors that bought complex
debt securities that have since plunged in value.

The first phase of the action is on behalf of Parkes Shire in
NSW and Swan Council in Western Australia, but IMF is confident
of support from other investors including more councils,
charities, churches, and universities, according to The Sydney
Morning Herald.

Administrators in charge of Lehman Brothers Australia have
valued these "contingent" creditors' claims at up to AUD$625.6
million, but according to IMF the face value of their
investments was as high as AUD$1.2 billion, reports The Sydney
Morning Herald.

The executive director of IMF, John Walker, told The Sydney
Morning Herald that Federal Court documents to be filed on June
19, 2009 would allege the failed investment bank breached its
fiduciary duty by putting its own interests before those of its
clients.

"They allege that Lehmans were meant to act on their behalf and
were given delegated authority to buy products appropriate to
their financial needs," according to Mr. Walker.

"What Lehman did was go out and create their own products and
sell these products to the councils.  As a result of them acting
in their own interests, the councils, charities and churches
have ended up with potentially in excess of $1 billion in
losses."

The products in question collateralised debt obligations were
marketed to councils as a safe investment because of their AAA
credit rating, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that IMF has already begun
legal proceedings to overturn a deed of company arrangement that
offered councils between 2 cents and 13 cents in the dollar,
alongside any capital gain or income from the assets.

Mr. Walker told The Sydney Morning Herald that the case, to be
spearheaded by the law firm Piper Alderman, could be heard as
soon as next month.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Still Faces Ariz. Suit Over Zicam Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. continues to face a purported class-
action lawsuit in Arizona alleging that the company's Zicam Cold
Remedy product caused damage to the sense of smell and/or taste
of the plaintiffs, FOX8 News reports.

Dave Richardson is one of those 130 people who is part of the
class-action lawsuit against Zicam's maker, Matrixx Initiatives,
of Scottsdale, Ariz., according to FOX8 News.

Mr. Richardson said he used Zicam Nasal Spray once when he felt
a cold coming on.  "I used it one time and had a burning
sensation and just thought after I had that experience you know
what I didn't like the way that felt, I'm not going to use that
stuff again," tells FOX8 News.

According to him, after recovering from his cold, he still could
not smell or taste anything, FOX8 News reported.


MORGAN STANLEY: W.Va. IMB Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Investment Management Board filed a purported
class-action lawsuit against brokerage Morgan Stanley and bond
rating agencies Moody's and Standard & Poor's, Rob Cornelius of
The State Journal reports.

The suit seeks damages and legal expenses for losses suffered
when mortgage-backed securities sold to the fund in 2007 fell in
value.  The Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust products held by
the state were sold throughout 2007 and 2008 at an average price
of 15 cents on the dollar for what the state bought at or near
par ($1.00), according to The State Journal report.

Securities the IMB purchased for roughly $6.35 million sold for
about $955,000, not including brokerage and management fees,
which equated to a net loss of $5.4 million on investments that
were held fewer than 18 months, reports The State Journal.

The class-action suit, filed by San Diego-based securities
litigation firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, alleges
that Morgan Stanley released prospectuses on the securities in
question that overstated the quality of the underlying
mortgages.  In essence, the loans were not written to the
standards stated in the documents used to sell them, The State
Journal reported.

IMB Executive Director Craig Slaughter told The State Journal
that the law firm monitors the portfolio and recommended the
Board participate as lead plaintiff.

Previously, it was reported that Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP filed a class action on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who
acquired the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates of Morgan
Stanley Capital I Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements
issued between December 2005 and November 2007 by Morgan Stanley
Capital (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2009).

The Class includes purchasers of Certificates of the following
trusts:

       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-5AR
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-1XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-6AR
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-3XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-5AX
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-8AR
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-4SL
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-6XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-9AR
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-7AX
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-11
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-9SL
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-12XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-11AR
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-10XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-15XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AX
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-13
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-17XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-14AR
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-15AR

The complaint charges Morgan Stanley Capital and certain of its
officers and directors, the issuers and underwriters of the
Certificates and the rating agencies that rated the Certificates
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

Morgan Stanley Capital is engaged in the securitization of loans
and the business of acting as depositor of trusts that issue
series of certificates that represent interests in the assets of
the trust.

The complaint alleges that on December 23, 2005 (with amendments
on February 17, 2006 and March 14, 2006), Morgan Stanley Capital
and the defendant issuers caused the Registration Statement to
be filed with the SEC in connection with the issuance of
billions of dollars of Certificates.  The Certificates were
supported by large pools of mortgage loans.  The Registration
Statement discussed the underwriting standards purportedly used
in connection with the underwriting of the underlying mortgage
loans and included numerous representations about the loan-to-
value ratios used to qualify borrowers, the appraisals of
properties underlying the mortgages and the maximum debt-to-
income ratios permitted on the mortgage loans.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omitted
and/or misrepresented the fact that the sellers of the
underlying mortgages to Morgan Stanley Capital were issuing many
of the mortgage loans to borrowers who:

       -- did not meet the prudent or maximum debt-to-income
          ratio purportedly required by the lender;

       -- did not provide adequate documentation to support the
          income and assets required for the lenders to approve
          and fund the mortgage loans pursuant to the lenders'
          own guidelines;

       -- were steered to stated income/asset and low
          documentation mortgage loans by lenders, lenders'
          correspondents or lenders' agents, such as mortgage
          brokers, because the borrowers could not qualify for
          mortgage loans that required full documentation; and

       -- did not have the income required by the lenders' own
          guidelines to afford the required mortgage payments
          which resulted in a mismatch between the amount loaned
          to the borrower and the capacity of the borrower.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or
entities who acquired the Certificates pursuant and/or traceable
to the Registration Statement.

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

For more details, contact:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
         Web site:
         http://www.csgrr.com/cases/morganstanleycapital/


MUTUAL BENEFITS: Judge Recommends Denial of Judgment Motions
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida recommended denying summary
judgment for either party on a liability claim against one of
the defendants in a protracted securities-class action suit over
allegedly fraudulent viatical life insurance contracts by Mutual
Benefits Corp., Law360 reports.

On June 17, 2009, Judge Torres recommended the denial of both
defendant Michael Azizi's and the plaintiffs' motions, according
to the Law360 report.

It was previously reported that a class-action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased viatical or life
settlement contracts or otherwise invested through Mutual
Benefits Corporation ("MBC" or the "Company") including those
investing in MBC through Viatical Benefactors, LLC ("VBLLC")
during the period from late 1994 through the present ("Class
Period") (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2004).

The complaint alleges that since late 1994, MBC has operated as
a viatical and life settlement provider, raising money from
investors to purchase viatical and life settlement contracts.  A
viatical or life settlement contract involves the sale of a life
insurance policy by a terminally ill person or senior citizen
(known within the industry as a "viator") at a price discounted
from the face value of the policy.  Investors pay the premiums,
and receive the face value of the life insurance policy when the
insured, or viator, dies.  In turn, the viator receives a
portion of the proceeds of his life insurance policy in a lump
sum.  On information and belief MBC has allocated investor funds
to approximately 9,559 life insurance policies with an aggregate
anticipated death benefit of approximately $1.7 billion.  MBC
promised investors guaranteed fixed rates of return ranging from
12% to 72%, depending upon the term of investment chosen by the
investor. The life expectancy of the viator, as determined by
MBC, in turn, determines the total rate of return.

The complaint charges defendants MBC, Viatical Benefactors, LLC
("VBLLC"), Viatical Services, Inc. ("VSI"), Kensington
Management, Inc. ("Kensington"), Rainy Consulting Corp.
("Rainy"), Twin Groves Investments, Inc. ("Twin Groves"), P.J.L.
Consulting, Inc. ("P.J.L."), SKS Consulting, Inc. ("SKS"),
Camden Consulting, Inc. ("Camden"), Joel Steinger a/k/a Joel
Steiner ("J. Steinger"), Leslie Steinger a/k/a Leslie Steiner
("L. Steinger"), Peter Lombardi ("Lombardi"), Steven Steinger
("S. Steinger"), Henry Fecker, III ("Fecker"), Clark C. Mitchell
("Mitchell"), Edgard Escobar ("Escobar"), Anthony LaMarca
("LaMarca"), A.M. Livoti, Jr., P.a. and A.M. Livoti, Jr.
(collectively "Livoti"), Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank, N.A."),
Union Planters, N.A. ("Union Planters"); RBC Centura Bank
("RBC"), and First Southern Bank ("First Southern") with
violations of Sections 12(a)(1), 12(a)(2), and 22(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), and Sections 10(b)
and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that since 1994, defendants
have operated or aided and abetted a billion dollar Ponzi scheme
and defrauded at least 29,000 investors -- many of whom are
retirees -- by issuing a series of material and misleading
omissions and false statements, breaching escrow agreements and
breaching their fiduciary trust to investors.  The complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts which were then known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that new investor funds were diverted to cover
         shortfalls on the funds escrowed to cover life
         insurance premiums on policies assigned to earlier
         investors;

     (2) that there were gross inaccuracies in the calculated
         life expectancies of viators;

     (3) that insurance premium escrow accounts were commingled
         and deficient;

     (4) the Steingers' civil disciplinary backgrounds as well
         as $26-plus million in "consulting fees" paid to the
         Steingers or to entities that the Steingers controlled
         were not disclosed to investors; and

     (5) that MBC does not require that its sales agents be
         licensed, and that several of MBC's sales agents have
         been the subjects of state cease-and-desist orders in
         connection with the MBC offering.

On May 5, 2004, the United States Securities & Exchange
Commission ("SEC") and federal marshals raided MBC's south
Florida offices, seized the company's records and shut down
MBC's operations.

The complaint also alleges that since late 1994, MBC has
operated as a viatical and life settlement provider, raising
money from investors to purchase viatical and life settlement
contracts. A viatical or life settlement contract involves the
sale of a life insurance policy by a terminally ill person or
senior citizen (known within the industry as a "viator") at a
price discounted from the face value of the policy.  Investors
pay the premiums, and receive the face value of the life
insurance policy when the insured, or viator, dies.  In turn,
the viator receives a portion of the proceeds of his life
insurance policy in a lump sum.  On information and belief MBC
has allocated investor funds to approximately 9,559 life
insurance policies with an aggregate anticipated death benefit
of approximately $1.7 billion.  MBC promised investors
guaranteed fixed rates of return ranging from 12% to 72%,
depending upon the term of investment chosen by the investor.
The life expectancy of the viator, as determined by MBC, in
turn, determines the total rate of return.


NORTHSTAR AEROSPACE: Ontario Court Approves TCE Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Northstar TCE Class Action was approved today by the
Honourable Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court.  The
Class Action had been brought on behalf of Cambridge residents
against Northstar Aerospace, Inc. and Northstar Aerospace
(Canada) Inc. in respect of alleged contamination of
Trichloroethylene ("TCE") in the proximity of Northstar's Bishop
Street plant.

     "We are very pleased with this result and look forward to
moving ahead with the implementation of the compensation
program" says Michael Eizenga, one of the Class Counsel
responsible for negotiating the settlement.  David Thompson,
another of the Class Counsel, indicated that formal notice of
the settlement would be published in the near future and would
provide details, including deadlines, of how claimants are able
to submit a claim.

     Assuming the settlement is implemented as envisioned, Class
Members will receive their first payment under the program in
November.

     The plaintiff class in this action is represented by a
consortium of three area firms: David Thompson from Scarfone
Hawkins LLP (http://www.shlaw.ca/);Neena Gupta from Gowling
Lafleur Henderson LLP (http://www.gowlings.com/);and Mike
Eizenga and Matthew Baer from Siskinds LLP
(http://www.siskinds.com/).


OAKLAND ATHLETICS: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oakland Athletics baseball organization settled a class-
action lawsuit over a Mother's Day weekend giveaway of free
plaid reversible bucket hats for more more than $500,000, Chris
Metinko of the Oakland Tribune reports.

The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed in 2006 by Alfred Rava
in Alameda County Superior Court.  It received preliminary
approval from Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman in March,
according to the Oakland Tribune.

The Oakland Tribune report that the settlement calls for the A's
organization and Macy's to pay up to $250,000 to a maximum of
2,500 men who can provide proof they attended the game.  An
additional $260,000 will go toward court-approved attorney fees
and costs, claims administration fees and other things --
including an "enhancement fee," which could be as much as
$20,000, to Mr. Rava for representing the class in the lawsuit.

The deal also allows for any male who attended the May 8, 2004
game and can provide some sort of receipt showing they had a
ticket to the game to receive $50, a two-for-one A's ticket
offer and $25 in Macy's discounts.  The total value of the
settlement per individual is $100, reports the Oakland Tribune.

According to Gregory Cartwright, Esq., the attorney representing
Rava, 43 people have thus far submitted claims.  The deadline to
submit claims is June 25, 2009.  Claims are being handled by
Simpluris, which can be contacted at http://www.simpluris.com,
the Oakland Tribune reports.

Previously, it was reported that the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Alameda will hold a fairness
hearing on Aug. 7, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Rava v. Athletics Investment Group,
LLC, at al., Case No. RG 06268693" (Class Action Reporter, June
5, 2009).

The hearing will be held at the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda located at 1221 Oak St.,
Oakland, California 94612.

According to a settlement notice, the defendants entered into a
sponsorship agreement in 2004 to promote various events,
including awareness of and fund raising for the fight against
breast cancer, and events and tributes to honor mothers on
Mother's Day weekend.  Among these events were in-stadium
tributes to "moms" and in-game announcements honoring all moms
in attendance, a breast cancer awareness and fund raising
program, free mammograms to underserved women in the Bay Area,
including a 5K Fun Run before the game, in which all net
proceeds were donated to the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer
Center at UCSF, and which included inter alia, a floppy hat
giveaway "to the first 7,500 moms" in attendance at an A's
baseball game at the Oakland Coliseum on May 8, 2004, as a
tribute to mothers on Mother's Day weekend.

On May 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a proposed class-action lawsuit
against the defendants in the Alameda County Superior Court in
the State of California on behalf of himself and all males
similarly situated who attended the A's baseball game at Oakland
Coliseum on May 8, 2004.

The plaintiff alleges that defendants discriminated against
males by failing to provide reversible bucket hats to males who
attended the baseball game on May 2, 2004.

The plaintiff seeks damages and other relief on behalf of
himself and the members of the class under the California Unruh
Civil Rights Act (Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5, et seq.), and
the City of Oakland Municipal Code section 9.44, et seq.

The complaint sought recovery of actual damages, statutory
damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

For more details, contact:

          A's / Macy's Claims Administrator
          c/o Simpluris, Inc.
          3176 Pullman St., Suite 123
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 1(888) 428-6571

               - and -

          Gregory L. Cartwright, Esq.
          The Cartwright Law Group, APLC
          550 West C. Street, Suite 1710,
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-0126


ORACLE CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed the consolidated class-action
lawsuit, captioned, "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 01-CV-0988," David Bario of Am Law Litigation Daily
reports.

Commenting, "The word 'voluminous' does not do justice to the
record in this case," Judge Illston granted Oracle Corp.'s
summary judgment motion in the case, according to Am Law
Litigation Daily.

Judge Illston, who was assigned the case in 2008 when Judge
Martin Jenkins left the bench, ruled that the plaintiffs failed
to present adequate evidence that Oracle officials fraudulently
promoted the company's stock and mischaracterized the value of
one of its software products in 2000 and 2001, Am Law Litigation
Daily reported.

                         Case Background

Initially, stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company and its chief executive officer on and after March
9, 2001 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008).

Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and
a revised second amended complaint.  The last dismissal was with
prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named the company's chief
executive officer, its then chief financial officer (who
currently is chairman of the company's board of directors) and a
former executive vice president as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000, through
March 1, 2001.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's actual and expected
financial performance and the performance of certain of the
company's applications products, while certain individual
defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal
securities laws.

They further alleged that certain individual defendants sold
Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.  In addition, they also allege that the defendants
engaged in accounting violations.

The suit seeks unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On July 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary
judgment against the company's CEO.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions.  The parties' summary judgment motions are fully
briefed.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default
judgment against the defendants or various other sanctions
because of the defendants' alleged destruction of evidence.  The
motion is fully briefed.

A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007.  The
court has not yet ruled on any of these motions.

On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who
has scheduled a status conference for July 18, 2008.

On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the
plaintiffs' sanctions motion.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment against all defendants.  The order
also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions.  The court denied plaintiffs' request that judgment
be entered in plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged destruction
of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions were
appropriate for several categories of evidence.  The court found
that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences were
appropriate for two categories of evidence:

       -- e-mails from the company's Chief Executive Officer's
          account, and

       -- materials that had been created in connection with a
          book regarding the company's Chief Executive Officer.

The court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment
and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to
revise and re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise
contours of the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to
take these inferences into account with regard to the propriety
of summary judgment.

The court also directed the parties to address certain legal
issues in the briefing.  A briefing scheduled for these revised
summary judgment motions has not yet been set.

A court-ordered mediation was scheduled for Oct. 13, 2008.  A
trial date has been set for March 30, 2009, according to the
company's Sept. 22, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July
31, 2008.

A copy of the dismissal order is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3e00

The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. (jennie@libertylawoffice.com)
         Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
         1438 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Phone: 415-896-1000
         Fax: 415-896-2249

Representing the defendants is:

         Dorian Daley, Esq.
         500 Oracle Parkway
         Redwood City, CA 94065
         Phone: 650-506-5200
         Fax: 650-506-7114


QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Judge Nixes Antitrust Claims, Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the antitrust
claims brought against Quiznos Franchise Co. LLC in a class-
action lawsuit alleging fraud and manipulation of the franchise
system to proceed, Law360 reports.

On June 16, 2009, Judge Lenihan of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the antitrust claims, but will allow the rest
of the prospective statewide class-action lawsuit to proceed,
according to the Law360 report.


SONIC SOLUTIONS: August 6 Hearing Set for Consolidated Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing for the settlement of a consolidated
class-action and shareholder derivative complaint against Sonic
Solutions has been set for Aug. 6, 2009.

Between March and June 2007, the company was notified that a
total of five shareholder derivative lawsuits had been filed by
persons identifying themselves as its shareholders and
purporting to act on the company's behalf, naming the company as
a nominal defendant and naming some of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

Four of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and one was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Marin.

In these actions, the plaintiffs assert claims against the
individual defendants for violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act, violations of the California Corporations Code,
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, rescission, constructive fraud, and an accounting
and a constructive trust.

The plaintiffs' claims concern the granting of stock options by
the company and the alleged filing of false and misleading
financial statements.  All of these claims are asserted
derivatively on the company's behalf.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an indeterminate amount
of damages from the individual defendants and a judgment
directing the company to reform its corporate governance.

The federal cases were consolidated on Aug. 2, 2007, into one
action captioned "Wilder v. Doris, et al. (C07-1500)," which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action and shareholder derivative complaint.

Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, defendants' response
to the complaint was due Feb. 12, 2009.

On Sept. 19, 2007, the court in the state action granted the
company's motion to stay that proceeding in its entirety until
final resolution of the consolidated federal action.  The court
in the state action is scheduled to review the status of the
stay on April 17, 2009.

According to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 4, 2009, in
February 2009, the parties in the derivative actions reached an
agreement in principle to settle these actions.  On May 28,
2009, the Federal Court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  The Preliminary Approval Order requires that
the Company publish a Notice of Proposed Settlement of Actions
and of Settlement Hearing Thereon in a Current Report on Form 8-
K within seven (7) business days of the entry of such order.

A copy of the Notice of Settlement is available for free at
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916235/000118143109028858
/rrd244813_28596.htm

The Notice of Settlement contains important information
regarding the proposed settlement.

The Preliminary Approval Order is subject to final approval by
the Federal Court.  A final settlement hearing is scheduled
before the Honorable Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, United States
Courthouse, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California
94612, on Aug. 6, 2009, at 2:00 p.m., to determine whether the
proposed settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate and to consider the application of plaintiffs' counsel
for attorneys' fees and expenses.

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats.  Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats.  The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name.  The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.


SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Approves $9.5M Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts gave
final approval to the proposed $9,500,000 settlement in the
matter, "In Re Sonus Networks Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:02-cv-11315-MLW," Bloomberg News reports.

The agreement is "adequate and reasonable," Judge Mark Wolf said
at a fairness hearing held on June 16, 2009, according to
Bloomberg News.

Beginning in July 2002, several purchasers of the company's
common stock filed complaints before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the company, certain of
its officers and directors, and a former officer under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act (Class Action
Reporter, March 18, 2009).

The purchasers seek to represent a class of persons who
purchased the company's common stock between Dec. 11, 2000, and
Jan. 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages.

The class-action complaints were essentially identical and
alleged that the company made false and misleading statements
about its products and business.

These cases were subsequently consolidated, and on March 3,
2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  In
April 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.

On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the company's
dismissal motion, and later denied the request.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July
30, 2004.  This motion was granted by the court and a class
representative was then appointed.  The court also appointed the
law firm of Moulton & Gans as lead counsel.

After the court requested additional briefing on the adequacy of
the class representative, the class representative withdrew.
The lead counsel then filed a motion to substitute a new
plaintiff as the class representative.  On May 19, 2005, the
court held a hearing on the motion and took the matter under
advisement.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the court issued an order decertifying the
class and requiring the parties to submit a joint report
informing the court whether the cases have been settled and
whether the defendants would be seeking to recover attorney's
fees from the plaintiffs.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motions to voluntarily
dismiss their complaints with prejudice.  On Oct. 5, 2005, the
court entered an order dismissing the cases.

However, on June 26, 2006, the court issued an order denying the
company's motion for recovery of attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 6, 2006, a purchaser of the company common stock filed a
complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts that is essentially identical to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint previously filed against the defendants.

The court has appointed as lead plaintiff the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi, which filed an amended
consolidated complaint.

In April 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
amended consolidated complaint.  The court held a hearing on the
motion on Sept. 18, 2008, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re Sonus Networks Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:02-cv-11315-MLW," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Judge Mark L. Wolf, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert J. Berg, Esq.
         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
         10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414

              - and -

         Richard H. Weiss, Esq.
         Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
         One Penn Plaza
         New York City, NY 10002
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the company are:

         Daniel W. Halston, Esq. (daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com)
         Michelle D. Miller, Esq.
         (michelle.miller@wilmerhale.com)
         Jeffrey B. Rudman, Eqs. (jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com)
         Peter A. Spaeth, Esq. (peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Hale
         60 State Street
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-526-6654
         Fax: 617-526-5000


STANDARD CHARTERED: Dimond Kaplan Files Suit Over "Phantom Fees"
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. Announced
that it has filed a class-action lawsuit against Standard
Chartered Bank International (Americas) Limited and Standard
Chartered Private Bank.  The lawsuit seeks to recover millions
of dollars in fees that Standard Chartered improperly charged to
its customers.

     The amount of the fees in question were calculated based on
what was purported to be the net asset value of Standard
Chartered customers' funds that had been "invested" in the now-
infamous investment scam perpetrated by Bernard Madoff and
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (jointly referred
to as "Madoff").  But as is now clear, the Madoff "investments"
were, in fact, virtually worthless, and the purported net asset
values upon which Standard Chartered calculated the foregoing
fees that it charged to its customers were fraudulent.  That is
to say, the Plaintiffs and the putative class members paid
Standard Chartered millions of dollars in fees based on phantom
or fraudulent valuations.  Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein seeks the
return of these "Phantom Fees" on behalf of their clients and
all other Standard Chartered customers who were charged the
Phantom Fees.

     The Plaintiffs and all class members in the class action
lawsuit purchased shares of the Fairfield Sentry Limited hedge
fund (the "Sentry Fund") through Standard Chartered.
Thereafter, Standard Chartered charged Plaintiffs and the class
members a quarterly fee (the "Fairfield Fee") that was
calculated based on the purported net asset value of each
customer's Sentry Fund holdings.  Importantly, the Sentry Fund
was one of the main feeder funds that "invested" its assets with
Madoff.  Indeed, the Sentry Fund handed virtually all of its
assets over to Madoff to be "invested" on behalf of Sentry Fund
investors, including Plaintiffs and the class.

     Before Madoff shocked the investing world by revealing that
his investment empire was nothing more than an elaborate Ponzi
scheme, the Sentry Fund boasted a "value" of more than $7
billion, virtually all of which was "invested" with Madoff.
Since then, it has become well known that Madoff, and hence the
Sentry Fund, had little to no true value.  Accordingly, the
Fairfield Fees that were charged by Standard Chartered were
based on the fraudulent "value" of the Sentry Fund before the
Madoff fraud was uncovered and before it became known that the
Sentry Fund was in fact virtually worthless.  In other words,
the Fairfield Fees never were calculated properly because they
were calculated based on the highly inflated, fraudulent value
attributed to the Sentry Fund before Madoff's scam was revealed,
rather than the true value of the Sentry Fund, which, of course,
was virtually worthless.  As such, Plaintiffs and the class
members paid millions of dollars of "Phantom Fees" based upon
fraudulent valuations, and Standard Chartered improperly
profited from those fees.

     According to the lawsuit, Standard Chartered appears to
have conceded that it was not entitled to charge the "Phantom
Fees."  Specifically, as soon as it became apparent that the
Sentry Fund was virtually worthless, Standard Chartered stopped
charging the Fairfield Fee.

For more details, contact:

          David Alan Rothstein, Esq. (drothstein@dkrpa.com)
          Jeffrey Kaplan, Esq. (jkaplan@dkrpa.com)
          Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein
          2665 South Bayshore Drive
          PH-2B
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Phone: (888) 578-6255 or 305-374-1920
          Fax: (305) 374-1961
          Web site: http://www.dkrpa.com


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Reaches Settlement in "Title IX" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California Davis settled a class-action suit
over women's participation in varsity sports that was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Kelly Johnson of the Sacramento Business Journal reports.

The settlement establishes a set of standards for female
participation rates in varsity sports at UC Davis and provides
additional financial support for club sports at the university,
according to a news release obtained by the Sacramento Business
Journal.

It creates a 10-year plan for UC Davis to reach specific
proportions of male and female athletes by the 2019-20 school
year.  The university will either add women's intercollegiate
teams or will take other steps to ensure equal accommodation of
student interest in varsity sports.  UC Davis has also agreed to
contribute $110,000 to a fund for the development of club
sports, the Sacramento Business Journal reported.

Bill Lindelof of The Sacramento Bee previously reported that the
University of California faces a purported class-action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
alleging it fails to provide equal athletic opportunities and
athletic scholarships for women students (Class Action Reporter,
July 27, 2007).

The suit, "Brust et al v. Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 2:07-cv-01488-FCD-EFB," was filed on behalf
of three women:

      -- Kelsey Brust, a sophomore, who plays field hockey;
      -- Jessica Bulala, a junior, who plays field hockey; and
      -- Laura Ludwig, a junior, a rugby player and wrestler.

Noreen Farrell, with Equal Rights Advocates of San Francisco
said an ongoing problem exists at UC Davis in terms of the
university not complying with Title IX of the U.S. Code -- the
landmark 1972 federal legislation guarantees equal access to
college sports.

The suit is "Brust et al v. Regents of the University of
California, Case No. 2:07-cv-01488-FCD-EFB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California under
Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. with referral to Judge Edmund F.
Brennan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Noreen Ann Farrell, Esq.
         Equal Rights Advocates
         1663 Mission St., Suite 250,
         San Francisco, CA 94103
         Phone: (415) 621-0672
         Fax: (415) 621-6744
         E-mail: nfarrell@equalrights.org

              - and -

         Monique Olivier, Esq.
         The Sturdevant Law Firm
         475 Sansome Street, Suite 1750
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 477-2410
         Fax: (415) 477-2420
         E-mail: molivier@sturdevantlaw.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Mass Reductions of HELOC
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action lawsuit claims Washington Mutual Bank
("WAMU") and its new parent, JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) engaged
in mass reductions of Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOC) limits
and even suspended accounts by falsely claiming that customers'
incomes had been reduced.

     According to the federal lawsuit, the banks froze millions
of dollars in home loans that way.

     The suit alleges that Chase and WAMU had no reasonable
basis to conclude that their borrowers' finances had in fact
declined and that the banks broke their written promises to
provide customers with two weeks' notice to substantiate their
incomes before taking such action.

     The suit was brought on behalf of Jeffrey and Jenifer
Schulken who allege that their HELOC account was suspended due
to a supposed inability to pay the loan.  But the couple who
run their own small business continued to earn the same amount
of money and never missed a payment.

     Although federal regulations permit account suspensions
when a customer's financial circumstances adversely changes,
such action requires both a material change in a borrower's
financial situation and the creditor's reasonable belief that
the borrower will not be able to repay the HELOC account as
agreed.

     The lawsuit alleges that Chase and WAMU had no such basis
here.

     "The Schulkens did everything right.  They work hard, pay
their bills, and have always honored their relationship with
Chase/WAMU," says attorney Jay Edelson, whose law firm,
KamberEdelson LLC, represents the Schulkens.  "What the banks
did to them, and countless others, is simply not right."

     The lawsuit comes on the heels of two other class actions
recently filed against Chase and WAMU alleging the banks have
been systematically and unlawfully reducing and freezing
customer's home equity credit lines.

     The first, "Kimball v. Washington Mutual Bank, Henderson
Nevada et. al. 3:09-cv-1261 (S.D. Cal.)" is also brought by
KamberEdelson and challenges the banks' use of faulty Automated
Valuation Models to create a pretext for credit limit reductions
and account suspensions.

     According to the lawsuit, Michell Kimball, a local
businesswoman, first learned her HELOC had been frozen when a
check she had drawn on the line had been dishonored and, when
she called customer service, they informed her that an AVM
showed the property value had significantly declined.  Using the
banks' chosen appraiser, an on-site examination showed the
property was worth 1.5 times the AVM's estimate.

     The second lawsuit, filed this week by Sherman Oaks
attorney David Parisi, is brought on behalf of Garden Grove
resident Michael Walsh.  Mr. Walsh alleges Chase and WAMU
reduced his credit limit after claiming his home had
significantly declined in value.  In addition to challenging the
banks' use of a faulty AVM, the Walsh case further takes issue
with the banks' practice of freezing HELOC accounts based on
lower declines in value than those permitted under the federal
Truth in Lending Act.

     Mr. Edelson (http://www.kamberedelson.com/Edelson.html)is
joined on this latest suit by KamberEdelson attorneys Michael
McMorrow, Steven Lezell and Alan Himmelfarb.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3df8


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER CORE: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Dyer & Berens LLP announces that a class action lawsuit
filed was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who,
between April 27, 2007 and February 2, 2009, purchased or
acquired shares of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (NASDAQ:
OPIGX) (NASDAQ: OIGBX) (NASDAQ: OPBCX).

     The complaint, filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, accuses defendants of violations
of the securities laws, and alleges that the Fund's Registration
Statements and Prospectuses misrepresented the Fund as being a
conservative, stable bond fund, primarily invested in
investment-grade debt securities and focusing on preservation of
principle over higher investment returns.

     While Dyer & Berens LLP has not filed a complaint in this
matter, it represents investors in similar cases against
OppenheimerFunds, Inc. Dyer & Berens LLP specializes in complex
class action litigation on behalf of injured investors
throughout the nation.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 22, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Holzer Holzer Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Class A, Class B and/or Class C shares of the
Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ:
ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX) offered by OppenheimerFunds, Inc. between
April 24, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The lawsuit alleges that OppenheimerFunds, along with other
defendants, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by
misrepresenting the Fund's investment strategy.  The complaint
also alleges that material facts were omitted from the
Registration Statements/Prospectuses issued in connection with
the offerings of these Funds.  The complaint further alleges the
Defendants failed to disclose the true risks associated with the
Fund's investment in "inverse floaters," which are complex,
derivative securities.

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

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.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  * * *