CAR_Public/090715.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 138

                           Headlines

AUDIOVOX CORP: Suits Over Cell Phone Radiation Remain Pending
CANADIAN HOSPITALS: Suit Over Radiotherapy Treatment Settled
CANO PETROLEUM: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in New York
CHATTEM INC: Defending "Wilson" Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement
CHATTEM INC: "Wilkinson" Suit Over Garlic Supplement Dismissed

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: S.C. Judge Dismisses "Harris" Litigation
FCSTONE GROUP: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger with IAHC
FCSTONE GROUP: Stockholders' Lawsuit Still Pending in Missouri
GLOUCESTER COUNTY: Settles N.J. Strip Search Litigation for $4M
GUIDANT CORP: Minn. Court Refuses to Review Dismissal of Lawsuit

INDIANA BOARD: ACLU Files Federal Suit Alleging ADA Violations
KB HOME: "Bagley" ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Discovery Stage
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
MARTIN COUNTY: Fla. Judge Sets Hearing for Witham Field Dispute
MINNESOTA: DHS, Officials Face Lawsuit Alleging ADA Violations

NATIONAL BEEF: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Tannery in Missouri
NORBOURG: Quebec Superior Court Judge Rejects Investors' Lawsuit
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to 401(k) Plan Suit Certification Pending
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Suit Still Pending
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Defending Suit by N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund

NOVASTAR FIN'L: To Defend Claims in N.Y. Lawsuit v. J.P. Morgan
OPEN TEXT: Dismissed from Vignette Stockholder's Suit on July 2
RED HAT: Ruling on Class Status in Securities Suit Still Pending
SELWYN HOUSE: Completes Settlement Process for Abuse Litigation
UNITED SERVICE: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "True" Case

VALLEY CLUB: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
VIGNETTE CORP: Reached Settlement Pact with Stockholder in July
VOLVO GROUP: Va. Judge Grants Class-Action Status to ERISA Case
WISCONSIN: Seventh Circuit Revives Suit Over "Diploma Privilege"

* Securities Lawsuits Filings Lowest Since 1996, Report Says


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JPMORGAN CHASE: Stueve Siegel Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SUPERVALU INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
SUPERVALU INC: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
TRONOX INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing

TRONOX INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

AUDIOVOX CORP: Suits Over Cell Phone Radiation Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain consolidated class actions transferred to a Multi-
District Litigation Panel of the U.S. District Court of the
District of Maryland against Audiovox Corp. and other suppliers,
manufacturers and distributors of hand-held wireless telephones
are still pending.

The suits are generally alleging damages relating to exposure to
radio frequency radiation from hand-held wireless telephones.

No further development in the matter were reported in the
company's July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2009.

Audiovox Corp. -- http://www.audiovox.com/-- is an
international distributor and value added service provider in
the accessory, mobile and consumer electronics industries.


CANADIAN HOSPITALS: Suit Over Radiotherapy Treatment Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
     An agreement in principle was reached on May 15th last
between Ms. Anahit Cilinger and the Hospitals involved in a
class action lawsuit relating to waiting periods for receiving
radiotherapy treatments following a conservative surgery for
breast cancer.  The class action was authorized in 2004 by the
Quebec Superior Court.

     The agreement has cut short the first phase of the trial
which began on May 6th last and which was expected to continue
until June 2, 2009.  The agreement will be presented to the
Superior Court for approval on September 9, 2009.  The agreement
provides for the payment of CAD$5.4 million by the Hospitals and
will allow compensation to be paid to patients who underwent
conservative surgery for breast cancer without chemotherapy and
who, between October 13, 1997 and March 26, 2009, waited for
more than twelve (12) weeks after receipt of the referral by the
radiation oncology department of one of the Hospitals involved
in the lawsuit before receiving radiotherapy treatments.

     Under this agreement the Hospitals do not admit any
negligence or liability on their part and the twelve-week
waiting period has been set for the sole purpose of determining
a patient's entitlement to indemnification and cannot be
construed as constituting a medical and/or healthcare standard
for the past or for the future.


CANO PETROLEUM: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cano Petroleum, Inc., the company's outside directors and its
underwriters defend an amended purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit in New York.

On Oct. 2, 2008, the following lawsuit (08 CV 8462) was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against David W. Wehlmann; Gerald W. Haddock; Randall Boyd;
Donald W. Niemiec; Robert L. Gaudin; William O. Powell, III, and
the underwriters alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.

The plaintiff seeks to certify the suit as a class-action.  The
lawsuit alleges that the prospectus for the June 26, 2008 public
offering of Cano common stock contained statements regarding
Cano's proved reserve amounts and standards that were materially
false and overstated Cano's proved reserves.

Messrs. Wehlmann, Haddock, Boyd, Niemiec, Gaudin and Powell were
Cano outside directors on June 26, 2008.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages for the class
if the lawsuit is certified as a class action.

On July 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
adds as defendants Cano, Cano's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board, Jeff Johnson, Cano's former Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, Morris B. "Sam" Smith,
Cano's current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, Ben Daitch, Cano's Vice President and Principal
Accounting Officer, Michael Ricketts and Cano's Senior Vice
President of Engineering and Operations, Patrick McKinney, and
drops Gerald W. Haddock, a former director of Cano, as a
defendant.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus for the
Secondary Offering contained statements regarding Cano's proved
reserve amounts and standards that were materially false and
overstated Cano's proved reserves.

The plaintiff is seeking to certify the lawsuit as a class
action lawsuit and is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Cano is cooperating with its Directors and Officers Liability
insurance carrier regarding the defense of the lawsuit,
according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 9, 2009.

Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company that is primarily
utilizing waterflooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
techniques to increase production and reserves at its existing
properties.  The Company's assets are located onshore United
States in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.  Cano's proved oil and
natural gas reserves as of June 30, 2008, were prepared by
Miller and Lents, Ltd., international oil and gas consultants.
As of September 10, 2008, it had 17 wells containing multiple
completions.  On September 10, 2008, the Company had total
acreage of 74,200 gross acres and 70,805 net acres, all of which
was considered developed acres.  Cano sells its crude oil and
natural gas production to several independent purchasers.


CHATTEM INC: Defending "Wilson" Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. is defending the putative class action lawsuit
filed by James A. Wilson in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, according to the company's July
10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2009.

The company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Florida consumer James A. Wilson
relating to the labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of our
Garlique product.

The company was served with this lawsuit on May 27, 2009.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive
damages, and attorney fees.

The plaintiff alleges that the company mislabeled its product
and made false advertising claims.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a national class.

Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- is a marketer and
manufacturer of a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products, toiletries and dietary supplements, in such
categories as medicated skin care products, topical pain care,
oral care, internal OTC, medicated dandruff shampoos, dietary
supplements, and other OTC and toiletry products.  The company's
portfolio of products includes brands, such as Gold Bond,
Cortizone-10 and Balmex (medicated skin care); Icy Hot,
Aspercreme and Capzasin (topical pain care); ACT and Herpecin-L
(oral care); Unisom, Pamprin and Kaopectate (internal OTC);
Selsun Blue (medicated dandruff shampoos); Dexatrim, Garlique
and New Phase (dietary supplements), and Bullfrog, UltraSwim and
Sun-In (other OTC and toiletry products).  Its products are sold
primarily through mass merchandisers, independent and chain drug
stores, drug wholesalers and food stores in the United States,
and in various markets in approximately 80 countries worldwide.


CHATTEM INC: "Wilkinson" Suit Over Garlic Supplement Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed by Robert O. Wilkinson against
Chattem Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California was dismissed in May 2009.

The company was named as a defendant in the putative class
action lawsuit filed by California consumer Robert O. Wilkinson
relating to the labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of
Chattem's Garlique product.

The company was served with this lawsuit on July 5, 2007.

On May 21, 2009, this case was dismissed with prejudice to
Wilkinson but without prejudice to any potential class,
according to the company's July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 31, 2009.

Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- is a marketer and
manufacturer of a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products, toiletries and dietary supplements, in such
categories as medicated skin care products, topical pain care,
oral care, internal OTC, medicated dandruff shampoos, dietary
supplements, and other OTC and toiletry products.  The company's
portfolio of products includes brands, such as Gold Bond,
Cortizone-10 and Balmex (medicated skin care); Icy Hot,
Aspercreme and Capzasin (topical pain care); ACT and Herpecin-L
(oral care); Unisom, Pamprin and Kaopectate (internal OTC);
Selsun Blue (medicated dandruff shampoos); Dexatrim, Garlique
and New Phase (dietary supplements), and Bullfrog, UltraSwim and
Sun-In (other OTC and toiletry products).  Its products are sold
primarily through mass merchandisers, independent and chain drug
stores, drug wholesalers and food stores in the United States,
and in various markets in approximately 80 countries worldwide.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: S.C. Judge Dismisses "Harris" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G. Ross Anderson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina dismissed the purported class-action
lawsuit, "William A. Harris, Sr., et al. v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-01810-GRA," Eric Connor
of Greenville News reports.

The dismissal ended a three-year legal battle over whether
Equifax Information Services, Experian and TransUnion wrongly
allowed a credit provider's accounting practices to raise the
cost of borrowing money for millions of people, according to
Greenville News.

In his dismissal order, Judge Anderson wrote that the class of 4
million plaintiffs that stretched from West Virginia to South
Carolina couldn't prove that they were harmed by the practice or
to what extent.  The suit had sought $1,000 for each plaintiff,
Judge Anderson wrote, Greenville News reported.

Previously, it was reported that discovery is ongoing in a
purported class-action lawsuit against Equifax Information
Services, LLC, a unit of Equifax, Inc., entitled, "William A.
Harris, Sr., et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC, et
al.," (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008).

The suit was filed on June 15, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina.  In it, the plaintiffs
asserted that Equifax, Experian and TransUnion violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by reporting tradeline information from
Capital One that did not contain credit limit information.

On May 30, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for certification of a nationwide class-action lawsuit, but
certified a class consisting of certain consumers residing in
five southeastern states.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the District Court denied defendants' petition
for permission to appeal the class certification.  The regional
class seeks nominal and statutory damages and attorneys' fees.
Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Harris v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Case
No. 6:2006cv01810," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Judge G. Ross Anderson, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Julie L. Fuchs, Esq. (jfuchs@jshwlaw.com)
          Julie L. Fuchs Law Firm
          1362 Bryant Court
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Phone: 215-540-0440

               - and -

          Suzanne Lafleur Klok, Esq. (sklok@motleyrice.com)
          Motley Rice
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: 843-216-9219
          Fax: 843-216-9440

Representing the defendants are:

          Craig E. Bertschi, Esq.
          (cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com)
          Kilpatrick Stockton
          1100 Peachtree Street
          Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
          Phone: 404-815-6500

               - and -

          Celeste Tiller Jones, Esq. (cjones@mcnair.net)
          McNair Law Firm-Cola
          P.O. Box 11390
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: 803-799-9800
          Fax: 803-753-3278


FCSTONE GROUP: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger with IAHC
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against FCStone Group, Inc., in
the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, is still in its
early stages, according to the company's July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 31, 2009.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company
and certain officers and directors on July 8, 2009 in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties and other violations of state law arising from
the company's proposed merger with International Assets Holding
Company.

FCStone Group, Inc. -- http://www.fcstone.com/-- is an
integrated commodity risk management company providing risk
management consulting and transaction execution services to
commercial commodity intermediaries, end users and producers.
It assists primarily middle market customers.  In addition, to
its risk management consulting services, the Company operates an
independent clearing and execution platforms for exchange-traded
futures and options contracts.


FCSTONE GROUP: Stockholders' Lawsuit Still Pending in Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed against FCStone Group,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri is still in its early stages, according to the
company's July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2009.

The company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.

The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between Nov. 15,
2007 and July 9, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under
Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for alleged false statements and failure to disclose adverse
facts relating to an interest rate hedge and the company's bad
debt reserve.

FCStone Group, Inc. -- http://www.fcstone.com/-- is an
integrated commodity risk management company providing risk
management consulting and transaction execution services to
commercial commodity intermediaries, end users and producers.
It assists primarily middle market customers.  In addition, to
its risk management consulting services, the Company operates an
independent clearing and execution platforms for exchange-traded
futures and options contracts.


GLOUCESTER COUNTY: Settles N.J. Strip Search Litigation for $4M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gloucester County, New Jersey reached a $4 million settlement
for a purported class-action lawsuit, which claimed thousands of
jail inmates were illegally strip searched while incarcerated,
Pete McCarthy of NJ.com reports.

Under the terms of the settlement, which must go to a federal
judge for final approval, the county must pay nearly $1.2
million of the $4 million with $625,000 of that amount being
deductible.  The county will have to pay its first installment
of $250,000 before the end of the year.  The remainder will be
paid in 2010, according to NJ.com.

The county was sued in 2007 by two former inmates.  The case was
filed in federal court and has since moved to class-action
status.

These "detainees" were held at the county's jail facilities for
non-violent offenses, according to attorney William Riback,
Esq., who filed the lawsuit on behalf of a man and a woman who
were locked up in Gloucester County for failure to pay child
support and shoplifting, reports NJ.com.

"Law-abiding people, who were unable to make bail because of
economic circumstances, were being strip searched," Mr. Riback
tells NJ.com.  "The courts have described it as degrading,
demoralizing.  You can just imagine how intrusive it is."

According to Mr. Riback, these individuals were ordered to
undress in front of corrections officers when being processed
into the jail.

An estimated 10,000 men and women were subjected to these
illegal searches between March 2004 and February 2009, NJ.com
reports.

NJ.com reported that depending on how many apply for the
settlement, each person would receive between $250 and $750.

For more details, contact:

          William A. Riback, Esq.
          132 Haddon Ave.,
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: 856-857-0008


GUIDANT CORP: Minn. Court Refuses to Review Dismissal of Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied a
request to reconsider the dismissal of a class-action suit
against Guidant Corp., a Boston Scientific Corp. subsidiary,
over an implanted defibrillator recall, MassDevice reports.

Specifically, Judge Donovan Frank of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota denied a request to reconsider his
2007 dismissal of the case, according to MassDevice.

The suit, by a group of third-party insurance payors, sought
redress for payments they were forced to make when patients'
defibrillators had to be replaced after their 2005 recall,
MassDevice reported.

Ruling that the motion to reconsider was nothing more than "an
attempt to relitigate old issues," Judge Frank declined to
reconsider his 2007 decision to dismiss the case, saying, "The
Court stands by its May 9, 2007 and November 16, 2007 Orders
and, for this reason, denies the named TPP Plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration because it is an attempt to relitigate old
issues," reports MassDevice.


INDIANA BOARD: ACLU Files Federal Suit Alleging ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a purported
class-action lawsuit against the Indiana Board of Law Examiners,
alleging that investigating the mental health history of law
license applicants violates the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Leigh Jones of The National Law Journal reports.

The suit, captioned, "Dow v. Individual Members of the Indiana
State Board of Law Examiners, Case No. 1:2009-cv-00842," was
filed on July 7, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of a woman licensed in
Illinois who is seeking admission to the Indiana State Bar
Association.  Identified as "Jane Doe" in the action, the
plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Indiana State
Board of Law Examiners from asking certain questions about
mental fitness.  She also seeks a declaratory judgment that the
questions on the application and the board's follow-up
procedures violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
reports The National Law Journal.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the board's questions and
procedures subject the plaintiff and the class members to
"different and elevated burdens" because of their "history of
mental, emotional or nervous disorders" as qualified individuals
with disabilities, in violation of the ADA, according to The
National Law Journal.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
The National Law Journal, the plaintiff is a graduate of an
Indiana law school who is in good standing with the Illinois bar
and was diagnosed as suffering from anxiety disorder and post-
traumatic stress disorder.  She has received counseling and has
functioned at a high level in law school and in practice, the
complaint said.

For more details, contact:

          Kenneth J. Falk, Esq. (kfalk@aclu-in.org)
          ACLU OF INDIANA
          1031 East Washington Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202-3952
          Phone: (317) 635-4059 x104
          Fax: (317) 635-4105

               - and -

          Laura Lee Bowker, Esq. (laura.bowker@atg.in.gov)
          OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          302 West Washington St.,
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 232-4836
          Fax: (317) 232-7979


KB HOME: "Bagley" ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Discovery Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit "Bagley et al., v. KB Home,
et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, is in discovery.

On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed
an action against against the company, its directors, and
certain of its current and former officers under Section 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
1132.

On April 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding Tolan Beck and Rod Hughes as additional plaintiffs and
dismissing certain individuals as defendants.

All four plaintiffs claim to be former employees of KB Home who
participated in the KB Home 401(k) Savings Plan.  They allege on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated that all defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to
plaintiffs and purported class members under ERISA by failing to
disclose information to and providing misleading information to
participants in the Plan about alleged prior stock option
backdating practices of the Company and by failing to remove the
Company's stock as an investment option under the Plan.

The plaintiffs allege that this breach of fiduciary duties
caused them to earn less on their Plan accounts than they would
have earned but for defendants' alleged breach.

They seek unspecified money damages and injunctive and other
equitable relief.

On May 16, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit
on the basis that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a
claim against the company.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the dismissal motion on
June 20, 2008.  The company filed its reply in support of the
motion in July and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for Aug.
4, 2008.

The hearing on the motion was held on Sept. 8, 2008.  On Oct. 6,
2008, the court issued its order.  The court denied the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of the duty to monitor and granted the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
the fiduciary duty of disclosure.  The court also denied a
separate motion to dismiss filed by the individual defendants
based on the standing of plaintiffs to sue.

The company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on
Nov. 5, 2008.

On Nov. 24, 2008, the court approved a stipulation to stay all
discovery and other proceedings through Feb. 6, 2009, in order
to allow the parties time to attempt to settle the plaintiffs'
claims through mediation.

A mediation session was held on Jan. 27, 2009, but a settlement
has not been reached.  The court has tentatively scheduled the
trial to begin on Nov. 9, 2010.  Plaintiffs have served
discovery requests on the company, the other defendants and
several third parties.  The company has also served the
plaintiffs with discovery requests.
  
The case is now in discovery, and the court has tentatively
scheduled the trial to begin on Nov. 9, 2010, according to its
July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2009.

The suit is "Bagley et al., v. KB Home, et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-01754-GPS-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge George P. Schiavelli,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen J Fearon, Jr., Esq. (stephen@sfclasslaw.com)
         Squitieri & Fearon LLP
         32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-421-6492

              - and -

         Stephen M. Fishback, Esq. (sfishback@kfjlegal.com)
         Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP
         18425 Burbank Boulevard Suite 610
         Tarzana, CA 91356-6918
         Phone: 818-342-7442
         Fax: 818-342-7616

Representing the defendants are:

         Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq. (marc.dworsky@mto.com)
         Munger Tolles & Olson
         355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
         Phone: 213-683-9100

              - and -

         Michael M. Farhang, Esq. (mfarhang@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7005

MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor has filed a proposed U.S. shareholder
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the securities of Manulife
Financial Corporation between March 28, 2008 and June 22, 2009
over possible claims for the violation of the federal securities
laws by Manulife Financial.

     Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (09-cv-6185) on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of Manulife Financial Corporation between March 28,
2008 and June 22, 2009.  Manulife trades as "MFC" on the TSX,
NYSE and PSE, and under "945" on the SEHK (Class Action
Reporter, July 14, 2009).

     The Complaint charges Manulife and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     On June 19, 2009, after the market closed, Manulife
announced that it received an enforcement notice from the
Ontario Securities Commission ("OSC") relating to Manulife's
disclosure of risks concerning its variable annuity guarantee
and segregated funds business.  The OSC notice stated that
Manulife failed to meet its continuous disclosure obligations
related to its exposure to market price risk in its variable
annuity guarantee and Segregated Fund Contracts business.
Segregated Fund Contracts are insurance contracts also known as
individual variable annuities that offer death benefits and
maturity guarantees.

     The complaint alleges that Manulife made false and
misleading statements regarding its ability to manage and
control risk.  In fact, contrary to the Company's own risk
management strategy, Manulife applied no material hedging
strategy to manage risk particularly during an economic
downturn.  The complaint further alleges that notwithstanding
its risk management strategy Manulife built up a massive stock
portfolio, which it chose to leave unhedged.  This resulted in a
huge decline in the funds available to guaranty the Separate
Fund Contract obligations, forcing the Company to raise billions
in capital to make up for a widening shortfall in the amount it
had promised to pay customers decades from now.

     Stunned investors responded to the OSC's announcement when
trading markets reopened on June 22, 2009.  The Company's shares
dropped 12% to close at $17.67 on an unusually high trading
volume of almost 8 million shares.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com)
          Susan Lee, Esq. (slee@abbeyspanier.com)
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or 1-800-889-3701 (Toll Free)
          Web Site: http://www.abbeygardy.com


MARTIN COUNTY: Fla. Judge Sets Hearing for Witham Field Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elizabeth Metzger of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court
of Florida set aside three days, Dec. 1 through Dec. 3, to hear
arguments for a class-action suit in a 5-year-old legal dispute
between residents living near Witham Field and Martin County,
Joe Crankshaw of Vero Beach Press-Journal reports.

A group of residents had sued Martin County because they contend
the extension of airport runways at Witham Field have damaged
their property values, according to Vero Beach Press-Journal.

Recently, attorneys for the residents have filed motions asking
they be allowed to file a class-action suit, a request opposed
by Martin County, which operates Witham Field.  Thus a judge set
a tentative December hearing for the class-action suit request.

In general, the property owners contend that by extending
runways at the airfield to accommodate jet traffic, the county
has taken their lands by reducing its value.  Their original
suit citing the Florida Constitution was dismissed, said Mark S.
Demorest, Esq., attorney for the group.  He said this fourth-
amended complaint being heard by Judge Metzger is based on the
U.S. Constitution, Vero Beach Press-Journal reported.

For more details, contact:

          Mark S. Demorest, Esq.
          Demorest Law Firm, PLLC
          555 S. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 21U
          Birmingham, Michigan 48009
          Phone: 248.723.5500
          Fax: 248.723.5588
          Web site: http://www.demolaw.net/


MINNESOTA: DHS, Officials Face Lawsuit Alleging ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Department of Human Services and several state
officials are facing a purported class-action suit that claims
the "inhumane, cruel and improper" use of restraints and
seclusion at a state hospital in Cambridge is a violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, Jackie Crosby of The
Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

Patients at a state mental hospital for developmentally disabled
adults in Cambridge, Minn., were routinely and illegally put in
metal handcuffs, leg shackles and nylon straps, according to a
lawsuit filed by parents of a former patient.

The suit, captioned, "Jensen et al v. Minnesota Department of
Human Services et al., Case No. 0:2009-cv-01775," was filed on
July 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota by James and Lorie Jensen, whose 20-year old son,
Bradley, lived at the facility in 2006 and 2007.  It was filed
on behalf of other patients of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options (METO) facility, according to The Minneapolis Star
Tribune.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that named as defendants
in the case are the state Department of Human Services, which
operates METO, Douglas Bratvold, director of the facility, and
Scott TenNapel, clinical director, as well as the State of
Minnesota.

The Jensens are seeking class-action status and unspecified
damages for "abusive, inhumane, cruel and improper use of
seclusion and mechanical restraints," reports The Minneapolis
Star Tribune.

Hospital staff put Bradley Jensen in leg and hand restraints
normally used in law enforcement at least 70 times for minor
behaviors such as spitting, vomiting, urinating, laughing or
other manifestations of his disability, according to the
complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Minneapolis Star
Tribune.

Mr. Jensen's parents also were refused phone contact with their
son around the Thanksgiving holiday, and Bradley was forced to
stay secluded in his room, the suit contends.

For more details, contact:

          Mark R. Azman, Esq. (mra@johnson-condon.com)
          Johnson & Condon, PA
          7401 Metro Blvd Ste 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55439-3034
          Phone: 952-806-0408
          Fax: 952-831-1869


NATIONAL BEEF: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Tannery in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Beef Packing Company, LLC's wholly-owned subsidiary,
National Beef Leathers, LLC, defends nine lawsuits involving
NBL's tannery located in St. Joseph, Missouri.

According to the company's July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 30, 2009, NBL purchased the assets of the tannery from
Prime Tanning Corp. in March 2009.

The lawsuits have been filed in the Circuit Courts of Clinton
County and DeKalb County, Missouri between April 22, 2009 and
June 8, 2009.

The lawsuits claim that Prime and NBL spread tanning sludge
containing hexavalent chromium in four counties in northwest
Missouri.

The lawsuits include six actions filed by individuals and three
purported class actions.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages for
wrongful death, personal injury, pain and suffering, economic
damages, punitive damages, diminished property values and
medical monitoring.

National Beef Packing Company, LLC --
http://www.nationalbeef.com/-- is a beef processing company in
the United States.  The company processes packages and delivers
fresh beef for sale to customers in the United States and
international markets.  The products include boxed beef and beef
by-products, such as hides and offal.  In addition, National
Beef sells beef products including branded boxed beef, case-
ready beef, chilled and frozen export beef and portion control
beef.  The company markets its products to retailers,
distributors, food service providers, further processors, and
the United States military.  It has the ability to process
approximately 14,000 head per day in its beef processing
facilities.  The company reports in two business segments: Core
Beef and Other.


NORBOURG: Quebec Superior Court Judge Rejects Investors' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court rejected a class-action lawsuit
against the province's pension-fund manager by investors in the
scandal-plagued Norbourg firm, The Canadian Press reports.

The lawsuit, filed in August 2008, had accused the Caisse de
depot et placement of gross negligence in its Norbourg-linked
investments.

The class-action lawsuit was led by Real Ouimet, the former
chief of police in Bromont, Que., who lost CAD$280,000 of his
retirement fund, according to The Canadian Press.

Justice Dominique Belanger cited Mr. Ouimet's involvement in
another lawsuit pertaining to Norbourg among her reasons for
rejecting the suit.

The investors have not decided whether they'll appeal the
decision, Nancy Bonsaint, lawyer for the investors tells The
Canadian Press.


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to 401(k) Plan Suit Certification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. continues to appeal the class
certification order in the lawsuit filed in relation to the
company's 401(k) plan, according to its according to the
company's July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

The company sought permission from the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals to appeal the order granting class certification.  On
May 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals granted the company
permission to appeal the class certification order.

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


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri's dismissal of a consolidated
amended putative class action complaint remains pending,
according to Novastar Financial, Inc.'s July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Defending Suit by N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. continues to defend an amended
purported class-action complaint filed by the New Jersey
Carpenters' Health Fund, according to the company's July 10,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and
the purported class members.

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


NOVASTAR FIN'L: To Defend Claims in N.Y. Lawsuit v. J.P. Morgan
---------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. expects to defend any claims asserted
in relation to a putative class action lawsuit filed against
J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp., according to the company's July
10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

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

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

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

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


OPEN TEXT: Dismissed from Vignette Stockholder's Suit on July 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corporation was voluntarily dismissed, on July 2,
2009, by the plaintiff from a purported class action in the
District Court for the 201st Judicial District of Travis County,
Texas.

On July 10, 2009, Vignette Corporation announced that it has
reached an agreement in principle with a company stockholder
that provides for the settlement of its purported class action
litigation commenced by such stockholder against Vignette and
its directors following the announcement of the merger between
Vignette and Open Text.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be
paid to stockholders of Vignette in connection with the proposed
merger between Vignette and Open Text or the timing of the
special meeting of stockholders of Vignette scheduled for
Tuesday, July 21, 2009, beginning at 9:00 a.m. local time, at
the Inter-Continental Stephen F. Austin Hotel, 701 Congress
Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701, to vote on a proposal to adopt the
merger agreement between Vignette and Open Text and to approve
the merger.

On May 11, 2009, a Vignette stockholder filed a purported class
action against Vignette, its directors, Open Text Corporation,
and Scenic Merger Corp. in the District Court for the 201st
Judicial District of Travis County, Texas.

On July 2, 2009, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Open Text
and Scenic from the lawsuit.

Vignette and its directors have reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiff providing for the settlement of the
litigation.  In connection with this settlement, Vignette agreed
to make available additional information to its stockholders.
The details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to
be sent to Vignette's stockholders prior to a hearing before the
court to consider both the settlement and the plaintiff's fee
application.

According to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 10, 2009, Vignette
and the directors deny plaintiff's allegations in the action and
have agreed to settle the purported class action litigation in
order to avoid costly litigation and eliminate the risk of any
delay to the closing of the merger.

Open Text Corporation -- http://www.opentext.com/-- is an
independent company providing enterprise content management
(ECM) software solutions.  The company focuses solely on ECM
software solutions.  Open Text's ECM software products help its
customers manage their business content, including version
revisions and compliance with regulatory requirements.  Its
primary ECM solution, Livelink, enables corporations to manage
traditional forms of content, such as images, office documents,
graphics and drawings, as well as to manage electronic content,
including Web pages, email and video.  In May 2008, Open Text
announced RedDot Web Solutions for use with SAP solutions.
RedDot Web Solutions complements the content management
capabilities of the SAP NetWeaver Portal, by helping
organizations to administer and deliver personalized content
within the portal environment.  In October 2008, Open Text and
Captaris, Inc. announced the completion of the merger of
Captaris with a wholly owned subsidiary of Open Text Inc.


RED HAT: Ruling on Class Status in Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff's motion to certify the consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit against Red Hat, Inc., as a class
action awaits disposition by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action complaints were filed
against the company and several of its present and former
officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's
securities during various periods from June 19, 2001, through
July 13, 2004.  All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

All of the claims arise in connection with the company
announcement on July 13, 2004, that it would restate certain of
its financial statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and
former officers and the company variously violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from
trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the
company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were
consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR."

A lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have been
designated, and on May 6, 2005, an amended consolidated class-
action complaint was filed.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant,
filed a separate motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against
several of the individual defendants, but denying the motion to
dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the
company, its chief executive officer and its former chief
financial officer.

The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in
their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.  A
scheduling order has been entered in the matter and discovery
was scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007.

In November 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order
denying class certification and denying all other pending
motions, including certain plaintiffs' motions for appointment
as class representative, as moot.

Thereafter, on July 13, 2007, Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an order allowing Mr.
Gilbert's motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him
as a party plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.

On Jan. 14, 2008, Mr. Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to
certify the action as a class action (Class Action Reporter,
July 25, 2008).

The motion to certify the action as a class action has since
been briefed by the parties and now awaits disposition by the
Court (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2009).

No further updates on the case were reported by the company in
its July 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2009.

The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-473," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Judge W. Earl Britt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         William Webb, Esq. (woodywebb@wwedmisten.com)
         The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm,
         P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602
         Phone: 919-831-8700

Representing the company is:

         Pressly M. Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com)
         Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Esq.
         P.O. Box 831
         Raleigh, NC 27602
         Phone: 919-755-2135


SELWYN HOUSE: Completes Settlement Process for Abuse Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Selwyn House School for boys has completed the settlement
process with dozens of students who allege they were abused by
their teachers in the '60s, '70s and '80s, ctvmontreal.ca
reports.

In a letter to the school community, it said the process is now
complete and it issued an apology as well.  "The Association has
expressed its sincere and deepest apologies to the student
claimants and their families, and it hopes that the settlement
will help them and their families heal and move on with their
lives," the apology said.

The apology is part of the settlement process of a 2005 class-
action lawsuit filed former students against the school alleging
they were sexually abused at the school by teachers, according
to ctvmontreal.ca.

In 2008, the school offered CAD$5 million to settle the issue.
More than 30 students who submitted claims have been paid,
however their lawyer says the full CAD$5 million has not been
used, ctvmontreal.ca reported.


UNITED SERVICE: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "True" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the purported class-action lawsuit, "True v. Robles
et al., Case No. 5:2008-cv-00053," which was filed against the
board of directors of the United Service Automobile Association
(USAA), a large reciprocal insurance exchange, The Courthouse
News Service reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 17, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas by James E. True against Josue
Robles, John H. Moellering, John P. Abizaid, Patricia C. Barron,
John D. Buckelew, Thomas P. Carney, Daniel W. Christman, Eileen
M. Collins, Stephen B. Croker, Leslie G. Denend, Thomas B.
Fargo, Frederick M. Hamilton, Marcelite J. Harris, William J.
Hybl, Jay L. Johnson, Lester L. Lyles, Michael E. Ryan and
Joseph C. Strassner.

Mr. True, a USAA subscriber, alleges that the USAA board of
directors  breached fiduciary and contractual duties owed to
individual members by retaining billions of dollars in
unallocated surplus funds, and not allocating those funds to the
USAA savings accounts of individual subscribers.  He contends
that the unallocated surplus vastly exceeds the amount required
by applicable state regulations or needed to ensure USAA's
financial stability.

The district court, applying Texas law, dismissed the suit,
holding that:

       -- the board did not owe a fiduciary duty to USAA's
          individual members, but rather only to the entity
          itself, and therefore that individual members could
          not pursue claims for breach of fiduciary duty or
          constructive fraud against the board;

       -- Mr. True's subscriber agreement with USAA was not a
          contract between True and the board, and thus could
          not serve as the basis for a breach of contract claim;
          and

      --  Mr. True had failed to allege facts sufficient to
          avoid the application of the business judgment rule
          to the board's decision.

Mr. True later appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In a ruling issued on June 10, 2009, the Fifth Circuit affirmed
the district court's decision saying the plaintiff cannot sue
the board of directors for allegedly withholding billions of
dollars in unallocated surplus funds, according to The
Courthouse News Service.

In essence the federal appeals court in New Orleans affirmed the
lower court's ruling that the board of directors has no duty to
USAA members, only to the entity itself, The Courthouse News
Service reported.

Speaking on behalf of a three judge panel, Judge Fortunato P.
Benavides likened the structural relationship to that of a
corporate board and its shareholders, saying the two were
"nearly identical."  "USAA directors have a fiduciary duty only
to the exchange, which represents the interests as the
subscribers as a whole, not to individual subscribers," Judge
Benavides concluded, reports The Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f20


VALLEY CLUB: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Valley Club of Huntington Valley is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by an African-American mother who
alleges that her children were denied swimming privileges
because of the color of their skin, CBS reports.

The suit was filed on July 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the caption, B.
et al v. The Valley Club of Huntington Valley, PA et al., Case
No. 2:09-cv-03091-JF."  It is brought against The Valley Club
pursuant to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866, according to
CBS.

For more details, contact:

          Brian R. Mildenberg, Esq. (brm@milandstal.com)
          Mildenberg & Stalbaum PC
          123 S. Broad St.
          Suite 1610
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Phone: 215-545-4870


VIGNETTE CORP: Reached Settlement Pact with Stockholder in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vignette Corporation, on July 10, 2009, announced that it has
reached an agreement in principle with a company stockholder
that provides for the settlement of its purported class action
litigation commenced by such stockholder against Vignette and
its directors following the announcement of the merger between
Vignette and Open Text Corporation.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be
paid to stockholders of Vignette in connection with the proposed
merger between Vignette and Open Text or the timing of the
special meeting of stockholders of Vignette scheduled for
Tuesday, July 21, 2009, beginning at 9:00 a.m. local time, at
the Inter-Continental Stephen F. Austin Hotel, 701 Congress
Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701, to vote on a proposal to adopt the
merger agreement between Vignette and Open Text and to approve
the merger.

On May 11, 2009, a Vignette stockholder filed a purported class
action against Vignette, its directors, Open Text Corporation,
and Scenic Merger Corp. in the District Court for the 201st
Judicial District of Travis County, Texas.

On July 2, 2009, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Open Text
and Scenic from the lawsuit.

Vignette and its directors have reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiff providing for the settlement of the
litigation.  In connection with this settlement, Vignette agreed
to make available additional information to its stockholders.
The details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to
be sent to Vignette's stockholders prior to a hearing before the
court to consider both the settlement and the plaintiff's fee
application.

According to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 10, 2009, Vignette
and the directors deny plaintiff's allegations in the action and
have agreed to settle the purported class action litigation in
order to avoid costly litigation and eliminate the risk of any
delay to the closing of the merger.

Vignette Corporation -- http://www.vignette.com/-- provides Web
content management, portal, collaboration, integration,
interaction management, document and records management and
imaging and workflow technologies.  The company's Web content
management, portal, collaboration, integration, interaction
management, document and records management and imaging and
workflow technologies give organizations the capability to
provide a personalized and interactive Web experience that
matches the expectations created by high-profile Web properties.
Vignette's products and capabilities are supported by its
professional services organization, Vignette Professional
Services (VPS).  VPS offers pre-packaged and custom services to
help organizations define their online business objectives, and
build and deploy applications in support of those objectives.
In July 2008, the company completed its acquisition of
MicroNets, Inc. (doing business as Vidavee).


VOLVO GROUP: Va. Judge Grants Class-Action Status to ERISA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Glen M. Williams of U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia granted class-action status to the matter,
"Quesenberry et al v. Volvo Group North America Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:09-cv-00022-gmw-pms," Jeff Sturgeon of The Roanoke
Times reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 21, 2009 by Mary Quesenberry, Paul E.
Hollandsworth, Walter E. Viers, Curtis L. Cox, Robert K. Goad,
Shirely I. Tolbert, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and UAW
Local 2069 against Volvo Group North America Inc. and Volvo
Trucks North America Retiree Healthcare Benefit Plan.

The complaint was brought by retired workers of Volvo Trucks
North America in Pulaski County over recent increases in the
cost of retiree health care.  It generally alleges violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

For more details, contact:

          Julia Penny Clark, Esq. (jpclark@bredhoff.com)
          BREDHOFF & KAISER PLLC
          Suite 1000
          805 15th street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-842-2600
          Fax: 202-842-1888 (fax)

               - and -

          Thomas Joseph Bender, Jr., Esq. (tbender@littler.com)
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Suite 1400
          Three Parkway
          1601 Cherry Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-1321
          Phone: 267-402-3001
          Fax: 267-402-3131


WISCONSIN: Seventh Circuit Revives Suit Over "Diploma Privilege"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit revived a
class-action lawsuit that challenges Wisconsin's diploma
privilege, a one-of-a-kind policy that allows graduates of the
state's law schools to practice law here without taking the bar
exam, Erica Perez of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

In a ruling issued on July 9, 2009, the appeals court said that
the the case was dismissed prematurely and should be sent back
to district court so that plaintiffs can try to prove their
case, according to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The lawsuit is challenging the "diploma privilege policy," which
dates to 1870.  It was filed by Christopher L. Wiesmueller on
April 12, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2008).

Mr. Wiesmueller, a native of Wisconsin, who plans to practice in
the state, claimed that the policy violated the Commerce Clause
by treating in-state and out-of-state law school graduates
differently.

He brought the case on behalf of himself and on out-of-state law
school graduates who must pass the bar exam to practice in
Wisconsin.

In 2007, Judge John C. Shabaz of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, dismissed the lawsuit, ruling
that there was nothing unconstitutional about the rule, which
exempts graduates of the law schools at the University of
Wisconsin, and Marquette University from the bar-exam
requirement, as long as they meet certain academic criteria.

The dismissal was later appealed by Mr. Wiesmueller to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The suit is "Wiesmueller, Christopher L v. Kosobucki, John, Case
No. 3:07-CV-00211-JCS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, Judge John C. Shabaz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Wiesmueller, Esq. (chriswjd@gmail.com)
          Kuchler & Cotton
          1535 E, Racine Ave.,
          PO 527
          Waukesha, WI 53187-0527
          Phone: 262-542-4218 x215
          Fax: 262-542-1993 (fax)

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas Joseph Balistreri, Esq.
          (balistreritj@doj.state.wi.us)
          Department of Justice
          P. O. Box 7857
          Madison, WI 53707-7857
          Phone: 608-266-1523
          Fax: 608-267-2223


* Securities Lawsuits Filings Lowest Since 1996, Report Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin LaCroix at the D&O Diary posted that the number of
securities class-actions filings in June -- a grand total of six
-- represents the lowest monthly number of new filings since
December 1996, when there were just five new filings, Ben
Hallman of Am Law Litigation Daily reports.

Mr. LaCroix reported that May was also slow, with just 11
filings.  All told, there were 94 securities class-action suits
filed in the first half of 2009, which projects to 188 for the
year, slightly below the annual average of 197.7 during the 13-
year period between 1996 and 2008, according to Am Law
Litigation Daily.

The trend is the result of several factors, but Mr.  LaCroix's
theory is "that the plaintiffs' lawyers may have found
themselves in a logjam, due to two factors.  One factor is the
onslaught of Madoff-related litigation (which is not fully
reflected in the above numbers but has nevertheless been
massive).  Another factor is the sheer quantity of previously
filed subprime and credit crisis-related litigation, which in
many instances has reached critical procedural stages."

Mr. LaCroix continues: "If I am correct about the reasons for
the second-quarter slowdown, then the downturn could prove to be
temporary, and filing levels could ramp back up as plaintiffs'
lawyers circle back and attempt to work off the backlog....My
view is that we will soon see filing activity return to
historical norms.  Of course, only time will tell," reports Am
Law Litigation Daily.

The D&O Diary also notes that the first half filings were
characterized by the relatively unusual types of claimants
involved.  For example, as many as ten of the first-half
lawsuits were filed on behalf of holders of preferred or
subordinated securities.

The securities class action litigation targets were also
unusual.  A high number of defendants were entities other than
public companies, including private investment partnerships,
mutual funds, and other nonpublic entities, Am Law Litigation
Daily reports.

One characteristic that the first-half filings did have in
common with the filings in immediately preceding periods is that
the new filings continue to be concentrated in the financial
sector, largely a result of the continuing subprime and credit
crisis litigation wave.

Am Law Litigation Daily reported that by Mr. LaCroix's count, 51
of the first-half filings involved subprime- and credit crisis-
related allegations, and 11 of the filings were Bernard Madoff-
related.

A copy of the D&O Diary report is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f22


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JPMORGAN CHASE: Stueve Siegel Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP announces that it
is has filed a class action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(NYSE: JPM) and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. on behalf of persons
who purchased Auction Rate Securities for which J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc. was the sole auction dealer, lead auction
dealer, co-lead auction dealer, or joint lead auction dealer
between July 10, 2004 and February 13, 2008, inclusive.

     The class action, captioned, "O'Gara v. JPMorgan Chase &
Co., et al., Case No. 09 Civ. 6199," is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
class action is brought against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its
subsidiary J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.  The class action is
brought on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate
Securities between July 10, 2004 and February 13, 2008 for which
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. was the sole auction dealer, lead
auction dealer, co-lead auction dealer, or joint lead auction
dealer.

     The Complaint alleges that JP Morgan violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related
to its role as a manager of auctions for auction rate
securities.  Auction rate securities are either municipal or
corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest
at rates set at periodic "auctions." Auction rate securities
generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

     The Complaint alleges that JP Morgan manipulated the market
in which auction rate securities are traded to create the
appearance that the securities traded at arm's-length auctions,
when in fact the available supply well exceeded the demand for
those securities.  The Complaint alleges that JP Morgan placed
or caused the placement of support bids for auctions in which it
served as a dealer to create the appearance of stability and
liquidity in the auction market, prevent auction failures, and
set the rates of interest or dividends paid on those securities.
The Complaint alleges that JP Morgan engaged in this conduct to
further perpetuate the sale of auction rate securities, and to
manage its inventory of auction rate securities for its own
benefit and to the detriment of investors.  The Complaint
alleges that JP Morgan failed to disclose its conduct to
investors in violation of the federal securities laws.

     According to the Complaint, holders of auction rate
securities underwritten and managed by JP Morgan have been
unable to liquidate their positions in these securities
following the decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-
dealers including JP Morgan to "withdraw their support" for the
periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction
rate securities are set.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 11, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq. (siegel@stuevesiegel.com)
          Rachel E. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, Missouri 64112
          Phone: (800) 714-0360
          Web site: http://www.stuevesiegel.com/auctionrate.html


SUPERVALU INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood Announces that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed against Supervalu, Inc. (NYSE:
SVU) on July 13, 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from April 23, 2009 through June 23, 2009.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 11, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


SUPERVALU INC: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Roy Jacobs & Associates announces that it has filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging the violation of the federal
securities laws on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Supervalu Inc. (NYSE:SVU) during the period from April 23, 2009
through June 23, 2009.

     The Complaint alleges that the Company disseminated
unreasonable highly positive guidance for the Company's
financial performance for fiscal 2010, in order to close a $1
billion note offering in May 2009.  Indeed, positive guidance on
April 23 generated such interest in the Company it was able to
offer $500 million in new notes and almost immediately increased
the offering to $1 billion.  On May 7, 2009, the Company
announced the completion of its $1 billion note offering, which
was needed to retire existing outstanding indebtedness of the
Company which was shortly coming due.

     Then, after the refinancing was complete, on June 24, 2009,
the Company revealed that first quarter 2010 earnings would be
substantially below expectations, and that the previous fiscal
2010 guidance would be updated in light of an unexpectedly poor
first quarter.  As a result, Supervalu shares dropped almost 12%
on very heavy trading volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 11, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of Synovus
Financial Corporation (SNV) securities between January 24, 2008
to January 21, 2009, inclusive for violations of the federal
securities laws.

     The Complaint alleges defendants issued false and
misleading statements about the company's business and financial
results and failed to disclose the extent of its large exposure
to Sea Island Company, a resort in Georgia, and the
deteriorating condition of Sea Island.  The Complaint further
alleges that the company failed to adequately and timely record
losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial results to
be false.

     As a result of defendants' false statements, investors
purchased Synovus at inflated prices, 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.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 4, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


TRONOX INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf all persons or
entities who purchased shares of Tronox, Inc. (PINKSHEETS:
TRXAQ) common stock (Class A or Class B) between November 28,
2005 and January 12, 2009, inclusive.

     The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain
executives of Tronox, along with Kerr-McGee Corporation and
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by, the complaint alleges, misrepresenting the true
extent of Tronox's environmental and tort liabilities and the
Company's worsening financial condition.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 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


TRONOX INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock (Class A or Class B) of Tronox,
Inc. (Pink Sheets: TRXAQ) (Pink Sheets: TRXBQ) between November
28, 2005 and January 12, 2009, inclusive.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Tronox's business, prospects and financial
condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of Tronox
securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.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  * * *