CAR_Public/090730.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, July 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 149

                           Headlines

BAXTER INT'L: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Blood Plasma Products
BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Minn. Lawsuit Over "WWJD" Motto Dismissed
CA INC: Mulls Renewed Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suits in N.Y.
CASH AMERICA: "Alfeche" Lawsuit Over Lending Activities Pending
CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending

CASH AMERICA: Oct. 13 Status Hearing Set for Payday Loans Suit
E.I. DUPONT: Faces Lawsuit Over Changes Affecting Pension Funds
EBAY INC: N.Y. Judge Transfers Litigation Over "Coins" to Calif.
FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval
HALLIBURTON CO: Denied Class Status in Securities Suit on Appeal

HORIZON REALTY: Sued for Violations of the Landlord-Tenant Law
INDIANA: Court Awards $42M to Current, Former State Employees
IMMUCOR INC: To Defend Suits Over Price-Fixing of Blood Reagents
IOMEDIX COLD: Oct. 20 Hearing Set for "Salcido" Suit Settlement
KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Consolidated Lawsuit

LA SALLE COUNTY: Appeals Court Affirms Decision in Ill. Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Settle Suits Over Monogram Agreement
MASSACHUSETTS: Lawyers, Tollpayers Urge Settlement in MTA Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Court Dismisses "DeBlasio" Cash Sweep Suit
MOODY'S INVESTORS: Faces Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities

MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Settles FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Mass.
PELEPHONE: Faces Litigation in Israel for Saving Text Messages
SANTA MONICA: Faces Homeless Residents' Civil Rights Litigation
SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY: Reaches $4.2M Deal for Workers' Lawsuit
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeal to Class Status in ERISA Suit Pending

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Third-Party Payors' Lawsuits
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Defends Lawsuits Over Cholesterol Joint Venture
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Inks Settlement in Merck Shareholders Lawsuit
SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Ruling on K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuit Pending
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settlement Deal on Merger Suit Inked on July 23

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settlement of Securities Suit Under Advisement
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
TELEMAR NORTE: Faces Suit for Breaking Customer-Service Rules
UNITED STATES: Faces Minn. Litigation Over HAMP, Foreclosures
UNITIL CORP: To Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint in Mass.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Kendall Law Group Announces Suit Filing


                           *********

BAXTER INT'L: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Blood Plasma Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Baxter International, Inc. (BAX) hospital customer filed a
purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the company and a
competitor conspired to control supplies and prices of plasma-
derived medical products, Jon Kamp of Dow Jones Newswires
reports.

The company, in a brief note in a 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, said a hospital customer
filed suit with the allegations against Baxter and another
company, which Baxter didn't name, on July 15, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, reports
Dow Jones Newswires.

The suit alleged "that Baxter and a competitor conspired to
restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma-
derived therapies since late 2004,"  according to the company.
"The complaint attempts to state a claim for class action relief
and demands treble damages," it adds, according to Dow Jones
Newswires.

Eli Greenblat of The Age previously reported that CSL Ltd., CSL
Behring LLC and Baxter International, Inc. are facing a
purported antitrust class-action lawsuit accusing Australia's
biggest health-care company, CSL, and its main rival, Baxter
International, of a conspiracy to fix the prices of life-saving
blood plasma products (Class Action Reporter, July 21, 2009).

The suit was filed on July 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Pemiscot Memorial
Hospital, under the caption, "Pemiscot Memorial Hospital v. CSL
Limited, et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-03143."

Pemiscot Memorial, a small publicly owned hospital in Missouri,
which services several counties in the south-eastern part of the
state, alleges CSL and Baxter had illegal agreements to restrict
supply and push up prices through co-ordinating their individual
output, according to The Age.

The hospital is relying heavily on the statements and findings
of the FTC in June that claimed that CSL, Talecris Therapeutics,
and Baxter operated as a "tight oligopoly" and had learned they
could maximize profits if each company did its part to pull back
on supply to avoid driving prices lower.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
Age, "Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired, combined or
contracted to restrict output and to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the prices of blood plasma proteins that they sold to
(the) plaintiff and the other class members during the class
period."  The plaintiff said that because of this conspiracy,
blood plasma prices were higher than they otherwise would have
been.

"The restriction of supply and increase in prices was not the
result of natural market forces.  Rather, they were caused by
defendants' conspiracy, which defendants formed in response to
the excess supply that occurred earlier in the decade and that
defendants did not want to experience again," the complaint
states.

The Age reported that Pemiscot Memorial's complaint seeks to
represent U.S. buyers of blood plasma proteins from October 1,
2004, to the present.

The complaint has asked the court for a jury trial.  It is also
seeking unspecified damages, reports The Age.

For more details, contact:

          Marc I. Machiz, Esq. (mmachiz@cohenmilstein.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          255 South 17th Street
          Suite 1307
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 267-773-4680


BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Minn. Lawsuit Over "WWJD" Motto Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A federal class action lawsuit against Bullseye Collection
Agency (Bullseye), which challenged Bullseye's "WWJD" business
motto, has now been dismissed with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs in
that suit, Mark and Sara Neill, claimed they were harassed and
oppressed when they received a collection letter from Bullseye
that contained the same "WWJD" motto that Bullseye includes on
all of its business communications.  Of course, far from being
oppressive, WWJD is an acronym that sometimes means "What Would
Jesus Do?"  Bullseye, a small, family-owned business, uses the
motto as a reminder to act with diligence and respect in an
industry traditionally characterized by ruthlessness and
incivility.

     Instead of abandoning its motto or giving up its
constitutional rights, Bullseye fought back with Liberty
Counsel's assistance.  Bullseye argued that "WWJD" is not
oppressive as a matter of law and cannot violate the law.
Bullseye also argued that if any law actually prohibits the
benign and courteous use of "WWJD" as a business motto, then
such law is unconstitutional, because it violates Bullseye's
freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equal protection
rights.

     In addition to vigorously defending Bullseye, Liberty
Counsel also filed a comprehensive counterclaim against the
Neills and another company, Bureau of Collection Recovery, LLC
(BCR).  Bullseye discovered that Mr. Neill was no stranger to
the collection business but was the president of BCR, a giant
competitor collection company with offices in the United States
and India.  Bullseye alleged that the Neills and BCR abused the
legal process and engaged in a conspiracy to harm Bullseye
competitively and to deprive Bullseye of its constitutional
rights.

     Upon receiving Bullseye's counterclaim, the Neills decided
to abandon their frivolous crusade against Bullseye.  They
dismissed with prejudice each of their claims, such that they
can never bring them again in any court.  As a result, Bullseye
remains free to use "WWJD" on its stationery, and its
constitutional rights remain intact.

     Horatio Mihet, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty
Counsel, stated, "Neither the law nor the courtroom provides
refuge for those wishing to harm others with their intolerance
of Christian viewpoints.  Christian men and women in business
need not check their faith at the door of the marketplace."

     The suit was filed on Oct. 22, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court for the of Minnesota by Sara Neill and Mark Neill, under
the caption, "Neill et al v. Bullseye Collection Agency, Inc.,
Case No. 0:2008-cv-05800," (Class Action Reporter, June 22,
2009).

For more details, contact:

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

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

               - and -

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


CA INC: Mulls Renewed Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suits in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CA, Inc. may renew its motion to dismiss stockholder class-
action lawsuits against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, according to its July 24,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The company, its former Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang, its
former Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar, its former Chief Financial
Officer Ira Zar, and its Vice Chairman and Founder Russell M.
Artzt were defendants in one or more stockholder class-action
lawsuits filed in July 1998, February 2002, and March 2002 in
the Federal Court, alleging, among other things, that a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's Common
Stock during the period from Jan. 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998
were harmed by misleading statements, misrepresentations, and
omissions regarding the Company's future financial performance.

In addition, in May 2003, a class-action lawsuit captioned,
"John A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et
al.," was filed in the Federal Court.

The complaint in this matter, a purported class action on behalf
of the CA Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the
participants in, and beneficiaries of, the CASH Plan for a class
period from March 30, 1998 through May 30, 2003, asserted claims
of breach of fiduciary duty under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The named defendants were the Company, the Company's Board of
Directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative Committee of the
CASH Plan, and certain current or former employees and/or former
directors of the Company: Messrs. Wang, Kumar, Zar, Artzt, Peter
A. Schwartz, and Charles P. McWade; and various unidentified
alleged fiduciaries of the CASH Plan.

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company
securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On Aug. 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of the
class-action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors, alleging misleading
statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the
Company's financial performance, as well as breaches of
fiduciary duty.

As part of the class action settlement, which was approved by
the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company agreed to issue
a total of up to 5.7 million shares of Common Stock to the
stockholders represented in the three class action lawsuits,
including payment of attorneys' fees.

The Company has completed the issuance of the settlement shares
as well as payment of US$3.3 million to the plaintiffs'
attorneys in legal fees and related expenses.

On Dec. 7, 2004, a motion to vacate the Order of Final Judgment
and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in
connection with the settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder
lawsuits was filed by the Wyly Litigants.

The motion sought to reopen the settlement to permit the moving
stockholders to pursue individual claims against certain present
and former officers of the Company.  The motion stated that the
moving stockholders did not seek to file claims against the
Company.

In a memorandum and order dated Aug. 2, 2007, the Federal Court
denied all of the 60(b) Motions and reaffirmed the 2003
settlements.  On Aug. 24, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices
of appeal of the August 2 decision.  On Aug. 16, 2007, the
Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to amend or clarify
the August 2 decision, and the Company joined that motion.  On
Sept. 12 and Oct. 4, 2007, the Federal Court issued opinions
denying the motions to amend or clarify.  On Sept. 18, 2007, the
Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the September 12
decision.  The Company filed notices of cross-appeal of the
September 12 and October 4 decisions on Nov. 2, 2007.

On July 28, 2008, the Wyly Litigants served their opening
briefs.  On Sept. 11, 2008, the Company filed its brief in
opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals.  Also on Sept. 11,
2008, current CA director The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato and
former CA directors Richard Grasso, Shirley Strum Kenny, Jay
Lorsch, Roel Pieper, Lewis Ranieri, Walter Schuetze, Willem F.P.
de Vogel and Charles Wang filed briefs in opposition to the Wyly
Litigants' appeals.  On Oct. 9, 2008, the Wyly Litigants filed a
reply brief in support of their appeals in the class actions.

Oral argument on the Wyly Litigants' appeals and cross-appeals
occurred on March 11, 2009, and decisions are pending.

On July 23, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a summary order affirming the August 2, September
12 and October 4, 2007 decisions of the Federal Court.  The
summary order also acknowledged that the Ranger Governance
litigation that was part of the 2004 Derivative Actions was not
before the Second Circuit and, therefore, the company could
renew its motion to dismiss and realign that had been dismissed
without prejudice in the Oct. 29, 2007.

Islandia, N.Y.-based CA, Inc. -- http://www.ca.com/-- provides
tools for managing networks, databases, applications, storage,
security, and other systems.


CASH AMERICA: "Alfeche" Lawsuit Over Lending Activities Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed by Peter Alfeche against
Cash America International, Inc., among others, is still at an
early stage.

On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche filed a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Cash America, Cash America Net of Nevada,
LLC (CashNet Nevada), Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC and
Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com (collectively,
CashNetUSA).

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's
online payday lending activities in Pennsylvania were illegal
and not in accordance with the Pennsylvania Loan Interest
Protection Law or the licensing requirements of the CDCA.

The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of
CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including choice of law and
arbitration provisions, are not authorized by Pennsylvania law.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision
located in the agreements governing the lending activities, and
a hearing on the motion was held on July 1, 2009.

On July 16, 2009, CashNetUSA filed a motion to stay the
litigation pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt-
Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp., which addresses the
treatment of class action arbitrations under the Federal
Arbitration Act.  The court has not rendered its decision on the
motions as of this date, according to the company's July 24,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/
-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed by Yulon Clerk is still
at an early stage, according to Cash America International,
Inc.'s July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, against Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC (CashNet
Nevada) and several other unrelated third-party lenders.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants'
lending activities in Pennsylvania, including CashNet Nevada's
online payday lending activities in Pennsylvania, were illegal
and in violation of various Pennsylvania laws, including the
Loan Interest Protection Law, the CDCA and the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Laws.

The complaint seeks payment of potential fines, unspecified
damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of certain damages.
The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the lawsuit now
resides.

The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge presiding
in the Alfeche litigation.

CashNet Nevada filed a motion with the federal court to enforce
the arbitration provision located in the agreements governing
the lending activities and has also filed a motion to stay the
litigation pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt-
Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp., which addresses the
treatment of class action arbitrations under the Federal
Arbitration Act.

As of July 24, 2009, the date of the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009, the court has not set a hearing or rendered
decisions on the motions.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/
-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CASH AMERICA: Oct. 13 Status Hearing Set for Payday Loans Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The propriety of class certification hearing in a purported
class-action lawsuit against Cash America International, Inc.
over payday loans has been set for Oct. 13, 2009.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed the purported class
action suit against Georgia Cash America, Inc.; Cash America
International, Inc.; Daniel R. Feehan; and several unnamed
officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America.

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that Cash America has been making
illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury
law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia
residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.

The suit claims that Community State Bank is not the true lender
with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that its
involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge."  Based on
this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto"
lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's
affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on
Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration)
was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24,
2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County,
Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the
trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel
arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings.

The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to
compel arbitration was rendered moot after the discovery
sanction was handed down by the Court.

The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review these orders and
remanded the case to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2008).

Discovery relating to the propriety of class certification is
underway.  The State Court set a hearing on the propriety of
class certification for Oct. 13, 2009.  The Court ordered that
discovery directed at the merits of Plaintiff's claims be stayed
until the Court issues its written decision regarding class
certification.

Cash America, in its July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009, says the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are
without merit. The company is defending this lawsuit.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/
-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


E.I. DUPONT: Faces Lawsuit Over Changes Affecting Pension Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. and its pension fund
DuPont Pension and Retirement Plan are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit filed by The International Brotherhood of Dupont
Workers who claim that company efforts to streamline its payroll
system by hiring an outside contractor to manage it has led to
workers' being shortchanged on their pension payments, Jane M.
Von Bergen of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

The federal lawsuit involves four DuPont Co. facilities,
including Philadelphia's, according to The Philadelphia
Inquirer.

Affected are about 500 employees, including as many as 100 from
Philadelphia, who retired after July or Aug. 2008, or will
retire as Dupont seeks voluntary retirements to reduce layoffs,
reports The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Before that, Dupont was able to accurately calculate pension
benefits, according to the lawyer representing the union,
Kenneth Henley, Esq. of Bala Cynwyd.  The plaintiffs seek class-
action status, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

For more details, contact:

          Kenneth Henley, Esq.
          One Bala Avenue, Suite 500
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: (610)-660-7744


EBAY INC: N.Y. Judge Transfers Litigation Over "Coins" to Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles P. Sifton of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York transferred the purported class-
action lawsuit, "Universal Grading Service, John Callandrello,
Joseph Komito and Vadim Kirichenko, vs. EBay, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-03557-CPS-RML," to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, David L. Ganz of Numismatic
News reports.

Law360 previously reported that the judge has decided to
transfer a proposed antitrust class-action suit that claims eBay
Inc. and several coin grading services took part in a scheme to
oust small grading services from participating in the online
marketplace for certified coins (Class Action Reporter, June 15,
2009).

On June 9, 2009, Judge Sifton chose not to dismiss the case, but
opted to transfer it to another venue, according to Law360.

Numismatic News previously reported that eBay, Inc., along with
the American Numismatic Association, the Professional
Numismatists Guild, and the ANA president's coin firm, are
facing a purported class-action-lawsuit in New York federal
court, alleging anti-competitive conduct (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 28, 2008).

The suit, styled, "Universal Grading Service, John Callandrello,
Joseph Komito and Vadim Kirichenko, vs. EBay, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-03557-CPS-RML," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on Aug. 29, 2008.

There are four named plaintiffs in the case.  They are:

       -- Universal Grading Service of New Jersey;

       -- John Callandrello, a UGS shareholder;

       -- Joseph Komito, a New Jersey coin dealer; and

       -- Vadim Kirichenko, a New York coin dealer.

They claim damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of costs,
interest and attorney's fees and permanent injunctive relief.

Basis for the claim is an allegation of conduct "constituting
violation of antitrust policies, as well as violation of
anticompetitive conduct."

There is also a claim for "civil conspiracy and trade libel"
pursuant to New York common law.  Under the rules of defamation,
truth is an affirmative defense to trade libel, if the action
complained of actually took place.

The plaintiffs claim a "conspiracy between [Barry Suppler & Co.,
LLC], ANA, PNG and eBay to obstruct the ability of the smaller
coin grading services to participate in the coin marketplace on
eBay."

The basis of the claim: In 2001, eBay "formed a group that
became known as the 'Internet rules committee' made up of coin
industry insiders, including Barry Stuppler, in his capacity as
then ANA governor and chairman of the ANA Consumer Protection
Committee (the precursor to the "Coins Community Watch Group"),
Doug Winter, a PNG dealer, and R. Steven Ivy," of Heritage.

The plaintiffs charge that through the effort of this group and
others, PNG, in conjunction with the Industry Council for
Tangible Assets and spearheaded by Mr. Stuppler, commissioned a
survey of rare coin authentication and grading services, which
it is claimed gave rise to false and damaging results because of
insufficient data.

With small grading companies like UGS never being referenced in
2006 Grading Service Survey, coupled with an eBay policy
permitting "only coins that have been graded by five grading
services (NGC, NCS, PCGS, ICG and ANACS) to be listed for sale
on eBay as "certified" coins," the plaintiffs claim these
actions are anti-competitive and illegal.

The plaintiffs hope to prove that the policies are "destroying
the competitive free market by prohibiting consumers and dealers
from purchasing or dealing in certified coins graded from any
coin grading service except for the ones listed in eBay's
policy."

According to Numismatic News, attorneys for the companies that
claim to be besmirched brought it as a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who
comprise the ... "class."  That includes "all companies and
individuals who provide coin grading services on the market for
coin auctions to the public at large and who have not been
certified by eBay as "the authorized grading company" pursuant
to eBay's Counterfeit Currency and Stamps policy and who are
interested in pursuing this lawsuit."  The class period is from
January 2004 to the present.

The lawsuit is also claiming that "eBay's policy enacted on
Sept. 17, 2007 ... is per se unlawful because it limits the flow
of goods in commerce."

The suit is "Universal Grading Service et al v. EBay, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:08-cv-03557-CPS-RML," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Charles P.
Sifton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marina Trubitsky, Esq. (dtcassociates@yahoo.com)
          Law Office of Marina Trubitsky
          11 Broadway
          Suite 861
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-732-7707
          Fax: 212-732-7708


FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a purported class-action litigation
against Fastenal Co. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and several state statutes remains subject to court
approval.

On Aug. 29, 2008, the company announced that it had reached a
preliminary agreement to settle a purported class-action lawsuit
relating to the classification of its Assistant General Managers
as exempt for purposes of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania state statutes.

This suit also alleged that Assistant General Managers in
California did not receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods under the California Labor Code.

While the company denies the allegations underlying the lawsuit,
it decided to enter into the settlement agreement in order to
avoid significant legal fees, the uncertainty of a jury trial,
distractions to its operations, and other expenses and
management time that would have to be devoted to protracted
litigation.  The settlement, which is still subject to court
approval, fully resolves all claims brought by the plaintiffs in
this lawsuit.

Pursuant to the settlement, the company will make a cash payment
of $10 million to cover claims by eligible class members,
plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs, and payments to the named
plaintiffs.

The expense for this settlement was recorded in the results for
the third quarter ending Sept. 30, 2008.

The company expects payment to occur on this settlement during
the second half of 2009, according to its July 24, 2009 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Fastenal Co. -- http://www.fastenal.com-- sells industrial and
construction supplies in a wholesale and retail fashion.  As of
December 31, 2008, it operated 2,311 company-owned or leased
store locations in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada,
Mexico, Singapore, the People's Republic of China, and the
Netherlands. Fastenal's offerings are grouped into 10 product
lines: fasteners; tools and equipment; cutting tools and
abrasives; hydraulics, pneumatics, plumbing, and heating,
ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC); material handling,
storage and packaging; janitorial supplies, chemicals and
paints; electrical supplies; welding supplies; safety supplies,
and metals, alloys and materials.


HALLIBURTON CO: Denied Class Status in Securities Suit on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas' denial of a
class-action status to a case against Halliburton Co. over
securities law violations is on appeal.

The class-action suit was filed in June 2002, against the
company with the federal court on behalf of purchasers of its
common stock during the period starting approximately May 1998
until approximately May 2002.  The suit alleges violations of
the federal securities laws in connection with the accounting
change and disclosures involved in the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission investigation.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection, the report
notes.

In the weeks that followed the suit filing, approximately 20
similar class actions were commenced against the company.
Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP -- the company's independent accountants for the
period covered by the lawsuits -- and several of the company's
present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.

The class-action suits were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, entitled "Richard Moore, et
al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the
company in April 2003.  However, as a result of a later
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled,
"Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton
Company, et al."

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court.  In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of Halliburton's 1998 acquisition of
Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the company failed to
timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

                      Settlement Attempts

According to Reuters, a memorandum of understanding contemplated
settlement of the Dresser claims as well as the original claims.

In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge, the court held that evidence of the settlement's
fairness was inadequate, denied the motion for final approval of
the settlement, and ordered the parties to mediate.  The
mediation was unsuccessful.

                       Motion to Dismiss

Reuters recalls that in April 2005, the court appointed new co-
lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing
that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the
company file a motion  to dismiss.  The court held oral
arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court
took the motion under advisement.

In March 2006, the report relates, the court entered an order in
which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect
to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to replead some of
those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.

AMSF then filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint.  The
company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been replead.  A hearing was held on that
motion in July 2006, and in March 2007, the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than the company's CEO.

The court ordered that the case proceed against Haliburton and
the company's CEO.

In June 2007, upon becoming aware of a U.S. Supreme Court
opinion issued in that month, the court allowed further briefing
on the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the company's CEO.
The court again denied the motion to dismiss in March 2008.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the company's response was filed in November 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008).

According to Reuters, the court decided that the lead plaintiff
will have to pursue on its own the lawsuit, which claims
Halliburton defrauded investors through questionable accounting
practices from 1998 to 2001.

The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas will
elaborate by Nov. 3, 2008, when the plaintiffs will have the
option to file motions for reconsideration or an appeal, Reuters
further relates, citing Halliburton, which has headquarters in
Houston and Dubai (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 2, 2008).

The court issued an order Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's motion for
class certification.  AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to appeal the
district court's order denying class certification.  The Fifth
Circuit granted AMSF's motion and the order denying class
certification is currently on appeal.  The case will remain
stayed in the district court pending the outcome of the appeal,
according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq. (rschiffrin@sbtklaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056

         Marc R. Stanley, Esq. (mstanley@smi-law.com)
         Stanley Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214-443-4301
         Fax: 214-443-0358

              - and -

         Thomas Burt, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the company is:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404


HORIZON REALTY: Sued for Violations of the Landlord-Tenant Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Realty Group, a Chicago apartment leasing and management
company, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by
former tenant, Amanda Bonnen, Karen Jordan of ABC7Chicago.com
reports.

Ms. Bonnen, who lived in an Uptown apartment building for two
years before moving out, filed the class-action lawsuit against
Horizon Group last month alleging violations of the landlord-
tenant ordinance, according to ABC7Chicago.com.


INDIANA: Court Awards $42M to Current, Former State Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
     An Indiana trial court has awarded more than $42 million to
current and former Indiana state employees who were required by
the State of Indiana to work 40-hour workweeks from 1973 until
1993 even though other state employees holding the same
positions were required by the State to work only 37.5-hour
workweeks for exactly the same pay.  Judge John Hanley of the
Marion Superior Court issued findings of fact, conclusions of
law and a judgment earlier this morning.

     Suit was filed almost sixteen years ago, on July 29, 1993,
when attorneys William A. Hasbrook and John F. Kautzman of
Indianapolis-based Ruckelshaus, Kautzman, Blackwell, Bemis &
Hasbrook filed the original class action complaint.  The crux of
the plaintiffs' complaint has from the beginning been that the
State was not legally permitted to force state employees in
particular job classifications to work 2.5 hours more per week
than other state employees in the same job classifications,
while still paying them exactly the same pay as their lower-hour
counterparts.  Sixteen years and one four-day bench trial later,
the Indiana court agreed and found in favor of the plaintiffs,
awarding $42.4 million in damages for 20 years that the State
continued making this unjust demand of certain of its employees.

     Over the course of the litigation, the case has been up and
down to the Indiana appeals courts numerous times, with the
plaintiffs emerging victorious each time.  The case had also
been overseen by a succession of judges, until Judge Hanley set
the case for trial in March of this year.

     In 2008, the Ruckelshaus firm brought on Texas-based
litigation firm Susman Godfrey LLP as co-trial counsel.
Regarding the judgment, Steve Susman of Susman Godfrey said,
"The Indiana state employees who are plaintiffs in this case
have had to wait an extraordinarily long time for justice.  But
now that justice has come, these employees should finally be
paid the full wage they earned so many years ago."  Mr. Hasbrook
of the Ruckelshaus firm said, "We thank our class
representatives, all class members, and the Indiana State
Employees Association for their patience and dedication in
seeing the case through to this judgment.  We are extremely
pleased that the Court has validated the claims of Indiana's
hard-working State employees."

     The $42.4 million dollar judgment is believed to be among
the largest class action judgments against the State of Indiana
in its history.

     The plaintiff class was represented by Mr. Susman and two
of his colleagues from Susman Godfrey, Jonathan Bridges and
Stephen Shackelford, Jr., and by Mr. Hasbrook and Mr. Kautzman
from the Ruckelshaus firm.


IMMUCOR INC: To Defend Suits Over Price-Fixing of Blood Reagents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc. intends to defend purported class-action lawsuits
alleging that it conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents
are sold.

Since May 18, 2009, a series of 30 lawsuits have been filed in
10 different U.S. District Courts against the company, Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care
Systems, Inc. alleging that the defendants conspired to fix
prices at which blood reagents are sold, asserting claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

All of these complaints make substantially the same allegations
and seek to certify a class of persons and entities who
purchased blood reagents from any of the defendants between Jan.
1, 2000 and the present.

Most of the complaints limit the proposed class to persons and
entities in the United States, but some do not contain that
limitation.

Certain of the plaintiffs have filed motions with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that these cases be
centralized in a single U.S. District Court; arguments on these
motions are scheduled to be heard July 30, 2009.

Discovery has not yet begun in any of these cases.  None of the
courts has made a determination whether any of the plaintiffs'
claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class
action, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com-- develops,
manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems
that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and
serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood
transfusion.  The company has manufacturing facilities in the
United States and Canada and sells its products through its
direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in
other markets.  As of May 31, 2009, the company had received
orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including
121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the
United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan.  On Aug. 4,
2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd.


IOMEDIX COLD: Oct. 20 Hearing Set for "Salcido" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court will hold a fairness
hearing on Oct. 20, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Eduardo Salcido, et al. v. Iomedix
Cold International SRL, Case No. BC 387942."

The suit claims defendant made false and misleading statements
in their labeling and advertising of Cold MD dietary supplement
(Class Action Reporter, July 8, 2009).

A notice program authorized by the Los Angeles County Superior
Court began in July 2009 to alert those who purchased Cold MD
dietary supplement from March 26, 2004 through May 29, 2009
about a proposed settlement against Iomedix Cold International
SRL.  The notice is a result of the Court certifying, on May 29,
2009, a plaintiff class in a lawsuit alleging that defendant
made misleading or false statements about Cold MD dietary
supplement.

The settlement includes only the Cold MD dietary supplement,
which was packaged as "Cold MD" and had the words, "Dietary
Supplement" printed on the lower right corner of the box it was
sold in.  The Settlement does not mean that Defendant did
anything wrong, and the Court has not decided that Defendant did
anything wrong.

For more details, contact:

          Cold MD Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 3518
          Portland, OR 97228-3518
          Phone: 1-888-266-9428
          Web site: http://www.ColdMDSettlement.com


KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Consolidated Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
KV Pharmaceutical Co. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class-action lawsuit arising from
alleged financial misstatements and widespread drug recalls,
calling the litigation nothing more than "fraud by hindsight,"
Law360 reports.

The motion was filed on July 27, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, according to Law360.

Previously, Law360 reported that the law firms of Labaton
Sucharow LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP were
named lead counsel in a securities class-action lawsuit against
KV Pharmaceutical Co., as part of a judge's order consolidating
three separate class actions against the drugmaker.

In the same order, Judge Carol E. Jackson of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri also named the Public
Pension Fund Group as lead plaintiffs, reports Law360.

KV Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharma.com-- is a
fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures, acquires and markets branded and generic/non-
branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The company has a
range of dosage form capabilities, including tablets, capsules,
creams, liquids and ointments.  KV conducts its branded
pharmaceutical operations through Ther-Rx Corporation (Ther-Rx)
and its generic/non-branded pharmaceutical operations through
ETHEX Corporation (ETHEX).  Through Particle Dynamics, Inc.
(PDI), the company also develops, manufactures and markets
value-added raw material products for the pharmaceutical,
nutritional, personal care, food and other markets.  The company
has developed a variety of drug delivery and formulation
technologies, which are primarily focused in four principal
areas: SITE RELEASE; tastemasking; oral controlled release, and
oral quick dissolving tablets.


LA SALLE COUNTY: Appeals Court Affirms Decision in Ill. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 3rd District Appellate Court ruled on July 27, 2009 against
a group of tax objectors who claim La Salle County, Illinois
illegally used funds from its tort levy.

The ruling, which affirms an earlier lower court ruling, means
that 1,600 people who signed a petition seeking relief might be
able to proceed with their case, but the remaining 62,000
taxpayers who didn't sign on are excluded.

Freeport attorneys Thomas James, Esq. and Robert Slattery, Esq.
represent an estimated 1,600 taxpayers who filed suit in 2006.
They allege the La Salle County Board illegally used $6.5
million of the $8.6 million it imposed in its tort levy in 2005,
and are seeking relief.

The case was transferred out of La Salle County and into Bureau
County, where Judge Marc Bernabei eventually ruled the
petitioners could object individually but not as a group.  "The
statute is very clear," Judge Bernabei said.  "No class action
is allowed -- period."


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Settle Suits Over Monogram Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (NYSE: LH) and
Monogram Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: MGRM) announced that they
have agreed in principle with the shareholder plaintiffs to
settle purported class-action lawsuits filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware and in the Superior Court of
the State of California, San Mateo County in connection to the
proposed acquisition of the Monogram Biosciences by Laboratory
Corporation.

     Under the terms of the proposed settlements, the claims of
the named plaintiffs and the proposed class of public
shareholders relating to the tender offer and the related
agreement and plan of merger entered into by LabCorp and
Monogram on June 22, 2009 and the transactions contemplated
thereby will be dismissed.

     Finalization of the proposed settlements remains subject to
several conditions, including court approval and completion of
the tender offer and the other transactions contemplated by the
agreement and plan of merger in accordance with its terms.

     In connection with the proposed settlements, Monogram has
agreed to provide additional disclosures in Monogram's
solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9.  The
settlements will not affect the price of $4.55 per share paid in
the offer or the consideration to be paid in the subsequent
proposed merger.


MASSACHUSETTS: Lawyers, Tollpayers Urge Settlement in MTA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys and tollpayers who are suing the state over the
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority's use of toll revenues to pay
for the Big Dig are urging the state to reach a settlement
before going back to court, Steve Brown of WBUR reports.

The call comes a day after state Treasurer Timothy Cahill sent a
letter to Gov. Deval Patrick and Attorney General Martha
Coakley, urging immediate action to resolve the lawsuit,
according to WBUR.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Jan Schlichtmann, Esq., told WBUR that
the Turnpike Authority has not given any indication they are
willing to settle the case.

Mr. Schlichtman represents more than 2,000 tollpayers who have
filed a class action lawsuit against the state, arguing the
Turnpike Authority has illegally diverted money collected from
those drivers to pay for the Big Dig, reports WBUR.

The case is slated to go before a judge in Middlesex Superior
Court on Aug. 6, 2009, WBUR reported.

For more details, contact:

          Jan Schlichtmann, Esq., (jan@schlichtmannlaw.com)
          Prides Crossing
          Beverly, Massachusetts 01965
          Phone: 978-927-1037
          Fax: 978-232-9668
          Web site: http://www.jschlichtmann.com/


MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Court Dismisses "DeBlasio" Cash Sweep Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the purported class-action lawsuit, "DeBlasio et al v.
Merrill Lynch & Co. et al, Case No. 1:2007-cv-00318," which was
over the "cash sweep" programs offered by brokers, Andrew
Longstreth of Am Law Litigation Daily reports.

The suit was filed on Jan. 12, 2007 by Carlo DeBlasio, Ronald
Kassover, Stephen G. Krown, Deborah Torres, Jerome Silverman,
Michael Schirripa, Arthur Kornblit and Carol Washburn.  It names
as defendants: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Citigroup Inc.,
Citigroup Global Capital Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,
The Charles Schwab Corp., Merrill Lynch Bank, USA, Merrill Lynch
Bank & Trust Co., FSB, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB,
Citibank South Dakota N.A., Morgan Stanley Bank, Discover Bank,
Charles Schwab & Co., Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., US Trust
Company, N.A., Wachovia Corp., Wachovia Securities, LLC,
Wachovia Bank N.A. and Wachovia Bank of Delaware, N.A.

Am Law Litigation Daily reported that each brokerage had its own
counsel had its own counsel.  They are Jay Kasner, Esq. and
Scott Musoff, Esq. of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for
Merrill Lynch; Allen Burton, Esq., Bradley Butwin, Esq., and
Daniel Cantor, Esq. of O'Melveny & Myers for Morgan Stanley;
Alfred Pietrzak, Esq. and Andrew Stern, Esq. of Sidley Austin
for Citigroup; Theo Robins, Esq. and Kenneth Schacter, Esq. of
Bingham McCutchen for Charles Schwab; and Michael Conway, Esq.,
Cameron Matheson, Esq., and James Murphy, Esq. of LeClairRyan
for Wachovia.  The plaintiffs on the other hand were represented
by Samuel Sporn, Esq. of Schoengold & Sporn.

According to an opinion written by Judge Richard Sullivan, a
copy of which was obtained by Am Law Litigation Daily, the
programs were introduced back in the late 1970s.  Instead of
letting extra cash sit in customers' accounts, the brokerages
would periodically place the money in money market accounts.
The programs were modified in the 1990s to allow customers an
opportunity to put their extra cash in bank accounts affiliated
with the brokerages, instead of money market accounts.

The modification of the program was the focus of the complaint
filed against the brokers.  Customers alleged that the
brokerages at first paid customers who put their cash in broker-
affiliated bank accounts interest rates similar to those they
were offered in money market accounts, reports Am Law Litigation
Daily.

But subsequently, plaintiffs alleged, the brokerages began to
pay lower rates and also sought to limit customer access to
money market accounts, according to Am Law Litigation Daily.

Among other things, the plaintiffs claimed that the brokerages'
disclosures about their cash sweep programs were inaccurate and
that the brokerages owed their customers a fiduciary duty to
place their extra cash in the highest interest-bearing account.
According to the plaintiffs, the amount that such practices
affected was $186 billion, reports Am Law Litigation Daily.

In general, the suit alleges these companies are illegally
forcing clients into lower paying deposit accounts, enabling the
firms to reap "billions" in extra profits.  It further alleges
violations under New York law, including fraud, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and
negligent misrepresentation (Class Action Reporter, June 14,
2007).

It also claims that the sweep programs amount to an illegal
"tying" arrangement outlawed by the Sherman Act, a federal
antitrust law.

However, Judge Sullivan rejected all of the plaintiffs' claims,
citing Second Circuit precedent that establishes that "a broker
ordinarily has no duty to monitor a nondiscretionary account, or
to give advice to such a customer on an ongoing basis."  He also
concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that the brokerages'
disclosures about their cash sweeps programs were materially
inaccurate, Am Law Litigation Daily reports.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4043


MOODY'S INVESTORS: Faces Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Fitch Group, Inc. and The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. are facing a purported class-action
lawsuit accusing them of contributing to the nation's economic
catastrophe by wantonly accepting untrue and misleading
statements about unsound mortgage-backed securities, Dan McCue
of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 24, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York by the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi, under the caption, "Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Moody's Investors
Service, Inc. et al."

It claims that Moody's Investors Service, the Fitch Group and
McGraw-Hill Cos. cost investors billions of dollars by failing
to investigate the trustworthiness of statements issued by J.P.
Morgan Acceptance Corp., according to The Courthouse News
Service

As a result, institutional investors took a beating when the
true value of these securities was revealed and the global
economy unraveled, according to the plaintiff.

The pension plan says the securities rating agencies played a
"vital role" in creating subprime mortgage-backed securities.
The process of securitization transformed undifferentiated
mortgage loans into a hierarchy of securities with distinct risk
attributes that could be marketed to potential investors,
reports The Courthouse News Service.

It also says the rating agencies at best neglected their
fiduciary responsibilities by not accurately rating pre-
structured mortgage-backed securities: instead, they started
with the rating that was requested by the certificate issuer,
and built a deal around it.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
Courthouse News Service, this laxity and greed gave the highly
paid paper pushers the incentive to create as many AAA
investment pools as they could sell, regardless of their true
worth.

The Courthouse News Service reported that the plaintiff is
seeking compensatory damages for itself and other class members
in an amount to be determined at trial.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4041

For more details, contact:

          Marian P. Rosner, Esq. (mrosner@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-759-4600
          Fax: 212-486-2093


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Settles FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morton's Restaurant Group Inc. settled a national class-action
lawsuit that alleged waiters for the upscale steakhouse chain
were forced to give some of their tips to managers and were paid
less than the minimum wage, Donna Goodison of The Boston Herald
reports.

The suit was filed on May 20, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by Mark Johnson, a former
waiter for Morton's Boston restaurant on Boylston Street from
1998 to 2002.

Captioned, "Johnson v. Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., 1:2005-
cv-11058," it alleged that Morton's waiters were illegally
required to give a percentage of their tips to managers, even
while receiving the lower minimum service wage instead of the
full minimum wage.  The alleged chain-wide practice violated the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit was settled in arbitration.  "The matter has been
amicably resolved," Shannon Liss-Riordan, the waiters' Boston
attorney, who declined further comment told The Boston Herald.

The Chicago company will record an approximately $13.4 million
charge related to the class-action suit and the settlement of
all other so-called wage-and-hour claims against it dating back
to 2003.  The sum includes cash payments for up to a four-year
period and stock.

For more details, contact:

          Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. (sliss@llrlaw.com)
          Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street
          20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Phone: 617-994-5800
          Fax: 617-994-5801


PELEPHONE: Faces Litigation in Israel for Saving Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action motion was filed against Pelephone, a subsidairy
of Bezeq Group, claiming the company's database of text messages
sent and received by customers constitutes illegal wiretapping,
Hila Raz of Ha'aretz reports.

The claimants, attorneys Kobi Sudari and Ashraf Abu Razek, filed
their claim in the Petah Tikva District Court in Israel.  They
claim that the company copies and saves messages in a database,
even after customers delete them from their phones, according to
Ha'aretz.

The claimants say that the mobile services provider is doing
this without authorization, and without the knowledge and
consent of the sender or the receiver.  This practice violates
the privacy and the contractual and consumer rights of millions
of consumers in Israel and abroad, the claimants charge,
Ha'aretz reported.


SANTA MONICA: Faces Homeless Residents' Civil Rights Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Santa Monica and Santa Monica Police Department are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the city
has made it a "crime to be homeless" and that the police are
harassing and forcing such people into neighboring cities,
including Malibu, Venice and Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles,
Elizabeth Banicki of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 14, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California by Nadine Chubna, Keith
Greene, Alejandra Solana, Jade Gilbert, Lisa Martin and Thomas
Martin, under the caption, "Nadine Chubna et al v. City of Santa
Monica et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-05046."

The plaintiffs are homeless residents, who say they have been
cited for sleeping in public though they have no other place to
go, and that police harass them despite their physical and
mental illnesses, reports The Courthouse News Service.

According to the plaintiffs, they have been booted from the
streets for "camping" though many or most of them are
schizophrenic or drug-addicted and have no other place to go.

The plaintiff say that officers often wake them up in the middle
of the night by using shoes and batons or shining flashlights in
their eyes.  They also say that Santa Monica police officers
routinely insult and harass homeless people who are not
bothering anyone or doing anything illegal, The Courthouse News
Service reported.

The homeless are told that they must get out of Santa Monica and
move on to Malibu, Venice, or Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles,
according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
Courthouse News Service.

The lawsuit seeks damages for due process violations, cruel and
unusual punishment, violation of equal protection, the right to
travel and freedom of movement, and violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.  It also seeks declaratory judgment, an
injunction and costs, according to The Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4047

For more details, contact:

          Catherine E Lhamon, Esq. (clhamon@aclu-sc.org)
          ACLU Foundation of Southern California
          1313 W. Eighth Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-977-9500
          Fax: 213-977-5297

               - and -

          Jonathan E. Altman, Esq. (altmanje@mto.com)
          Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
          355 S Grand Ave, 35th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100
          Fax: 213-683-5162


SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY: Reaches $4.2M Deal for Workers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Savannah-Chatham County school district settled a class-
action lawsuit by employees who say they were not allowed to
enroll in the state retirement system for educators, The
Associated Press reports.

The district has agreed to pay $4.2 million to the more than 200
school maintenance, lunchroom, transportation and warehouse
workers who filed the suit.  Any of the workers still employed
by the district will now be able to sign up for the Teachers
Retirement System of Georgia, according to AP.

The Associated Press reported that the lawsuit was filed in 2004
by a school mechanic who says he was denied enrollment in the
retirement system.  Other workers joined him after a Chatham
Superior Court judge granted class-action status to the case.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeal to Class Status in ERISA Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp.'s appeal to the class certification
decision in the putative class action complaint relating to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations is
pending before the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

On March 31, 2003, Schering-Plough was served with a putative
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in New
Jersey alleging that Schering-Plough, retired Chairman, CEO and
President Richard Jay Kogan, Schering-Plough's Employee Savings
Plan (Plan) administrator, several current and former directors,
and certain former corporate officers breached their fiduciary
obligations to certain participants in the Plan.

The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly
suffered by the Plan.

The complaint was dismissed on June 29, 2004.  The plaintiffs
appealed.

On Aug. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the dismissal by the District Court and the
matter has been remanded back to the District Court for further
proceedings.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the District Court entered an order granting
in part, and denying in part, the named putative class
representative's motion for class certification.

Schering-Plough petitioned the U.S. District Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit for leave to appeal the class
certification decision.  Schering-Plough's petition was granted
on Dec. 10, 2008, and the appeal is currently pending before the
Third Circuit, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a
global science-centered healthcare company.  Through its own
biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners,
Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures
pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer
markets.  The company operates in three segments: Prescription
Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care.  The
Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products.  The
Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets animal health products.  The Consumer Health Care
segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter,
foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Third-Party Payors' Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. continues to face purported class-action
lawsuits by third-party payors alleging off-label promotion and
improper payments to physicians.

Several purported class action litigations have been filed
following the announcement of the settlement of the
Massachusetts Investigation.

Plaintiffs in these actions seek damages on behalf of third-
party payors resulting from the allegations of off-label
promotion and improper payments to physicians that were at issue
in the Massachusetts Investigation, according to the company's
July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a
global science-centered healthcare company.  Through its own
biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners,
Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures
pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer
markets.  The company operates in three segments: Prescription
Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care.  The
Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products.  The
Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets animal health products.  The Consumer Health Care
segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter,
foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Defends Lawsuits Over Cholesterol Joint Venture
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corporation continues to respond to existing and
new litigation relating to the cholesterol joint venture with
Merck & Co., Inc., according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In January 2008, the Merck/Schering-Plough Cholesterol Joint
Venture announced the results of the ENHANCE clinical trial
(Effect of Combination Ezetimibe and High-Dose Simvastatin vs.
Simvastatin Alone on the Atherosclerotic Process in Patients
with Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia).

In July 2008, the Merck/Schering-Plough Cholesterol Joint
Venture announced the results of the SEAS clinical trial
(Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis).

Litigation and investigations with respect to matters relating
to these clinical trials have been disclosed in prior filings.

Pending litigation include:

-- civil class action lawsuits alleging common law and
state consumer fraud claims in connection with Schering-
Plough's sale and promotion of the Merck/Schering-Plough
joint venture products VYTORIN and ZETIA;

-- several putative shareholder securities class action
lawsuits (where several officers are also named
defendants) alleging false and misleading statements and
omissions by Schering-Plough and its representatives
related to the timing of disclosures concerning the
ENHANCE results, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

-- a putative shareholder securities class action lawsuit
(where several officers and directors are also named),
alleging material misstatements and omissions related to
the ENHANCE results in the offering documents in
connection with Schering-Plough's 2007 securities
offerings, allegedly in violation of the Securities Act of
1933, including Section 11;

-- several putative class action suits alleging that
Schering-Plough and certain officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and seeking
damages in the amount of losses allegedly suffered by the
Plans;

-- a Shareholder Derivative Action alleging that the Board
of Directors breached its fiduciary obligations relating
to the timing of the release of the ENHANCE results; and

-- a letter on behalf of a single shareholder requesting
that the Board of Directors investigate the allegations in
the litigation described above and, if warranted, bring
any appropriate legal action on behalf of Schering-Plough.

On July 15, 2009, Schering-Plough and Merck announced a
settlement with a multistate group of 36 Attorneys General that
was investigating whether the companies violated state consumer
protection laws in connection with the ENHANCE clinical trial or
the promotion and marketing of VYTORIN.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a
global science-centered healthcare company.  Through its own
biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners,
Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures
pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer
markets.  The company operates in three segments: Prescription
Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care.  The
Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products.  The
Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets animal health products.  The Consumer Health Care
segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter,
foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Inks Settlement in Merck Shareholders Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. and Merck & Co., Inc., in July 2009,
agreed to settle a consolidated class-action complaint filed on
behalf of public shareholders of Merck.

Two putative class-action complaints have been filed on behalf
of public shareholders of Merck.

On June 4, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-action
complaint seeking, among other things, class action status, an
order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the proposed
combination, rescission of the combination if it is consummated,
and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 23, 2009, Schering-Plough and Merck entered into an
agreement regarding a settlement of these consolidated actions
for certain disclosures relating to the proposed merger which
had previously been made.

The agreement to make the additional disclosures does not
constitute an acknowledgment that the additional disclosures are
required under any applicable state or federal law, statute,
rule or regulation.  The parties also agreed that plaintiffs'
counsel may apply to the court for an award of attorneys' fees
and costs, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a
global science-centered healthcare company.  Through its own
biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners,
Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures
pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer
markets.  The company operates in three segments: Prescription
Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care.  The
Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products.  The
Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets animal health products.  The Consumer Health Care
segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter,
foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Ruling on K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey judge has
not yet ruled on the special master recommendation in the K-DUR
antitrust litigation, according to Schering-Plough Corp.'s July
24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Schering-Plough had settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith,
Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc. (Lederle) relating to
generic versions of K-DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting
potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients,
for which Lederle and Upsher Smith had filed Abbreviated New
Drug Applications.

Following the commencement of a Federal Trade Commission
administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from
those settlements (which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's
favor), alleged class action suits were filed in federal and
state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-
DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle.

These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of
action.

These suits seek unspecified damages.

In February 2009, a special master recommended that the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismiss the class-
action lawsuits on summary judgment.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a
global science-centered healthcare company.  Through its own
biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners,
Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures
pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer
markets.  The company operates in three segments: Prescription
Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care.  The
Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products.  The
Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets animal health products.  The Consumer Health Care
segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter,
foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settlement Deal on Merger Suit Inked on July 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp., on July 23, 2009, entered into an
agreement regarding a settlement of the consolidated federal
class action for certain disclosures relating to the proposed
merger with Merck & Co., Inc.

Since the announcement of the proposed combination, several
putative class action lawsuits seeking to enjoin the merger,
among other things, have been filed on behalf of shareholders of
Schering-Plough in federal and state court.

As amended, four putative class action lawsuits relating to the
proposed merger between the two companies were filed on behalf
of Schering-Plough shareholders in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

On April 30, 2009, the federal actions were consolidated under
the caption "In re Schering-Plough/Merck Merger Litig., Civ No.
09-1099."

On June 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-action
complaint in the Federal Action seeking to enjoin the proposed
merger, among other things.

On July 23, 2009, Schering-Plough entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding a settlement of the litigation.  In
connection with the settlement, Schering-Plough agreed, among
other things, to make disclosures related to the proposed
merger.  The agreement to make the additional disclosures does
not constitute an acknowledgment that the additional disclosures
are required under any applicable state or federal law, statute,
rule or regulation.  The parties also agreed that plaintiffs'
counsel may apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a
global science-centered healthcare company.  Through its own
biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners,
Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures
pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer
markets.  The company operates in three segments: Prescription
Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care.  The
Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products.  The
Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets animal health products.  The Consumer Health Care
segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter,
foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settlement of Securities Suit Under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement agreement of a consolidated amended
class-action complaint against Schering-Plough Corp. is under
advisement of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Following Schering-Plough's announcement that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration had been conducting inspections of its
manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had
issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with
current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were
filed against Schering-Plough and certain named officers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.  Specifically,
they allege that Schering-Plough failed to disclose an alleged
serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX would be
delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and they
allege that Schering-Plough failed to disclose the alleged depth
and severity of its manufacturing issues.

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of Schering-Plough stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb.
15, 2001.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.

The Court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003.
Notice of pendency of the class action was sent to members of
that class in July 2007.

On Feb. 18, 2009 the Court signed an order preliminarily
approving a settlement agreement.  The proposed settlement
agreement was presented to the Court on June 1, 2009.  The Court
took the settlement agreement under advisement, according to the
company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a
global science-centered healthcare company.  Through its own
biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners,
Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures
pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer
markets.  The company operates in three segments: Prescription
Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care.  The
Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products.  The
Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and
markets animal health products.  The Consumer Health Care
segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter,
foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. (NYSE: SKH)
has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of Skilled Healthcare
common stock during the period from May 14, 2007 through June 9,
2009, alleging violations of the federal securities laws by
Skilled Healthcare.

     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all purchasers of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.
(NYSE: SKH) common stock during the period from May 14, 2007
through June 9, 2009, inclusive.  The lawsuit alleges violations
of the federal securities laws and seeks to recover losses for
Skilled Healthcare shareholders (Class Action Reporter, July 28,
2009).

     The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California as case no. CV-09-5416.

     The complaint charges Skilled Healthcare and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting the true amount of its income in its IPO
prospectus and in other SEC filings and public communications.
In an announcement dated June 9, 2009, Skilled Healthcare
announced that the Company's prior financial statements for the
annual and quarterly periods between January 1, 2006 and March
31, 2009 should no longer be relied upon and that the Company
expected to restate those financial statements.  According to
the announcement, Skilled Healthcare discovered errors relating
to its accounting for reserves on its accounts receivable.  The
Company estimated that the cumulative charges against after-tax
earnings in the aggregate would be between $8 million and $9
million.  The Complaint alleges that this adverse disclosure
caused the value of Skilled Healthcare's stock to fall, damaging
investors.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Skilled Healthcare common stock during the Class
Period, including purchasers of Skilled Healthcare's common
stock in the IPO on or about May 14, 2007.

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

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


TELEMAR NORTE: Faces Suit for Breaking Customer-Service Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil's Justice Ministry filed two class-action lawsuits
against mobile-phone providers Telemar Norte Leste SA and Claro,
the local unit of America Movil SAB, for allegedly breaking
customer-service rules, Helder Marinho of Bloomberg reports.

Fines of 300 million reais ($158.6 million) are being sought for
each company, the ministry said in an e-mailed statementreceived
by Bloomberg.

"Even though the companies, generally, have invested in hiring
and there has been an improvement in customer service, the
abusive structure is maintained in the telecommunication
sector," according to the ministry.


UNITED STATES: Faces Minn. Litigation Over HAMP, Foreclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys in Minnesota filed a class-action lawsuit asking a
federal judge to halt federal foreclosures until everyone
eligible for the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) can
be evaluated for help, Jessica Mador of Minnesota Public Radio
reports.

The suit was filed on July 28, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota by Nichole Williams and Johnson
Sendolo, under the caption, "Williams et al v. Geithner et al.,
Case No. 0:2009-cv-01959."

Listed as defendants are: Timothy F. Geithner, U.S. Department
of the Treasury, Federal Housing Finance Agency, The, Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, The, Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC and GMAC Mortgage.

Attorneys say a moratorium is needed because the Home Affordable
Modification Program has been wrongly rejecting applications
from qualified homeowners without explanation or the right to
appeal, according to Minnesota Public Radio.

Mark Ireland, Esq., who is with the Foreclosure Relief Law
Project in St. Paul, Minn., the group behind the lawsuit says
that stopping foreclosures will give lenders and servicers the
time they need to fairly process applications.

"Not just because it's the right thing to do to have
transparency and accountability, but because it's required by
the due process clause of the Constitution.  And that is what
this case is about," Mr. Ireland tells Minnesota Public Radio.

The Obama administration launched the $75 billion program this
spring and has been promoting it with a massive publicity
campaign.  The president said it would help as many as four
million homeowners, Minnesota Public Radio reported.

The program is intended for people having trouble paying their
mortgage, either because their monthly payments have gone up or
their income has gone down because of high medical bills or a
lost job, reports Minnesota Public Radio.

For more details, contact:

          Mark R. Ireland, Esq. (mireland@hppinc.org)
          Housing Preservation Project
          570 Asbury St Ste 105
          St Paul, MN 55104
          Phone: 651-642-0102
          Fax: 651-642-0051


UNITIL CORP: To Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corp. intends to defend itself in a putative class action
complaint captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric
Light Company, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The putative class-action Complaint was filed against Fitchburg
on Jan. 7, 2009, in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts.

On April 1, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester
Superior Court and served on Fitchburg.

The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages
including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel
sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property
damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the
loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's
service territory in December 2008.

The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for
purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the
December 2008 Storm.

Unitil Corp. -- http://www.unitil.com/-- is a public utility
holding company. Unitil's principal business is the retail
distribution of both electricity and natural gas in New
Hampshire and Massachusetts, and the retail distribution of
natural gas in Maine.  Unitil has three retail distribution
utility subsidiaries: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas
and Electric Light Company, and Northern Utilities, Inc.
(Northern).  Unitil's retail distribution utilities serve
approximately 170,000 customers in their franchise areas.
Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State), an
interstate natural gas transmission pipeline company, was
acquired by Unitil, along with Northern, from NiSource Inc. in
December 2008.  Unitil also provides energy brokering and
advisory services to large commercial and industrial customers
throughout the northeastern United States through its non-
regulated business segment, Unitil Resources, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Usource, LLC.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Kendall Law Group Announces Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S.
Attorney, announces a shareholder class action has been filed in
Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of current investors of Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: NOVN), who purchased their shares
before July 14, 2009.  The lawsuit concerns potential breaches
of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in
connection with an alleged unfair takeover price.

     Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical
Co., Inc. announced on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, that they have
entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which
Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical offered to acquire Noven Pharmaceutical
for total cash consideration of approximately $428 million, or
$16.50 per share, in an all-cash tender offer for 100% of the
outstanding shares of Noven.  The offer price represents a 22%
premium to the closing price of Noven's common stock on July 13,
2009.

     The complaint alleges that "the consideration that
Hisamitsu has stated it will offer to holders of Noven common
stock, and that Noven's Board has accepted in unanimously
agreeing to the Proposed Transaction, is unfair and inadequate
because, among other things, the intrinsic value of Noven common
stock is materially higher than the amount offered, giving due
consideration to the Company's growth and operating results and
a promising new drug product in its pipeline."

     Hisamitsu has had a capital alliance with Noven since 2001
and owns already 4.98 percent of its outstanding shares.  Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., located in Miami, Florida, is a specialty
pharmaceutical company engaged in the research, development,
manufacturing, licensing, marketing and sale of prescription
pharmaceutical products.

For more details, contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq. (hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com)
          Kendall Law Group
          3232 McKinney, Ste. 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.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  * * *