CAR_Public/090709.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 134

                           Headlines

ALPHA NATURAL: Defends Foundation Coal Stockholders' Suit in Md.
APPLE INC: Judicial Panel Consolidates iPhone 3G Suits in Calif.
ARACRUZ CELLULOSE: Defending Securities Suit by ADR Purchasers
ARACRUZ CELLULOSE: Environmental Licensing Suit Still Pending
BONITA BAY: TwinEagles Members File Fla. Litigation Over Closure

ECOPETROL SA: Defends Recovery Suit by Municipality of Melgar
ECOPETROL SA: Lawsuit by Municipality of Arauca Remains Pending
ECOPETROL SA: Lawsuit Over Unit's Shares Acquisition Pending
ECOPETROL SA: Nunez, et al.'s Suit for Farms Destruction Pending
ECOPETROL SA: Still Faces Suit by Dept. of Tolima Over Royalties

FOCUS MEDIA: Bid to Junk Consolidated Amended N.Y. Suit Pending
FORD MOTOTR: Explorer SUV Settlement Garners Few Participants
FOUNDATION COAL: Defends Ascot Assoc.'s Stockholder Suit in Md.
HONDA MOTOR: Still Subject to Liability Over 71 Suits in U.S.
IBM SOUTHEAST: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Florida

ILLINOIS: Judge Rejects Proposed Settlement in "Ligas" Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Claims in YouTube-Related Case
MOODY'S CORP: Directors Face Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
MONTANA POWER: July Settlement Talks Set for Shareholders' Suit
PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Seventh Circuit Denies in Ill. Litigation

PASO ROBLES: Judge Allows Revising of Water, Sewer Fees Case
SADIA SA: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Amended ADR Suit Pending
SADIA SA: Remains Involved in Five Lawsuits in Brazil
SIMMONS CO: CAW 513's Unfair Labor Practice Claim Junked in June
TAM CAPITAL: Defends Suits by Panama's & Airline Workers' Unions

TEXAS BAY: Hearing for Suit Over Loss of Air Conditioning Nixed
THELEN LLP: Ex-Employees Sue Partners, Seek $18M in Unpaid Wages
U.S. SMOKELESS: Reaches $10.25M Settlement for "Chew" Litigation
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Water Contamination at Camp Lejeune
VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Suit in Montana Over Unwanted Services

WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Overdraft Fees
WELLS FARGO: Faces Ill. Litigation Over Duplicate Tax bill Fee


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

ALPHA NATURAL: Defends Foundation Coal Stockholders' Suit in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. defends a class action lawsuit
filed by a purported class of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc.
stockholders, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 30, 2009.

On June 24, 2009, the registration statement on Form S-4 of
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. was declared effective by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 25, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of
the State of Maryland for Anne Arundel County by Ascot
Associates, an entity identifying itself as a stockholder of
Foundation purporting to represent a class of all Foundation
stockholders other than defendants and their affiliates.

The lawsuit names Foundation as a nominal defendant and names
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. and all of the members of
Foundation's board of directors as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Foundation and
its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Foundation's
stockholders and that certain disclosures in the Registration
Statement are misleading and/or incomplete.

In addition, the complaint alleges that Alpha aided and abetted
Foundation's directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties
to Foundation stockholders and alleges that the defendants
conspired to commit tortious acts.

The litigation seeks, among other things, injunctive relief,
class action status, compensatory and/or rescissory damages and
attorney's fees and costs in an amount to be determined at
trial.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
leading supplier of high-quality Appalachian coal to the steel
industry, electric utilities and other industries.
Approximately 88 percent of the company's reserve base is high
Btu coal and 83 percent is low sulfur, qualities that are valued
by electric utilities that use steam coal.  Alpha is also the
nation's largest supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal, a
key ingredient in steel manufacturing.  Alpha and its
subsidiaries currently operate mining complexes in four states,
consisting of 50 mines supplying 10 coal preparation and
blending plants.  Alpha and its subsidiaries employ more than
3,600 people.


APPLE INC: Judicial Panel Consolidates iPhone 3G Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated
a dozen separate cases that consumers had filed against Apple,
Inc. claiming that the company's iPhone 3G constantly dropped
calls, had trouble connecting to AT&T's network and was
significantly slower than advertised, Gregg Keizer of
Computerworld reports.

In an order dated July 1, 2009, a seven-judge group that decides
whether civil cases in separate federal districts should be
coordinated or consolidated, bundled the 12 cases together and
shunted them all to a California federal court, according to
Computerworld.

According to the order, "All [12] actions involve common factual
questions arising from the performance of Apple's iPhone 3G on
AT&T's 3G network. Specifically, the actions share allegations
that Apple and, where named, AT&T misrepresented to the public
the speed, strength and performance of the iPhone 3G on AT&T's
3G network."

Computerworld reported that some of the cases were filed within
weeks of the iPhone 3G's debut.  One of the first was submitted
in August 2008 by Birmingham, Alabama resident Jessica Smith,
who said that Apple's "Twice as fast. Half the price" marketing
slogan was misleading, and called the smartphone the Defective
iPhone 3G throughout her lawsuit.

Several weeks later, Eulardi Tanseco of New Jersey filed his own
lawsuit, accusing Apple and AT&T of breaking consumer antifraud,
warranty, breach-of-contract and fraud statutes.  Like Ms.
Smith, Mr. Tanseco claimed that Apple's iPhone 3G promises were
bogus.  "Apple has wrongfully and unfairly deceived its
customers by advertising and selling the alleged newer and
improved iPhone 3G with the express and implied promise that
this consumer product was a reliable and efficient mobile
phone," according to Mr. Tanseco's lawsuit.

Both plaintiffs asked that their cases be granted class-action
status, a move that, if successful, would open the lawsuits to
potentially millions of consumers who had bought the iPhone 3G
in the U.S., where AT&T is the exclusive mobile carrier,
according to Computerworld.

Computerworld reports that other cases that will be consolidated
include six more from California, and one each from Florida, New
Jersey, New York and Texas.  The combined lawsuits will be heard
in a court of the Northern District of California, which is
based in San Francisco.  "The headquarters of the common
defendant, Apple, are located within this district," the order
said.  "Accordingly, relevant witnesses and documents will
likely be found there."


ARACRUZ CELLULOSE: Defending Securities Suit by ADR Purchasers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aracruz Celulose S.A. is defending a securities class action
lawsuit in a U.S. federal court, according to the company's June
30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In November 2008, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in a U.S. federal court purportedly on
behalf of persons who purchased the company's shares and
American Depositary Receipts between April 7 and Oct. 2, 2008.

The complaint asserts claims alleged violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act,
alleging that the company represented or failed to disclose
information in connection with, and losses arising from, certain
derivative transactions into which the company had entered.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
expense reimbursement.

Aracruz Celulose S.A. -- http://www.aracruz.com/-- is a
producer of bleached hardwood kraft market pulp.  The company
produces eucalyptus pulp, which is a range of hardwood pulp used
by paper manufacturers to produce a range of products, including
tissues, printing and writing papers, liquid packaging boards
and specialty papers.  The company's production facilities
consist of the Barra do Riacho Unit in Espirito Santo State,
which has three production units each with two bleaching, drying
and baling lines, the Guaiba Unit, located in the municipality
of Guaiba, State of Rio Grande do Sul, and Veracel, located in
the municipality of Eunapolis, State of Bahia, where it has a
50% stake.


ARACRUZ CELLULOSE: Environmental Licensing Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Aracruz Celulose S.A. In
connection with environmental licensing matters is still
pending.

In September 2001, a class action was brought against the
company aiming to cancel the environmental licensing process of
the Forestry Partners Program.

An injunction was granted and subsequently reverted by a Court
decision that accepted the reasons presented in the company's
appeal.

According to its June 30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, based on the advice of external legal counsel,
the company's management believes that the final decision will
confirm that the environmental licensing process has been
regularly conducted.

Aracruz Celulose S.A. -- http://www.aracruz.com/-- is a
producer of bleached hardwood kraft market pulp.  The company
produces eucalyptus pulp, which is a range of hardwood pulp used
by paper manufacturers to produce a range of products, including
tissues, printing and writing papers, liquid packaging boards
and specialty papers.  The company's production facilities
consist of the Barra do Riacho Unit in Espirito Santo State,
which has three production units each with two bleaching, drying
and baling lines, the Guaiba Unit, located in the municipality
of Guaiba, State of Rio Grande do Sul, and Veracel, located in
the municipality of Eunapolis, State of Bahia, where it has a
50% stake.


BONITA BAY: TwinEagles Members File Fla. Litigation Over Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonita Bay Group, the developer of TwinEagles golf courses, is
facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by members of
TwinEagles, Greg Hardwig and Laura Layden of Naples Daily News
reports.

The members filed the class-action lawsuit in June against the
developer for breach of contract, seeking relief on dues owed,
and permission to pay dues into the court registry instead of
giving the money to Bonita Bay, reports Naples Daily News.

The financially troubled developer has closed both of the
community's championship courses and the clubhouse, including a
restaurant and fitness center, Naples Daily News reported.

John Emmanuel, Esq., an attorney with Fowler White Boggs in
Tampa is representing TwinEagles members, according to Naples
Daily News.

For more details, contact:

          Fowler White Boggs
          501 E. Kennedy Boulevard
          Suite 1700
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Phone: (813) 228-7411
          Fax: (813) 229-8313
          Web site: http://www.fowlerwhite.com/


ECOPETROL SA: Defends Recovery Suit by Municipality of Melgar
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. continues to defend a class action filed by the
Municipality of Melgar, according to the company's June 29, 2009
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
    
The plaintiffs in the class action are requesting the recovery
to the Department of Tolima of the amounts not collected
regarding royalties corresponding to the Guando well.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english/-- is an
oil company operating in Colombia and overseas.  The company
operates in four business segments: exploration and production;
transportation; refining; and marketing and supply.  Exports of
crude oil and refined-products accounted for approximately 33%
of Colombia's total exports during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
of which the company's exports accounted for 48%.  In February
2009, Ecopetrol and Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC)
acquired Offshore International Group Inc.  In February 2009,
Ecopetrol and KNOC jointly acquired PetroTech Peruana SA.  In
May 2009, Ecopetrol completed the acquisition of all shares held
by Glencore in Reficar S.A.  In June 2009, the company
established Ecopetrol Global Energy S.L.  Ecopetrol transferred
all of its stake in Ecopetrol America Inc (Ecopetrol's affiliate
in the United States) to its investment affiliate Ecopetrol
Global Energy S.L.


ECOPETROL SA: Lawsuit by Municipality of Arauca Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed by the Municipality of Arauca against
Ecopetrol S.A. remains pending, according to the company's June
29, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The class action relates to contributions to the solidarity and
redistribution of income fund as a consequence of the generation
of electricity, according to Law 142 of 1994.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english/-- is an
oil company operating in Colombia and overseas.  The company
operates in four business segments: exploration and production;
transportation; refining; and marketing and supply.  Exports of
crude oil and refined-products accounted for approximately 33%
of Colombia's total exports during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
of which the company's exports accounted for 48%.  In February
2009, Ecopetrol and Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC)
acquired Offshore International Group Inc.  In February 2009,
Ecopetrol and KNOC jointly acquired PetroTech Peruana SA.  In
May 2009, Ecopetrol completed the acquisition of all shares held
by Glencore in Reficar S.A.  In June 2009, the company
established Ecopetrol Global Energy S.L.  Ecopetrol transferred
all of its stake in Ecopetrol America Inc (Ecopetrol's affiliate
in the United States) to its investment affiliate Ecopetrol
Global Energy S.L.


ECOPETROL SA: Lawsuit Over Unit's Shares Acquisition Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Javier Armando Rincon Gama and
Hector Alfredo Suarez Mejia remains pending against Ecopetrol
S.A.
    
According to the company's June 29, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the class action relates to Inversiones de
Gases' shares acquisition.

Shares of Inversiones de Gases were acquired through an auction
in the Bogota Stock Exchange.

Inversiones de Gases is owned by Ecopetrol.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english/-- is an
oil company operating in Colombia and overseas.  The company
operates in four business segments: exploration and production;
transportation; refining; and marketing and supply.  Exports of
crude oil and refined-products accounted for approximately 33%
of Colombia's total exports during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
of which the company's exports accounted for 48%.  In February
2009, Ecopetrol and Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC)
acquired Offshore International Group Inc.  In February 2009,
Ecopetrol and KNOC jointly acquired PetroTech Peruana SA.  In
May 2009, Ecopetrol completed the acquisition of all shares held
by Glencore in Reficar S.A.  In June 2009, the company
established Ecopetrol Global Energy S.L.  Ecopetrol transferred
all of its stake in Ecopetrol America Inc (Ecopetrol's affiliate
in the United States) to its investment affiliate Ecopetrol
Global Energy S.L.


ECOPETROL SA: Nunez, et al.'s Suit for Farms Destruction Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. continues to face a class action by Benigno
Sanchez Nunez and others, according to the company's June 29,
2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The class action is due to cracking and landslides that
destroyed the farms. The cracking and landslides are allegedly
due to underground explosions within the program of San Luis 95.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english/-- is an
oil company operating in Colombia and overseas.  The company
operates in four business segments: exploration and production;
transportation; refining; and marketing and supply.  Exports of
crude oil and refined-products accounted for approximately 33%
of Colombia's total exports during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
of which the company's exports accounted for 48%.  In February
2009, Ecopetrol and Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC)
acquired Offshore International Group Inc.  In February 2009,
Ecopetrol and KNOC jointly acquired PetroTech Peruana SA.  In
May 2009, Ecopetrol completed the acquisition of all shares held
by Glencore in Reficar S.A.  In June 2009, the company
established Ecopetrol Global Energy S.L.  Ecopetrol transferred
all of its stake in Ecopetrol America Inc (Ecopetrol's affiliate
in the United States) to its investment affiliate Ecopetrol
Global Energy S.L.


ECOPETROL SA: Still Faces Suit by Dept. of Tolima Over Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. continues to face a class action filed by the
Department of Tolima, according to the company's June 29, 2009
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
    
The lawsuit was filed by the Department of Tolima for the
recalculation of royalties with 20% specified in Law 141 of
1994.

Ecopetrol S.A. -- http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/english/-- is an
oil company operating in Colombia and overseas.  The company
operates in four business segments: exploration and production;
transportation; refining; and marketing and supply.  Exports of
crude oil and refined-products accounted for approximately 33%
of Colombia's total exports during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
of which the company's exports accounted for 48%.  In February
2009, Ecopetrol and Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC)
acquired Offshore International Group Inc.  In February 2009,
Ecopetrol and KNOC jointly acquired PetroTech Peruana SA.  In
May 2009, Ecopetrol completed the acquisition of all shares held
by Glencore in Reficar S.A.  In June 2009, the company
established Ecopetrol Global Energy S.L.  Ecopetrol transferred
all of its stake in Ecopetrol America Inc (Ecopetrol's affiliate
in the United States) to its investment affiliate Ecopetrol
Global Energy S.L.


FOCUS MEDIA: Bid to Junk Consolidated Amended N.Y. Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Focus Media Holding Limited's motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the company's June 30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

On Nov. 27, 2007, Eastriver Partners, Inc. filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company and the underwriters of
its follow-on offering of November 2007.

On Dec. 21, 2007, Scott Bauer filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of our follow-on offering of
November 2007.

Both complaints allege that the company's registration statement
on Form F-1 on Nov. 1, 2007, as amended, and the related
prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material fact.

On April 24, 2008, the court consolidated the Eastriver
Partners, Inc. and Scott Bauer actions into an action captioned
In re Focus Media Holding Limited Litigation and named Iron
Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.

On June 23, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. Specifically, the complaints allege that we failed to
disclose reduced gross margins in the company's Internet
advertising business division due to acquisitions it made.

The complaint filed by Scott Bauer also alleges that the company
issued a press release concerning its second quarter 2007
financial results that contained inaccurate statements of
material fact.

On Sept. 5, 2008, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On Nov. 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the
motion to dismiss.  A reply brief was filed on Dec. 5, 2008.

Focus Media Holding Limited -- http://www.focusmedia.cn/en/--
is a multi-platform digital media company.  The company is
engaged in selling out-of home television advertising time slots
on its network of flat-panel television advertising displays
located in high traffic areas, such as commercial locations and
in-store network.  It is also engaged in providing advertising
services on in-elevator poster frames, mobile handsets, the
Internet, on screens in movie theatre, and on traditional
outdoor billboards.  On Jan. 2, 2008, Focus Media Holding
completed the acquisition of CGEN Digital Media Company, Limited
(CGEN).  On Dec. 10, 2008, the Company terminated the mobile
handset advertising network.


FORD MOTOTR: Explorer SUV Settlement Garners Few Participants
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit settlement in connection to Ford Motor
Co.'s Explorer sport-utility vehicles garnered fewer than 1
percent of participants, according to court filings, Jef Feeley
and Myron Levin of Bloomberg News reports.

The case is Coordination Proceeding Special Title, Ford Explorer
Cases, JCCP No. 4266 & 4270, Sacramento County Superior Court
(Sacramento), according to Bloomberg News.

Filed in 2003, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that the
defendant, Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers
Legal Remedies Act (Class Action Reporter, April 22, 2008).

The claim stems from a class action suit filed on behalf of more
than 414,000 Californians who bought Explorers and later claimed
they had lost resale and trade-in value because of reports about
rollover accidents and a nationwide recall of Explorer Firestone
tires in 2000.

The plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw
that made the Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet
concealed it, and instead marketed and sold the Explorer as a
safe vehicle.

The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford
for the excess money they say they paid for their Explorers, as
well as money from the profits Ford earned on California
Explorer sales, and other legal costs.

The litigation was settled in 2007.  The settlement provided
certificates worth as much as $500 toward the lease or purchase
of a new Ford vehicle.  About 1 million Explorer owners were
eligible to get the discounts, Ford officials acknowledged at
the time the accord was announced, Bloomberg News reported.

Only 1,647 Explorer owners filed valid claims for the vouchers
by the April 2008 deadline and only 75 of those owners have used
the coupons as part of the purchase of a new Ford vehicle as of
June, according to a June filing in state court in California, a
copy of which was obtained by Bloomberg News.

The deal, which included $25 million in legal fees and expenses
for consumers' lawyers, resolved cases in Illinois, Texas,
Connecticut and California, Bloomberg News reported.


FOUNDATION COAL: Defends Ascot Assoc.'s Stockholder Suit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. is a nominal defendant in a
purported class action by Ascot Associates, according to the
company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated June 30, 2009.

On June 24, 2009, the registration statement on Form S-4 of
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. was declared effective by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 25, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of
the State of Maryland for Anne Arundel County by Ascot
Associates, an entity identifying itself as a stockholder of
Foundation purporting to represent a class of all Foundation
stockholders other than defendants and their affiliates.

The lawsuit names Foundation as a nominal defendant and names
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. and all of the members of
Foundation's board of directors as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Foundation and
its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Foundation's
stockholders and that certain disclosures in the Registration
Statement are misleading and/or incomplete.

In addition, the complaint alleges that Alpha aided and abetted
Foundation's directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties
to Foundation stockholders and alleges that the defendants
conspired to commit tortious acts.

The litigation seeks, among other things, injunctive relief,
class action status, compensatory and/or rescissory damages and
attorney's fees and costs in an amount to be determined at
trial.

Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc., --
http://www.foundationcoal.com/-- through its affiliates, is a
major U.S. coal producer operating mines and associated
processing and loading facilities in Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.  Through its subsidiaries Foundation Coal
employs approximately 3,000 people and produces approximately 70
million tons of coal annually, largely for utilities generating
electricity.  Foundation's corporate offices are in Linthicum
Heights, Md.


HONDA MOTOR: Still Subject to Liability Over 71 Suits in U.S.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. remains subject to potential liability
under various lawsuits and claims including 71 purported class
actions in the United States.

According to the company's June 30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2009, Honda records a contingent liability when
it is probable that an obligation has been incurred and the
amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.

Honda reviews these pending lawsuits and claims periodically and
adjusts the amounts recorded for these contingent liabilities,
if necessary, by considering the nature of lawsuits and claims,
the progress of the case and the opinions of legal counsel.

Honda does not record liabilities for lawsuits or potential
claims that it believes an unfavorable outcome is not probable
or when a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss
cannot be determined.

After consultation with legal counsel, and taking into account
all known factors pertaining to existing lawsuits and claims,
Honda believes that the ultimate outcome of such lawsuits and
pending claims including 71 purported class actions in the
United States should not result in liability to Honda that would
be likely to have an adverse material effect on its consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. -- http://world.honda.com-- is a Japan-
based company primarily engaged in the development, production
and sale of various motor products.


IBM SOUTHEAST: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The IBM Southeast Employees' Federal Credit Union is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit that accuses it of causing its
members to lose millions by steering them to investments in
bonds from a now-bankrupt Georgia finance company that made
loans to churches and faith-based organizations, Harriet Johnson
Brackey of The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

The law firms of Blum & Silver, LLP, Dimond Kaplan Rothstein,
P.A., and Sallah & Cox, LLC announced that they have commenced a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against the IBM Southeast
Employees' Federal Credit Union and certain individuals.  The
Complaint alleges that the Credit Union and its representatives
negligently solicited and referred its members to Wellstone
Securities, LLP, a now-defunct broker-dealer.  Wellstone
Securities recommended and sold bonds issued by Cornerstone
Ministries Investments, Inc. to the Credit Union members.
Cornerstone is now in bankruptcy and Credit Union members who
purchased the Cornerstone securities have lost millions of
dollars (Class Action Reporter, July 6, 2009).

The complaint alleges that the Credit Union acted as a feeder
for Wellstone Securities.  A Cornerstone board member has
testified in other legal proceedings that the Credit Union
entered into a business relationship to refer its members to
Wellstone Securities.  According to Plaintiff's counsel, this
case highlights the problem with respected financial
institutions referring their clients to other firms without
doing the necessary due diligence or closing their eyes to
obvious red flags.  The law firms also suggest that this case is
similar to the feeder funds that sent their clients' money to
Madoff.

There are believed to be hundreds of victims in South Florida
and Georgia who collectively have lost millions of dollars.

The class period is currently identified as running from July
30, 2004 through September 5, 2008.

The complaint charges the Credit Union, its Chief Executive
Officer, and three financial service representatives with
negligent violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Georgia
Securities Act, and common-law negligence.  The Credit Union is
a federally-chartered organization providing banking, lending,
and other financial services to its members, most of whom are
current or former IBM employees.

The complaint alleges that defendants negligently recommended
and referred its members to Wellstone Securities, LLP, where
members purchased worthless bonds and other securities issued by
Cornerstone Ministries Investments, Inc.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Credit Union's
financial services representatives aided and abetted violations
of the Georgia Securities Act, perpetrated by Wellstone
Securities, LLC and Cornerstone.

According to the complaint, the Credit Union, its CEO, and
financial service representatives actively solicited members to
purchase Cornerstone securities through Wellstone Securities.
In the course of such active solicitation, the Credit Union
negligently misstated and omitted to state material facts,
including Cornerstone's past adverse regulatory history, as well
as facts about the creditworthiness of Cornerstone and its
securities.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Credit Union
members who purchased the Cornerstone securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection
with the Company's Offering.

For more details, contact:

          Scott L. Silver, Esq. (silver@stockattorneys.com)
          Blum & Silver, LLP
          12540 West Atlantic Blvd.
          Coral Springs, FL  33071
          Phone: 877/STOCK-LAW


          Jeffrey Kaplan, Esq. (jkaplan@dkrpa.com)
          Scott Dimond, Esq. (sdimond@dkrpa.com)
          Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A.
          Offices at Grand Bay Plaza
          2665 South Bayshore Drive
          Penthouse 2B
          Miami, Florida 33133
          Phone: 888.578.6255
          Web site: http://www.dkrpa.com/

               - and -

          James Sallah, Esq. (jds@sallahcox.com)
          Sallah & Cox, LLC
          2101 NW Corporate Boulevard
          Suite 218
          Boca Raton, Florida 33431
          Phone: 561.989-9080


ILLINOIS: Judge Rejects Proposed Settlement in "Ligas" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Holderman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois rejected a proposed settlement to
a civil class-action lawsuit that would have forced the state of
Illinois to move more people with developmental delays into
small group homes, Lisa Black of The Chicago Tribune reports.

After receiving 2,500 written objections to the proposal, Judge
Holderman dropped the lawsuit's "class action" designation,
according to a ruling filed on July 7, 2009.

Judge Holderman said the proposed settlement was "considerably
broader than was necessary" to address the case "Stanley Ligas,
et al. v. Barry S. Maram et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04331," which
was  filed by Stanley Ligas, 41, and eight other plaintiffs who
allege that Illinois violated federal law by not allowing them
to move into group homes, according to The Chicago Tribune.

The judge ruled that Mr. Ligas and the other plaintiffs may
pursue their cases through an individual lawsuit, rather than as
a class-action case, reports The Chicago Tribune.

The Chicago Tribune previously reported that Judge James
Holderman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois recently held a fairness hearing for the the
proposed settlement in a class-action suit against the State of
Illinois (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2009).

The lawsuit, entitled, "Stanley Ligas, et al. v. Barry S. Maram
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04331," was filed under the Americans
with Disabilities Act on July 28, 2005 by Stanley Ligas and
several other plaintiffs.  It aims to move thousands of Illinois
adults with mental disabilities into community-based group homes
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007).

According to the suit, the state is violating the civil rights
of people with developmental disabilities by effectively forcing
them into large institutions rather than offering them the
choice of living in smaller community settings.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the thousands of
individuals who are needlessly institutionalized in large
Intermediate Care Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled
when they could be better served in smaller, community based
settings.

For more details, contact:

          Barry Charlton Taylor, Esq.
          (barryt@equipforequality.org)
          Equip for Equality
          20 North Michigan
          Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 341-0022

               - and -

          Karen Elaine Konieczny, Esq.
          (karen.konieczny@illinois.gov)
          Illinois Attorney General's Office
          160 North LaSalle Street, Suite N-1000
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 793-2380


GOOGLE INC: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Claims in YouTube-Related Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louis Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed certain claims in the matter,
"The Football Association Premier League Limited, et al. v.
YouTube, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-3582," which was filed
against Google, Inc., and its YouTube subsidiary, Erik Larson of
Bloomberg reports.

In a ruling issued on July 3, 2009, Judge Stanton dismissed the
plaintiff's claim for punitive damages under U.S. copyright law.
Also, a claim for statutory damages was mostly dismissed, with
an exception for live broadcasts, according to Bloomberg.

"There is no circumstance in which punitive damages are
available under the Copyright Act of 1976," Judge Stanton said
in the ruling.  Statutory damages were dismissed with respect to
most "foreign" works that weren't registered in the U.S.,
Bloomberg reported.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on May 4, 2007.  It names as defendants:

     -- YouTube, Inc.;

     -- YouTube LLC; as well as

     -- YouTube's corporate parent, Google, Inc.

The Football Association Premier League Limited, the premier
league of English soccer, and independent music publisher Bourne
Co. (together with its affiliate Murbo Muis Publishing Inc.)
filed the purported class action to stop the alleged
unauthorized and uncompensated use of their creative and other
copyrighted works and those of all other similarly situated
copyright holders on the YouTube.com Web site (Class Action
Reporter, July 18, 2008).

According to the complaint, "Defendants are pursuing a
deliberate strategy of engaging in, permitting, encouraging, and
facilitating massive copyright infringement on the YouTube
website" in order to build traffic to the site.

The complaint alleges that the YouTube defendants have long been
aware of this pattern of massive infringement yet purposefully
refrain from employing readily available measures to curb it
because the defendants understand that the popularity of
YouTube.com (and its value as a platform for other uses) derive
primarily from the ability of website visitors to access, view,
and otherwise exploit copyrighted materials without having to
pay the owners of those materials.

The complaint further alleges that it was this very business
model that persuaded defendant Google to pay $1.65 billion to
purchase YouTube in November 2006, and that Google has endorsed
and directed YouTube's infringing conduct since becoming its
corporate parent.

On Nov. 16, 2007, the Football Association Premier League and
Bourne Co. filed an amended class action complaint that includes
15 new named plaintiffs:

     -- Cherry Lane Music Publishing Co., Inc.,
     -- CAL IV Entertainment LLC,
     -- Robert Tur d/b/a Los Angeles News Service,
     -- National Music Publishers' Association,
     -- The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization,
     -- State Three Music U.S., Inc.,
     -- Edward B. Marks Music Co.,
     -- Freddy Bienstock Music Co., d/b/a Bienstock Publishing
     -- Alley Music Corp.,
     -- X-ray Dog Music Inc.,
     -- Federation Francaise de Tennis,
     -- The Scottish Premier League Ltd.,
     -- The Music Force Media Group LLC,
     -- The Music Force LLC, and
     -- Sin-Drome Records Ltd.

Previously, Premier League and Bourne also announced that the
two law firms representing them in the proposed class action,
Proskauer Rose LLP, and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, have been appointed class counsel on an interim basis by
the Judge presiding over the case (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
7, 2007).

The YouTube Class Action on the net:

              http://www.youtubeclassaction.com/

The suit is "The Football Association Premier League Limited, et
al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-3582," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Louis M. Solomon, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Phone: 212-969-3000
          Fax: 212-969-2900
          Web site: http://www.proskauer.com/

               - and -

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400
          Fax: 212-554-1444
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/


MOODY'S CORP: Directors Face Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Directors of Moody's Corp. are facing a purported class-action
suit accusing them of making millions selling their company
stock at inflated prices while the credit rating agency handed
out favorable ratings like candy even as the housing and credit
markets collapsed, Tim Hull of The Courthouse News Service
reports.

The suit was filed on July 6, 2009 in the U.S. Disirrict Court
for the Southern District of New York by W.A. Sokolowski, under
the caption, "Sokolowski v. McGillicuddy III et al., Case No.
1:2009-cv-06063."  It generally alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The suit was filed against Conrnelius Alexander McGillicuddy
III, Raymond W. McDaniel, Jr., Basil L. Anderson, Robert R.
Glauber, Ewald Kist, Henry A. McKinnell, Jr., Nancy S. Newcomb,
John K. Wulff, Jeanne M. Dering, Joseph McCabe, Michael Kanef,
Linda S. Huber, Brian Clarkson and Noel Kirnon.

In a claim that quotes liberally from recent media accounts of
the financial crises, company stockholders blame current and
former directors of the statistical rating organization for
"massive mismanagement" of the century-old company during the
past five years, according to The Courthouse News Service.

The complaint places the blame for the company's -- and the
nation's -- financial disasters on Moody's increased interest
since 2004 in securitized subprime mortgages, credit default
swaps and other complex financial instruments.

"In a reckless quest for market share in a market where issuers
select and pay for the most favorable rating, Moody's inflated
credit ratings for billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed
securities, CDOs and related instruments," according to the
lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by The Courthouse News
Service.

The complaint states that after giving many of these exotic
financial instruments Triple A ratings for several years --
signaling to investors that they were safe places to put money
-- in July 2007 Moody's downgraded its ratings on some 5,000
mortgage-related securities, wiping out many investors and
"triggering a chain reaction that continues even now to spread,
affecting not only the United States financial markets but
markets all over the world."

The suit claims that even as banks, pension funds, mutual funds
and other investors were losing billions on downgraded
securities that Moody's had rated as safe, the company's
directors were making millions selling their personal stock,
reports The Courthouse News Service.

The company's current CEO and Chairman, Raymond McDaniel Jr.,
has made more than $8 million since 2006 selling Moody's stock,
according to the complaint.

Shareholders say that during the same period, Mr. McDaniel and
other directors had to spend $3.3 billion of the company's cash
to repurchase stock "at prices artificially inflated by their
false public assurances of the integrity and rigor of the
company's ratings process, while reaping millions of dollars
from sales of their personal holdings of Moody's stock," The
Courthouse News Service reported.

The company's missteps came about during a "race to the bottom"
in which Moody's fought two other rating agencies for market
share and the quick, easy profits available in the structured
finance market, according to the complaint.  By 2006, as the
collapse of that market loomed on the horizon, the company's
structured finance revenue grew by 24 percent, accounting for 54
percent of Moody's rating revenue and bringing in nearly $1
billion.  Yet that same year, the company's chief economist,
Mark Zandi, told The New York Times that "the environment feels
increasingly ripe for some type of financial event," the lawsuit
states.

The shareholders -- represented by Richard Greenfield with
Greenfield & Goodman -- seek a jury trial, according to The
Courthouse News Service.

For more details, contact:

          Richard David Greenfield, Esq.
          (whitehatrdg@earthlink.net)
          Greenfield & Goodman LLC
          250 Hudson Street
          8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Phone: 917-495-4446


MONTANA POWER: July Settlement Talks Set for Shareholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys will continue settlement talks this July in a lawsuit
by shareholders seeking $3 billion and punitive damages from the
former Montana Power Co., The Associated Press reports.

Lawyers for the estimated 100,000 shareholders and several
defendants in the class-action lawsuit will meet on July 20 and
21 in Missoula.  Previously, they met in Missoula on June 15 and
16, according to The Associated Press.

Judge Sam Haddon of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana set an Oct. 15, 2009 deadline for a settlement to be
reached.  If that doesn't happen, he could allow more time for
talks or could set a trial date, reports The Associated Press.

In May 2009, Judge Haddon appointed retired federal Judge Daniel
Weinstein as a special master to preside over the settlement
discussions, according to The Associated Press.

It was previously reported that settlement discussions in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by a group of shareholders
of The Montana Power Company in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana are scheduled to resume in June 2009,
according to PPL Corp.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2009).

In August 2001, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by a
group of shareholders of Montana Power against Montana Power,
the directors of Montana Power, certain advisors and consultants
of Montana Power, and PPL Montana, LLC.

Montana Power sold its generating assets to PPL Montana in
December 1999.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Montana Power
failed to obtain shareholder approval for the sale of Montana
Power's generation assets to PPL Montana in 1999, and that the
sale "was null and void ab initio."

Among the remedies that the plaintiffs are seeking is the
establishment of a "resulting and/or constructive trust" on both
the generation assets and all profits earned by PPL Montana from
the generation assets, plus interest on the amounts subject to
the trust.

This lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court of Montana,
Butte Division, and the judge placed this proceeding on hold
pending the outcome of certain motions currently before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the resolution of
which may impact this proceeding.  The judge in this case has
not established a schedule to resume the proceeding.

In September 2007, certain plaintiffs proposed a settlement of
certain claims not involving PPL and proposed a status
conference to discuss their proposal.  The judge held a status
conference in January 2008, and rejected the proposed
settlement.

PPL Corp. -- http://www.pplweb.com/-- is an energy and utility
holding company, which through its subsidiaries, generates
electricity from power plants in the northeastern and western
U.S.; markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the
northeastern and western portions of the U.S.; delivers
electricity to nearly 5.1 million customers in Pennsylvania, the
United Kingdom and Latin America, and provides energy services
for businesses in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S.


PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Seventh Circuit Denies in Ill. Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to
reverse the class certification ruling in a consolidated class-
action civil complaint against Pacific Investment Management
Company LLC (PIMCO), Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports.

Two nearly identical class-action civil complaints were filed
against PIMCO, a Newport Beach, California-based unit of the
German insurer Allianz SE, in August 2005, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Class Action
Reporter, May 11, 2009).

The complaints alleged that the plaintiffs each purchased and
sold a 10-year Treasury note futures contract and suffered
damages from an alleged shortage when PIMCO held both physical
and futures positions in 10-year Treasury notes for its client
accounts.

The two actions have been consolidated into one single action
and the two separate complaints have been replaced by a
consolidated complaint, which claims that PIMCO violated the
federal Commodity Exchange Act by engaging in market
manipulation.

In addition to PIMCO as a named defendant, PIMCO Funds has been
added as a defendant to the consolidated action.

In July 2007, the court granted class certification of a class
consisting of those persons who purchased futures contracts to
offset short positions between May 9, 2005 and June 30, 2005.

In December 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit granted the petition of PIMCO and PIMCO Funds for leave
to appeal the class certification ruling.

In its appeal, PIMCO argued that class-action status should not
have been granted because the class included some investors who
did not lose money, and because of potential conflicts of
interest among class members who might have suffered differing
losses over different periods, Reuters reports.

The appeals court, however, disagreed.  In an opinion by Judge
Richard Posner, "although some of the class members probably
were net gainers from the alleged manipulation, there is no
reason at this stage to believe that many were."  Judge Posner
added that it was premature to deny class-action status 'because
of a potential conflict of interest that may not become actual,'
Reuters reported.

Allianz SE -- http://www.allianz.com/-- is an integrated
financial service provider. The Company serves approximately 75
million customers in about 70 countries.  Allianz SE operates
and manages its activities primarily through four operating
segments: Property-Casualty, Life/Health, Banking and Asset
Management.  The Property-Casualty segment offers variety of
insurance products to both private and corporate customers,
including motor liability and own damage, accident, general
liability, fire and property, legal expense, credit and travel
insurance.  The Life/Health segment's product portfolio
comprises a variety of life and health insurance solutions for
private customers, as well as products for corporate provision
needs ranging from life insurance policies to pension management
issues.  The Banking segment offers a range of products for
corporate and retail clients with its main focus on the latter.


PASO ROBLES: Judge Allows Revising of Water, Sewer Fees Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger T. Picquet of the San Luis Obispo County Superior
Court gave plaintiffs in a recent hearing another chance to
convince him that a lawsuit alleging that the City of Paso
Robles, California violated state law years ago should go ahead
under a class-action status.

The hearing was the first public proceeding after the lawsuit
against the city was filed in March saying it breached
Proposition 218 with fee increases in 2002 and 2004 without
first letting citizens have a say.

If the case succeeds in court under such a status - representing
all of Paso Robles' water customers - it would take millions of
dollars from the city's water fund, city officials said.

If it doesn't go ahead as class-action, Picquet said, it will
represent only the four members the Concerned Citizens group
that filed claims of the alleged wrongdoing. They are Paso
Robles residents John Borst, an educator; Brooke Mayo, a
retiree; William Taylor, a chemical engineer; and Teresa St.
Clair, who declined to give her occupation.

Paul Heidenreich, Esq., the plaintiffs' lead attorney with
Manhattan Beach law firm Huskinson, Brown, Heidenreich & Carlin
LLP, told blah that plans to file a clarified argument by the
end of the month.

In his tentative ruling, which Judge Picquet adopted in court,
the judge said the plaintiff's argument doesn't merit class-
action status, knocking down two of the plaintiff's four
arguments.

Judge Picquet then amended his ruling to allow Mr. Heidenreich
to redo his argument at a future date, which is different than
tossing the argument out, Mr. Heidenreich tells blah.

Tonya Strickland of The San Luis Obispo Tribune previously
reported that the City of Paso Robles, California is seeking for
dismissal of a class-action lawsuit alleging it violated state
law when it raised water and sewer rates in 2002 and 2004 (Class
Action Reporter, May 7, 2009).

City Attorney Iris Yang, Esq., filed the city's formal response
to the lawsuit on April 24, 2009, saying the allegations don't
satisfy required legal standards, according to The San Luis
Obispo Tribune report.

The Paso Robles Press previously reported that the City of Paso
Robles, California faces a purported class-action lawsuit that
was filed by members of the group Concerned Citizens of Paso
Robles, alleging that the city illegally imposed water and sewer
fees in violation of Proposition 218 and seeking the return to
ratepayers of an estimated $8 million (Class Action Reporter,
April 2, 2009).

The action -- filed in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court on
March 25, 2009 -- intends to recover bill payer's money for
illegally collected water and sewer fees by City officials,
reaching back as far as 2002.  More than $8 million could be
refunded to city residents, according to The Paso Robles Press
report.

According to a press release issued by CCPR on March 27, 2009,
the plaintiffs alleged that reaching back as far as 2002 "and
perhaps earlier," the city failed to obtain voter approval for
the charges or fees, which also compelled a writ of mandate to
return the illegally collected fees to bill payers in the
community.


SADIA SA: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Amended ADR Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sadia SA's motion to dismiss a consolidated amended class action
complaint by investors in American Depository Receipts ("ADRs")
issued by the company remains pending.

In November 2008, Sadia, as well as certain individuals who were
officers and/or directors of the company during the events at
issue, were named as defendants in five collective lawsuits
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, brought by investors in American Depository Receipts
("ADRs") issued by the company, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  By order of the Court, the five
lawsuits were consolidated into one single class action.  The
Court also appointed a group consisting of the Westchester
Putnam Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds and six
individuals as Lead Plaintiffs, and appointed Lead Class Counsel
pursuant to Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on
March 16, 2009 pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the
Court on Feb. 3, 2009.  The Lead Plaintiffs purport to assert
claims on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of the
company's ADRs who purchased between April 30, 2008 and Sept.
26, 2008 (the "Class Period").

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges, in substance, that
the defendants failed to disclose that (1) the company had
entered into currency derivative contracts to hedge against U.S.
dollar exposure that were allegedly far larger than necessary;
(2) such contracts allegedly violated the company's hedge
policy; (3) the company's financial statements were allegedly
false and misleading in that they allegedly failed to account
for the company's exposure to currency market fluctuations; (4)
the company allegedly lacked adequate control and financial
controls; and (5) as a result, the company's statements about
its financial well-being and future business prospects were
allegedly lacking in any reasonable basis when made.
Plaintiffs' claim that the defendants' wrongful acts, false and
misleading statements and omissions, and the decline in the
market value of the company's securities, caused them and other
members of the purported class to suffer damages in connection
with their purchases of the company's securities during the
Class Period.  No actual damage amount is specified in the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the company responded to the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 27, 2009, by filing a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In the motion,
the company asserts that the Consolidated Amended Complaint
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim as a matter of
law under the Federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs filed their
responsive papers on June 1, 2009.  Pursuant to the Scheduling
Order, the company filed its reply on June 22, 2009.

The Company intends to contest these lawsuits, which are at its
preliminary stages, according to the company's June 30, 2009
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Sadia SA -- http://www.sadia.com-- a Brazil-based company
engaged in refrigerated and frozen products including poultry,
pork, beef, turkey and chicken.  The company is also engaged in
convenience products, such as ready meals, pizza, pasta,
margarine and desserts.  Its operations include 18 farms for
poultry and hog stock, hatcheries, pork breeding centers,
slaughterhouses, processing units, animal feed production
plants, representative offices and distribution centers.  In
addition, the company operates an international unit in
Kaliningrad, Russia.  Sadia SA has 16 distribution units located
in 14 Brazilian states.


SADIA SA: Remains Involved in Five Lawsuits in Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------
Sadia SA remains a party to five class actions in Brazil.

The class actions were filed regarding:

   (i) the use (through Banco do Brasil) of certain Brazilian
       financial reserves to fund projects not deemed
       economically viable,

  (ii) added water to chicken allegedly in excess of permitted
       amounts,

(iii) alleged excess weight in its trucks, and

  (iv) alleged improper disposal of solid waste.

Sadia has not made provisions with respect to such proceedings
because they were assessed as a possible loss by the company's
legal counsel, according to its June 30, 2009 Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Sadia SA -- http://www.sadia.com-- a Brazil-based company
engaged in refrigerated and frozen products including poultry,
pork, beef, turkey and chicken.  The company is also engaged in
convenience products, such as ready meals, pizza, pasta,
margarine and desserts.  Its operations include 18 farms for
poultry and hog stock, hatcheries, pork breeding centers,
slaughterhouses, processing units, animal feed production
plants, representative offices and distribution centers.  In
addition, the company operates an international unit in
Kaliningrad, Russia.  Sadia SA has 16 distribution units located
in 14 Brazilian states.


SIMMONS CO: CAW 513's Unfair Labor Practice Claim Junked in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The unfair labor practice charge by the Canada Auto Workers
Union and its Local 513 ("CAW 513"), against Simmons Company,
Simmons Bedding Company, and Simmons Canada Inc., was settled
and dismissed in June 2009.

The settlement of a wrongful dismissal class-action suit against
Simmons Company's subsidiary, Simmons Canada Inc., is still
pending final approval.

On Aug. 15, 2008, the Bramalea, Ontario facility's office and
production workers, all members of the CAW 513, ceased work and
commenced a strike against the facility.  As the strike
continued, the company evaluated its various alternatives, and
decided to initiate the actions required to permanently shut
down the facility due to the financial impact of the strike and
its effect on customers and revenues.  The closure of the
Bramalea, Ontario facility was announced in September 2008.

In connection with the facility closure, in November 2008, CAW
513 filed an unfair labor practice charge against the company,
Simmons Bedding and Simmons Canada and three former production
employees filed a wrongful termination claim against Simmons
Canada on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
former employees.

The unfair labor practice charge was settled and the Ontario
Labour Relations Board dismissed the matter in June 2009.

With respect to the wrongful termination claim, a tentative
settlement was executed in June 2009, although certain
conditions, including obtaining leave of court to dismiss the
class action, must be met before the litigation will be finally
resolved.  An estimated settlement amount was recorded as part
of the restructuring severance and benefits in 2008, according
to the company's June 30, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
March 28, 2009.

Simmons Company -- http://www.simmons.com-- is a mattress
manufacturer, manufacturing and marketing a range of products
under its brand names, including Beautyrest, Beautyrest Black,
ComforPedic by Simmons, Natural Care Latex, Beautyrest
Beginnings, and Deep Sleep.  The company manufactures, sells and
distributes its branded bedding products to retail and
hospitalitycustomers, throughout the United States and Canada,
and licenses its intellectual property to international
companies that manufacture and sell the company's branded
bedding products throughout the world.  The company's domestic
operations sells products through a nationwide base of
approximately 2,300 retailers, representing over 12,200 outlets,
including furniture stores, specialty sleep shops, department
stores, furniture rental stores, mass merchandisers and juvenile
specialty stores.  In February 2007, the company merged with
another entity to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Simmons
Holdco, Inc., a holding company.


TAM CAPITAL: Defends Suits by Panama's & Airline Workers' Unions
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAM Capital Inc. remains a party to four class actions, one by
Panama's union of tourism companies and the remaining three by
the national airline workers' union.

The total assessed value of those actions was approximately
BRL222 thousand at Dec. 31, 2008, and according to the company's
legal advisors, BRL5 thousand correspond to claims with a remote
chance of loss, BRL192 thousand correspond to claims with a
possible chance of loss, and BRL24 thousand correspond to claims
with a probable chance of loss.

The company has established provisions totaling BRL24 thousand
at Dec. 31, 2008, in respect of all of these claims.

For specific actions the company has made court deposits
totaling BRL1,016 thousand to address labor claims.  The
provision is based on our management's estimate as to likely
losses we might incur as a result of the various labor claims
filed by current or former employees, according to the company's
June 30, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

TAM Capital Inc. -- http://www.tam.com.br/-- is engaged in
aircraft acquisition and financing.  The company is the wholly
owned subsidiary of TAM S.A.  TAM S.A. is engaged in investing
in companies, which carry out air transportation activities.
TAM S.A.'s principal subsidiaries include TAM Linhas Aereas S.A.
(TLA), which is engaged in the operation of the transportation
of passengers and cargo within Brazil and on international
routes, and Transportes Aereos del Mercosur S.A. (Mercosur), an
airline, which operates in Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Uruguay and Bolivia.


TEXAS BAY: Hearing for Suit Over Loss of Air Conditioning Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gena Slaughter of the 191st State Civil District Court in
Texas ruled to postpone an emergency hearing on a purported
class-action lawsuit against Texas Bay Barclay Square Limited
Partnership and Bay Equity Real Estate that was filed by
residents of a Pleasant Grove apartment complex, Laurence Iliff
of The Dallas Morning News reports.

Judge Slaughter said she was concerned about the tenants and
felt the matter was urgent.  Nonetheless, she ruled that the
defendants had not been given enough notice under the law, and
thus she ordered that the hearing be held on the morning of July
8, 2009, according to The Dallas Morning News.

Kenneth Chaiken, Esq. A lawyer for the Barclay Square
Apartments, told the judge that the air-conditioning system
already has been fixed after arguing that the hearing notice was
legally faulty in several ways, reports The Dallas Morning News.

Barry Carpenter of The 33 News previously reported that Bay
Equity Real Estate is facing a purported class-action suit by
tenants at the Barclay Square apartments who for several weeks
have been without air conditioning (Class Action Reporter, July
7, 2009).

The lawsuit was filed by attorney Manny Alvarez, Esq. on July 2,
2009 in downtown Dallas.  The class-action suit alleges that for
the last 25 days, plaintiff and the other members of the
proposed class have been forced to live in substandard,
uninhabitable and dangerous conditions at Barclay Square
apartments, according to The 33 News report.

The Dallas Morning News reports that Marlene Ceja, a resident at
Barclay Square, is seeking certification of a class-action
lawsuit against the defendants.

In a legal filing, she alleges that the complex is violating a
Dallas city code that requires landlords to keep their
properties at a maximum of 85 degrees, The Dallas Morning News
reported.

The suit seeks "all available damages" and a drop in the rent,
according to The Dallas Morning News.

For more details, contact:

          Alvarez Manny, Esq.
          400 S. Zang Blvd # 1000
          Dallas, TX
          Phone: (214) 942-4500


THELEN LLP: Ex-Employees Sue Partners, Seek $18M in Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several former Thelen LLP employees filed an $18 million
proposed class-action lawsuit against former partners and the
firms they now work for, Amanda Royal of The Recorder reports.

The suit was filed on July 6, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by former Thelen
employees: Kendrick Patterson, Adam Bergman, Michael Attianese,
Andrea Levy, Daryl Yeakle and Karen Olsen.

Captioned, "Patterson et al v. O'Neal, Case No. 3:2009-cv-
03031," the suit targets well-known Thelen partners Stephen
O'Neal, Thomas Hill, Ellen Bastier, Mark Weitzel, Julian
Millstein, Jeffrey Steiner and David Graybeal.  It also names
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, DLA Piper LLP, Nixon Peabody
LLP, Howrey LLP and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, where these
partners landed before and after Thelen dissolved.

The complaint alleges the partners paid themselves $25 million
as the firm dissolved, and neglected to pay $18 million in wages
owed to employees, which included accrued vacation and pay in
lieu of 60 days' notice, according to The Recorder.

The case is the second class-action lawsuit brought by Thelen's
employees.  The first was filed against the defunct firm a few
weeks after it dissolved, reports The Recorder.

The Recorder previously reported that Thelen LLP is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by three of its associates
and another staff member, seeking damages for lost wages under
the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)
Act (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2008).

The suit is entitled, "Bergman v. Thelen, Case No. 08-5322," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Nov. 24, 2008 by Adam Bargman, Kendrick Patterson,
Michael Attianese and Andrea Levy.

The Recorder reported that the plaintiffs, who worked in the
firm's New York and Connecticut offices, allege that Thelen
violated the WARN Act by not giving 60 days' notice prior to a
mass layoff, failing to pay wages for 60 days following the
layoff notice, and failing to pay for accrued vacation.

Litigation boutique Blum Collins is representing the employees
in both lawsuits, The Recorder reported.

For more details, contact:

          Blum Collins LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Suite 4880
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: 213/572-0400
          e-mail: collins@blumcollins.com
                  blum@blumcollins.com
          Web site: http://www.blumcollins.com/


U.S. SMOKELESS: Reaches $10.25M Settlement for "Chew" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. settled for $10.25 million a price-
fixing case over "chew" or chewing tobacco that was filed by
Massachusetts consumers, Donna Goodison of The Boston Herald
reports.

The settlement involves all adult consumers who purchased U.S.
Smokeless Tobacco Co. moist smokeless tobacco products,
including Copenhagen and Skoal in Massachusetts at any time from
Jan. 1, 1990 through May 21, 2009.

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs have alleged that U.S. Smokeless
Tobacco and its affiliates have violated the consumer-protection
laws of Massachusetts by engaging in sales practices that made
it possible for U.S. Smokeless Tobacco to monopolize the market
for moist smokeless tobacco products.

Under the settlement, Massachusetts residents who were buyers of
chewing tobacco could receive up to $750 per claim under a
class-action lawsuit settlement reached in May, according to The
Boston Herald.

The settlement is the largest cash-back-per-customer settlement
for a class-action suit in the history of Massachusetts, Robert
Bonsignore, Esq., the attorney who represented the Massachusetts
consumers tells The Boston Herald.

For more details, contact:

          Massachusetts Smokeless Tobacco Settlement Claims
               Administrator
          c/o Rosenthal & Company LLC, Mass Snuff Settlement
          P.O. Box 560, Medford, MA 02155
          Phone: 1-800-207-0343
          Web site:
          http://www.massachusettssmokelesstobaccosettlement.com


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Water Contamination at Camp Lejeune
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
brought on behalf of Laura J. Jones, who is seeking damages for
personal injuries she suffered by consuming allegedly polluted
water while living at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North
Carolina, Joe Johnson of StarNewsOnline.com reports.

Th suit is captioned, "Jones v. United States of America, Case
No. 7:2009cv00106," was filed on July 4, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.  It
seeks $10,000 for Ms. Jones.

In general, the lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government,
through agents within the Department of Defense, knowingly
exposed Marines, sailors, their families and civilian employees
to highly contaminated drinking water on the base at Camp
Lejeune.  It also alleges that the government actively
disseminated information that minimized the significance of the
danger to those who were exposed, according to
StarNewsOnline.com.

The lawsuit has only one plaintiff because class-action lawsuits
are not allowed against the government due to the Feres Doctrine
prevents, which basically soldiers from suing the government,
reports StarNewsOnline.com.

Joseph Anderson, Esq., the lead attorney in the case, told
StarNewsOnline.com that the goal of this lawsuit was the to
bring out the truth about the years of pollution that occurred
at Camp Lejeune and to seek compensation for those whose health
has been adversely affected by consuming water from the base
water system.

For more details, contact:

          Joseph L. Anderson, Esq.
          (janderson@andersonpangia.com)
          Anderson Pangia & Associates, PLLC
          2615 Sparkling Place
          Winston-Salem, NC 27103
          Phone: 336-760-5669
          Fax: 866-489-2916


VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Suit in Montana Over Unwanted Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Wireless and several other wireless carriers that don't
offer service in Montana are facing a purported class-action
lawsuit claiming they charged cell customers for services on
their phones that they never used or asked for, Montana's News
Station reports.

The most common practice they say is when the cell company
charges for so called "premium" text message content that the
customer never actually signed up for, according to Montana's
News Station.

Content like daily horoscopes, stock tips and other
entertainment messages can cost customers as much as a few
dollars for every single text message they get, Montana's News
Station reported.


WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp., the bank acquired last year by Wells Fargo & Co.
for $12.7 billion, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
that accuses it of setting up customers for overdraft fees by
posting debits faster than credits, The Richmond Times Dispatch
reports.

The lawsuit, which alleges consumer fraud, was filed on July 2,
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by Anthony Scott Poulin, under the caption, "Poulin v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:2009-cv-21863."  It is seeking a
jury trial.

According to the suit, "This delayed posting not only creates
multiple overdraft fees that would not otherwise occur, but it
also prevents customers from ascertaining the accurate balance
of their accounts," The Richmond Times Dispatch reported.

For more details, contact:

          Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. (rjosefsberg@podhurst.com)
          Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al
          City National Bank Building
          25 W. Flagler Street
          Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130-1780
          Phone: 305-358-2800
          Fax: 305-358-2382

               - and -

          David Henry Lichter, Esq. (dlichter@hlglawyers.com)
          Higer Lichter & Givner LLP
          18305 Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 402
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Phone: 305-933-9970
          Fax: 305-933-0998



WELLS FARGO: Faces Ill. Litigation Over Duplicate Tax bill Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses them of
unfairly passing a Cook County duplicate tax bill fee onto
homeowners, a charge meant for banks and mortgage companies that
make electronic property tax payments in bulk, Bridget Freeland
of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 2, 2009 in Cook County Circuit Court
in Illinois, under the caption, "Wellman W. Hoff, Jr., and Nancy
J. Hoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 09CH21630."

Homeowners -- represented by Robert F. Coleman, Esq. -- claim
that when Wells Fargo removed escrow funds to pay borrowers'
property taxes, it also deducted a $5 fee for the duplicate tax
bills, according to The Courthouse News Service.

Wells Fargo incurred the fee from the Cook County Treasurer's
Office, which has said that the bank is "subject to the $5
duplicate tax bill fee, not the homeowner" and that Wells Fargo
must pay the fee "because it has chosen to pay tax bills in bulk
electronically," according to the complaint, a copy of which was
obtained by The Courthouse News Service.

The homeowners claim that "Wells Fargo has no right to pass on
the duplicate tax bill fee as a 'charge' ... because the fee is
not an item that can be subject to a lien on the property."

The complaint states that mortgage documents state that the
"lender shall not charge borrower for holding and applying the
funds, annually analyzing the escrow account, or verifying the
escrow items, unless lender pays borrower interest on the
funds," The Courthouse News Service reported.

Homeowners claim that Wells Fargo is wrongfully charging them a
duplicate tax bill fee, and has not paid them any interest on
their escrow funds, reports The Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ec3

For more details, contact:

          Robert F. Coleman, Esq. (rcoleman@colemanlawfirm.com)
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, Illinois 60601
          Phone: 312-444-1000
          Fax: 312-444-1028
          Web site: http://www.colemanlawfirm.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of Synovus Financial
Corp. (NYSE: SNV) common stock during the period between January
24, 2008 and January 21, 2009.

     The complaint charges Synovus and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Synovus is a diversified financial services company and a
registered bank holding company.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results and
engaged in improper behavior which harmed Synovus' investors by
failing to disclose the extent of its large exposure to the Sea
Island Company, a resort in Georgia, and the deteriorating
condition of Sea Island.  The Company also failed to adequately
and timely record losses for its impaired loans, causing its
financial results to be materially false.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Synovus stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $13.49 per share on February 1, 2008.

     Then, on January 22, 2009, Synovus reported a net loss for
the fourth quarter of 2008 of $637 million, or $1.93 per share.
The fourth quarter 2008 results included provision expense of
$364 million and a $443 million non-cash goodwill impairment
charge.  On this news, Synovus stock fell to as low as $4.52
before it closed at $4.75 per share on January 22, 2009.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

       -- defendants' assets contained hundreds of millions of
          dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many
          of which were backed by real estate that was rapidly
          dropping in value for which Synovus had failed to
          record adequate loan loss reserves;

       -- prior to and during the Class Period, Synovus had been
          extremely aggressive in granting credit, including to
          Sea Island, where top officers of each company sat on
          each other's boards and whose enormous development
          projects were highly risky and would be enormously
          problematic if the value of residential real estate
          did not continue to increase and if the tourism market
          slowed, which was then already happening;

       -- Synovus' largest customer, Sea Island, was performing
          extremely poorly;

       -- defendants failed to properly account for Synovus'
          real estate loans, failing to reflect impairment in
          the loans;

       -- Synovus' balance sheet included hundreds of millions
          of dollars in impaired goodwill which had not been
          recorded as losses on a timely basis;

       -- Synovus had not adequately reserved for loan losses
          and goodwill impairment such that its financial
          statements were presented in violation of Generally
          Accepted Accounting Principles; and

       -- Synovus was not on track to report the earnings being
          forecast for it by analysts covering the Company and
          relying on Company statements.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Synovus common stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, 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/synovus/


                            *********

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  * * *