CAR_Public/090806.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 6, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 154
  
                           Headlines

ALCOA INC: Sept. 22 Trial Set for "Curtis" ERISA Suit in Tenn.
BEARINGPOINT INC: Fourth Circuit Revives Va. Securities Lawsuit
BRISTOL-MYERS: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval
CARLYLE/GALAXY: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of $1.09M Settlement
CROCS INC: Faces Investor's Litigation in Mass. Federal Court

DEERE & CO: Iowa Judge Hears Arguments in Retirees' Litigation
EDISON INT'L: Calif. Court Narrows Class in 401(k) Litigation
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Overlapping Warranties
GREAT ATLANTIC: To Seek Decertification in Workers Overtime Suit
HAWAII: Opening Arguments Given in Housing Opportunities Case

HUGOTON ROYALTY: Royalty Owners' Lawsuit Still Pending in Okla.
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Suit Over Post-Production Costs is Ongoing
INBEV NV/SA: Mo. Judge Nixes Suit Over Anheuser-Busch Purchase
LCA-VISION: Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Motion Pending in Ohio
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending

MUELLER INDUSTRIES: California Lawsuit Over Copper Tubes Pending
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Suit Over Copper Plumbing Tubes Still Stayed
NATURAL HAIR: Faces Ill. Breach of Contract, Consumer Fraud Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended CDMA Purchasers' Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Qui Tam Lawsuits Over Billing Practices

REGENCY AFFILIATES: Settlement in "Gatz" Case Approved in June
SQUARE ENIX: Amended Complaint Filed in Lawsuit Over FFXI Fees
U.S. HOME: $1.5 Mil. Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit Pending
WELLS REAL: REIT Securities Complaint Remains Pending in Md.

* U.S. Chamber Says Overturning Stoneridge Case is Harmful

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Shalov Stone Announces Ill. Stock Suit Filing
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Dyer & Berens Files N.Y. Stock Suit
GENZYME CORP: Hagens Berman Announces Mass. Stock Lawsuit Filing
HURON CONSULTING: Glancy Binkow Announces Securities Suit Filing

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing
MEDAREX INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing

                           *********

ALCOA INC: Sept. 22 Trial Set for "Curtis" ERISA Suit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 22, 2009, trial is scheduled for the class-action suit
styled Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

The suit was filed on Nov. 17, 2006, by plaintiffs representing
approximately 13,000 retired employees of Alcoa or
Reynolds Metals Co., and their spouses and dependents.  It
alleges that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring
the plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to pay health insurance
premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain
medical procedures and prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care
plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits.  They
additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty
to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back
payment of benefits and attorneys fees.

Alcoa has consented to treatment of the plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.  

In late-2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered
consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated
and stayed the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claims,
struck the plaintiffs jury demand, but indicated it would use an
advisory jury, and set a trial date of Sept. 17, 2008.

In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009
and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to Sept. 22, 2009.
   
In June 2009, the Honorable Thomas W. Phillips indicated an
advisory jury would not be used at trial.

Alcoa estimates that, in the event of an unfavorable outcome,
the maximum exposure would be an additional postretirement
benefit liability of approximately $300 million and
approximately $40 million of expense (includes an interest cost
component) annually, on average, for the next 11 years,
according to the company's July 23, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq. (katapano@gmail.com)
          744 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: 518-463-7501
          Fax: 518-463-7502

Representing the defendant is:

          John W. Woods, Jr., Esq. (jwoods@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams
          951 East Byrd Street
          Riverfront Plaza East Tower
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Phone: 804-788-8629
          Fax: 804-343-4794


BEARINGPOINT INC: Fourth Circuit Revives Va. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit revived a
securities class-action lawsuit against bankrupt technology
consulting firm BearingPoint, Inc., Law360 reports.

In January 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia denied a motion by plaintiffs in the
securities fraud class-action that sought to appeal the
dismissal of the case (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 8, 2008).

Initially several lawsuits were filed.  The suits filed after
April 2005 claim that the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by, among other things, making
materially misleading statements between Aug. 14, 2003 and Apr.
20, 2005 with respect to the company's financial results in the
company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings and press
releases.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court certified a class, appointed class
counsel and appointed a class representative.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on Mar. 10, 2006 and the defendants,
including the company, subsequently filed a motion to dismiss
that complaint, which was fully briefed and heard on May 5,
2006.   

The company was awaiting a ruling when, on Mar. 23, 2007, the
court stayed the case, pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, argued before the
High Court on March 28, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the
Tellabs case, holding that to plead a strong inference of a
defendant's fraudulent intent under the applicable federal
securities laws, a plaintiff must demonstrate that such an
inference is not merely reasonable, but cogent and at least as
compelling as any opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the district court dismissed the complaint,
with prejudice, granting motions to dismiss filed by the company
and the other named defendants.  

In granting the Company's motion to dismiss, the court ruled
that the plaintiff failed to meet the scienter pleading
requirements set forth in the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, as amended.  

On Sept. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion that seeks a
reversal of the court's order dismissing the case or an
amendment to the court's order that would allow the plaintiffs
to replead.   

The company filed its brief on Oct. 17, 2007, and although a
hearing on the plaintiffs' motion was scheduled for Nov. 16,
2007, the court canceled the hearing as not necessary.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion to amend or alter the court's Sept. 12, 2007
dismissal of the matter.

The suit is In Re BearingPoint, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:05-cv-00454-TSE-TCB, and was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq.
         Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
         1100 New York Ave., Suite 500 West
         Washington, DC 20005-3965
         Phone: (202) 408-4600

Representing the defendant is:

         Charles William McIntyre, Jr., Esq.
         McGuireWoods, LLP
         1050 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20036-5317
         Phone: (202) 857-1742


BRISTOL-MYERS: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a putative class action complaint
captioned In Re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-05867, is still pending final approval by the
U.S. District for the Southern District of New York.

In June and July 2007, two putative class action complaints were
filed by the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Assoc. and Jean
Lai in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York,
against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, its former Chief Executive
Officer, Peter Dolan, and former Chief Financial Officer, Andrew
Bonfield.  

The complaints allege violations of securities laws for
allegedly failing to disclose material information relating to
efforts to settle the PLAVIX(R) patent infringement litigation
with Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corp.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the Court dismissed the Lai case without
prejudice, changed the caption of the case to In re Bristol-
Myers Squibb, Co. Securities Litigation, and appointed Ontario
Teachers' Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff.

On Oct. 15, 2007, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board filed an
amended complaint making similar allegations as the earlier
filed complaints, naming an additional former officer but no
longer naming Andrew Bonfield as a defendant.

By decision dated Aug. 20, 2008, the federal district court
denied defendants' motions to dismiss.

In May 2009, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve this litigation for payment of $125 million, pending
final approval by the court, according to the company's July 23,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company -- http://www.bms.com/-- is  
engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and
nutritional products.  The company had two segments:
Pharmaceuticals and Nutritionals.  The Pharmaceuticals segment
is made up of the global pharmaceutical and international
consumer medicines business.  The Nutritionals segment consists
of Mead Johnson Nutritionals (Mead Johnson), primarily an infant
formula and children's nutritionals business.


CARLYLE/GALAXY: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of $1.09M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain homeowners in the class-action lawsuit entitled Steve
Adachi, et al. v. Carlyle/Galaxy San Pedro, L.P., et al., Case
No. 2:2009-cv-00793, are asking the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to approve a $1.09 million
settlement, Law360 reports.

On July 31, 2009, plaintiffs Riye Park and Ted Sumida sought
final approval of the settlement in documents filed with the
federal court, according to Law360.

The suit was filed on Feb. 2, 2009, alleging that developer
Carlyle/Galaxy San Pedro LP illegally tied condominium units
with financial services offered by its preferred lenders.

Aside from Carlyle/Galaxy, other entities named as defendants in
the suit include: Carlyle San Pedro GP, L.L.C., Galaxy San
Pedro, L.L.C., Carlyle San Pedro, L.L.C., Carlyle Realty
Partners IV, L.P., Galaxy Commercial Holding, L.L.C., Raffi
Cohen and Mara Escrow Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
          Beck and Lee Business Trial Lawyers
          28 West Flagler Street, Suite 555
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-789-0072
          E-mail: elizabeth@beckandlee.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          Weston Firm
          5127 Lotus Street
          San Diego, CA 92107
          Phone: 619-255-7098
          E-mail: greg@thewestonfirm.com


CROCS INC: Faces Investor's Litigation in Mass. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
CROCS, Inc. is facing an investor's lawsuit which claims the
plaintiff lost $270,000 on investments in the company, because
its executives deliberately made false statements that
artificially inflated its stock value, Donna Goodison at The
Boston Herald reports.

The complaint, filed on July 23, 2009, by Edward Lavallee in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and
captioned Lavallee v. Crocs, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:2009-cv-
30121, accuses the colorful resin slip-on shoemaker of
securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other charges.

The lawsuit mirrors a federal class-action suit in Colorado that
was brought on behalf of people who bought and sold company
stock from July 18, 2007, through Dec. 12, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 25, 2008), except that it also alleges violations
of Massachusetts state laws.  

In November 2007, certain shareholders filed several purported
shareholder class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged statements made
by the company between July 27, 2007, and Oct. 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages on behalf of the
alleged class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award
of attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

These actions were consolidated and, in September 2008, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel, according to the
company's Nov. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2007.


DEERE & CO: Iowa Judge Hears Arguments in Retirees' Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles Wolle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa recently heard arguments from both parties on
motions for partial summary judgment in Brubaker, et al. v.
Deere & Company, Plan Administrator and Named Fiduciary of the
John Deere Health Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees, et al.,
Case No. 3:2008-cv-00113, The Quad City Times reports.

In January, the federal court granted class-action status to the
lawsuit which had been brought against Deere & Co. by a group of
company retirees, Jennifer DeWitt at The Quad-City Times
reported (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).

In granting class-action status, Judge Charles Wolle ruled that
the suit by the Flex Retirees Organization, or FRO, can proceed
as a class-action case on two counts of the four-count
complaint, according to the newspaper.

The FRO filed the purported class-action lawsuit in September
2008.  It alleges that changes Deere made to the plaintiff's
health, dental and vision insurance benefits violated promises
the company made to 5,000 retired employees.  Those changes went
into effect Jan. 1, 2008.  The group asked the court to order
Deere to restore the benefits pending the outcome of the case
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2008).

The named plaintiffs in the suit are retirees Dora Brubaker, of
Johnston, Iowa; Thomas Blosch, of Dubuque, Iowa; and Michael
Stohlmeyer, of East Moline, who also is an FRO leader.

Although the suit names three individual retirees as the
plaintiffs, the purported class-action suit represents "all
those similarly situated," Daniel Bonnett, Esq., the FRO's
attorney, told The Quad-City Times.

The class includes former salaried and non-union wage Deere
employees who retired on or after July 1, 1993, and were
eligible to receive medical and health benefits.  Also included
are the retirees' eligible spouses and dependents.

According to The Des Moines Register, documents its reporters
have reviewed show roughly 5,000 people retired on or after
July 1, 1993, and received reduced health care benefits as a
result of the 2008 changes.

The Quad-City Times notes that the suit asserts "Deere
implemented radically inferior healthcare benefits and coverage
in comparison to the benefits and coverage provided to
plaintiffs while working."  Among the changes the suit alleges
are:

   -- significantly higher deductibles for both in- and out-of-
      network benefits as well as a significant increase in the
      maximum out-of-pocket expenses (co-payments); and

   -- elimination of any maximum on the amount of out-of-pocket
      expenses.

"As a result, many providers including hospitals such as the
Mayo Clinic are now prohibitively expensive and completely out
of reach for Class members," the suit adds.  It also says
prescription drug benefits were dramatically reduced.

Deere first announced the new health plan in September 2007,
indicating that it would allow retirees to be more involved in
their health care decisions, Quad-City Times recounts.  Deere
also said the new plan was designed to leverage changes made in
the federal laws.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Earl A. Payson, Esq. (eappc@aol.com)
          1313 Harrison Street
          Davenport, IA 52803
          Phone: 563-323-8054
          Fax: 563-323-9112

Representing the defendants is:

          Frank B. Harty, Esq. (fharty@nyemaster.com)
          Hyemaster Goode West Hansell & O'brien PC
          700 Walnut Street
          Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Phone: 515-283-3170
          Fax: 515-283-8045


EDISON INT'L: Calif. Court Narrows Class in 401(k) Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California narrowed a class-action suit that
accuses Edison International of offering a 401(k) plan that
charges excessive fees, Law360 reports.

On July 16, 2009, Judge Wilson of granted Edison's motion for
summary judgment with regard to all the claims in the case.

However, triable issues remain over whether certain mutual funds
were chosen to maximize the amount of revenue sharing for the
benefit of the company and not that of plan participants,
according to Law360.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Overlapping Warranties
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. and GMAC Service Agreement Corp. is facing
a purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois, alleging that it
sells overlapping warranties, Bridget Freeland at Courthouse
News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 31, 2009, by Stuart J. Stein in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and is captioned Stuart
J. Stein v. General Motors Corp. and GMAC Service Agreement
Corp., Case No. 09CH26506.

Mr. Stein claims that GM cancels its first warranty before it
expires, then includes a $50 deductible in the second plan
instead of the zero deductible from the original warranty, which
should still be active, according to Courthouse News Service.

In general, the suit claims that GM pushes its second warranty
on customers before they need it, "silently canceling the
existing plan," to "obtain double payment" during the overlap
period.  It alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
consumer fraud against General Motors and GMAC, reports
Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?40bd

Mr. Stein is represented by:

          Daniel Edelman, Esq.
          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
          120 South LaSalle St., 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603-3403
          Phone: 312-739-4200 or 800-644-4673
          Fax: 312-419-0379
          Web site: http://www.edcombs.com/


GREAT ATLANTIC: To Seek Decertification in Workers Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., intends to move to
decertify the class once certain discovery has been completed in
a suit filed against the company on behalf of former employees
of the supermarkets it operates.

The class-action complaint was filed on June 24, 2004, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great
Atlantic -- doing business as A&P, The Food Emporium and
Waldbaum's -- alleging violations of the overtime provisions of
the New York Labor Law.

Three named plaintiffs -- Benedetto Lamarca, Dolores Guiddy, and
Stephen Tedesco -- alleged on behalf of a class that the company
failed to pay overtime wages to full-time hourly employees who
were either required or permitted to work more than 40 hours per
week.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification of the matter, which is now captioned LaMarca, et
al. v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.

In July 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and
certified a class composed of:

      All full-time hourly employees of Defendants who were
      employed in Defendants' supermarket stores located in the
      State of New York, for any of the period from June 24,
      1998 through the date of the commencement of the action,
      whom Defendants required or permitted to perform work in
      excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime
      wages.

In December 2008, the Court approved the Form of Notice, which
included an "opt-out" provision and in January 2009, the
Plaintiffs mailed the Notice to potential class members and the
opt-out deadline expired in March 2009.  

The Company indicates that it can't determine either the number
of class participants or the sufficiency of their respective
claims at this time in its July 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 20, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

         Rachel Geman, Esq. (rgeman@lchb.com)
         Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-355-9500

              - and -

         Adam T. Klein, Esq. (atk@outtengolden.com)
         Outten & Golden LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000


HAWAII: Opening Arguments Given in Housing Opportunities Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Opening arguments were given recently in a class-action lawsuit
that claims the State of Hawaii breached its trust duty by
failing to provide housing opportunities for more than 2,700
native Hawaiian individuals through the Department of Hawaiian
Home Lands, The Honolulu Advertiser reports.

Thomas Grande, Esq., the attorney for three named beneficiaries
as well as about 2,700 others, said the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Act
requires the state to put Native Hawaiians on homestead lands in
a timely fashion and DHHL has failed to do so, reports the
Advertiser.

However, Deputy Attorney General Randolph Slaton, arguing on
behalf of DHHL, countered that the act does not provide
beneficiaries with rights and entitlements other than what the
agency can offer.

The trial is expected to run through September, according to the
Advertiser.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas Grande, Esq.
          Grande Law Offices
          1164 Bishop Street, Suite 124-24
          Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
          Phone: (808) 521-7500 or (808) 271-7500
          Fax: (888) 722-5575
          Web site: http://grandelawoffices.com/


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Royalty Owners' Lawsuit Still Pending in Okla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc.,
originating in the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma,
continues, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's July 21, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not
properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which
they are entitled and seek an accounting regarding the natural
gas and other products produced from their wells located in
Oklahoma and Kansas and the prices paid for the natural gas and
other products produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly
owed since June 2002, with a certain limited number of
plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time.

XTO Energy removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, and the Clerk docketed the
dispute as Case No. CIV-07-798-L.

A hearing on the class certification was conducted in October
2008.  At the class certification hearing, the plaintiffs sought
to certify a class of royalty owners whose wells were connected
to a processing plant owned by a subsidiary of XTO Energy in the
Hugoton Field, with two sub-classes consisting of owners in
Oklahoma and Kansas.  In March 2009, the District Court granted
the motion to certify the class.  

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward L. White, Esq.
          EDWARD L. WHITE, P.C.
          13924-B Quail Pointe Drive
          Oklahoma City, OK 73134
          Telephone: (405) 810-8188
          Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
          E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an  
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits
interest conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of
beneficial interest were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy
distributed all of its remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As
of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  
The net profits interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of
the net proceeds from the sale of oil and gas from the
underlying properties.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Suit Over Post-Production Costs is Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable
Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., is ongoing, according
to Hugoton Royalty Trust's July 21, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

In September 2008, the class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas.  XTO
Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas (D.
Kan. Case No. 08-cv-01330) on October 24, 2008.

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-
production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from
wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado.

The plaintiffs also seek to represent all royalty owners in
these three states as a class.

The plaintiff's claims overlap the claims made by the plaintiffs
in the Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. case as to certain
properties.

XTO Energy has answered and denied all claims.  

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an  
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits
interest conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of
beneficial interest were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy
distributed all of its remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As
of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  
The net profits interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of
the net proceeds from the sale of oil and gas from the
underlying properties.


INBEV NV/SA: Mo. Judge Nixes Suit Over Anheuser-Busch Purchase
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jean Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri dismissed a putative antitrust class-action
lawsuit brought by Missouri beer consumers against InBev NV/SA
over the Belgian beer giant's acquisition of St. Louis-based
Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., Law360 reports.

Rejecting the drinkers' argument that InBev was a potential
competitor in the U.S., Judge Hamilton on Aug 3, 2009, granted
InBev's bid for judgment on the pleadings and tossed the
plaintiffs' Clayton Act claims, according to Law360.


LCA-VISION: Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Motion Pending in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's
ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended
complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit against LCA-Vision, Inc., is pending.

On Sept. 13, 2007, and Oct. 1, 2007, two complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers by Beaver County Retirement Board and
Spencer and Jean Lin, respectively, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, purportedly on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock
between Feb. 12, 2007, and July 30, 2007.  

On Nov. 8, 2007, an additional complaint was filed by Diane B.
Callahan against the company and certain of the company's
current and former directors and officers before the same court.  

This third action was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between
Feb. 12, 2007, and Nov. 2, 2007.  

All three actions have been consolidated into one case.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on April 19, 2008.  

The plaintiffs in the consolidated complaint are seeking damages
on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the company's
common stock between Oct. 24, 2006, and Nov. 2, 2007, asserting
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

They allege that certain of the company's public disclosures
regarding its financial prospects and historical accounting for
bad-debt reserves and expenses were false or misleading.

On July 10, 2008, the company, together with the other
defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

On July 10, 2008, the company, together with the other
defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On Sept. 5, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008).

On March 25, 2009, the Court dismissed all claims asserted in
the consolidated complaint, with prejudice.  

On April 18, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to
reconsider the court's dismissal of all of its claims,
specifically requesting leave to file an amended complaint.  
That motion is fully briefed, and the company awaits the Court's
decision, according to its July 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

The suit is Beaver County Retirement Board v. LCA-Vision Inc.
et al., Case No 1:07-cv-00750-SJD, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Susan J. Dlott,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Thomas P. Glass, Esq. (tpglass@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy
          Federal Reserve Building
          4th Floor, 150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants is:

          Grant Spencer Cowan, Esq. (gcowan@fbtlaw.com)
          Frost Brown Todd LLC
          201 E 5th Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182
          Phone: 513-651-6800
          Fax: 513-651-6745


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc., still faces a consolidated class-
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of copper
tubes used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes).

Two copper tube actions were commenced in June and August 2006
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
and were consolidated to become the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action.

In general, the copper tube actions allege anticompetitive
activities with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes
(copper plumbing tubes).  These suits are seeking monetary and
other relief.

The company and Mueller Europe are named in the Indirect-
Purchaser ACR Tube Action.  The company and Mueller Europe have
been served, but have not yet been required to respond to the
claims, according to the company's July 22, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 27, 2009.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
is a manufacturer of copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products, and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty
products. Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S.,
and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's
operates through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration
segment and the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: California Lawsuit Over Copper Tubes Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit against Mueller Industries, Inc.,
with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes and copper
tubes used in, among other things, the manufacturing of
air-conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes)
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The copper tube action, which the company calls as the Indirect-
Purchaser Copper Tube Action, was filed in July 2006, and is a
purported class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers
of copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes in the U.S. and
alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of
both copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes.  It seeks
monetary and other relief.

The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Co., Deno Holding
company, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named defendants in the
Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

The Company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, and Deno
Holding Company have been served, but have not yet been required
to respond, in the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.  

Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in
the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action, according to the
company's July 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
27, 2009.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
is a manufacturer of copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products, and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty
products. Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S.,
and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's
operates through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration
segment and the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Suit Over Copper Plumbing Tubes Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc., continues to face a purported class-
action suit in a California state court with respect to the sale
of copper plumbing tubes, according to the company's July 22,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2009.

Four copper tube actions were filed in October 2004, in a state
court in California and were consolidated to become the
Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

The Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action is a purported
class-action suit brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
copper plumbing tubes in California and alleges anticompetitive
activities with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes.  
It seeks monetary and other relief.

The company, WTC Holding Co. Inc., Deno Holding Co. Inc.,
Mueller Europe, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named defendants
in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in
the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

The claims against WTC Holding Co. and Deno Holding Co. have
been dismissed without prejudice in the Indirect-Purchaser
Plumbing Tube Action.

Mueller Europe has not yet been required to respond in the case.

The company's demurrer to the complaint has been filed in the
Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

The court overseeing the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action
has stayed that action conditioned upon the parties' submitting
periodic status reports on the status of the other copper tube
cases.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
is a manufacturer of copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products, and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty
products. Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S.,
and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's
operates through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration
segment and the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


NATURAL HAIR: Faces Ill. Breach of Contract, Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Hair Growth Institute faces a purported class-action
lawsuit in Illinois that was filed by two former clients who
claim that NHGI's products and services did not work, Lisa
Donovan at The Chicago Sun-Times reports.

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 4, 2009, in Cook County Circuit
Court by Virgus Jacques and Margaret Farrell, who purchased
laser therapy services, scalp massages and dietary supplements.

The breach-of-contract and consumer fraud case states, "NHGI's
routine practice of informing its customers that they will be
refunded the total cost of the program if there is no hair
growth progress by the program end -- when NHGI has no intention
of refunding the money -- and telling clients that the program
is virtually always successful -- when the program many times
does not work -- deceives customers," reports the Sun-Times.

Both Mr. Jacques and Ms. Farrell separately visited the Oakbrook
Terrace office during summer 2008, seeking help with their
thinning hair.

In those meetings, company owner Steve Bennis allegedly told Mr.
Jacques the success rate was so great that only one refund had
been issued by the company.  He allegedly told Ms. Farrell no
refunds had been issued, the suit states.

The Sun-Times reported that both were told in their separate
meetings about a 100 percent money-back guarantee if the program
doesn't work.

Unfortunately nothing worked.  Now Mr. Jacques is seeking the
$11,124 he spent and Ms. Farrell wants her $8,800 back.

The suit claims that though the company's Web site touts success
stories along with the money-back guarantee, it "doesn't provide
such refunds and never intends to provide the refund at the time
of contract formation with its clients," according to the Sun-
Times.


QUALCOMM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended CDMA Purchasers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM, Inc., has moved to dismiss an amended purported class
action complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California in San Diego.

In November 2008, a complaint was filed in San Diego Federal
Court on behalf of a purported class of individuals who
purchased CDMA devices or service, seeking damages and
injunctive relief under federal or state antitrust and unfair
competition laws and common law as a result of the company's
licensing practices.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on
March 3, 2009, the court granted that request.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint re-
asserting some, but not all, of the claims in its original
complaint.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss this amended
complaint, according to its July 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 28, 2009.

QUALCOMM, Inc. -- http://www.qualcomm.com/-- designs,  
manufactures, and markets digital wireless telecommunications
products and services based on its code division multiple access
technology and other technologies.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Qui Tam Lawsuits Over Billing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Inc. faces pending class action lawsuits
related to billing practices filed under the qui tam provisions
of the Civil False Claims Act and other federal and state
statutes, regulations and applicable law.

The company says there may be other pending qui tam claims
brought by former employees or other "whistle blowers" as to
which the company cannot determine the extent of any potential
liability.

No further details regarding the lawsuits were disclosed by the
company in its July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

Quest Diagnostics Inc. -- http://www.questdiagnostics.com/-- is  
a provider of diagnostic testing, information and services.  The
company offers United States patients and physicians the access
to diagnostic testing services through its network of
laboratories and Company-owned patient service centers.  It is a
provider of clinical testing, including gene-based and other
esoteric testing, anatomic pathology services, including
dermatopathology and testing for drugs-of-abuse, and provider of
risk assessment services for the life insurance industry.  The
Company is also the provider of testing for clinical trials.  
Its diagnostics products business manufactures and markets
diagnostic test kits and point-of-care testing.


REGENCY AFFILIATES: Settlement in "Gatz" Case Approved in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, on June 15,
2009, entered an order approving a stipulation of settlement of
the class action lawsuit captioned Edward E. Gatz, et al. v.
William R. Ponsoldt, Sr., et al., C.A. No. 174-CC, which names
Regency Affiliates, Inc., as a defendant.

The suit was filed in the New Castle County Court of Chancery in
Delaware on Jan. 20, 2004, by two dissident Regency Affiliates
shareholders -- Edward E. Gatz and Donald D. Graham -- against
current and former directors of the company, Royalty Holdings
LLC and its affiliates, Statesman Group Inc., and,
nominally, the company.

The complaint alleged various breaches of fiduciary duties by
the former directors and Statesman, as well as alleged that
Royalty and its affiliates knowingly participated in certain of
the alleged breaches.

In November 2004, the court dismissed all but one claim asserted
in the complaint.  The company was not a defendant with respect
to the sole surviving claim, which related to the 2001 sale of a
cache of previously quarried and piled aggregate rock by
National Resource Development Corp. to Iron Mountain Resources,
Inc.

On Oct. 16, 2005, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' sole
remaining claim for failure to state a claim for relief.  The
dismissal was without prejudice and the plaintiffs were given
leave to file an amended complaint attacking the Aggregate Sale.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
challenging the Aggregate Sale and alleging that the Aggregate
Sale negatively impacted the consideration the company received
in connection with the October 2002 restructuring transactions.
The plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $5,400,000 with
respect to the claim related to the Aggregate Sale.

On May 16, 2006, the court dismissed the sole remaining
complaint alleged in the complaint determining that it was
derivative in nature and could therefore not be maintained by
the plaintiffs.

On June 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal
appealing the court's rulings.

In its April 16, 2007 decision, citing an intervening legal
development in the area of direct and derivative claims arising
while the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of the State of
Delaware reversed the Court's decision and remanded the case to
the Court for further proceedings.

On April 28, 2008 the parties executed a memorandum of
understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the
class-action suit.  If the settlement is consummated, the
company will pay $3,000,000 plus interest (as provided in the
MOU) to the plaintiff class.

The plaintiff class is defined in the MOU as all record and
beneficial owners of the company's common stock on Oct. 17,
2002, including any and all of their respective successors in
interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors,
administrators, heirs, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under any of
them, and each of them.  The plaintiff class does not include
the defendants, members of their families, affiliates of the
defendants, and those individuals or entities who solely held
securities convertible into Regency common stock or options to
purchase Regency common stock.

The company will make that payment pursuant to its obligation to
indemnify the defendants who are former directors of the
company.

The MOU also provides that the company will undertake an
appropriate process to determine if indemnification of its
former directors is appropriate under Delaware law.  It also
expressly provides that the defendants admit no wrongdoing but
have agreed to the MOU to eliminate the uncertainty,
distraction, burden and expense of further litigation.

The settlement will not occur if the company determines that no
such indemnification is appropriate or the Court of Chancery
refuses to approve the settlement.  There can be no assurance
that the settlement will occur (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,
2008).

On June 15, 2009, the Court entered an order approving the
settlement of the "Gatz" action.  The period for appeal of the
Settlement expired on July 15, 2009.

The terms of the Settlement are in all material respects
identical to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding
entered into among the parties to the Action on April 28, 2008.  

Pursuant to the Settlement, on July 17, 2009, Regency
Affiliates, Inc. paid $3,045,874.72 into escrow for the benefit
of the plaintiff class.  

The plaintiff class is defined in the Settlement as all record
and beneficial owners of Regency common stock on Oct. 17, 2002,
including any and all of their respective successors in
interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors,
administrators, heirs, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under any of
them, and each of them.  The plaintiff class does not include
the defendants, members of their families, affiliates of the
defendants, and those individuals or entities who solely held
securities convertible into Regency common stock or options to
purchase Regency common stock.  

Regency made the settlement payment pursuant to its obligation
to indemnify the defendants who are former directors of Regency.   
In connection with the Settlement, and with the assistance of
independent counsel, Regency determined that indemnification of
its former directors is appropriate under Delaware law.   The  
Settlement expressly provides that the defendants admit no
wrongdoing but have agreed to the Settlement to eliminate the
uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further
litigation, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 21, 2009.

Regency Affiliates, Inc. -- http://www.regencyaffiliates.com/--
has limited operations through its subsidiaries, Iron Mountain
Resources, Inc., Rustic Crafts, Inc., and National Resource
Development Corp.  Iron Mountain was an inactive entity as of
Aug. 6, 2008.  Rustic Crafts was a manufacturer of decorative
woods, cast marble fireplaces, and other home furnishings.
NRDC's principal asset consists of previously quarried and
stockpiled rock (Aggregate) inventory located at a mine site in
Michigan.  Regency Power Inc., owns a 50% interest in MESC
Capital, LLC.  MESC Capital owns a 100% interest in Mobile
Energy Services, Co., LLC, which owns an onsite energy facility
that supplies steam and electricity to a Kimberly-Clark tissue
mill in Mobile, Alabama.  In addition, the company holds a
limited partnership interest in Security Land and Development
Company Limited Partnership, which owns and operates 34.3 acres
of land and rental property.


SQUARE ENIX: Amended Complaint Filed in Lawsuit Over FFXI Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported class-action suit
against Square Enix of America Holdings, Inc., and Square Enix,
Inc., which claims that 100,000 customers have been deceived by
the publisher over fees related to subscription-based MMO Final
Fantasy XI, Matthew Peters at GameSpot reports.

Previously, Jim Sterling at Destructoid reported that the suit
was filed on June 22, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by Esther Leong.  It is
captioned, Esther Leong v. Square Enix of America Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-04484 (Class Action Reporter,
June 26, 2009).

That original complaint alleges that Square Enix lied about or
purposefully concealed information on its monthly fees,
penalties for late payments, interest, restrictions and a number
of other items that were not disclosed in full to the consumers,
according to Destructoid.

The plaintiff -- represented by attorneys Ronald Makarem, Esq.
and Michael Kim, Esq. -- seeks $5 million in damages for "unfair
business practices, false advertising and unjust enrichment,"
reports Destructoid.

In the updated filing, the plaintiff alleges that Square Enix
failed to disclose all the fees associated with the MMORPG at
the time of its purchase, according to GameSpot.  Specifically,
the complaint states that the publisher fails to disclose that
players must continuously pay a monthly subscription in order to
retain their in-game characters. The amended complaint alleges
that the label on the retail box, which forewarns "additional
online fees required," is too vague to qualify as a full
disclosure of the game's supplemental costs. Currently, Final
Fantasy XI costs $12.95 a month to play.

GameSpot reports that the plaintiff also asserts that the
publisher failed to disclose other subscription information at
the time of purchase.  Namely, Square Enix did not reveal to its
subscribers that if they did not pay every month, then their
characters and game key would be permanently unusable after 90
days without payment.  Moreover, in order to save the account
before that 90-day mark, players had to pay a reactivation fee
and subscription fees for each unpaid month.

According to the same document, the plaintiff began playing
Final Fantasy XI in 2005 and was a subscriber until August 2007,
when she took a break from the game.  When she returned to the
game in 2009, she found that her account was invalidated because
she hadn't paid the monthly fees, GameSpot reports.

Ms. Leong is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. (makarem@law-rm.com)
          Makarem and Associates APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1740
          Phone: 310-312-0299
          Fax: 310-312-0296

               - and -

          Michael Hyungchoon Kim, Esq.
          Michael H. Kim P.C.
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 860
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: 213-639-2900
          Fax: 213-639-2909


U.S. HOME: $1.5 Mil. Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in connection with the
class action styled Kenneth John Lodge, et al. vs. U.S. Home
Systems, Inc. and U.S. Remodelers, Inc., Case No. CV07-05409
CAS, is pending approval by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On July 17, 2009, the company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
U.S. Remodelers entered into a Settlement Agreement with
Plaintiffs Kenneth John Lodge, Judson Lertzman, Barbara Galaro
and Michael Hopkins, and their counsel, on behalf of themselves
and each of the other class members in settlement of the class
action lawsuit pending against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

The settlement, which is subject to, among other things,
preliminary and final Court approval, will resolve all the
claims in the Lawsuit.  Without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing of any kind, the company has agreed to the payment of
$1.5 million to settle the Lawsuit plus up to $10,000 to pay
costs associated with the administration of the settlement.  A
copy of the Settlement Agreement is available at
http://tinyurl.com/lo4cpnfor free.   

The original complaint in this Lawsuit was filed by Plaintiffs
(former employees of the company) on July 3, 2007 in the Los
Angeles County Supreme Court.  The complaint was subsequently
amended on Aug. 3, 2007 and was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  A second amended
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court on Feb. 20, 2009.  

The Plaintiffs allege that the company failed to reimburse its
California employees for certain expenses they incurred during
their employment with the company, violated certain provisions
of the California Business and Professions Code (prohibiting
unfair business acts or practices) and failed to pay wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

In the Lawsuit Plaintiffs seek damages, wages owed, injunctive
relief, costs, attorney fees, punitive damages, interest, and
penalties.

The Plaintiffs asserted the claims on their behalf and a class
of all others similarly situated. The parties have conducted a
significant amount of motion practice during the prosecution of
the Lawsuit, including the litigation over a motion to dismiss,
motion to strike and multiple discovery motions. The parties
have conducted extensive discovery and investigations of facts
and law and have engaged in numerous personal and telephone
conferences.

The parties have concluded that based on the disputed factual
and legal issues involved in the Lawsuit and the benefits to be
received by the parties pursuant to the settlement of the
Lawsuit, including avoiding incurring any further expenses and
attorney fees, it is in the best interest of Plaintiffs, class
members and the Company to settle the Lawsuit.

According to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 22, 2009, in order
to facilitate the settlement, the company, solely for the
purposes of the settlement, has consented to the conditional
certification of the class, which are defined as any current or
former employee of the company who worked in California during
the period from July 3, 2003, up to and including the
preliminary Court approval date (class period), and who is a
member of any of two subclasses, the commission subclass and the
expense subclass.

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


WELLS REAL: REIT Securities Complaint Remains Pending in Md.
------------------------------------------------------------
The matter captioned In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust,
Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP, which
names Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. (Piedmont REIT) f/k/a/
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT) as a
defendant, remains pending, according to Wells Mid-Horizon
Value-Added Fund I, LLC's Amendment No. 3 to its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
July 23, 2009.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a  
purported class-action suit and derivative complaint entitled,  
Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real  
Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells  
REIT, and the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the  
closing of the internalization transaction.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf  
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the  
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange  
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an  
order enjoining the internalization transaction.  The court then  
granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the  
case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on April  
24, 2007.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate  
the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,  
which contains the same counts as the original complaint, with  
amended factual allegations based primarily on events occurring  
subsequent to the original complaint and the addition of a  
Piedmont officer as an individual defendant.

On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part a motion by the  
defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court  
dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in  
their entirety.  The court dismissed the remaining two counts  
with the exception of allegations regarding the company's  
failure to disclose in its proxy statement details of certain  
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended  
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules  
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain  
approval for Internalization omitted details of certain  
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,  
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind  
Internalization, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to  
the defendants as consideration for Internalization.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain  
defenses to the second amended complaint.  On June 23, 2008, the  
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.

On Jan. 16, 2009, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's  
motion for class certification.  The plaintiff filed its reply  
in support of its motion for class certification on Feb. 19,  
2009, and the motion is presently pending before the court.  The  
parties are presently engaged in discovery.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the  
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The  
defendants responded to the plaintiff's motion for leave to  
amend on April 30, 2009.  The plaintiff filed its reply in  
support of its motion for leave to amend on May 18, 2009.

The court denied the motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

The suit is In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,  
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge
Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         One Haverford Centre
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq. (mcates@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600


* U.S. Chamber Says Overturning Stoneridge Case is Harmful
----------------------------------------------------------
     Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute
for Legal Reform, recently issued a press statement on S. 1551,
a legislation introduced to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in "Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-
Atlanta, Inc.," which halted the expansion of securities
liability cases through the theory of "scheme liability."

     The statement reads, "There is no question we need strict
government enforcement and punishment for those who commit
fraud, but greatly expanding private securities class action
lawsuits will only slow our economic recovery, drag down
investors' portfolios and retirement accounts, and delay the
creation of much needed new jobs.  This legislation, which would
overturn the Supreme Court precedent in the Stoneridge case,will
benefit securities class action plaintiffs' lawyers at the
expense of average investors and workers.

     "Private securities class actions do not deter fraud.  The
best way to punish executives and companies that commit fraud is
not by undercutting Supreme Court rulings and encouraging more
private lawsuits, but through tougher enforcement of existing
civil and criminal laws.

     "Additionally, class action lawsuits have proven
ineffective for compensating injured investors.  Numerous
studies have shown that settlements in securities lawsuits
merely shift money from one innocent investor to another --
allowing injured investors to recover pennies on the dollar
while nearly half the settlement is siphoned off in
transactional costs such as legal fees.

     "Not only are private actions ineffective, the current
system is rife with examples of abuse and corruption.  This
includes possible 'pay-to-play' conflicts between plaintiffs'
law firms hoping to receive lucrative contingency fee contracts
from public pension funds and the public officials overseeing
those funds.  Also, four of the top securities class action
lawyers of the last decade, including Bill Lerach and Mel Weiss,
are currently serving time in prison for paying kickbacks to
plaintiffs in approximately 165 lawsuits that resulted in more
than $250 million in legal fees.

     "The fact is, securities class action lawsuits continue to
be filed as a result of the financial crisis, proving that the
courthouse doors are open to shareholders seeking redress for
their losses. We encourage Congress to reject S. 1551.  Instead,
Congress should support and fund the effective enforcement of
existing laws because expanding the current lawsuit system will
ultimately impose excessive costs on innocent shareholders while
producing too little for injured investors."


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Allscripts-Misys
Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (formerly known as Allscripts
Healthcare Solutions, Inc.) (NYSE: MDRX) common stock during the
period from May 8, 2007 to February 13, 2008.

     The complaint charges Allscripts and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

     Allscripts develops and sells software applications to
healthcare organizations.  According to the Company, more than
150,000 physicians, 700 hospitals and nearly 7,000 post-acute
and homecare organizations utilize Allscripts software
applications.  Allscripts products include electronic health
records (EHR) systems, electronic prescribing, revenue cycle
management, practice management, document management, medication
services, hospital care management, emergency department
information systems and homecare automation.

     According to the complaint, during May 2007, the Company
went "live" with the newest version of its EHR clinical
software, Touchworks, version 11 (V-11).  The complaint alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
prospects.  The complaint further alleges that defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts:

       -- that Allscripts lacked the necessary resources to
          install V-11 software at customer sites;

       -- that Allscripts had no historical basis to estimate
          the completion of V-11 or the impact V-11 sales might
          have on the Company's 2007 revenues and earnings;

       -- that the complexity of V-11 had materially and
          adversely lengthened the sales cycle and revenue
          recognition cycle for the Company's V-11 sales  
          contracts;

       -- that Allscripts was currently experiencing adverse and
          continuing delays in the installation of V-11 software
          systems; and

       -- that based on the foregoing, defendants had no
          reasonable basis for their statements and opinions
          concerning Allscripts' current and future financial
          performance and projections.

     On February 13, 2008, Allscripts released its actual 2007
financial results, reporting 2007 revenue of $281.9 million or
$18 million below the Company's $300 million guidance confirmed
in August 2007 and $5 million short of their November earnings
guidance revision.  During a conference call with investors that
same day, Allscripts finally admitted to V-11 installation
delays that were likely to negatively impact sales and earnings
well into 2008.  In response to those announcements, the price
of Allscripts common shares fell $4.12 per share, closing at
$11.27 on February 14, 2008.

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

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/allscripts/


ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Shalov Stone Announces Ill. Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (formerly known as
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.) (NASDAQ: MDRX) common
stock during the period from May 8, 2007 to February 13, 2008,
inclusive.  The lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

     The complaint charges Allscripts and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Allscripts develops and sells software
applications to healthcare organizations.

     According to the complaint, in May 2007, the Company went
"live" with the newest version of its EHR clinical software,
Touchworks, v.11.  The complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, by among other
things failing to disclose that Allscripts was not able to
install Touchworks v.11 software at customer sites and was
experiencing delays in the installation of these software
systems and that the complexity and other issues relating to
Touchworks v.11 software had adversely lengthened the sales
cycle and revenue recognition cycle negatively impacting future
revenues.

     On February 13, 2008, Allscripts released its actual 2007
financial results, reporting 2007 lower than expected revenues
and it later disclosed that Touchworks v.11 issues and
installation delays would negatively impact sales and earnings
into 2008.  In response to those announcements, the price of
Allscripts common shares fell $4.12 per share, closing at $11.27
on February 14, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Amanda C. Scuder, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com


COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Dyer & Berens Files N.Y. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of investors who purchased Comtech
Telecommunications Corp. (NASDAQ: CMTL) common stock between
September 17, 2008 and March 9, 2009, inclusive.  The complaint
charges Comtech and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that defendants deceived the
investing public regarding Comtech's business, operations and
management and the intrinsic value of Comtech common stock.  As
a result, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company, its prospects, and its revenue and
earnings projections because:

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

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

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

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

     On March 9, 2009, Comtech issued a press release in which
announced its financial results for the fiscal second quarter of
2009.  It also released drastically reduced revenue and earnings
guidance for 2009.  In response to the announcements, the price
of Comtech common stock fell $12.97 per share, or approximately
37%, to close at $22.48 per share, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Comtech
investors.

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

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


GENZYME CORP: Hagens Berman Announces Mass. Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro announces that on July 29,
2009, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Genzyme
Corporation (Nasdaq: GENZ) alleging the company issued a series
of material misrepresentations to the market regarding company
products and operations that caused stocks to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

     In late July, the company slashed its earnings and revenue
forecasts for 2009, including its revenue projections due to
manufacturing problems in one of its Mass.-based plants.  Since
June 2008, Genzyme's stock has fallen more than 35 percent,
resulting in a loss of more than $8 billion for investors.

     The suit represents stockholders who purchased or held
Genzyme shares between June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009.

     The suit seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          e-mail: genzyme@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/genzyme


HURON CONSULTING: Glancy Binkow Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased the securities of Huron
Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) between April 27, 2006 and
July 31, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges the Company and certain of its former
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Huron provides consulting services in the United States to help
clients in diverse industries improve performance, comply with
complex regulations, resolve disputes, recover from distress,
leverage technology and stimulate growth.  The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that their public statements concerning Huron's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges the defendants made
false or misleading statements and failed to disclose:

       -- that shareholders of four businesses that Huron
          acquired between 2005-2007 redistributed portions of
          their acquisition-related payments among themselves
          and to certain Huron employees;

       -- that, as a result, the Company understated its non-
          cash compensation expenses;

       -- that the Company's financial statements were not
          prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
          Accounting Principles;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial
          statements were materially false and misleading at all
          relevant times.

     On July 31, 2009, Huron shocked investors when it announced
that the Company's financial statements for the fiscal years
2006, 2007, 2008, and the fiscal first quarter of 2009, should
no longer be relied upon and will have to be restated as a
result of the Company's accounting for certain acquisition-
related payments received by the sellers in connection with the
sale of certain acquired businesses that were subsequently
redistributed among themselves and to other select Huron
employees, which under accounting rules should have been
classified as non-cash compensation expenses.

     In response to this news, on the next trading day, August
3, 2009, shares of Huron declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13%,
to close at $13.69 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class
action has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired stock of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MTXX), during the period from December 22, 2007 through and
including June 15, 2009.

     On December 22, 2006, President Bush signed into Law the
Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Act.  The
Act requires manufacturers, packers, and distributors whose name
appears on the a nonprescription drug or dietary supplement
product label to notify the FDA of any serious adverse event
report associated with the product's use within 15 business day
of receipt of such information.  In mid June, the FDA through a
letter advised consumers to stop using Zicam Products because of
the zinc in Zicam swabs and gel may damage the sense of smell.
According to the FDA, as of December 2007, Matrixx was required
to provide such reports of adverse reaction to the agency.

     Upon release of the news stated above, Matrixx stock
plummeted from approximately $19 per share to less than $7 per
share.  Since December of 2007, insiders, including the
Executive VP and CFO, the VP of sales and the VP of Research and
Development, have sold more than $2.7 million worth of Matrixx
shares.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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

For more details, contact:

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


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc. stock between December 22, 2007 and June 15,
2009, inclusive.  The lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, and names as
defendants the Company and certain of its top officers and/or
directors.

     Through its subsidiary, Matrixx develops, produces, markets
and sells over-the-counter healthcare products, including Zicam
Cold Remedy Products.  The complaint alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material adverse
facts that were known to the defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them.

     More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose:

       -- that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of
          serious adverse events regarding the Zicam Cold Remedy
          Products;

       -- that Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the
          FDA despite having an obligation to do so;

       -- that the Company failed to comply with FDA regulations
          despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its meeting FRA regulations were
          false and misleading when made.

     On June 16, 2009, Matrixx revealed that it had received a
warning letter from the FDA and that it would be withdrawing the
Zicam Cold Remedy Products from the market.  Following this
announcement, the price of Matrixx stock fell approximately 70%.

For more details, contact:

          Amanda C. Scuder, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com


MEDAREX INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation,
announced that securities class actions have been commenced on
behalf of current shareholders of the common stock of Medarex,
Inc. (NASDAQ: MEDX) in connection with the tender offer by
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.  Brower Piven is one of the law
firms that has filed such an action.

     The case filed by Brower Piven is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No.
09-cv-3615, against Medarex, the directors of Medarex, and
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section
14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false
and misleading Offer to Purchase and Schedule 14D-9 which failed
to apprise Medarex shareholders of the true bases of Medarex's
financial valuation.  The complaint also alleges that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted the breach
of fiduciary duties, by recommending an unfairly low tender
offer to Medarex shareholders.  The complaint seeks injunctive
and monetary relief.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 30, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased shares of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.
(NYSE: SKH) common stock between May 14, 2007 and June 9, 2009,
inclusive.  The complaint alleges that Skilled Healthcare and
certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws.

     According to the complaint, Skilled Healthcare
misrepresented its income and was forced to restate its
financial statements.  The complaint also seeks damages for what
it alleges were similar misrepresentations contained in
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with Skilled Healthcare's Initial Public Offering of
May 14, 2007.

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

For more details, contact:

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, Georgia 30338
          Phone: (888) 508-6832 or (770) 392-0090
          Fax: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., (NYSE: SKH)
common stock between May 14, 2007 and June 9, 2009, inclusive.  
Also included are persons who purchased Skilled Healthcare Class
A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Initial Public Offering (IPO).  The lawsuit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements.  More specifically, the
complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the true
amount of the company's income in its IPO Prospectus, as well as
in other documents filed with the SEC.  On June 9, 2009, the
Company announced that its prior financial statements for the
annual and quarterly periods from January 1, 2006 through March
31, 2009 should no longer be relied upon, and that those
financial statements would be restated. On this news, the
Company's stock fell significantly.

For more details, contact:

          Amanda C. Scuder, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.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  * * *