CAR_Public/090720.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 141

                           Headlines

ACCREDITED HOME: Parties Reach $22M Settlement in Calif. Lawsuit
AEROSMITH: Hawaii Judge Approves Deal in Suit Over 2007 Concert
ALLIED HOME: Appellate Court Overturns Ruling in Fees Litigation
BABIES 'R' US: Pa. Court Certifies Subclasses in "McDonough"
CAPITAL ONE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over North Fork Bank Acquisition

CASH AMERICA: Faces Pennsylvania Litigation Over Payday Loans
CENTRO PROPERTIES: Favors Settling Investors' Suit in Australia
CITY OF FARGO: N.D. Judge Approves Extra Awards in Cameras Suit
COLORADO: Appeals Court Orders Review of Ruling in "Vandehey"
CONSECO INC: Contesting Claims in Merged Annuity Marketing Suit

CONSECO INC: Defends "Yue" Contract Breach Lawsuit in California
CONSECO INC: "Langendorf" Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval
CONSECO INC: Nov. 2 Jury Trial Set for Ruderman's Suit in Fla.
CONSECO INC: Recertification of "Doiron" Class Denied on April 7
CONSECO INC: Securities Lawsuit Set for May 10, 2010 Jury Trial

CONSECO INC: Still Defends "Fletcher" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
CONSECO INC: To Defend Amended "Brady" Contract Breach Complaint
CONSECO INC: To Defend "Rowe" Suit v. Bankers Life in Illinois
COSERV ELECTRIC: Faces Texas Suits Over Usage of $54M in Funds
DR PEPPER: Appeal to Dismissal of "Holk" Lawsuit v. Unit Pending

DR PEPPER: Snapple Beverage Unit Faces "Koenig" Suit in Calif.
DR PEPPER: Unit Continues to Face Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
DR PEPPER: "Weiner" Suit Still Stayed Pending Ruling in "Holk"
HEALTHONE: Faces Colo. Litigation Over the Hepatitis C Scare
HMS FINANCIAL: Faces Investors' Suit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged TARP Exploitation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Payment Protector Plan"
LENDER PROCESSING: Unit Faces 13 Suits Over Illegal Price Fixing
MANUEL E. SOLIS: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Bogus "R.O.I." Program
MULTIPLE LISTING: Faces Antitrust Litigation in South Carolina

NBC UNIVERSAL: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Diaz" Case
NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE: Still Faces Suit Over Acquisition Offers
ONTARIO: Faces CAD$2B Litigation Over Alleged Abuses at HRC
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Approves $55.95M Suit Settlement
PHILADELPHIA POLICE: Faces Pa. Litigation Over "Domelights.com"

PROSPER.COM: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
ROYAL BANK: European Pensions Funds Included in N.Y. Litigation
WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Settle Mass. Hourly Workers' Suit
ZUMIEZ INC: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages for $1.3M


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit
OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ACCREDITED HOME: Parties Reach $22M Settlement in Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in proposed class-action lawsuit against bankrupt
subprime lender Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and its
directors and officers have reached a $22 million cash
settlement, Law360 reports.

It was previously reported that Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT
Trust and certain directors of Accredited Home Lenders Holding
Co. continue to face a consolidated securities fraud class-
action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2008).

In March 2007, AHLHC was served with a class action, "Atlas v.
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," brought with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by
AHLHC and certain members of senior management.

AHLHC is aware that five similar securities class action
lawsuits were also filed with the same court.  They are:

      1. "Joory v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
         al.,"

      2. "Pourshafie v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
         al.,"

      3. "Theda v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
         al.,"

      4. "City of Brockton Retirement System v. Accredited Home
         Lenders Holding Co.," and

      5. "Kornfeld v. James A. Konrath, et al."

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, these
cases have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been
selected.

The consolidated, amended complaint was filed on Aug. 24, 2007,
and added as defendants the Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust
and certain directors of AHLHC.

On Jan. 4, 2008, the Court denied AHLHC's motion to dismiss and
granted the REIT's motion to dismiss with leave to file an
amended complaint by Feb. 4, 2008.

The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint.  AHLHC's
answer to the complaint was due March 14, 2008, according to
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Atlas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co
et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00488-H-RBB," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge
Marilyn L. Huff, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David C. Walton, Esq. (davew@lerachlaw.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

           Andrea M. Kimball, Esq. (akimball@luce.com)
           Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps
           600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
           San Diego, CA 92101-3372
           Phone: (619) 236-1414
           Fax: (619) 645-5323

                - and -

           Joshua G. Hamilton, Esq.
           (joshuahamilton@paulhastings.com)
           Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
           515 South Flower Street, Suite 2300
           Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371
           Phone: (213) 683-6000
           Fax: (213) 927-5896


AEROSMITH: Hawaii Judge Approves Deal in Suit Over 2007 Concert
---------------------------------------------------------------
Second Circuit Judge E. Joseph Cardoza gave final approval to a
settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Aerosmith in
connection to a 2007 concert that was canceled, Lila Fujimoto of
Maui News reports.

The Associated Press previously reported that Aerosmith has
agreed to perform on Maui to settle a class-action lawsuit fans
filed against the band after it canceled a sold-out concert on
the Valley Isle in 2007 (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009).

Brandee Faria, Esq. is one of three attorneys representing the
jilted concert goers.  She tells The Associated Press that
everyone who bought a ticket to the original concert will
receive a free ticket, and all out-of-pocket expenses will be
reimbursed regardless of the amount.

The new concert date hasn't been determined but will probably be
sometime in the fall, reports The Associated Press.

The Associated Press reported that the settlement was reached on
April 27, 2009 after two days of talks.

The suit was filed by fans who bought tickets and incurred other
costs while making plans to attend the concert.  They alleged
Aerosmith opted to play at more lucrative venues in Chicago and
on Oahu, according to The Associated Press report.

The case grew out of a civil suit filed on behalf of Honolulu
resident Lisa Sanchez and three others who bought tickets and
incurred other costs while making plans to attend an Aerosmith
concert scheduled for Sept. 27, 2007, at War Memorial Stadium on
Maui, according to Maui News.

After tickets had been sold, the band pulled out of the concert,
saying it had to reschedule a Chicago concert to Sept. 24, 2007,
leaving too little time for the band's equipment to arrive for
the Maui show.  Aerosmith did perform at a private show for
Toyota car dealers on Oahu on Sept. 29, 2007, Maui News
reported.

Maui News reports that as part of a settlement reached in April,
Aerosmith agreed to perform on Maui and provide free tickets to
more than 8,000 people who bought tickets to the concert
scheduled two years ago.  Because the band also will schedule a
public performance on Oahu around the same time, ticket buyers
could opt for tickets to the Oahu show instead.

The deadline for filing claims, including for any airfare,,
lodging and other costs associated with the canceled concert,
passed on July 14, 2009, reports Maui News.

For more details, contact:

          Brandee J. K. Faria, Esq. (bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com)
          Perkin & Faria
          Davies Pacific Center
          841 Bishop Street, Suite 2000
          Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
          Phone: 808-523-2300
          Fax: 808-531-8898
          Web site: http://www.perkinlaw.com


ALLIED HOME: Appellate Court Overturns Ruling in Fees Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth District Appellate Court has ruled that Judge Michael
O'Malley of St. Clair County Circuit erred when he denied a
motion to compel arbitration in a suit against Allied Home
Mortgage Capital Corp., a mortgage broker accused in a class-
action suit of charging customers excessive fees and pocketing
the difference, Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record reports.

In a ruling issued on July 10, 2009, the appeals court remanded
the case back to St. Clair County.  It directed Judge O'Malley
to sever the prohibition on class-action provision and to
enforce the remainder of Allied Capital's arbitration clause.

Fifth District Appellate Judge James Wexstten wrote the
unanimous opinion with Judges Thomas Welch and Melissa Chapman
concurring, according to The St. Clair Record.

The suit was filed by Rosemary Keefe in the St. Clair County
Circuit Court under case number 04-L-502.  It was filed on her
own behalf and as class representative for those who used the
mortgage broker for an array of services including credit report
processing and appraisals.  Ms. Keefe's suit claims the company
"marked up" the services and that Allied Capital took the
difference, reports The St. Clair Record.

Ms. Keefe sued on the grounds of unjust enrichment, consumer
fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.  Her suit seeks damages of
between $50,000 and $75,000 per class member.

The St. Clair Record reports that Ms. Keefe and her husband
worked with the mortgage broker to obtain a loan to refinance
their Berwyn property in 1999.  At the time, the couple also
signed an arbitration rider provided by the company.  That rider
is at the heart of the appellate case.

After the suit was filed, Allied Capital filed a motion to
compel arbitration per the signed 1999 rider.  The rider
provides that, "All disputes, claims[,] or controversies arising
from or related to the loan ***, including statutory claims,
shall be resolved by binding arbitration, and not by court
action, except as provided under 'Exclusions from Arbitration'
below," as cited in the appellate ruling.

On July 18, 2007, Judge O'Malley ruled that the rider was
"procedurally and substantively unconscionable, particularly in
light of the exclusion-from-arbitration section," The St. Clair
Record reports.

However, the appellate court, on reviewing the case, found that
Judge O'Malley sided with the plaintiff without holding an
evidentiary hearing to establish whether there were grounds to
justify blocking the arbitration stipulated in the rider.  The
appeals court did not agree that the rider's promise of
arbitration was "illusory."

"The defendants' promise to arbitrate in the present case is
neither empty nor optional," Judge Wexstten wrote.

The appeals court found the rider to be a mutual contract and
that it had a provision for arbitration should the borrower
bring a legal case.  It also did not find that the rider was
"unconscionable," as the plaintiff signed it and was given
notice of its consequences in bold face type, reports The St.
Clair Record.

The appellate court though found the class-action waiver the
defendants included in their contract was unconscionable and is
not enforceable.

"Small consumer claims such as the plaintiff's are precisely the
type of claim that class actions are designed to address," Judge
Wexstten wrote, according to The St. Clair Record.


BABIES 'R' US: Pa. Court Certifies Subclasses in "McDonough"
------------------------------------------------------------
     On July 15, 2009, Judge Anita Brody issued a fifty-page
opinion certifying consumer subclasses in a vertical price
fixing case against Babies 'R' Us and certain of its key
suppliers, noting that, Babies 'R' Us "conspired with numerous
manufacturers, including the defendants Britax Child Safety,
Inc., Kids Line, LLC, Maclaren USA, Inc., Medela, Inc., Peg
Perego USA, Inc., and BabyBjorn AB, which supplied U.S.
retailers through defendant Regal Lager, Inc."  The opinion and
accompanying order were filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

     The Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. law firm of Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. was appointed co-lead counsel in
the class action, representing consumers who purchased certain
baby products from Babies 'R' Us between 1999 and 2006.
Plaintiffs allege that Babies 'R' Us coerced the six
manufacturer defendants (including Regal Lager, BabyBjorn AB's
former exclusive U.S. distributer) into adopting vertical price
restraints to prevent retail discounting and insulate Babies 'R'
Us from price competition.

     The opinion follows an extensive briefing schedule and more
than two days of evidentiary hearings in which factual evidence
and expert testimony was presented.

     The class plaintiffs' case will now move forward under the
direction of co-lead counsel Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., and Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLC.  The case is "McDonough et al. v. Toys
'R' Us, Inc., et al., case number 2:06-cv-00242," in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

For more details, contact:

          Eugene A. Spector
          Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C.
          Phone: 215-496-0300
          Web site: http://www.srkw-law.com


CAPITAL ONE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over North Fork Bank Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Capital One, N.A. (NYSE: COF), one of the nation's largest
banks, has been sued by a former North Fork Bank customer who
alleges that, upon the acquisition of North Fork by Capital One,
he and other banking customers were charged a number of improper
bank fees.

     The action is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was
filed by Scott+Scott LLP and Whalen & Tusa, P.C. on behalf of
former North Fork Bank and Superior Savings of New England
deposit holders.  The Plaintiff alleges that Capital One is
improperly charging certain bank fees, including, overdraft
fees, foreign ATM fees and other "miscellaneous fees" without
complete and accurate prior notification and despite the fact
such accounts were represented as "Completely Free" bank
accounts.  The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff and other
consumers were charged monthly Undeliverable Mail Fees by
Capital One for account statements that were, in fact, received
and thus were not "undeliverable."

     "Consumers should not be misled by the branding of accounts
as 'free' when they contain improper, unnecessary and hidden
fees," Scott+Scott partner David R. Scott stated.  "The law does
not look favorably on such practices."

     Whalen & Tusa partner Joseph Tusa added, "When making their
banking decisions, consumers should be made aware of fees before
being charged by Capital One."

For more details, contact:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.(jguglielmo@scott-scott.com)
          Scott+Scott, LLP
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (212) 223-6444
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
          Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com


CASH AMERICA: Faces Pennsylvania Litigation Over Payday Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC faces a purported class-action
lawsuit in connection to payday loans, Joseph N. DiStefano of
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

The suit was filed on May 19, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed by Yulon Clerk,
under the caption, "Clerk et al v. Cash America Net of Nevada,
LLC, Case No. 2:2009-cv-02245."

For more details, contact:

          Ryan E. Borneman, Esq. (REBorneman@DuaneMorris.com)
          Duane Morris LLP
          30 South 17th St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-979-1105
          Fax: 215-979-1020


CENTRO PROPERTIES: Favors Settling Investors' Suit in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centro Properties Group and Central Retail Trust chair Paul
Cooper, a former Freehills partner, is keen to arrange an out-
of-court settlement with investors in the troubled groups, The
Australian reports.

On July 16, 2009, mediation for two class-action lawsuits
seeking about AUD$1B start in the Federal Court of Australia,
according to The Australian.

The law firms involved are Maurice Blackburn and Slater &
Gordon, while auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers is also a
respondent, The Australian reported.


CITY OF FARGO: N.D. Judge Approves Extra Awards in Cameras Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ralph Erickson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota awarded two people extra money in the
settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the city of Fargo
over traffic fines, The Associated Press reports.

Stephanie Sauby of West Fargo and James Burns of Fargo were
awarded $10,000 and $5,000, respectively.  According to the
judge, both "bore risks and burdens," including public
criticism, by bringing the lawsuit, according to The Associated
Press.

Magistrate Judge Karen Klein of the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota has given preliminary approval to the
settlement of the class-action lawsuit entitled, "Sauby v.
Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW-KKK," The Associated
Press previously reported (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2009).

On July 1, 2009, the judge gave preliminary approval to the
settlement.  A final hearing will be in late November or
December, after a period in which people can submit claims,
according to AP.

The Associated Press previously reported that the plaintiffs
involved in the purported class-action lawsuit are saying they
should share $15,000 from the case (Class Action Reporter, July
1, 2009).

Stephanie Sauby of West Fargo, who filed the original lawsuit in
January 2007, is asking for $10,000.  James Burns of Fargo is
seeking $5,000.  Their lawyers say Ms. Sauby has been subjected
to "mean-spirited, vile and personal attacks" and deserves the
higher amount, according to AP.

Patrick Springer of INFORUM reported that a proposed $1.5
million settlement was reached in a purported class-action suit,
captioned, "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW-
KKK," (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2009).

The case, filed by Stephanie Sauby, a West Fargo woman, was
certified as a class-action, with 54,000 drivers eligible to
become part of the case who collectively paid fines exceeding
those set by state law by $4.3 million, according to the INFORUM
report.

Dickinson Press previously reported that Judge Rodney Webb of
the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota ruled
that a West Fargo woman can continue her lawsuit against the
city of Fargo over traffic fines.

According to Dickinson Press, plaintiff Stephanie Sauby accused
the city of violating her rights by assessing higher traffic
fines than state law allows.

The city argued that the fines were not unconstitutional, and
asked Judge Webb to dismiss Ms. Sauby's lawsuit.

The report notes that in his recent ruling, Judge Webb dismissed
one of the counts against the city, but found enough evidence to
continue the case on two other counts.  Specifically, Judge Webb
threw out Ms. Sauby's claim of excessive fines but said she "has
successfully raised equal protection and due process claims."

Judge Webb, however, has not yet decided whether to grant Ms.
Sauby's case class-action status, Dickinson Press relates.

According to the report, the city's lawyer, Stacy Tjon-Bossart,
Esq., did not return a phone message asking for comment.  Ms.
Sauby's attorney, Timothy Purdon, Esq., likewise has no comment.

The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-
RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
North Dakota, Judge Rodney S. Webb, presiding, with referral to
Judge Karen K. Klein.

For more details, contact:

          Timothy Q. Purdon, Esq. (tpurdon@vogellaw.com)
          Vogel Law Firm
          PO Box 2097
          200 N 3 St Ste 201
          Bismarck, ND 58502-2097
          Phone: 701-258-7899
          Fax: 701-258-9705

               - and -

          Stacey Elizabeth Tjon Bossart, Esq.
          (STB@solberglaw.com)
          Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon
          PO Box 1897
          Fargo, ND 58107-1897
          Phone: 701-237-3166


COLORADO: Appeals Court Orders Review of Ruling in "Vandehey"
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court ordered a lower court to reconsider a
decision granting class-action status to the lawsuit, "Vandehey,
et al. v. Vallario, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01405-PSF," Dennis
Webb of The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.

In July 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union filed the
original class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.  It brought the suit on behalf of
prisoners in the Garfield County Jail who were subjected to
widespread excessive force by deputies' misuse and abuse of
pepperball guns, restraint chairs, Tasers, pepper spray, and
electroshock belts (Class Action Reporter, July 6, 2007).

Defendants in the suit are Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario
and Jail Commander Scott Dawson.

The plaintiffs representing the class of current and future
prisoners are Clarence Vandehey, William Langley, Samuel
Lincoln, and Jared Hogue.

The ACLU suit alleges that the jail's use of the devices
violates widely accepted standards of law enforcement and
corrections professionals, as well as the manufacturers' and
vendors' training and recommendations for safe and appropriate
use.

It claims that prisoners shot with pepperballs or drenched with
pepper spray are regularly strapped into the restraint chair --
sometimes for hours-without being provided any opportunity to
decontaminate.

Two of the four named plaintiffs have serious mental health
problems, but the jail has allegedly denied their repeated
requests for mental health care.

ACLU amended its suit on Aug. 1, 2007 to include allegations
that the sheriff denies mental health care to indigent county
jail prisoners and imposes harsh discipline without due process.

The original complaint is available free of charge at:
             http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e1b

The suit is "Vandehey, et al. v. Vallario, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01405-PSF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Phillip S. Figa presiding.

For more details, contact:

          Taylor Scott Pendergrass, Esq.
          (tpendergrass@aclu-co.org)
          American Civil Liberties Union-Denver
          400 Corona Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Phone: 303-777-5482
          Fax: 303-777-1773

          Mark Silverstein, Esq. (msilver2@att.net)
          American Civil Liberties Union-Denver
          400 Corona Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Phone: 303-777-5482
          Fax: 303-777-1773

               - and -

          J. Gregory Whitehair, Esq.
          (gregory.whitehair@comcast.net)
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP-Denver
          1801 California Street
          #4200
          Denver, CO 80202-2641
          Phone: 303-298-5923
          Fax: 303-313-2845


CONSECO INC: Contesting Claims in Merged Annuity Marketing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. still intends to oppose any form of class-action
treatment of the claims in the consolidated action captioned,
"In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices
Litigation."

On Nov. 17, 2005, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, "Robert H.
Hansen, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation
f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C0504726."

Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in
2000, and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national
class for alleged violations of  the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act; elder abuse; unlawful, deceptive and
unfair business practices; unlawful, deceptive and misleading
advertising; breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of
breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust enrichment and imposition
of constructive trust.

On Jan. 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same
court entitled, "Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an
Illinois company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause
No. C06-00537.  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003."

Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and
that the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable
for seniors age 65 and older.

On March 3, 2006, a first amended complaint was filed in the
Hansen case adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment
and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

In an order dated April 14, 2006, the court consolidated the two
cases under the original Hansen cause number and retitled the
consolidated action: "In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity
Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation."

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part
and denied in part, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on April 27, 2007, which has added as defendants
Conseco Services, LLC and Conseco Marketing, LLC.

The court has not yet made a determination whether the case
should go forward as a class action, according to the company's
May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


CONSECO INC: Defends "Yue" Contract Breach Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. defends a complaint entitled, "Celedonia X. Yue,
M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life Insurance
Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and
formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company,
Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS."

On March 4, 2008, the Complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Plaintiff in this putative class action owns a Valulife
universal life policy insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue
originally issued by Massachusetts General Life Insurance
Company on Sept. 26, 1995.

Plaintiff is claiming breach of contract on behalf of the
proposed national class and seeks injunctive and restitutionary
relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and
Declaratory Relief.

The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and
Valuterm 'universal life' insurance policies issued by either
Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were later
acquired and serviced by Conseco Life.

Plaintiff alleges that members of the class will be damaged by
increases in the cost of insurance that are set to take place in
the twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies.
No such increases have yet been applied to the subject policies,
and none is scheduled to take effect until around 2011.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 25,
2008, which was denied by the court.

Plaintiff has not yet filed a motion for certification of the
class, and the company intends to oppose any form of class
treatment of these claims, according to the company's May 12,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


CONSECO INC: "Langendorf" Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a contract breach and consumer fraud class
action lawsuit against Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company
is pending court approval.

On June 4, 2008, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Cook County Illinois Circuit Court Chancery Division,
"Sheldon Langendorf, et. al. individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Conseco Senior
Health Insurance Company, and Conseco, Inc., et. al. Case No.
08CH20571."

Plaintiff is claiming breach of contract and consumer fraud and
seeks a declaratory judgment, claiming that Senior Health
(formerly Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company prior to its
name change in October 2008) and other affiliated companies
routinely and improperly refuse to accept Medicare explanations
of benefits as documentation in support of proofs of claim on
individual hospital indemnity and other policies of health
insurance.

Senior Health subsequently removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where it
is now pending as Case No. 08-CV-3914.

By stipulation of the parties, Conseco, Inc. was dismissed as a
party on Sept. 29, 2008.

Senior Health filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary
judgment on Aug. 22, 2008, which the court granted in part and
denied in part by entry dated Dec. 18, 2008, dismissing the
claim for Illinois statutory consumer fraud.  The court has also
established a schedule for briefing on class certification,
which will be concluded by July 20, 2009.

The company agreed to assume liability for this litigation in
connection with the separation of Senior Health.

The parties have agreed to settle this case, subject to court
approval, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


CONSECO INC: Nov. 2 Jury Trial Set for Ruderman's Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
scheduled a jury trial for Sydelle Ruderman's purported class-
action suit against a Conseco, Inc. subsidiary on Nov. 2, 2009.

On Dec. 8, 2008, the purported class-action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
"Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company,
Case No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer."

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the inflation
escalation rider on her policy of long-term care insurance
operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum benefit, and
breached the contract by stopping her benefits when they reached
the lifetime maximum.

The company takes the position that the inflation escalator only
affects the per day maximum benefit, according to the company's
May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


CONSECO INC: Recertification of "Doiron" Class Denied on April 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, on
April 7, 2009, entered an order denying recertification of the
proposed classes in Diana Doiron's lawsuit against a Conseco,
Inc. subsidiary.

On Sept. 24, 2004, a purported statewide class-action lawsuit
was filed in the 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of
Iberville, Louisiana, "Diana Doiron, Individually And On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Health Insurance
Company, Case No. 61,534."

In her complaint, plaintiff claims that she was damaged due to
Conseco Health Insurance Company's failure to pay claims made
under her cancer policy, and seeks compensatory and statutory
damages in an unspecified amount along with declaratory and
injunctive relief.

Conseco Health Insurance Company caused the case to be removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
on Nov. 3, 2004, and it was assigned Case No. 04-784-D-M2.

An order was issued on Feb. 15, 2007, granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The order specifically
certifies two sub-classes identifying them as the radiation
treatment sub-class and the chemotherapy treatment sub-class.

The company appealed the certification order to the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals, and by order entered May 28, 2008, the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed class certification but made
modifications to the class definitions.  The company's
subsequent petition for rehearing was denied by order dated June
27, 2008.

Briefing in the district court on remand, to determine the
appropriate revised class definition, concluded in March 2009
and on April 7, 2009, the District Court entered an order
denying recertification of the proposed classes, according to
the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


CONSECO INC: Securities Lawsuit Set for May 10, 2010 Jury Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against
Conseco, Inc., and some of its former officers is scheduled for
jury trial on May 10, 2010.

After the company's predecessor announced its intention to
restructure on Aug. 9, 2002, eight purported securities fraud
class action suits were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana.  These suits were filed on
behalf of persons or entities that purchased the predecessor's
common stock on various dates between Oct. 24, 2001, and Aug. 9,
2002.

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allege
material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading
statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of
Conseco and alleged problems in Conseco Finance Corp.'s
manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the
artificial inflation of the company's Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all the cases were consolidated into one in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
captioned, "Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary
Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et al.,
Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  The
plaintiffs then filed an amended consolidated class-action
complaint with respect to the individual defendants on Dec. 8,
2003.  A motion to dismiss the case was filed on behalf of the
individual defendants and on July 14, 2005, the court granted
the request.  The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
Aug. 24, 2005.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May
2, 2008.

On March 20, 2009 the court granted that motion.

On April 24, 2009, certain of the defendants initiated a request
to appeal the class certification ruling to the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

The matter is scheduled for a jury trial on May 10, 2010,
according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al., Case No. 1:02-
cv-01332-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Judge David Frank Hamilton
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, Esq. (laskido@hotmail.com)
         3858 Carson Street, Suite 204
         Torrance, CA 90503
         Phone: 310-792-3948
         Fax: 310-792-0600

              - and -

         Brian Joseph Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com)
         Law Offices Of Brian Barry
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307
         Los Angeles, CA 90046
         Phone: 310-788-0831
         Fax: 310-788-0841

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Kenneth Huffer, Esq.
         (steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com)
         Huffer & Weathers
         151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1850
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: 317-822-8010
         Fax: 317-822-8088

              - and -

         Robert J. Kopecky, Esq. (rkopecky@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis
         200 East Randolph Drive
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-2084
         Fax: 317-660-0412


CONSECO INC: Still Defends "Fletcher" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-action
lawsuit styled, "Robin Fletcher individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated vs. Bankers Life and Casualty
Company, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. RG08366328."

Bankers Life and Casualty Company is a subsidiary of the
company.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda.

In her original complaint, plaintiff alleged nonpayment by
Bankers Life and Casualty Company of overtime wages, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse expenses,
and failure to provide accurate wage statements to its sales
representatives in the State of California for the time period
Jan. 16, 2004 to present.

In addition, the complaint alleges failure to pay wages on
termination and unfair business practices.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
which changes the proposed scope of the putative class from all
agents in California for the subject time period to all agents
at a single branch office in Alameda, California.  This would
reduce the putative class from hundreds of members to
approximately 100 members, according to the company's May 12,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


CONSECO INC: To Defend Amended "Brady" Contract Breach Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. intends to defend an amended purported class
action complaint filed by Cedric Brady in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, according to the
company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Dec. 24, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in
California, "Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life
Insurance Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746."

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that the company committed
breach of contract and insurance bad faith and violated various
consumer protection statutes in the administration of various
interest sensitive whole life products sold primarily under the
name "Lifetrends" by requiring the payment of additional cash
amounts to maintain the policies in force.

On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding the additional counts of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, conversion and declaratory relief.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


CONSECO INC: To Defend "Rowe" Suit v. Bankers Life in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. intends to defend a purported class action
complaint filed against its subsidiary, Bankers Life and
Casualty Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to the company's May 12, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Jan. 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, "Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Bankers Life & Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance
Company of Illinois, Case No. 09CV491."

The plaintiffs are alleging violation of California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq.,
breach of common law fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and
violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section
15600 on behalf of the proposed national class and seek
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and
attorney fees.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants used an improper and
misleading sales and marketing approach to Seniors that fails to
disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial
information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials,
promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and
less valuable than readily available alternative investment
products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks
including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other
restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date
beyond the applicants actuarial life expectancy.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


COSERV ELECTRIC: Faces Texas Suits Over Usage of $54M in Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
CoServ Electric is currently facing three class-action lawsuits
from its own members who allege that the company mismanaged $54
million that was owed to members, Anthony Scott of Lake Cities
Sun reports.

It was previously reported that members of Denton County
Electric Cooperative, doing business as CoServ Electric, filed
suit against their co-op (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2009).

The lawsuit alleges that through improper accounting practices,
the co-op has wrongfully taken $54 million of the members' money
for its own use.  The suit also alleges that controlling
directors of the cooperative's board have subverted democratic
control of the co-op, conducted their operations in a culture of
secrecy, and placed the members' funds at risk in for-profit
business endeavors.  The allegations in the lawsuit are based
upon information provided by Mark Glover, a director of the
cooperative.

One of the members suing the cooperative is Janice Brady, who
ran for a director position to replace board chairman Jerry Cobb
in 2008 and lost by a narrow margin.  In particular, Ms. Brady
alleges that CoServ has unlawfully provided member lists and
daily vote tallies to its incumbent directors while denying the
same information to challengers, and that as a result board
elections are effectively rigged.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by the Lawrence
Firm PLLC of Austin, TX, Kirby McInerney LLP of New York, NY and
Dripping Spring, TX, Wood Thacker & Weatherly, P.C. of Denton,
Texas, and Mitchell & DeClerck PLLC of Enid, Oklahoma.

For more details, contact:

          David Kovel, Esq.
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          Phone: 212.371.6600
          Fax: 212.751.2540
          Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com/

          Paul Lawrence, Esq.
          Lawrence Firm PLLC
          Phone: 512-330-0074
          e-mail: info@lawrence-firm.com
          Web site: http://www.lawrence-firm.com/

          Wood Thacker & Weatherly, P.C.
          400 West Oak Street, Suite 310
          Denton, Texas 76201
          Phone: 940-565-6565
          Fax: 940-566-6673
          Web site: http://www.wtwlaw-firm.com/

               - and -  

          Mitchell & DeClerck, PLLC
          202 West Broadway Avenue
          Enid, Oklahoma 73701
          Phone: 580.234.5144
          Fax: 580.234.8890
          Web site: http://mitchelldeclerck.com/


DR PEPPER: Appeal to Dismissal of "Holk" Lawsuit v. Unit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the order dismissing the class action lawsuit filed
by Stacy Holk against one of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s
subsidiaries, Snapple Beverage Corp., is pending a hearing and
decision by the court.

In 2007, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Stacy Holk in New
Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County.  The Holk case was filed
as a class action.  Subsequent to filing, the Holk case was
removed to the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.

Holk alleges that Snapple's labeling of certain of its drinks is
misleading and/or deceptive and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from various
labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of monies
paid for product and treble damages.

Snapple filed a motion to dismiss the Holk case on a variety of
grounds.

On June 12, 2008, the district court granted Snapple's motion to
dismiss and the Holk case was dismissed.

The plaintiff has filed an appeal of the order dismissing the
case, which is pending a hearing and decision by the court,
according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Holk v. Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages et
al., Case No. 3:07-cv-03018-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Mary L. Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Philip A. Tortoreti, Esq. (ptortoreti@wilentz.com)
          Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Phone: 732-636-8000

Representing the defendants is:

          Richard B. Harper, Esq.
          (richard.harper@bakerbotts.com)
          Baker Botts, LLP
          30 Rockerfeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Phone: 212-408-2675
          Fax: 212-259-2475


DR PEPPER: Snapple Beverage Unit Faces "Koenig" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Snapple
Beverage Corp., faces a class action lawsuit by Frances Von
Koenig in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

In April 2009, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Frances Von
Koenig in a class action with similar allegations to Stacey
Holk's case and seeking similar damages.

The Holk case alleges that Snapple's labeling of certain of its
drinks is misleading and/or deceptive and seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from
various labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of
monies paid for product and treble damages.

Plano, Texas-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. --
http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/-- formerly CSAB Inc, is an
integrated refreshment beverage business, marketing more than 50
beverage brands throughout North America.  In addition to its
flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio
includes 7UP, Mott's, A&W, Sunkist Soda, Hawaiian Punch, Canada
Dry, Schweppes, RC Cola, Diet Rite, Rose's, Clamato, Mr & Mrs T,
Holland House mixers and other consumer favorites.  Based in
Plano, Texas, the company has 24 bottling and manufacturing
facilities, and 250 distribution centers across the U.S.,
Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.  It operates in four segments:
Beverage Concentrates, Finished Goods, Bottling Group, and
Mexico and the Caribbean.


DR PEPPER: Unit Continues to Face Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Seven Up/RC
Bottling Company Inc., continues to face class action lawsuits
by Nicolas Steele and Robert Jones.

In 2007, Seven Up/RC Bottling was sued by Nicolas Steele, and in
a separate action by Robert Jones, in each case in Superior
Court in the State of California (Orange County), alleging that
its subsidiary failed to provide meal and rest periods and
itemized wage statements in accordance with applicable
California wage and hour law.

The cases were filed as class actions.  The classes, which have
not yet been certified, consist of employees who have held a
merchandiser or delivery driver position in California in the
past three years.  The potential class size could be
substantially higher due to the number of individuals who have
held these positions over the three year period.

On behalf of the classes, the plaintiffs claim lost wages,
waiting time penalties and other penalties for each violation of
the statute.

In the Steele case, plaintiff's counsel and the company have
reached an agreement to settle the case that is not material to
the company.  This settlement is subject to review and approval
by the court.

With respect to the Jones case, the company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims asserted and will defend
itself, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

Plano, Texas-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. --
http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/-- formerly CSAB Inc, is an
integrated refreshment beverage business, marketing more than 50
beverage brands throughout North America.  In addition to its
flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio
includes 7UP, Mott's, A&W, Sunkist Soda, Hawaiian Punch, Canada
Dry, Schweppes, RC Cola, Diet Rite, Rose's, Clamato, Mr & Mrs T,
Holland House mixers and other consumer favorites.  Based in
Plano, Texas, the company has 24 bottling and manufacturing
facilities, and 250 distribution centers across the U.S.,
Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.  It operates in four segments:
Beverage Concentrates, Finished Goods, Bottling Group, and
Mexico and the Caribbean.


DR PEPPER: "Weiner" Suit Still Stayed Pending Ruling in "Holk"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in a putative class-action suit filed by Evan Weiner
against one of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries,
Snapple Beverage Corp., remain stayed.

In 2007, the attorneys in Stacey Holk's case filed a new action
in New York on behalf of plaintiff, Evan Weiner, with
substantially the same allegations and seeking the same damages
as in the Holk case.

The Holk case alleges that Snapple's labeling of certain of its
drinks is misleading and/or deceptive and seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from
various labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of
monies paid for product and treble damages.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the Weiner case on a
variety of grounds.

The Weiner case is currently stayed pending the outcome of the
Holk case, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Plano, Texas-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. --
http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/-- formerly CSAB Inc, is an
integrated refreshment beverage business, marketing more than 50
beverage brands throughout North America.  In addition to its
flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio
includes 7UP, Mott's, A&W, Sunkist Soda, Hawaiian Punch, Canada
Dry, Schweppes, RC Cola, Diet Rite, Rose's, Clamato, Mr & Mrs T,
Holland House mixers and other consumer favorites.  Based in
Plano, Texas, the company has 24 bottling and manufacturing
facilities, and 250 distribution centers across the U.S.,
Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.  It operates in four segments:
Beverage Concentrates, Finished Goods, Bottling Group, and
Mexico and the Caribbean.


HEALTHONE: Faces Colo. Litigation Over the Hepatitis C Scare
------------------------------------------------------------
HealthOne and its former employee Kristen Parker are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in Denver District Court over the
Colorado Hepatitis C scare, CBS4 reports.

The suit was filed by Bernadette Romero.  Ms. Romero said she
had surgery at Rose Medical Center in Denver in February and
recently received a letter advising her to be tested for
Hepatitis C. She said she has been tested, but is still awaiting
the results.

Ms. Parker is facing federal charges after admitting to
switching her dirty needles with ones in hospital operating
rooms to obtain the drug Fentanyl, according to CBS4.

The lawsuit is asking the court to take over the supervision of
the testing of patients to see if they have contracted Hepatitis
C, which Ms. Parker was found to have tested positive.

It asks the court to designate the estimated 4,700 people who
underwent surgery at Rose while Mr. Parker worked there as a
class in the lawsuit.  The court is also being asked to make
sure all members of that class are properly notified of the need
for testing, CBS4 reported.

The suit claims Rose failed to conduct a reasonable background
investigation of Ms. Parker and failed to protect patients from
being infected from diseases as a result of activities of
infected hospital personnel, reports CBS4.


HMS FINANCIAL: Faces Investors' Suit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
HMS Financial is facing a class-action lawsuit filed by lawyers
for the investors who say the company was running a high dollar
Ponzi scheme, ctvcalgary.ca reports.

Hundreds of Albertans lost over CAD$20 million in the financial
scheme, which collapsed in 2004.  Despite the collapse,
investors still haven't been able to get any of their money
back, according to ctvcalgary.ca.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged TARP Exploitation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit that accuses them of exploiting
the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) by promising distressed
homeowners loan modifications under the program, demanding a
large upfront fee for appraisals and then refusing the loan,
Maria Dinzeo of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, under the caption,
"Stevens v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-
03116."

"These programs were set up to assist homeowners that were in
danger of foreclosure of their home, and customers are
encouraged by both the federal government and the defendants to
apply for one of the home loan modification programs," according
to the lead plaintiff Randall Stevens, The Courthouse News
Service reported.

However, Mr. Stevens says Chase Bank has "turned the up-front
loan modification fees taken from the unqualified customers into
a profit center, thereby putting these customers into an even
worse financial position than they were before applying for the
loan modification program," reports The Courthouse News Service.

The plaintiff -- represented by Richard McCune of McCune &
Wright -- demands restitution and punitive damages for fraud and
negligent misrepresentation, according to The Courthouse News
Service.

For more details, contact:

          Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq. (rdm@mccunewright.com)
          McCuneWright LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane
          Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Phone: 909-557-1250
          Fax: 909-557-1275


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Payment Protector Plan"
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. Are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit claiming that they are abusing
their so-called "Payment Protector Plan" by calling in loans and
canceling enrollment for customers who are supposed to be
protected by the plan, Karina Brown of The Courthouse News
Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California by Christopher York and
Jennifer Harris, under the caption, "Christopher York et al v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-04976."

Chase claims that the "Payment Protector Plan" protects credit
cardholders who have lost their jobs or suffered a disability by
freezing their monthly payments while Chase charges extra
monthly fees.  But if customers seek the protection that Chase
claims to offer the Bank cancels the accounts and demands
immediate payment in full, the suit claims, according to The
Courthouse News Service.

The plaintiffs -- represented by Ingrid Evans, Esq. of Waters
Kraus & Paul -- seek restitution of the monthly charges they
paid for the payment protector plan, plus interest, The
Courthouse News Service reported.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f68

For more details, contact:

          Ingrid M. Evans, Esq. (ievans@waterskraus.com)
          Waters Kraus and Paul LLP
          601 Van Ness
          Suite 2080
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: 415-296-6060
          Fax: 214-777-0470

               - and -

          Daniel Bryden, Esq.
          Sprenger & Lang PLLC
          310 Fourth Avenue S Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Phone: 612-486-1819
          Fax: 612-871-9270


LENDER PROCESSING: Unit Faces 13 Suits Over Illegal Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of Lender Processing Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries, National
Title Insurance of New York, Inc., continues to be named in 13
putative class action lawsuits, according to the company's May
13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The cases are styled as:

   -- "Barton v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et
      al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
      District of California on March 10, 2008;

   -- "Gentilcore v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc.
      et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
      District of California on March 11, 2008;

   -- "Martinez v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et
      al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
      District of California on March 18, 2008;

   -- "Swick v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et
      al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
      New Jersey on March 19, 2008;

   -- "Davis v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et
      al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
      District of California, Western Division, on March 20,
      2008;

   -- "Pepe v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et
      al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
      New Jersey on March 21, 2008;

   -- "Kornbluth v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc.
      et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
      of New Jersey on March 24, 2008;

   -- "Lamb v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et
      al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
      New Jersey on March 24, 2008;

   -- "Blackwell v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc.
      et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
      District of California on April 11, 2008;

   -- "Magana v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et
      al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
      District of California on June 4, 2008;

   -- "Moynahan v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et
      al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
      District of California on June 10, 2008;

   -- "Romero v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et
      al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
      District of California on July 14, 2008; and

   -- "Doolittle, Susan v. National Insurance of New York, Inc.
      et al.," filed in the U.S. District for the Northern
      District of California on July 25, 2008.

The complaints in these lawsuits are substantially similar and
allege that the title insurance underwriters named as
defendants, including National Title Insurance of New York,
Inc., engaged in illegal price fixing as well as market
allocation and division that resulted in higher title insurance
prices for consumers.

The complaints seek treble damages in an amount to be proved at
trial and an injunction against the defendants from engaging in
any anti-competitive practices under the Sherman Antitrust Act
and various state statutes.

A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to
consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York.  However, that
motion was denied.

The cases have been consolidated before one district court judge
in each of California and New Jersey and scheduled for the
filing of consolidated complaints and motion practice.  Motions
to dismiss have been filed and are pending in respect of each
complaint.

Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com/-- is
a provider of integrated technology and outsourced services to
the mortgage lending industry, with capabilities in mortgage
processing and default management services in the U.S.  The
company's technology solutions include its mortgage processing
system.  Its outsourced services include default management
services, which are used by mortgage lenders and servicers, and
its loan facilitation services, which support most aspects of
the closing of mortgage loan transactions to national lenders
and loan servicers.  LPS conducts its operations through two
segments: technology, data and analytics, and loan transaction
services.


MANUEL E. SOLIS: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Bogus "R.O.I." Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel E. Solis, Esq., an immigration attorney is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit accusing him of cheating clients
by selling a bogus "R.O.I." program, which "purports" to be "an
insurance program" and a "prepaid legal services program,"
Cameron Langford of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 14, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas by Daisy Y. Jiminez Pinto de
Saldana, Miguel Angel Cruz Parilla and Maria de la Luz Hernandez
Martinez, under the caption, "Jiminez Pinto de Saldana et al v.
Solis et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00168."  It also named as
defendant, Jessica Y. Prado

According to his clients, Mr. Solis has charged "hundreds, if
not thousands" of Spanish-speakers for the essentially worthless
program, which they believe, falsely, will protect them from
deportation, reports The Courthouse News Service.

The suit accuses Mr. Solis of deceptive trade.  Clients say they
are charged from $360 to $600 for the R.O.I. contract that
guarantees them legal representation if they are detained, and a
document that tells border agents they have an attorney.
Although this type of form, called an amparo letter, has a legal
purpose in Latin American countries, the letters Mr. Solis
issues are useless, the suit claims.

The plaintiffs -- represented by Marlene Dougherty, Esq. -- say
Mr. Solis' office then encourages clients to buy other services,
such as freedom of information requests (for $300), and records
management assistance, according to The Courthouse News Service.

The complaint states, "Some of the other services are also not
real services, e.g. retyping a physician's letter to Border
Patrol to allow free passage at the checkpoint for medical care
onto law firm letterhead and rewording it so it is from the law
office -- $250.  This letter also has a purpose that is counter
to the R.O.I. program.  The letter offers free passage at the
immigration checkpoint to accompany a sick child to see a
medical specialist, R.O.I. offers hope that they will be
detained by CBP so they may obtain their legal permanent
residency through Cancellation of Removal in immigration court."

"Clients are signed up for ROI even if they have a prior
deportation, or other type of removal.  The client's immigration
status is not evaluated to find a solution to the immigrant's
current immigration problem.  Many immigrants are being placed
at risk because they believe that they are being protected from
removal with the R.O.I. Program.  The immigration bar has been
queried by potential clients, as to whether they do the R.O.I.
program, or not, many consumers believe it is a new immigration
benefit," according to the complaint, a copy of which was
obtained by The Courthouse News Service.

The complaint further states, "Hundreds, if not thousands, of
undocumented Spanish speaking immigrants most who are
undereducated, of low economic status, and have signed up for
the R.O.I. program.  The class claims are common in that
individuals paid for legal services in the form of R.O.I. and
their individual cases have not been thoroughly reviewed for
current forms of relief available to them, if any, and they
believe they are protected by R.O.I."

The suit seeks legal counsel to review their immigration cases,
an injunction prohibiting Solis from charging for an amparo
letter, plus damages and costs, The Courthouse News Service
reported.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f67

For more details, contact:

          Marlene A. Dougherty, Esq.
          (mdimmigrationatty@sbcglobal.net)
          Attorney at Law
          314 E 8TH Street
          Brownsville, TX 78520
          Phone: 956-542-7108
          Fax: 956-542-7109


MULTIPLE LISTING: Faces Antitrust Litigation in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head Island, Inc. is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by a Beaufort County real
estate agent, who is accusing it of unlawfully restraining
competition among brokers to the detriment of consumers, Josh
McCann of The Hilton Head Island Packet reports.

The suit was filed on July 7, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina by Roger L. Abney of the
Roger Abney Co., under the caption, "Abney et al v. Multiple
Listing Service of Hilton Head Island Inc et al., Case No.
9:2009-cv-01794."  It also lists several unnamed defendants as
"John Does 1-8."

Mr. Abney of the Roger Abney Co. alleges in the suit that the
MLS excluded brokers who would charge consumers lower fees.  He
is requesting class-action status and a jury trial, according to
The Hilton Head Island Packet.

"Taken together, MLS rules limit competition among brokers, thus
artificially inflating and stabilizing the price of real-estate
brokerage service and deterring innovation and the emergence of
new brokerage business models," according to the suit.

A multiple listing service combines the property listings of
member brokers into a shared database.  The public has limited
access to the MLS to search properties for sale.  The Hilton
Head MLS is a nonprofit organization that has about 1,400
members in Beaufort, Jasper, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell,
Colleton, Hampton and Orangeburg counties, The Hilton Head
Island Packet reported.

The suit lists several types of brokers it says "don't exist in
the MLS Service Area" because of the MLS' actions.  In other
markets, some brokers use technology to avoid office expenses
and pass savings onto customers, the suit states.  Others work
for flat fees or lower sales commissions than traditional
brokers.

Consumers in the Hilton Head area "had fewer choices among types
of brokers and paid higher fees for those services than
customers in other areas of the country," the lawsuit states,
reports The Hilton Head Island Packet.

For more details, contact:

          John Gressette Felder, Jr., Esq.
          (jfelder@mcgowanhood.com)
          McGowan Hood and Felder
          1517 Hampton Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Phone: 803-779-0100

               - and -

          Jesse Allen Kirchner, Esq. (jkirchner@tktylawfirm.com)
          Thurmond Kirchner and Timbes PA
          15 Mid-Atlantic Wharf
          Suite 101
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: 843-937-8000
          Fax: 843-937-4200


NBC UNIVERSAL: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Diaz" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a the
dismissal of a defamation lawsuit filed by three former special
agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration against NBC
Universal, Inc. over the Denzel Washington-Russell Crowe film
"American Gangster," Chad Bray of Dow Jones Newswires.

The suit was filed on Jan. 16, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under the caption, "Diaz
et al v. NBC Universal, Inc., Case No. 1:2008-cv-00401."

The Courthouse News Service previously reported that plaintiffs
Louis Diaz, Gregory Korniloff and Jack Toal filed the class-
action complaint in New York District Court against NBC
Universal claiming it defamed New York agents of the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) in the movie "American Gangster,"
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 18, 2008).

They claim that NBC falsely insinuated that most of the agents
in that bureau were convicted criminals.  The plaintiffs demand
$55 million.

Specifically, the lawsuit, which was seeking class-action status
on behalf of 400 present and former DEA agents in New York,
alleged that the movie falsely claims that three-quarters of
"New York City's Drug Enforcement Agency," from 1973 to 1985,
were convicted of a crime, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

It contended that no agent of New York City's DEA or any other
law-enforcement officer was convicted of anything based on
cooperation by Frank Lucas, who was portrayed by Mr. Washington
in the movie.

The plaintiffs also alleged the film falsely represented the
role played by New Jersey detective Richard Roberts, who was
portrayed by Mr. Crowe, reports Dow Jones Newswires.

The suit was later dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  That decision was later appealed
by the plaintiffs.

In a summary order issued on July 16, 2009, however, the Second
Circuit rejected a bid by the former agents to revive the suit,
saying that the size of the proposed class of agents made it
impossible for a jury to find "that the allegedly libelous
statements refer to them as individuals," as the libelous
reference only referred to some of the proposed class, Dow Jones
Newswires reported.

"And the storyline of the film only strengthens this conclusion
since several scenes, vignettes and voiceovers describe the
corrupt officers portrayed as members of the Special
Investigations Unit, the 'SIU,' which the film indicates, and
appellants conceded below, is a unit of the New York City Police
Department, the 'NYPD,' a non-federal entity," the three-judge
panel found, Dow Jones Newswires reports.

For more details, contact:

          Dominic F. Amorosa, Esq. (lawoffices@dfamorosa.com)
          Dominic Amorosa
          521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          New York, NY 10175
          Phone: (212) 406-7000
          Fax: 212-233-7805

          Michael Quinn Carey, Esq. (MQC@CareyLitigation.com)
          Carey & Associates, L.L.C.,(NYC)
          521 Fifth Avenue
          Suite 3300
          New York, NY 10175-3399
          Phone: 212-758-0076
          Fax: 212-758-0069

               - and -

          Robert D. Balin, Esq. (robbalin@dwt.com)
          Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (NYC)
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212 489-8230
          Fax: 212 489-8340


NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE: Still Faces Suit Over Acquisition Offers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. and its Board of Directors continue
to face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the
company's management breached its fiduciary duties by not
properly considering two offers to buy Northstar, according to
its May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On July 17, 2008, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company's Board of Directors in the King County,
Washington Superior Court.

The lawsuit was filed by an alleged shareholder of the company,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.  It
alleges, among other things, that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with two alleged
acquisition offers for the company.

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs, but does not seek direct monetary
damages from the company.

Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. -- http://www.northstarneuro.com/-
- is a development stage medical device company.  The company is
focused on developing and commercializing neuromodulation
therapies to restore function of life for people suffering from
neurological diseases and disorders.  Its Renova Cortical
Stimulation System is designed to deliver targeted electrical
stimulation to the cortex, the outermost layer of the brain, in
a process called cortical stimulation.


ONTARIO: Faces CAD$2B Litigation Over Alleged Abuses at HRC
-----------------------------------------------------------
The province of Ontario is facing a purported class-action suit
that seeks CAD$2 billion in connection with abuses allegedly
suffered by residents of the Huronia Regional Center (HRC),
Frank Matys of Alliston Herald reports.

According to a statement of claim filed with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, residents of the Memorial Avenue
facility were emotionally, physically and psychologically
traumatized by their experiences at the facility.

Celeste Poltak and her firm, Koskie Minsky LLP, are representing
two former residents and their guardians in the case, which
names the province and the HRC as defendants.  Marie Slark and
Patricia Seth, who were former residents, were named as
plaintiffs in the case, according to Alliston Herald.

The claim charges that the province did nothing to protect
residents after being made aware of the abuses, which are said
to have included sexual abuse, physical violence and the use of
nausea-inducing drugs as punishment.

The claim, if allowed to proceed, would include all residents of
the facility between 1876 and 2008, as well as their families,
Alliston Herald reported.

The proposed class-action lawsuit seeks CAD$1 billion in
punitive damages and CAD$1 billion for negligence and breach of
fiduciary duty.

The court must decide whether it is appropriate for the case to
be treated as a class-action before certification is granted and
the matter is allowed to proceed.  A motion for certification is
scheduled to be heard in March 2010, reports Alliston Herald.

The proposed class-action case additionally charges that
residents were denied adequate medical care, were forced to work
without proper compensation and were left in the hands of
unqualified caregivers, according to a report by Alliston
Herald.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Approves $55.95M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger R. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California preliminarily approved the six
settling outside directors' $55.95 million settlement of the
claims pending against them in the securities class-action
lawsuit against Peregrine Systems, Inc., according to a posting
by Kevin M. LaCroix of The D & O Diary.

In May 2002 plaintiffs filed securities class-action lawsuits
against Peregrine and other defendants, including certain
directors and officers of Peregrine.  Peregrine itself filed for
bankruptcy in September 2002 and was dropped from the suit.  On
April 5, 2004, following an initial round of motions, the
plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint.

The complaint alleges that Peregrine materially overstated its
revenues and earnings during the class period due to the
company's failure to recognize revenue properly.  Peregrine
ultimately issued restatements of its financial statements for
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.  The restatement reduced previously
reported revenue of $1.34 billion by $509 million, of which,
according to the SEC's separate civil enforcement complaint
against Peregrine, "at least $259 million was reversed because
the underlying transactions lacked substance."  Several
Peregrine officers, including the company's CEO and CFO, entered
guilty pleas in connection with the criminal investigations of
Peregrine, according to The D & O Diary posting.

In July 29 2006, the parties to the class-action lawsuit
announced a partial settlement in the amount of $56.3 million on
behalf of certain settling defendants.  As part of the July 2006
settlement, and as reflected further here, Arthur Anderson
agreed to pay $30 million; former officer Douglas Powanda agreed
to pay $4.675 million; former director William D. Savoy agreed
to pay $5.1 million; and former director Thomas Watrous agreed
to pay $500,000.  The July 2006 settlement also included certain
amounts received in bankruptcy from the company.  In November
2006, Judge Benitez approved the July 2006 settlement. The case
proceeded against the non-settling defendants.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion (here) for
approval additional settlements with the remaining individual
defendants, six former outside directors (John J, Moores,
Charles E. Noell III, Norris vandenBerg, Richard A. Horshey II,
Christopher Cole, and Rodney Dammeyer), and four former officers
(Stephen P Garner, Mattew C. Gless, Frederic B. Luddy, and
Richard T. Nelson), according to The D & O Diary posting.

One of the settling directors, John Moores, was Peregrine's
chairman from 1990 to July 2000 and from May 2002 through March
2003.  For a time, Mr. Moores owned the San Diego Padres major
league baseball team.  During his years on Peregrine's Board,
Mr. Moores sold over $600 million worth of Peregrine stock.

According to The D & O Diary posting, accompanying the Feb. 9,
2009 motion were two settlement stipulations, one each with
respect to the two groups of defendants.  The settlement
stipulation with respect to the outside director defendants is
dated December 2008 and reflects the six outside director
defendants' agreement to pay a total of $55.95 million toward
settlement.

The settlement stipulation with respect to the four officer
defendants provides that defendant Mr. Luddy will pay $100,000
and defendant Nelson will pay $25,000.  The stipulation provides
further that defendants Mr. Gardner and Mr. Gless "shall note be
required to pay any cash in light of their current financial
condition and, as to Gardner, the fact that the forfeitures
obtained from him in the criminal case...may be distributed" to
claimants.

In Judge Benitez's July 13 order, he preliminarily approved
these two proposed settlement, subject to a final determination
at a hearing scheduled for Oct. 16, 2009, The D & O Diary
posting states.


PHILADELPHIA POLICE: Faces Pa. Litigation Over "Domelights.com"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia Police Department is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit over accusations of racism on a Web site run by a
Philadelphia police sergeant, Fox 29 reports.

The suit was filed on July 5, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by The Guardian Civic
League, Inc., National Association for Advancement of Colored
People, Philadelphia Branch and National Association of Black
Law Enforcement Officers, under the caption, "The Guardian Civic
League, Inc. et al v. Philadelphia Police Department et al.,
Case No. 2:09-cv-03148-CMR."

The Guardian Civic League, which represents black police
officers in the department, filed the suit against the PPD over
the popular Web site http://www.Domelights.com,which they claim
is racist and creating a hostile workplace for black and
minority police officers, according to Fox 29.

Domelights.com, which is widely read by police officers, the
media and some city officials, is a Web site that is supposed to
be a place to discuss any and all Philadelphia police issues,
reports Fox 29.

However, the lawsuit alleges the site has also become a haven
for racists who post offensive comments, Fox 29 reported.

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


PROSPER.COM: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper.com, a P2P (peer-to-peer) lender based in San Francisco
is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California, Peter
J. Brennan of Bloomberg News reports.

The class-action lawsuit, which was filed last November in San
Francisco, accused the company of selling unregistered
securities that caused plaintiffs to suffer losses, according to
Bloomberg News.


ROYAL BANK: European Pensions Funds Included in N.Y. Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
European pension funds will be included as members of a
consolidated class-action lawsuit against Royal Bank of Scotland
(RBS), after a court ruling knocked them out of the running to
be co-lead plaintiffs, Giovanni Legorano of Global Pensions
reports.

In a recently filed motion, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
sought  to include U.K. schemes Merseyside Pension Fund and
North Yorkshire County Council pension fund and Dutch investor
MN Services among several other non-U.S. Investors as members of
the case, according to Global Pensions.

Raquel Pichardo-Allison of Global Pensions previously reported
that the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management
Board (MassPRIM) and the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement
System (PERS) have been named lead plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit against the Royal Bank of Scotland (Class Action
Reporter, May 11, 2009).

According to a press release by plaintiffs' counsel, the
litigation in general alleges RBS "falsely reassured investors
that RBS was well capitalized when, in fact, the company was
effectively insolvent as a result of impaired assets, bad loans,
and its disastrous partial acquisition of ABN AMRO," Global
Pensions reported.

The law firm Labaton Sucharow, will represent the Mississippi
pension fund along with Wolf Popper LLP.  Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll PLLC will represent MassPRIM, according to the
Global Pensions report.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
also appointed Freeman Group, made up of a small group of
investors that lost a combined $444,000, as co-lead plaintiff to
represent the preferred share purchasers.  They will be
represented by law firm Girard Gibbs, reports Global Pensions.

The lawsuit alleges that the Royal Bank of Scotland falsely
reassured investors the bank was well capitalized when, in fact,
the bank was effectively insolvent as a result of impaired
assets, bad loans and its disastrous partial acquisition of ABN
AMRO.

It further alleges that the revelation of this deception led to
a catastrophic collapse in the bank's share values as, on
January 19, 2009, Royal Bank of Scotland announced that it
expected to lose approximately GBP28 billion in 2008, in large
part due to the write-off of goodwill associated with ABN as
well as charges associated with bad loans.  These write-offs
resulted in the biggest loss in British corporate history.

The consolidated case is captioned "In re Royal Bank of Scotland
Group plc Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-300 (DAB)
(S.D.N.Y.)."

In the consolidated action, lead plaintiffs assert claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of
1933 against the Royal Bank of Scotland, its underwriters, and
certain members of the bank's current and former directors and
officers.  The lead plaintiffs represent a proposed class of all
persons and entities, including European investors, who acquired
the publicly traded securities of Royal Bank of Scotland,
preferred shares, or other securities between June 6, 2007 and
Jan. 9, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cohenmilstein.com)
          Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
          (jreiser@cohenmilstein.com)
          Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
          Phone: 888-240-0775 and 202-408-4600


WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Settle Mass. Hourly Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. lost a bid to settle a class-action
lawsuit in a Massachusetts workers' pay dispute after
plaintiffs' lawyers claimed the company reached a secret deal
with attorneys who were no longer active in the case, Bloomberg
News reports.

The lawsuit, known as "Salvas v. Wal-Mart Stores," was filed by
hourly workers who claimed that managers required them to work
off-the-clock and denied or cut short breaks.

The company had agreed to settle the lawsuit for as much as $40
million and sought preliminary court approval, according to
Bloomberg News.

However, Judge Thomas Murtagh of the Massachusetts Superior
Court refused to grant preliminary approval and appointed
Carolyn Burton, Esq., who objected to the settlement, as lead
attorney for the plaintiffs.  A trial is scheduled for Oct. 5,
2009, Bloomberg News reported.


ZUMIEZ INC: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages for $1.3M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez, Inc. settled a class-action suit in California regarding
overtime pay and meal breaks for $1.3 million, Puget Sound
Business Journal reports.

The class-action suit covers Zumiez employees, except store
managers, who worked in California from March 5, 2004 to Sept.
13, 2009, according to Puget Sound Business Journal.

It was previously reported that the company faces a putative
class-action complaint styled, "Evan Johnson v. Zumiez, Inc., et
al., Case No. RG08374968," which is pending in Alameda County
Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009).

On March 5, 2008, a former employee commenced the action against
the company in California state court alleging that the company
failed to pay all overtime wages owing to him and other
employees in California, failed to provide meal breaks as
required by California law, failed to provide employees with
proper itemized wage statements (pay stubs) as required by
California law, and failed to pay terminated employees waiting
time penalties under California Labor Code section 203.

The plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint, which added
an additional claim that employees under age 18 worked more
hours than permitted by the Labor Code; the first amended
complaint also seeks to recover penalties under the Private
Attorney General Act for alleged violation of various Labor Code
sections.

The suit was filed as a putative class action, but no motion
requesting certification of the case as a class action has been
filed.

The company has filed an answer to the first amended complaint
and discovery is being conducted.  No trial date has been set,
according to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 2, 2009.

Zumiez, Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com-- is a specialty retailer
of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and
accessories. Its stores cater to young men and women between
ages 12-24, focusing on skateboarding, surfing, snowboarding,
motocross and BMX.  As of April 4, 2009, it operates 350 stores,
which are primarily located in shopping malls.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Comtech Telecommunications Corp.
NASDAQ: CMTL) between September 17, 2008 and March 9, 2009,
inclusive.

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

       -- Comtech was experiencing negative trends in its
          commercial satellite earth station and encoder
          bookings, as well as commercial RF Amplifier bookings;

       -- that the Company's sales from its Mobile Data
          Communications division were weakening outside of its
          one order with the U.S. Army's Movement Tracking
          System ("MTS");

       -- that Comtech was experiencing difficulty integrating
          the Radyne acquisition and was not generating the
          synergies expected from the acquisition; and

       -- that the Company's costs were rising in excess of
          internal forecasts reducing profit margins.

     On March 9, 2009, Comtech announced its financial results
for the fiscal second quarter of 2009 and a drastic reduction in
its revenue and earnings guidance for 2009.  On this news,
Comtech stock fell $12.97 to close at $22.48 per share.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 14, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/


OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Oppenheimer AMT-Free New
York Municipals (Nasdaq: OPNYX) (Nasdaq: ONYBX) (Nasdaq: ONYCX)
between May 1, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint alleges the defendants of violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Fund's failure to
disclose in the prospectus and other sales materials employed in
selling and marketing the Fund that the Fund employed strategies
designed to enhance its reported returns while, at the same
time, these strategies exposed the Fund to much greater risk of
price decline in the value of it portfolio securities in the
event of illiquidity in the market for municipal securities that
these strategies exposed the Fund to greater risk of loss should
the Fund be forced to sell large blocks of portfolio at
disadvantageous times at prices reduced from those at which the
securities were previously carried on the Fund's books.  The
Fund's shares declined significantly, according to the
complaint, when these risks materialized.

     No Class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 7, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Phone: 212-697-6484
          Web site: http://www.bgandg.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  * * *