CAR_Public/090723.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 23, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 144

                           Headlines

ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit v. Partnership Pending in Florida
BARE ESCENTUALS: Faces Pension Fund's Stockholder Suit in Calif.
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Suit Planned Over June 19 Derailment in Ill.
CARDIODYNAMICS: Settlement of Shareholder Suit Pending Approval
DELTA AIR: Faces Suit on Nevada Over $15 First-Bag Checked Fee

FEDERAL HOME: Consolidated Mortgage Borrowers' Complaint Pending
FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Still Pending
FEDERAL HOME: "Kreysar" Suit v. Former Officers Pending in N.Y.
FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Securities Suit Pending in  New York
FEDERAL HOME: "Mark" Suit Indemnification Request Still Pending

FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Dismiss OPERS Securities Suit Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Wash. Judge Dismisses Rate-Fixing Litigation
HOME DEPOT: Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Ill. for Overtime
LAMPS PLUS: Oct. 1 Hearing Set for Credit Transaction Cases Deal
MAGMA DESIGN: Settlement of Shareholder Suit Approved in March

MCDONALD'S INC: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over Hepatitis A Exposure
METLIFE CO: Faces Consolidated Demutualization Lawsuit in N.Y.
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Kansas Court
OLD REPUBLIC: Pa. Court Certifies Class in "Markocki" Litigation
OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Law Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline

QUEST ENERGY: "Spieker" Suit v. Quest Cherokee Remains Pending
STARTEK INC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement in Shareholder Litigation
STERLING FINANCIAL: Aug. 5 Hearing Set for $10.25M Settlement
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Ariz. Judge Certifies Class in Securities Suit
TWEEN BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Dress Barn Deal

U.S. HOME: Defends Appeal to Dismissal of Calif. Customer Suit
U.S. HOME: Faces Litigation Alleging FLSA, N.J. Law Violations
U.S. HOME: Still Faces Former Employee's Lawsuit in California
U.S. HOME: Still Faces Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations
UTSTARCOM INC: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for $9.5M Suit Settlement

VIBE MEDIA: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Refunds for Defunct Magazine
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit Over Tip Sharing
YUKON-NEVADA GOLD: Employees File Suit Over August 2008 Lay-Offs


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARE ESCENTUALS: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
TRONOX INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit v. Partnership Pending in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The action entitled, "Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12," remains pending, according to ALP
Liquidating Trust's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

Effective Sept. 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") completed its liquidation by contributing all of
its remaining assets to ALP, subject to all of the Partnership's
obligations and liabilities.  Arvida Company, an affiliate of
the general partner of the Partnership, acts as Administrator
(the "Administrator") of ALP.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled, "Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12," filed in the Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20,
2003, plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly
arising out of construction defects occurring during the
development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has
approximately 150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper.

The plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were
not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on
file with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not
properly attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer
from improper shutter storm protection systems.

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint.

This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's
insurance carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company, for
defense and indemnity.  Zurich is providing a defense of this
matter under a purported reservation of rights.

The Partnership has also engaged other counsel in connection
with this lawsuit.

ALP Liquidating Trust engages in liquidating the assets of
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. Arvida/JMB Partners transferred all of
its remaining assets to the trust at the time of its liquidation
in 2005.  Previously, Arvida/JMB Partners was engaged in the
development of resort and primary home communities for the
middle and upper income segments in the State of Florida, as
well as in Atlanta, Georgia, and Highlands, North Carolina.  ALP
Liquidating Trust was founded in 1987 and is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


BARE ESCENTUALS: Faces Pension Fund's Stockholder Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bare Escentuals, Inc. faces a purported stockholder class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The company became aware on July 17, 2009, that a purported
stockholder class action has been filed against it in
California.

The complaint names as defendants the company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Leslie A. Blodgett, and its Chief Financial
Officer, Myles B. McCormick.

The complaint was filed by a pension fund on behalf of persons
who purchased company stock between Nov. 7, 2006 and Nov. 26,
2007.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934, purportedly arising from non-disclosure of material
facts relating to the company's financial condition during the
Class Period, and seeks relief in the form of compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the
court may deem proper, according to the company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
July 17, 2009.

Bare Escentuals, Inc. -- http://www.bareescentuals.com/--
develops, markets and sells cosmetics, skin care and body care
products under its bareMinerals, RareMinerals, Buxom and md
formulations brands worldwide.  The company's bareMinerals-
branded products include its core foundation products and a
variety of eye, cheek, lip and face products, such as blushes,
all-over-face colors, finishing powders, liner shadows,
eyeshadows, glimmers and lipsticks.  In addition to its
bareMinerals products, the company offers a range of other
cosmetics and accessories, including finishing powders, facial-
prep products, lipsticks, lip-glosses, lip liners, mascaras,
application tools and brushes under its i.d., bareVitamins and
Bare Escentuals brand names.  Additionally, it sells a mineral-
based skin care line utilizing mineral extraction technology
under its RareMinerals brand.  The company also offers a range
of professional skin care products under the md formulations
brand and body care products under its Bare Escentuals brand.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Suit Planned Over June 19 Derailment in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bryant Law Center plans to filed a purported class-action
lawsuit against Canadian National Railroad in response to the
June 19, 2009 train derailment in Rockford, Illinois, WREX
reports.

The law firm is based in Kentucky but just set up an office in
Rockford.  The firm expects about 300 Rockford residents to join
the suit, according to WREX.

For more details, contact:

          Bryant Law Center, PSC
          601 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY 42003
          Phone: 1-800-455-7838, 1.800.529.2368 or 270-442-1422


CARDIODYNAMICS: Settlement of Shareholder Suit Pending Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the purported shareholder class action
complaint against CardioDynamics International Corporation is
subject to approval by the San Diego County Superior Court.

On June 19, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
on behalf of the company's shareholders in San Diego County
Superior Court naming as defendants CardioDynamics, SonoSite,
Merger Sub, and the members of our Board of Directors
("Shareholder Litigation").

An amended complaint was filed on June 23, 2009.  The amended
complaint generally alleges that, in connection with approving
the merger and describing the merger process in the preliminary
proxy statement, the company directors breached their fiduciary
duties owed to CardioDynamics shareholders.  It further alleges
that the company and SonoSite aided and abetted its directors in
this alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  The amended complaint
seeks, among other things, an injunction precluding consummation
of the merger.

On July 4, 2009, CardioDynamics reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiff regarding the settlement of the
Shareholder Litigation.  In connection with the settlement
contemplated by that agreement in principle, the lawsuit and all
claims asserted therein will be dismissed with prejudice.  As
part of the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing.  The terms of the settlement contemplated by that
agreement in principle require that CardioDynamics make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which
were contained in its definitive proxy statement.  The parties
also agreed that the plaintiff may seek attorneys' fees and
costs up to and including the amount of $165,000, if such fees
and costs are approved by the Court.  There will be no other
payment in connection with the proposed settlement.  The
agreement in principle further contemplates that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be
subject to customary conditions, including Court approval
following notice to CardioDynamics' shareholders.  In the event
that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a
hearing will be scheduled at which the Court will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement,
according to the company's July 13, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

CardioDynamics International Corp. -- http://www.cdic.com/-- is
a developer of a medical technology called impedance
cardiography (ICG).  CardioDynamics develops, manufactures and
markets noninvasive ICG diagnostic and monitoring devices and
ICG sensors.  The company's principal ICG products consist of
BioZ Dx ICG Diagnostics, BioZ ICG Monitor, BioZ ICG Module,
BioZtect and BioZ Advasense Sensors, Niccomo ICG Monitor and
BioZ ICG OEM Module Kit.  It has one operating segment, the ICG.
It sells to physicians and hospitals in the United States
through its own direct sales force and distribute its products
to targeted international markets through a network of
distributors.


DELTA AIR: Faces Suit on Nevada Over $15 First-Bag Checked Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc., AirTran Holdings, Inc., and AirTran
Airways, Inc., are facing a purported antitrust class-action
lawsuit that accuses them of colluding to charge fliers a $15
first-bag checked fee, Valerie Miller of The Las Vegas Business
Press reports.

The suit was filed on July 16, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada by Victoria Mertes, under the
caption, "Mertes v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et al, Case No.
2:2009-cv-01288."

It generally accuses the two carriers and AirTran's parent
company, AirTran Holdings, of colluding and violating the
Sherman Antitrust Act, according to The Las Vegas Business
Press.

The complaint claims the two airlines engaged in such fierce
competition in some markets that neither could risk implementing
the fees on its own.

The allegations of collusion hinge mostly on an Oct. 23 analyst
call involving AirTran's CEO and President Robert Fornaro, in
which the CEO said AirTan's "largest competitor in Atlanta" --
Delta -- had not then imposed such a fee.  Mr. Fornaro added
that in implementing baggage fees "(AirTran) would prefer to be
a follower in a situation rather than a leader right now,"
reports The Las Vegas Business Press.

Delta "promptly accepted AirTran's invitation to collude" and
announced a $15 first-bag checked bag fee on Nov. 3, the lawsuit
alleges.  On Nov. 6, AirTran followed with its own statement
announcing it would follow Delta's lead by charging a first-bag
checked fee.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
Las Vegas Business Press, AirTran's CEO knew Delta officials
would be listening to the analyst call and used the call as an
opportunity to invite its competitor to start charging the fee.

The complaint seeks damages in the form of cash back on behalf
of all Delta and AirTran passengers "who directly paid the first
bag fees."  That would make for thousands of plaintiffs, the
lawsuit alleged, reports The Las Vegas Business Press.

For more details, contact:

          Norberto J. Cisneros, Esq.
          (ncisneros@maddoxandassociates.com)
          3811 West Charleston Blvd., Suite 110
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Phone: 702-366-1900
          Fax: 702-366-1999

               - and -

          Richard M. Volin, Esq.
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          1050 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007-
          Phone: (202) 337-8000
          Fax: (202) 337-8090


FEDERAL HOME: Consolidated Mortgage Borrowers' Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac continues to face a consolidated class action by
mortgage borrowers, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Beginning in January 2005, a number of class actions were filed
by mortgage borrowers against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

These actions were consolidated for all purposes in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and on Aug. 5, 2005,
a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed alleging that
both companies conspired to establish and maintain artificially
high management and guarantee fees.

The complaint covers the period Jan. 1, 2001 to the present and
asserts a variety of claims under federal and state antitrust
laws, as well as claims under consumer-protection and similar
state laws.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unspecified damages
(including treble damages with respect to the antitrust claims
and punitive damages with respect to some of the state claims)
and other forms of relief.

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the action in
October 2005.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the Court entered an Order granting in part
and denying in part our motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 13, 2008, the Court issued an order granting FHFA's
motion to intervene in its capacity as Conservator for Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae, granting FHFA's motion to stay the
proceedings for 135 days, and ordering the parties to file a
joint status report on April 1, 2009.

On March 6, 2009, the Court stayed the proceedings for an
additional 90 days and ordered the parties to file a joint
status report and scheduling order by June 30, 2009.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit styled, "Jacoby v. Syron, Cook,
Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
and FTN Financial Markets," is still pending, according to
Freddie Mac's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

On Dec. 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others.

The complaint, as amended on Dec. 17, 2008, contends that the
defendants made material false and misleading statements in
connection with Freddie Mac's Sept. 29, 2007 offering of non-
cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred
stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated Freddie
Mac's capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie Mac's
exposure to mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting standards
and risk management procedures."

The complaint further alleges that Syron, Cook and Piszel made
additional false statements following the offering.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: "Kreysar" Suit v. Former Officers Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit against certain former Freddie
Mac officers and others remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Jan. 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled, "Kreysar v. Syron, et al."

The complaint alleges that former Freddie Mac officers Syron,
Piszel, and Cook and certain underwriters violated federal
securities laws by making material false and misleading
statements in connection with an offering by Freddie Mac of $6
billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative
Perpetual Preferred Stock Series Z that commenced on Nov. 29,
2007.

The complaint further alleges that Syron, Piszel and Cook made
additional false statements following the offering.

The complaint names as defendants Syron, Piszel, Cook, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Banc of America Securities
LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated, and UBS Securities LLC.  Freddie Mac is not named
as a defendant in this lawsuit, according to the company's May
12, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Securities Suit Pending in  New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit styled, "Kuriakose vs. Freddie
Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook," is pending, according to the
company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

A putative class-action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac
and certain former officers on Aug. 15, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 21, 2007
through Aug. 5, 2008.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially
inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and seeks
unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 20, 2009, FHFA filed a motion to intervene and stay the
proceedings.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the court granted FHFA's motion to intervene
and stayed the case for 45 days.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: "Mark" Suit Indemnification Request Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac still faces an indemnification request in a putative
class action securities lawsuit, "Mark v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc."

By letter dated Oct. 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of the putative class action securities lawsuit,
which was filed on Sept. 23, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, regarding the company's
November 29, 2007 public offering of 8.375% Fixed to Floating
Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.

The plaintiff filed suit against the underwriters claiming that
the Offering Circular was materially false in its failure to
disclose and properly warn of Freddie Mac's exposure to "massive
mortgage-related losses;" its underwriting and risk-management
deficiencies; its undercapitalization; and its imminent
insolvency.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit, but the
underwriters gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to
seek full indemnity and contribution under the Underwriting
Agreement, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of
their legal counsel, according to the company's May 12, 2009
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Dismiss OPERS Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in "Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al,"
remains pending, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on Jan. 18, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
"false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry."

On April 10, 2008, the court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff
and approved its choice of counsel.

On Sept. 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint, which purportedly asserted claims
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock between
Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2007.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which removed certain allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony
Piszel, and Eugene McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading
allegations against only Patricia Cook.

The second amended complaint also extends the damages period,
but not the class period.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene
in its capacity as Conservator.

On April 6, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Wash. Judge Dismisses Rate-Fixing Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington  dismissed a putative class-
action lawsuit against Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and
several other title insurers, Law360 reports.

The suit was filed on March 10, 2008 by Timothy Lubic, under the
caption, "Lubic v. Fidelity National Financial Inc et al., Case
No. 2:2008-cv-00401," claiming the defendants were unlawfully
permitted to collectively fix rates for customers.

Besides Fidelity National, other defendants named in the matter
include: Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., Ticor Title
Insurance Co., Chicago Title Insurance Co., First American
Corp., First American Title Insurance Co., Pacific Northwest
Title Insurance Co. Inc., Landamerica Financial Group Inc.,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., Lawyers Title Insurance
Corp., Transnation Title Insurance Co., and Stewart Title
Guarantee Co.

For more details, contact:

          Kevin J. Arquit, Esq. (karquit@stblaw.com)
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3909
          Phone: 212-455-2000

          David Marion Foster, Esq. (dfoster@fulbright.com)
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI (DC)
          801 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 202-662-4517

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq. (vesades@heinsmills.com)
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON PLC
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Phone: 612-338-4605

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
          1301 Fifth Avenue
          Ste 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292


HOME DEPOT: Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Ill. for Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot, Inc, was faces a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by a group of former employees who claim the retailer did
not pay overtime wages for three years to its assistant managers
at Illinois stores, Alexandria Sage of Reuters.

The lawsuit was filed on July 21, 2009 in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, seeks class-action status.  It accuses
Home Depot deliberately misclassifying the plaintiffs as
"exempt" from overtime, which is paid to workers after 40 hours
per week.

The plaintiffs claim that they were unlawfully deprived of wages
when Home Depot required them to work at least 55 hours per week
and that they were not paid time and a half for time over 40
hours, according to Reuters.

The suit accused Home Depot of having a policy of terminating
assistant store managers and reducing their salaries if they do
not work the eleven hour minimum shift for which assistant
managers are scheduled.

The alleged practice is widespread at Home Depot and that it
affects all of the company's assistant managers in Illinois,
where, it added, some 57 Home Depot stores operated in the past
three years, Reuters reported.

The complaint is seeking past unpaid wages and punitive damages,
reports Reuters.


LAMPS PLUS: Oct. 1 Hearing Set for Credit Transaction Cases Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court will hold a fairness
hearing on Oct. 1, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. for the proposed settlement
of a class-action lawsuits coordinated under the caption, "Lamps
Plus Credit Transaction Cases, Judicial Council Coordination
Proceeding No. 4532."

The hearing will be held before Judge Mohr in Department 309 of
the Los Angeles County Superior Court, located at 600 South
Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.

On Nov. 9, 2006, Vincent Finch filed a class action lawsuit in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, entitled,
"Vincent Finch v. Lamps Plus, Inc., Case Number GIC 875385."

Mr. Finch asserted causes of action for violations of California
Civil Code Section 1747.08 (Song-Beverly Act), violations of
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (UCL), and
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).  Mr. Finch
sought to represent a class of California Lamps Plus customers
who were requested or required to provide their "personal
identification information" during credit card transactions at a
Lamps Plus, Inc. store dating back to Nov. 9, 2002.

"Personal identification information" is defined as "information
concerning the cardholder, other than information set forth on
the credit card, and including, but not limited to, the
cardholder's address and telephone number."

On Jan. 8, 2007, Cass A. Taylor filed a class action lawsuit in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
entitled, "Cass A. Taylor v. Lamps Plus, Inc., Case Number BC
364417."

Mr. Taylor asserted a single cause of action for violations of
the Song-Beverly Act.  Similar to the Finch case, Mr. Taylor
sought to represent a class of California Lamps Plus customers
who were requested or required to provide their "personal
identification information" during credit card transactions at a
Lamps Plus store dating back to Jan. 8, 2006.

On Feb. 14, 2008, Lamps Plus filed a Petition for Coordination
with the Judicial Council of California, seeking coordination of
the Finch and Taylor lawsuits.  On May 14, 2008, Lamps Plus'
Petition for Coordination was granted, and the cases were
coordinated under the caption, "Lamps Plus Credit Transaction
Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4532."

On July 11, 2008, James C. Folgelstrom filed a class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, entitled, "James C. Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc., Case
Number 37-2008-00087512-CU-BT-CTL.

Mr. Folgelstrom asserted causes of action for violations of the
Song-Beverly Act, violations of the UCL, and invasions of
privacy.  Mr. Folgelstrom sought to represent a class of
California Lamps Plus customers who were requested or required
to provide their zip codes during credit card transactions at a
Lamps Plus store.

On Sept. 15, 2008, the Folgelstrom lawsuit was added to the
coordinated proceedings.  However, the Folgelstrom lawsuit is
not part of the settlement.

For more details, contact:

          Ringler Kearney Alvarez LLP
          633 W. Fifth Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 473-1900
          Fax: (213) 473-1919
          Web site: http://www.rkallp.com

          Norman B. Blumenthal
          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, California  92037
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232
          Web site: http://www.bamlawca.com

               - and -

          Finch/Taylor v. Lamps Plus
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 8060
          San Rafael, CA 94912-8060
          Web site: http://www.gilardi.com/lampsplus


MAGMA DESIGN: Settlement of Shareholder Suit Approved in March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of the $13.5-million settlement in the purported
shareholder class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against Magma
Design Automation, Inc. was granted in March 2009.

On June 13, 2005, The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust filed a
putative shareholder class action suit against:

      -- Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
      -- Rajeev Madhavan,
      -- Gregory C. Walker, and
      -- Roy E. Jewell.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual
property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

In March 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiff filed a further
amended complaint in June 2006, which the defendants again moved
to dismiss.

The defendants' dismissal motion was granted in part and denied
in part by an order dated Aug. 18, 2006.  Specifically, the
order dismissed claims against several of the defendants.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the parties agreed to a settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
an Order of the Court, a settlement for $13.5 million was
proposed in the suit "In re Magma Design Automation, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-05-2394 CRB."

The settlement class includes all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Magma Design Automation
during the period between Oct. 23, 2002, through April 12, 2005,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 5, 2008).

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July
7, 2008.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the court held a hearing on final approval of
the settlement and requested that plaintiff submit additional
information, including information on claims by class members
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2008).

The court granted final approval to this settlement on March 27,
2009, according to the company's July 17, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended May 3, 2009.

The suit is "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Magma Design
Automation, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-02394-CRB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth P. Lin, Esq. (elin@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One California Plaza, 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-617-1200
         Fax: 213-617-1975

         Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0878
         Fax: 212-818-0477

              - and -

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. (info@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160

Representing the defendant is:

         Dale M. Edmondson, Esq. (dedmondson@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers
         2765 Sand Hill Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025
         Phone: 650-473-2632
         Fax: 650-473-2601


MCDONALD'S INC: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over Hepatitis A Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Inc., and Kevin Murphy, the owner of the McDonald's
restaurant at 400 West First Street in Milan, Illinois are facin
a class-action lawsuit that was filed on July 21, 2009 in the
Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Rock Island
County, WQAD-TV reports.

Marler Clark, the Seattle-based foodborne illness law firm, and
the Illinois firm of Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers LLC, filed
the lawsuit on behalf of the named plaintiff, Cody Patterson,
and all others who were forced to receive Immune globulin (IG)
shots after being exposed to the hepatitis A virus (HAV) at the
Milan McDonald's, according to WQAD-TV.

An estimated 10,000 people were exposed to Hepatitis A at the
Milan McDonald's.  If a person exposed to HAV can get a shot of
IG within 14 days of exposure, they can avoid getting sick,
WQAD-TV reported.

"This lawsuit is on behalf of the thousands of people who have
to get IG shots because of exposure to Hepatitis A at
McDonalds," William Marler, Esq., attorney on behalf of the
plaintiffs told WQAD-TV.

For more details, contact:

          Marler Clark
          Phone: 1-866-770-2032
          Web site: http://www.marlerclark.com/

               - and -

          Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, LLC
          28 North First Street, Suite 2
          Geneva, Illinois 60134
          Phone: 630-232-6333 or 877-221-2511
          Fax: 630-845-8982
          e-mail: info@foote-meyers.com
          Web site: http://www.foote-meyers.com/


METLIFE CO: Faces Consolidated Demutualization Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Co. and MetLife, Inc. are facing a consolidated class-
action lawsuit entitled, "In Re METLIFE Demutualization
Litigation, Case No. 00cv2258 (TCP) (AKT)," which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In April 2000, MetLife Co. converted from a mutual insurance
company to a stock company, a process called "demutualization."
Policyholders eligible to vote received consideration in
exchange for their interests as members of a mutual company.  As
part of the transaction, MetLife Co. became a wholly owned
subsidiary of a new company, MetLife, Inc.

The suit is brought against MetLife Co. and MetLife, Inc. on
behalf of policyholders who were allocated 11 or more shares in
the demutualization.

Plaintiffs allege that to win the policyholders' vote to
demutualize, defendants sent an information package to them that
omitted material facts and contained false statements.  They
also allege that class members were damaged and that defendants
violated two federal statutes: Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 19, 2005 the Court certified the case as a class-action
suit on behalf of all persons who were participating
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife Co.) policyholders on
or about September 28, 1999, for whom MetLife Co. calculated a
positive actuarial equity share ("participating policyholders")
and whose rights as participating policyholders were exchanged
for shares of stock in MetLife Co., pursuant to defendants' plan
of demutualization ("Demutualization Plan" or "Plan").

For more details, contact:

          MetLife Demutualization Litigation, Notice
               Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Co LLC
          P.O. Box 808054
          Petaluma, CA 94975-8054
          Phone: 1-800-961-8147
          Web site: http://www.insuranceclassaction.net/


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Kansas Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Hut franchisee NPC International, Inc., is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star
reports.

The suit was filed on May 12, 2009 by Jeffrey Wass in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, under the caption,
"Wass v. NPC International, Inc., Case No. 2:2009-cv-02254."

Mr. Wass, an NPC delivery driver, filed the suit individually
and on behalf of other delivery drivers, according to The Kansas
City Star.

The plaintiff generally alleges that he company pays its
delivery drivers less than minimum wage.  He also alleges that
NPC's automobile expense reimbursements were insufficient.

The suit, which was amended earlier this month, alleges that
delivery drivers, though paid hourly wages roughly equal to
applicable minimum-wage laws, are inadequately compensated for
the actual costs of using their own vehicles to make pizza
deliveries, reports The Kansas City Star.

For more details, contact:

          George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100X115
          Fax: 816-714-7101

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. (attorneymp@hotmail.com)
          Weinhaus & Potashnick
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: 314-997-9150
          Fax: 314-997-9170


OLD REPUBLIC: Pa. Court Certifies Class in "Markocki" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted class-action status to the matter, "Markocki v. Old
Republic National Title Insurance Company, Case No. 2:2006-cv-
02422," which alleges violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.

The suit was filed on July 8, 2006 by Donna Markocki.  It was
certified as a class-action case on Dec. 9, 2008 by Judge
Petrese B. Tucker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

To briefly summarize the case, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendant systematically charged Pennsylvania consumers who
refinance their mortgages premiums for title insurance that are
far in excess of the rates permitted under Pennsylvania law.

The suit covers all persons or entities in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania who within 10 years of having previously purchased
title insurance in connection with their mortgages or fee
interests, refinanced the identical mortgage or fee interest,
and were charged a title insurance premium by Old Republic
National Title Insurance Company that did not include the
applicable premium discount for title insurance on file with the
Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner.

For more details, contact:

          Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
          QUINN, GORDON & WOLF, CHTD.
          102 West Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 402
          Baltimore, Maryland 21204
          Phone: 410-825-2300
          Fax: 410-825-0066
          e-mail: counsel@titleinsuranceratelitigation.com
          Web site: http://www.quinnlaw.com


OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Law Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP is reminding investors who
purchased class A, class B or class C shares of the Oppenheimer
AMT-Free New York Municipals Fund (NASDAQ: OPNYX, ONYBX, ONYCX)
that August 7, 2009 is the deadline to petition the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit pending in
the Southern District of New York.  Any investor who purchased
shares of the Fund from May 21, 2006 through October 21, 2008
may move the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff in the case.

     The lawsuit charges the Oppenheimer AMT-Free New York
Municipals Fund and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 for failing to properly
disclose in its prospectuses and other materials that the Fund's
investments in inverse floaters (derivative investments that pay
interest at rates that move in the opposite direction of yields
on short-term securities) heightened its risk for price decline
in the event of an illiquid market for municipal securities.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses
failed to disclose that a collapse of inverse floaters would
force the Fund to sell large blocks of its portfolio securities
at reduced prices.  According to the complaint, when these risks
materialized, the Fund's shares declined significantly.

For more details, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Dena Sharp, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/opnyx.asp


QUEST ENERGY: "Spieker" Suit v. Quest Cherokee Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit styled "Hugo Spieker, et al. v. Quest
Cherokee, LLC Case No. 07-1225-MLB," remains pending, according
to Quest Energy Partners, L.P.'s July 13, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Quest Cherokee, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the owner of
the company's general partner, Quest Resource Corporation.

Quest Cherokee was named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed on Aug. 6, 2007, by several royalty owners in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

The case was filed by the named plaintiffs on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all Quest Cherokee's royalty and
overriding royalty owners in the Kansas portion of the Cherokee
Basin.

Plaintiffs contend that Quest Cherokee failed to properly make
royalty payments to them and the putative class by, among other
things, paying royalties based on reduced volumes instead of
volumes measured at the wellheads, by allocating expenses in
excess of the actual costs of the services represented, by
allocating production costs to the royalty owners, by improperly
allocating marketing costs to the royalty owners, and by making
the royalty payments after the statutorily proscribed time for
doing so without providing the required interest.

Quest Cherokee has answered the complaint and denied plaintiffs'
claims. Discovery in that case is ongoing.

Quest Energy Partners, L.P. -- http://www.qelp.net/-- was
established to acquire, exploit and develop oil and natural gas
properties.  Its operations are focused on the development of
coal bed methane (CBM), in a 15-county region in southeastern
Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma, (referred to as the Cherokee
Basin).  In addition to its producing properties, the company
has an inventory of potential drilling locations and acreage in
the Cherokee Basin.


STARTEK INC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement in Shareholder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     StarTek, Inc. (NYSE:SRT) today announced that it has
executed a stipulation of settlement with the lead plaintiffs to
settle its federal securities class-action lawsuit.

     The settlement is subject to various conditions, including
preliminary approval by the applicable federal court, notice to
the class members, a final hearing, and final approval by the
applicable federal court.  The total settlement amount to be
paid under the agreement is $7.5 million, of which StarTek's
primary insurance carrier will contribute $6.9 million and
StarTek will contribute $600,000.

StarTek, Inc. -- http://www.startek.com-- is a leading provider
of high value business process outsourcing services to the
communications industry.  Since 1987 StarTek has partnered with
its clients to solve strategic business challenges so that fast-
moving businesses can improve customer retention, increase
revenue and reduce costs through an improved customer
experience.  These robust solutions leverage industry knowledge,
best business practices, highly skilled agents, proven
operational excellence and flexible technology.  The StarTek
comprehensive service suite includes customer care, sales
support, complex order processing, accounts receivable
management, technical support and other industry-specific
processes.  Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, StarTek provides
these services from 19 operational facilities in the U.S.,
Canada and the Philippines.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Aug. 5 Hearing Set for $10.25M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 5, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $10,250,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re:
Sterling Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, MDL Docket
No. 1879, Civil Action No. 07-2171."

The hearing will take place before the Honorable Lawrence F.
Stengel at the United States District Court for the Eastern
District  of Pennsylvania, James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse,
601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Patrick Burns of the Intelligencer Journal reported that a
$10.25 million settlement was reached in a consolidated class-
action lawsuit over the collapse of Sterling Financial Corp. in
a fraud scandal two years ago (Class Action Reporter, March 6,
2009).

The settlement will go to investors who bought stock during a
three-year period that ended in May 2007, when a massive fraud
was uncovered at a Sterling subsidiary and shares plunged 40
percent, according to the Intelligencer Journal report.

The Intelligencer Journal reported that the settlement, which
was filed on March 2, 2009, will be reviewed at a hearing before
Judge Lawrence F. Stengel.  It covers shareholders who bought
Sterling stock between April 27, 2004, and May 24, 2007.

In 2007, the company's stock price collapsed after the company
reported it had uncovered major fraud at Equipment Finance, LLC,
a commercial finance subsidiary of Sterling Financial, which has
since agreed to be acquired by The PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc.

This event triggered the filing of several class-action
complaints in May, June and July 2007 in the U.S. District
Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and for the
Southern District of New York related to Equipment Finance
(Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2008).

In October 2007, the lawsuits filed in New York were transferred
to the Pennsylvania Court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

In February 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of those who purchased Sterling common stock
during the period from April 27, 2004, through May 24, 2007.
This complaint names Sterling, Bank of Lancaster County, N.A. (a
predecessor to a bank subsidiary of Sterling), Equipment
Finance, and members of their management as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities laws,
including allegations that Sterling's public statements and
filings fraudulently omitted information and included fraudulent
misrepresentations about the improprieties at Equipment Finance
as well as about their impact on Sterling's earnings and related
matters.

The plaintiffs assert that the price for Sterling stock was
fraudulently inflated during the class period due to the alleged
omissions and misrepresentations, and seek unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

As a result of PNC Financial Services Group's acquisition of
Sterling, PNC may be responsible for indemnifying individual
defendants in connection with this lawsuit.

Upon consolidation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, the lawsuits soon fell under the
caption, "In Re: Sterling Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:2007-md-01879."

The suit is "In Re: Sterling Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:2007-md-01879," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge
Lawrence F. Stengel, presiding.

For more details, contact:

          Randall K. Pulliam
          Carney Williams Bates Bozeman & Pulliam, P.L.L.C.
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, Arkansas  72212
          Phone: 501-312-8500
          Fax: 501-312-8505
          Web site: http://www.carneywilliams.com

               - and -

          IN RE STERLING FINANCIAL CORPORATION SECURITIES
               CLASS ACTION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR
          C/O A.B. DATA, LTD.
          PO Box 170500
          Milwaukee, WI 53217-8042
          Web site: http://www.sterlinglitigation.com/


SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Ariz. Judge Certifies Class in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick J. Martone of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona has certified a class in a securities fraud
litigation accusing officials at bankrupt Syntax-Brillian Corp.
of concealing problems at the once high-flying television maker,
Law360 reports.

On May 24, 2007, Zwerling Schachter filed a class-action suit
alleging that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the registration statement and prospectus filed
with the SEC in connection with the May 24, 2007 public offering
contained materially false and misleading statements, or omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, concerning Syntax-Brillian's revenue growth,
profitability, and its business in China (Class Action Reporter,
March 31, 2008).

On Sept. 12, 2007, Syntax-Brillian announced that the results
for its first quarter 2008, ending on Sept. 30, 2007, would be
significantly below expectations.  The Company projected first
quarter 2008 revenues of between $170-180 million, when analysts
were expecting the Company to report revenues of $254 million, a
shortfall of more than 25% (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12,
2008).

On Nov. 11, 2007, the Company announced that revenues for the
quarter ended September 30, 2007, was $150.6 million, a decline
of 26.6% from the previous quarter, and that revenue from China
in the quarter was $14.6 million, compared with $96.8 million in
the prior quarter, a decline of approximately 85%.

The Complaint alleges that Syntax-Brillian failed to disclose in
the registration statement and prospectus that while the Company
shipped hundreds of thousands of LCD televisions to its sole
distributor in China during the Class Period, and recorded
hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue in connection with
these shipments, the end-user demand for the Company's LCD
televisions in China was much weaker than what investors were
led to believe.

For more information, contact:

          Kevin McGee, Esq. (kmcgee@zsz.com)
          Willy Gonzalez, Esq. (wgonzalez@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Tel.: 800-721-3900
          Tel.: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969
          Web site: http://www.zsz.com/


TWEEN BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Dress Barn Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the Delaware Chancery Court challenging the
proposed acquisition of Tween Brands, Inc. (NYSE: TWB).

     The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Tween
Brands stating that it had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Dress Barn Inc. (NASDAQ: DBRN).

     Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Tween
Brands will receive 0.47 shares of Dress Barn stock for each
share of Tween Brands they own.  Based on Dress Barn's June 24,
2009 closing stock price of $13.24, the agreement values Tween
Brands shares at $6.22 per share.  The price appears unfair
given that Tween Brands shares traded above $9.00 per share as
recently as the fourth quarter of 2009 and the Company has a
book value of over $7.00 per share.

     Also, the sales process the Company conducted was flawed
because the Company agreed to a non-solicitation provision and a
termination fee of $5.15 million that will all but ensure that
no superior offer will ever be forthcoming.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/twb1.html


U.S. HOME: Defends Appeal to Dismissal of Calif. Customer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Home Systems, Inc. continues to defend an appeal to the
dismissal of a class action filed by a home improvement customer
of the The Home Depot.

In June 2007, a class action, as yet uncertified, was filed by a
Home Depot customer against The Home Depot, Inc., Expo Designs
Center, et al. in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles, alleging certain unfair business
acts and practices, violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and breach of contract.

The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The Federal District Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Original Complaint.

Plaintiffs, who are comprised of two home improvement customers
of the company and The Home Depot, filed their First Amended
Complaint in October 2007, which included the company as a
defendant.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Second Amended Complaint
against Defendants on Dec. 21, 2007, which contained basically
the same allegations as the Original and First Amended
Complaints.

Plaintiffs assert the claims on their behalf and a class of all
others similarly situated.

Relief sought in the Second Amended Complaint includes
unspecified damages, and other equitable relief and attorney
fees.

On April 9, 2008, the U.S. District Court granted Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and
ordered Plaintiffs' Complaint dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, 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.

U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is
engaged in the specialty product home improvement business.  In
its home improvement business, the company manufactures or
procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and
bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage
systems for closets and garages.  The company manufactures
certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the
Charles City, Virginia facility.


U.S. HOME: Faces Litigation Alleging FLSA, N.J. Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Home Systems, Inc. faces a class/collective action alleging
certain violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law, 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.

In February 2009, the class/collective action was filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

This action was filed by an employee of the company.

The Plaintiff asserts claims on his behalf and as a collective
action on behalf of all individuals who were employed by the
company as installers in the United States, with the exception
of California, since Feb. 24, 2006, and as a class action, as
yet uncertified, on behalf of all individuals who were employed
by the company as installers in the State of New Jersey since
Feb. 24, 2007.

Relief sought in the complaint includes injunctive and equitable
relief, overtime wages, liquidated damages and penalties and
attorneys fees.

U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is
engaged in the specialty product home improvement business.  In
its home improvement business, the company manufactures or
procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and
bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage
systems for closets and garages.  The company manufactures
certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the
Charles City, Virginia facility.


U.S. HOME: Still Faces Former Employee's Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Home Systems, Inc. continues to face a class action, as yet
uncertified, that was filed in the Superior Court of California
for the County of Alameda, 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.

In February 2009, the class action was filed against the company
in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda,
alleging certain violations of the California Labor Code,
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 16-2001 and
California Business and Professions Code.

This action was filed by a former employee.

The Plaintiff asserts the claims on his behalf and a class of
all others similarly situated.

Relief sought in the complaint includes unspecified damages,
injunctive and equitable relief, punitive damages, penalties (in
addition to wages owed) and attorney fees.

U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is
engaged in the specialty product home improvement business.  In
its home improvement business, the company manufactures or
procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and
bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage
systems for closets and garages.  The company manufactures
certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the
Charles City, Virginia facility.


U.S. HOME: Still Faces Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Home Systems, Inc. continues to faces a class action, as
yet uncertified, alleging certain violations of the California
Labor Code and unfair business acts and practices in violation
of the California Business and Profession Code.

In July 2007, the class action was filed against the company in
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles Central District.

The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California - Western Division.

This action was filed by two former employees.

The Plaintiffs assert the claims on their behalf and a class of
all others similarly situated. Relief sought in the complaint
includes unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief,
punitive damages, penalties (in addition to wages owed) and
attorney fees.

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied by the
Court, 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.

U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is
engaged in the specialty product home improvement business.  In
its home improvement business, the company manufactures or
procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and
bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage
systems for closets and garages.  The company manufactures
certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the
Charles City, Virginia facility.


UTSTARCOM INC: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for $9.5M Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 18, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed $9,500,000 settlement in the matter, "Peter Rudolph
v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-04578-SI."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, CA 94102

A June 19, 2009 preliminary approval hearing has been set for
the tentative settlement of the remaining claims in a class-
action lawsuit entitled, "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-04578-SI," (Class Action Reporter, May 28,
2009).

The purported shareholder class-action lawsuit was filed on
Sept. 4, 2007, against UTSTARCOM, Inc. and some of its current
and former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  It alleges violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed
improper accounting practices concerning the company's
historical equity award grants.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between July
24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court appointed James R. Bartholomew as
lead plaintiff.  On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint and in April, the court granted a motion by
the company to dismiss the amended complaint.

The court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second
amended complaint no later than May 16, 2008, which the lead
plaintiff did so.  On June 6, 2008, the defendants again filed a
motion to dismiss, this time pertaining to the second amended
complaint.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement in the case,
subject to final documentation and court approval.  A
preliminary approval hearing is currently set for June 19, 2009.
The tentative settlement reached by the parties is subject to
court approval, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter period ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-04578-SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.

For more details, contact:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

               - and -

          UTStarcom Securities Litigation
          c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
          P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914
          Phone: (800) 766-3330
          Fax: (516) 931-0810
          Web site: http://www.berdonclaims.com


VIBE MEDIA: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Refunds for Defunct Magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vibe Media Group, LLC is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by a subscriber of defunct hip-hop culture magazine Vibe
who is seeking for a refund, Reuters reports.

The suit was filed on July 21, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York by Kenneth Rogers of
Alabama, under the caption, "Rogers v. Vibe Media Group, LLC et
al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-06460."

In his complaint, which named Vibe Media along with unnamed
people associated with the magazine as defendants, Mr. Rogers
said he purchased a one year subscription three months before
the magazine went "belly up" and wants all subscribers to get
their money back.

Mr. Rogers sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment for
a lost subscription and is seeking class action status to allow
others to join in the fight, according to Reuters.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by
Reuters, "As the magazine was quietly closing up the shop, the
Vibe website continued to contain links to advertisements
enticing customers to purchase subscriptions to the magazine."
Vibe should have "publicly disclosed to subscribers that it was
teetering on the brink of insolvency," the suit reiterates.

The complaint notes that a one-year subscription cost between
$9.95 and $14.95, and Vibe, the baby of acclaimed music producer
Quincy Jones (Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and "Off the Wall"
albums included), had more than 800,000 subscribers, Reuters
reported.

For more details, contact:

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq. (ronen@sarrafgentile.com)
          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          116 John Street
          Suite 2310
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 868-3610
          Fax: (212) 918-7967


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit Over Tip Sharing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Las Vegas LLC, Andrew Pascal and Steve Wynn are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by three dealers who are
claiming that the resort's tip sharing policy violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Valerie Miller of The Las Vegas Review-
Journal reports.

The suit was filed on July 9, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada by Quy Ngoc Tang, Leopold Gemma and
Daniel Baldonado, under the caption, "Tang et al v. Wynn Las
Vegas LLC et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-01243."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for
the new complaint, Reno-based attorney Mark Thierman, Esq. Told
The Las Vegas Review-Journal.  The case would be an "opt-in"
class, meaning plaintiffs would have to seek to join it.

Lawyers for Wynn dealers say any potential damages Wynn faces
could be doubled under federal law.  So far, those damages are
approximately at least $600,000 to $800,000 a month for the 34
months the case has gone on, plaintiffs' attorney Robin Potter,
Esq. tells The Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The dealers have claimed their tips were wrongfully diverted
through a tip-pooling system implemented by Wynn in the fall of
2006, according to The Las Vegas Review-Journal.

For more details, contact:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq. (laborlawyer@pacbell.net)
          Thierman Law Firm
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Phone: 775-284-1500
          Fax: 775-703-5027

          Robin Potter, Esq.
          111 E. Wacker Drive
          Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-861-1800

               - and -

          Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq. (wagelaw@aol.com)
          Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation
          633 S Fourth Street
          Suite 4
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Phone: 702-383-6085
          Fax: 702-385-1827


YUKON-NEVADA GOLD: Employees File Suit Over August 2008 Lay-Offs
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp. announces that it and its wholly
owned subsidiary, Queenstake Resources U.S.A., Inc., have been
named as defendants in a class action lawsuit initiated by
certain employees who were laid off in August 2008.

     The action is for an alleged violation of the Federal WARN
Act, Employment Retirement Income Security Act, State Labor Laws
and to foreclose on labor liens not yet filed.

     As previously stated in a news release dated April 16,
2009, Queenstake intends to satisfy all outstanding legal
obligations due, caused by the shut down in August 2008.  When
the mine closed the Company paid as much as it could from
available cash at the time, which was a reasonable proportion
toward what was then due under the Federal WARN Act, Employment
Retirement Income Security Act, and State Labor Law obligations.
Since then it has paid approximately 50% of the then remaining
outstanding balance due under the Federal WARN Act.

     As Queenstake moves forward to recommence production as
indicated in other recent news, it should soon be in a position
to satisfy justifiable claims.

     The Company and Queenstake will defend the class action
from any and all unjustified claims where they believe there is
no obligation.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARE ESCENTUALS: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the common stock of Bare Escentuals, Inc
(Nasdaq: BARE) between November 7, 2006 and November 26, 2007,
inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


TRONOX INC: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock (Class A or Class B) of
Tronox, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: TRXBQ) during the period between
November 28, 2005 and January 12, 2009, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's and
Kerr-McGee Corp.'s failure to disclose during the Class Period
that Tronox (initially spun off of Kerr-McGee pursuant to a
registration statement in November 2005, and the 56.7% of the
Company Kerr-McGee held after November 2005 spinoff was
distributed as a dividend by Kerr-McGee to its shareholders as
Class B shares) had understated the Company's environmental and
tort liabilities.  According to the complaint, after what
defendants knew throughout the Class Period became known, that
Tronox's environmental and tort liabilities were far greater
than had been represented, Tronox sought bankruptcy protection,
thus rendering the value of Tronox's shares virtually worthless.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.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, 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  * * *