CAR_Public/090810.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 156
  
                           Headlines

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Accrued $3.8M for Settlement Expenses
AETNA INC: N.J. Judge Appoints Lead Attorneys in UCR Litigation
APPLE INC: Faces FLSA Suit in Florida for Failing to Pay Wages
AT&T INC: Kansas City Council Approves $10.7M Deal in Tax Suit
ATLAS MINING: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending in Idaho

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Premature Withdrawals
BDO SEIDMAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Malack"
CANYON COUNTY: Deal Reached in Idaho Suit Over Jail Conditions
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Approval Sought for $55M ERISA Suit Deal
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Investors Oppose Expert Witness Affidavit

CVS PHARMACY: Aug. 13 Conference Scheduled in AirShield Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Court Considers Class Certification of Medicaid Lawsuit
HURON CONSULTING: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Illinois
JARDEN CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK in May '09
MCKESSON CORP: Connecticut State's Suit Set for July 2010 Trial

MCKESSON CORP: Oct. 30 Discovery Cut-Off Set for Calif. Lawsuit
MCKESSON CORP: Oct. 30 Discovery Cut-Off Set for Kansas Lawsuit
MCKESSON CORP: Proposed Settlement Gets Final Approval in July
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit Over Bungled Pension Fund Investments
OFFICE DEPOT: Pursues Dismissal of Amended Securities Fraud Suit

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Mich. Litigation Over Stained Teeth
SAFENET INC: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Some Defendants in Stock Suit
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.C.
SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery in Shareholders Securities Suit Ongoing
SPRINT NEXTEL: Easement Cases v. Unit Remain Pending in Tenn.

USG CORP: Defends Six Chinese-Made Wallboard Suits in Florida
USG CORP: Drywall Products Liability MDL Suit v. Unit Pending
USG CORP: Unit Defends Homeowners' Suit on Defective Wallboard
USG CORP: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Wallboard in State Courts
WILLIS GROUP: Strasburger & Price Files Depositors' Suit in Tex.

WOODBURY COUNTY: Eighth Circuit to Rule on Strip-Search Case
WYETH: To Settle Shareholder Lawsuits Over Pfizer Merger Deal

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
CONSECO INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
HURON CONSULTING: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Lawsuit

PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing

                           *********

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Accrued $3.8M for Settlement Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., at June 30,
2009, accrued expenses of $3.8 million associated with the
settlement of the ChoiceDek(R) purchasers' class action lawsuit.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle Division, approved a class action settlement on Jan. 9,
2009, related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to
recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite
decking for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains
on their decks.  The settlement includes decking material
purchased from Jan. 1, 2004, through Dec. 31, 2007, along with
decking material purchased after Dec. 31, 2007, that was
manufactured before Oct. 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was
introduced in the manufacturing process.

As part of the settlement, the defendants have agreed not to use
the terms "minimum maintenance," "low maintenance," "easy to
maintain," or "virtually maintenance free" in ChoiceDek(R)
marketing materials.  AERT is required to provide additional
cleaning instructions on the ChoiceDek(R) website to assist
customers with cleaning their decks.  AERT has provided national
notice of the settlement to putative class members and has
established a call center to answer customer questions regarding
ChoiceDek(R).  AERT is self-administering a claim resolution
process whereby eligible deck owners may file a claim for
significant mold spotting by Sept. 10, 2009.  If eligible, deck
owners who timely file a claim for significant mold spotting may
receive relief such as deck cleanings and applications of a mold
inhibitor, gift cards for use at Lowe's, replacement materials,
and/or refunds under certain criteria.  An arbitration provision
is included in the settlement agreement, which provides for
disputes arising from the claim resolution process.

At June 30, 2009, AERT had accrued expenses of $3.8 million
associated with the settlement of the class action lawsuit.  The
estimate included $2.6 million remaining for the claims
resolution process and $1.2 million remaining to be paid for
plaintiffs' attorney fees over 2009 and 2010.  The claim
resolution process will have an annual net cost limitation to
AERT of $2.0 million until the claim resolution process is
completed, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. --
http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets
composite building materials that are used in place of
traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications
in building and remodeling homes and for certain other
industrial or commercial building purposes.  The Company's
products are sold by national companies, such as the
Weyerhaeuser Co., Lowe's Cos., Inc., and Therma-Tru Corp.  Its
composite building materials are marketed as a substitute for
wood and plastic filler materials for standard door components,
windowsills, brick mould, fascia board, decking and heavy
industrial flooring under the trade names LifeCycle,
MoistureShield, MoistureShield CornerLoc, Weyerhaeuser ChoiceDek
Premium, ChoiceDek Premium Colors, MoistureShield outdoor
decking and Basics outdoor decking.  AERT has manufacturing
facilities in Springdale, Lowell, and Tontitown, Arkansas;
Junction, Texas and Alexandria, Louisiana.


AETNA INC: N.J. Judge Appoints Lead Attorneys in UCR Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Faith S. Hochberg of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey picked two law firms to take the lead in
a class-action lawsuit against Aetna, Inc., Henry Gottlieb of
The New Jersey Law Journal reports.

The lawsuit is captioned In re Aetna, Inc., Out-of-Network "UCR"
Rates Litigation (Master Docket No. 07-cv-3541; MDL No. 2020).  
It accuses Aetna of underpaying reimbursements for out-of-
network health care.

The plaintiffs, the American Medical Association and individual
doctors and patients, allege that Aetna underpaid reimbursements
for out-of-network treatment by knowingly relying on a faulty
database used by several insurers to compute the usual,
customary and reasonable value of health care, and now it owes
additional payments (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009).

The litigation consists of five cases consolidated before Judge
Hochberg by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
three of which were originally filed in New Jersey and two of
which were filed in Connecticut.  

On July 31, 2009, the judge selected Pomerantz Haudek Grossman &
Gross of New York to chair a seven-firm plaintiffs' executive
committee and coordinate the litigation, Mr. Gottlieb writes.

Judge Hochberg's order says that Carella, Byrne, Bain Gilfillan,
Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein in Roseland will act as settlement
liaison counsel with responsibility to organize and coordinate
overtures in the case.

According to the judge, the arrangement would bring efficiency
and order to the litigation and that she expects it to settle,
the Journal reported.

Since May, rival teams of plaintiffs attorneys had been
negotiating to divide the work without ceding too much power or
the right to hefty portions of any fees.  On July 10, they
reached a compromise to divide the leadership role among seven
firms.

But Judge Hochberg slew the seven-headed Hydra, saying in
herorder that it is "important that there be a single law firm
to serve as a point of contact for defendants and the court with
authority to speak on behalf of plaintiffs."

For more details, contact:

          Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-661-1100 or 1-888-4-POMLAW
          Fax: 212-661-8665
          Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

               - and -

          Carella, Byrne, Bain Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
               Olstein
          5 Becker Farm Rd.
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: (973) 994-1744
          Web site: http://www.carellabyrne.com/


APPLE INC: Faces FLSA Suit in Florida for Failing to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses
the company of failing to pay its employees proper wages for
overtime work, Neil Hughes at The Apple Insider reports.

The suit was filed on Aug. 4, 2009 in the U.S District Court for
the Southern District of California by Kenyon Zahner.  It is
captioned Zahner v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-61183, and is
also alleging that the company demanded its employees put in
more than 40 hours per week without proper compensation.

The plaintiff claims that his employer violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and that the he and other employees are entitled
to compensation for their unpaid overtime, reports the Apple
Insider.

According to the complaint, "During Plaintiff's employment,
[Apple] required [Mr. Zahner], a non-exempt employee under the
FLSA, and others similarly situated, to work in excess of forty
(40) hours per work-week, and willfully refused to compensate
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, for all such work
pursuant to the FLSA."

Mr. Zahner and his co-plaintiffs were unable to produce the
exact amount of overtime they believe they are owed.  The suit
alleges that the hours worked by the employees are in the
"exclusive possession and sole custody and control" of Apple.  
The court filing states that the employees are entitled to time-
and-a-half pay for their overtime work, writes Mr. Hughes.

"The Plaintiff, however, will exert diligent efforts to obtain
such information by appropriate discovery proceedings, to be
taken promptly in this case," the suit reads.

The suit asks for compensation according to the FLSA, including
liquidated damages, and coverage of attorney costs, and court
fees, according to the Apple Insider.

Representing Mr. Zahner are:

          Chad Evan Levy, Esq.
          Levy & Levy
          300 Southeast 13th Street
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: 954-763-5722
          Fax: 954-763-5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher John Whitelock, Esq.
          Whitelock & Associates
          300 SE 13th Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1154
          Phone: 954-463-2001
          Fax: 954-463-0410
          E-mail: cjwhitelock@bellsouth.net


AT&T INC: Kansas City Council Approves $10.7M Deal in Tax Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas City Council Finance and Audit Committee passed an
ordinance on July 29, 2009, approving a settlement agreement
with AT&T/SBC Landline for $10.7 million in unpaid business
license taxes, Jeff Salem at The Sun Tribune reports.

Bill Geary, Esq., assistant city attorney, told the committee
that Kansas City was one of several municipalities in Missouri
to file a class-action lawsuit in St. Louis County Circuit Court
to recover the unpaid taxes, Mr. Salem reported.

The cities claimed in their lawsuits that the telecommunications
company failed to include certain items when it figured what to
pay its gross receipt taxes on, according to Mr. Geary.  "The
cities alleged that there were certain items that ought to be
considered just as part of these gross receipts," he further
said.

Those untaxed items included "charges such as those collected
from consumers for the Federal Universal Service Fund, State
Universal Service Fund, End User Common Line Charge, and
intrastate private line service," according to the ordinance's
fact sheet, a copy of which was obtained by The Sun Tribune.

Kansas City's $10.7 million share is one-fifth of the total
settlement the cities will receive.  Mr. Geary said Kansas City
should receive its share in the latter part of December, writes
Mr. Salem.


ATLAS MINING: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending in Idaho
------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a class action styled In Re Atlas
Mining Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-00428, is
pending final approval by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho.

The company, certain of its directors and former officers and
employees, its prior auditor, Chisolm, Bierwolf & Nilson, LLC,
and Nano Clay and Technologies, Inc., its defunct, wholly owned
subsidiary, are defendants in a class action filed on Oct. 11,
2007, on behalf of purchasers of the company publicly traded
common stock during the period Jan. 19, 2005, through Oct. 8,
2007.

The First Amended Complaint -- see http://is.gd/26qUm-- alleges  
that the company damaged purchasers by making material
misstatements in publicly disseminated press releases and
Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the extent
of the halloysite deposit on company property, the availability
and quality of halloysite for sale, and claimed sales of
halloysite.

The Complaint also alleges that the company improperly
manipulated reported earnings with respect to purported
halloysite sales and misrepresentations by the individual
defendants as to our financial statements.

The plaintiffs seek remedies under Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and for
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company's former officers and employees have requested, with
respect to this action, payment of their attorneys' fees and
indemnification.

Lead counsel in this case has been selected.

On July 2, 2009, the company entered into a Settlement Agreement  
with the lead plaintiffs.  Under the terms of the settlement
pact, the Company will pay plaintiffs $1,250,000 (which includes
fees to plaintiff's counsel), to be funded by the proceeds of an
insurance policy issued by Navigators Insurance Co., in exchange
for release of all claims against Company, Nano Clay &
Technologies, Inc., and William T. Jacobson, Robert Dumont,
Ronald Price and Barbara Suveg.  The company will also fund up
to $75,000 to fund expenses in connection with notification to
class members.  

The Settlement Agreement is subject to a number of conditions
including successful completion of confirmatory due diligence by
the lead plaintiffs and final court approval, according to the
company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Atlas Mining Company -- http://www.atlasmining.com-- is a
natural resources company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration and development of its resource properties in the
states of Idaho and Utah.  The company also provides contract
mining services and specialized civil construction services for
mine operators, exploration companies and the construction and
natural resources industries through its trade name Atlas
Fausett Contracting (AFC).  AFC performs site evaluation,
feasibility studies, trouble-shooting and consultation prior to
the undertaking of exploration and mine development.  The
company also operates in timber industry.  The company contracts
its logging to a qualified logger when it is selling the timber.
Its property consists primarily of pine, fir and larch.  The
company's major mining properties include Shoshone County,
Idaho, and Juab County, Utah.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Premature Withdrawals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America, N.A, faces a purported class-action lawsuit
that claims the bank made millions of dollars from its customers
by prematurely withdrawing money from their checking accounts,
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 24, 2009 in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri at Independence by Kelly Kendall, Bryon
Johnmeyer, Pride Developments, LLC, and is docked under Case No.
0916-CV23069.

The plaintiffs claim the bank withdraws money electronically
from accounts before paper checks are presented, though BofA
advertises that it does not do that, writes Mr. Harris.

The complaint claims that Bank of America takes customers' money
and puts it into a separate account that it controls during a
float period.  The bank allegedly earns millions of dollars from
the interest it gains from the premature withdrawals, while at
the same time it exposes customers to unwarranted service fees
and insufficient funds charges, reports Courthouse News Service.

Bank of America does not pay customers interest for the float
period and does not disclose that it earns the interest,
according to the complaint.  The suit demands damages,
disgorgement and refunds of all service fees and insufficient
fund charges customers incurred during the float period,
according to Mr. Harris' report.

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

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4101

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Edgar Law Firm LLC
          1032 Pennsylvania Avenue
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-531-0033
          Fax: 816-531-3322
          Web site: http://www.edgarlawfirm.com


BDO SEIDMAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Malack"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denied a motion that sought certification of a class in the
securities fraud class-action lawsuit entitled Malack v. BDO
Seidman, LLP, Case No. 08-0784, Alison Frankel at Am Law
Litigation Daily reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 15, 2008, by John A. Malack, Michael
R. Rosati, Virgil Magnon, S. S. Rajaram, M.D., Hayward
Pediatrics, Inc. and Henry Munster.  It alleges that BDO
Seidman, LLP violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

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

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

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
          Phone: 215-875-3000
          Fax: 215-875-5715
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net

BDO Seidman is represented by:

          Timothy E. Foeffner, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP
          One Liberty Plaza, Suite 4900
          1650 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-656-3300
          E-mail: timothy.hoeffner@dlapiper.com


CANYON COUNTY: Deal Reached in Idaho Suit Over Jail Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canyon County commissioners signed an agreement with the
American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho to improve
conditions at the county jail, Mike Butts at The Idaho Press-
Tribune reports.

The consent decree is an agreement to settle a purported class-
action lawsuit brought by the ACLU that claimed unacceptable
jail conditions.  Many of the problems stemmed from jail
overcrowding.

The ACLU filed its federal lawsuit in January, but, due to a
technicality, needed to re-file in March.  The lawsuit -- a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/26rn2at no charge --  
charges that the Canyon County Jail is overcrowded and shower
facilities are teeming with toxic mold and rust.  It also
charges that the detention center suffers from inadequate
ventilation and temperature control, inadequate sanitation, and
inadequate plumbing (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2009).

Mr. Butts writes that the decree requires the main jail
population be kept at 296 inmates.  That could mean the county
will have to "farm out" inmates to other jails to stay within
the agreement's requirements.

The consent decree still needs approval from a federal judge and
jail inmates who are part of a class-action lawsuit.  Once
approved, it will be effective for two years, after which time
it would come to an end if its requirements have been met.

All three county commissioners signed the consent decree.  But
Commissioner Steve Rule said he was uncomfortable doing so.  He
said there were no other options other than to continue the
lawsuit.  And he said the decree would have to be followed to
the "nth degree," according to the Press-Tribune.

The Press-Tribune reports that the 33-page decree includes jail
population maximums and lists inmate capacities for 13 pods and
three annexes.  It also calls for remediation to remove mold and
improvements or changes in:

       -- Ventilation
       -- Sanitation
       -- Plumbing
       -- Air temperature
       -- Bedding
       -- Outdoor recreation
       -- Staffing
       -- Posting inmate handbooks
       -- Special meals for allergies
       -- Reduction in medical co-pays from $10 to $5
       -- Gender discrimination
       -- Inspections


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Approval Sought for $55M ERISA Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit accusing Countrywide
Financial Corp. of violating the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act in its treatment of their 401(k) plan asked a judge
to approve a $55 million settlement in the case, Law360 reports.

In a motion filed on Aug. 5, 2009, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, plaintiffs said that the
$55 million cash payment would provide "substantial benefit" to
them, according to Law360.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Investors Oppose Expert Witness Affidavit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investors suing Countrywide Financial Corp. in a putative class-
action lawsuit, alleging securities fraud have called on a court
to strike an expert witness affidavit filed by the mortgage
lender opposing class certification, saying the document is a
transparent attempt to shore up weaknesses in the expert's
reports and was submitted too late, Law360 reports.

The lead pension fund plaintiffs filed a motion in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 5,
2009, according to Law360.


CVS PHARMACY: Aug. 13 Conference Scheduled in AirShield Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 13 case management conference is set for the purported
class-action lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy Inc. over the
effectiveness of it's "AirShield" cold remedy product, Amelia
Flood at the St. Clair Record reports.

According to an order signed by Judge Lloyd Cueto of the St.
Clair County Circuit Court, during that conference, the parties
will address class certification, writes Ms. Flood.

The class certification issue was supposed to be resolved in
July, but was moved pursuant to the July 15 order, the Record
reported.

The suit was filed in December 2008 by Iean Finley, who claims
that CVS misled the public into believing that AirShield
protects against illness and boosts the immune system.  It
specifically accuses the pharmacy of knowingly selling a product
that did not work.

Mr. Finley is suing the company under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  The class
constitutes those who bought AirShielf on or before Sept. 3,
2003.

The company though denies the allegations and its attorneys have
filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Finley fails to
plead any factual basis for his own claims other than he bought
AirShield from a CVS store (Class Action Reporter, June 12,
2009).

The suit seeks damages of no more than $75,000 per individual
class member, costs and attorneys' fees.

Judge Cueto was assigned to the case on Jan. 22, 2009, after
Judge Robert LeChien recused himself (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 30, 2009).

Mr. Finley is represented by:

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          George K. Lang, Esq.
          Freed and Weiss LLC
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312 220 0000 and 312 855 2628
          Fax: 312 220 7777
          E-mail: paul@freedweiss.com
                  george@freedweiss.com
          Web site: http://www.freedweiss.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
          Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson, P.C.
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, Illinois 62226
          Phone: (618) 235-0020 or (618) 271-1600
          Fax: (618) 235-8558
          Web site: http://bphtlaw.com/

CVS is represented by:

          Robert Bassett, Esq.
          Donovan, Rose, Nester & Joley, P.C.
          8 East Washington Street
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Phone: 618-235-2020
          Telecopier: 618-235-9632
          
               - and -

          David Smith, Esq.
          Reed Smith LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606-7507
          Phone: +1 312 207 6476
          Fax: +1 312 207 6400
          E-mail: dzsmith@reedsmith.com
          Web site: http://www.reedsmith.com


FLORIDA: Court Considers Class Certification of Medicaid Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is
considering whether a lawsuit claiming Florida's Medicaid
program is failing children should be made into a class-action
case, affecting tens of thousands of people, The Associated
Press reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 21, 2005, by pediatricians and
pediatric dentists, who are claiming that the federal-state
Medicaid program that provides health services to the poor does
not do the job required by law, especially when it comes to
children.

Listed as defendants in the matter are the state Agency for
Health Care Administration, which runs Medicaid, the Department
of Children and Family Services and the state Health Department,
AP reported.

The complaint is captioned Florida Pediatric, et al. v. Seretary
- AHCA, et al., Case No. 05-cv-23037, and it specifically
alleges that the Medicaid program is violating the civil rights
of young people and children by providing inadequate health and
dental care, reports The AP.

After a hearing last week on the class-action issue, Judge
Adalberto Jordan must now decide whether the lawsuit should
cover every Floridian under age 21 who is eligible for Medicaid.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart Harold Singer, Esq.
          Boies Schiller & Flexner
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-356-0011
          Fax: 954-356-0022
          E-mail: ssinger@bsfllp.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Marcos Daniel Jimenez, Esq.
          Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector
          201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131-4327
          Phone: 305-373-1000
          Fax: 305-372-1861
          E-mail: mjimenez@kennynachwalter.com


HURON CONSULTING: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
     A total of five stockholder class actions have been filed
on behalf of all shareholders of Huron Consulting Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: HURN) who purchased or acquired Huron stock from April
27, 2006, to July 31, 2009.  These are not individual lawsuits
by shareholders against the company.  Instead, they are lawsuits
on behalf of all shareholders of Huron.  Shareholders filed
these lawsuits to recoup the 70% drop in stock suffered on Aug.
3, 2009.  It is expected that many more lawsuits will be filed
by shareholders against the company.

     The five complaints, filed in the Northern District of
Illinois, allege that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial results
and compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.  
Specifically, the Company improperly accounted for payments made
as part of acquisitions.  As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements, the plaintiffs charge that Huron stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $83.25 per share on December 26, 2007.

     Then on July 31, 2009, Huron announced that it would be
restating its financial results from 2006 through 2008 and the
first three months of 2009 due to its failure to properly
account for earn-out payments made in connection with four of
its acquisitions.  On this news, Huron's stock collapsed $30.66
per share to close at $13.69 per share on August 3, 2009, a one-
day decline of almost 70%.

     The shareholders who have filed suit have done so on behalf
of all shareholders in order to recover damages caused by the
company's restatement.  

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


JARDEN CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK in May '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave its final order approving the settlement in the securities
fraud class action litigation against Jarden Corp. in May 2009.

In January and February 2006, purported class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain company officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through Jan.
12, 2006.  June 29, 2005 is the date the company announced the
signing of the agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc.

Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006.  No class
has been certified in the actions.  The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 25, 2006, against the
company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and certain officers of the
company.  

The suit alleged, among other things, that the plaintiffs
were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits
of the THG Acquisition.  

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.  That motion was been fully briefed, argued on Feb. 2,
remains sub judice, and is now moot by virtue of the settlement
pact.

On May 19, 2009, the District Court for the Southern District of
New York entered a final order approving the settlement in the
securities class action litigation against the company and
certain company officers and dismissing the case with prejudice.  
The entire amount of the settlement has been paid by the
company's liability insurers, according to the company's July
28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The first identified complaint is Ernesto Darquea, et al. v.
Jarden Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

Plaintiff firms in this and similar actions are:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com;

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 60 Park
         Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212.838.3221, E-mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com;

     (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525,
         Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, Fax:
         pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
         NY 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

     (6) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com;

     (7) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
         New York, NY 10118, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com;

     (8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

     (9) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; and

    (10) Stull, Stull & Brody, (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


MCKESSON CORP: Connecticut State's Suit Set for July 2010 Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class-action lawsuit captioned State of Connecticut
v. McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-10900, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts is set for
July 19, 2010.  

On May 28, 2008, an action was filed by the State of Connecticut
against the Company, again as the sole defendant, alleging
violations of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Sherman Act and the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

The plaintiffs seek damages, treble damages, restitution,
interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified amounts.

The action is based on factual allegations substantially
identical to those asserted in the civil action styled New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al. v. First
DataBank, Inc., and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No.
05-CV-11148.  

The trial court set a discovery cut-off of Oct. 30, 2009, and
trial in the Connecticut Action for July 19, 2010.

On July 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the Connecticut Action filed an
unopposed motion to modify the court's scheduling order by
moving the discovery cut-off in all of the consolidated actions
to Jan. 14, 2010, and trial in the Connecticut Action to October
2010.  The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion to
modify the schedule, according to the company's July 28, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,  
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry.  The company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MCKESSON CORP: Oct. 30 Discovery Cut-Off Set for Calif. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 30, 2009 discovery cut-off has been set in the class-
action suit styled San Francisco Health Plan, et al. v. McKesson
Corporation, Civil Action No. 08-CA-10843.

On May 20, 2008, the San Francisco Health Plan, on behalf of
itself and a purported class of political subdivisions in the
State of California, and the San Francisco City Attorney, on
behalf of the "People of the State of California" filed their
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the company as the sole defendant.

The action alleges violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, the California Cartwright Act,
California False Claims Act and California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The plaintiffs seek damages, treble damages, civil penalties,
restitution, interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified
amounts.

On July 3, 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the San
Francisco action adding a claim for tortious interference.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the District Court entered an order staying
the class-action suit.

The action is based on factual allegations substantially
identical to those asserted in the civil action styled New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First
DataBank, Inc., and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No.
05-CV-11148.

The trial court set a discovery cut-off of Oct. 30, 2009, and
scheduled a class certification hearing in the San Francisco
Action for Feb. 10, 2010.  No trial date has yet been set or
proposed in the San Francisco Action.

On July 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the San Francisco Action filed
an unopposed motion to modify the court's scheduling order by
moving the discovery cut-off in all of the consolidated actions
to Jan. 14, 2010, the class certification hearing in the San
Francisco Action to April 2010.  The court has not yet ruled on
plaintiffs' motion to modify the previously described schedule,
according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,  
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry.  The company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MCKESSON CORP: Oct. 30 Discovery Cut-Off Set for Kansas Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 30, 2009 discovery cut-off has been set in the class
action styled Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County,
Kansas v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
08-CV-11349.

On Aug. 7, 2008, the action was filed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas on behalf of itself and
a purported national class of state, local and territorial
governmental entities in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the company and First
DataBank, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege violations of civil Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek damages and treble damages, as well as
injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
all in unspecified amounts.

The action is based on factual allegations substantially
identical to those asserted in the civil action styled New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al., v. First
DataBank, Inc., and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No.
05-CV-11148.

On Dec. 24, 2008, an amended and consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Kansas action.  The amended complaint
added the named plaintiffs from the Florida, Oklahoma,
Minnesota, Maryland, South Carolina and North Carolina actions.

The trial court set a discovery cut-off of Oct. 30, 2009, and
scheduled a class certification hearing in the Kansas Action for
Feb. 10, 2010.  No trial date has yet been set or proposed in
the Kansas Action.

On July 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the Kansas Action filed an
unopposed motion to modify the court's scheduling order by
moving the discovery cut-off in all of the consolidated actions
to Jan. 14, 2010, the class certification hearing in the Kansas
Action to April 2010.  The court has not yet ruled on
plaintiffs' motion to modify the previously described schedule,
according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,  
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry.  The company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MCKESSON CORP: Proposed Settlement Gets Final Approval in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in
July 2009, granted final approval of the proposed settlement in
the New England Carpenters I civil action against McKesson Corp.

The civil action pending against the company in the U.S.
District Court, District of Massachusetts is styled New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al., v. First
DataBank, Inc., and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No.
05-CV-11148.

On Aug. 7, 2008, the court issued its order denying plaintiffs
motion to certify a class made up of uninsured consumers who
paid "usual and customary" prices for prescription drugs from
Aug. 1, 2001 through the present, although the court did so
"without prejudice" to the plaintiffs renewing their motion at a
future date based on new facts developed in ongoing discovery.

Expert discovery is ongoing, and in connection with those
proceedings plaintiffs have produced a report which claims total
damages through March 15, 2005, for the third party payor class
and the consumer percentage co-pay class of US$5.6 billion,
inclusive of prejudgment interest.

As a subset of this total, the plaintiffs' report claims damages
for the respective certified class periods scheduled for trial
of US$3.7 billion for the third party payor class, and US$150
million for the consumer percentage co-pay class, both amounts
inclusive of prejudgment interest.

The certified third party payor and percentage co-pay consumer
class claims are based on alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the company announced in a filing on Form 8-K
that an agreement had been entered into to settle all private
party claims relating to First DataBank Inc.'s published drug
reimbursement benchmarks, commonly referred to as Average
Wholesale Price.  The settled private party claims include the
action filed against the company in the New England Carpenters I
civil action, including the class of uninsured consumers who
paid usual and customary prices for prescription drugs.

That settlement, which is subject to preliminary and final
approval by the U.S. District Court, provides for a release by
all class members of the Company as to all matters alleged, or
which could have been alleged, in these private party actions.
The consideration for the settlement is $350 million, payable
into a settlement escrow in installments following preliminary
and final approvals of the settlement.  As a result, during the
third quarter of 2009, the company recorded a $350 million pre-
tax charge for its AWP-related private party actions.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement but has not yet set a hearing date regarding
final approval of the settlement.

The final approval hearing on the company's settlement of
private party claims was conducted by the trial court as
scheduled on July 23, 2009, and July 24, 2009, the trial court
issued an order approving the settlement, according to the
company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,  
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry.  The company is headquartered in San
Francisco, Calif.


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit Over Bungled Pension Fund Investments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., UBS Financial Services, Inc., The
Indiana State Teachers Association, along with several other
defendants, face a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses
them of screwing up public schoolteachers' pension fund
investments so badly that the plan faces a $67 million deficit
and 650 disabled teachers will lose their long-term benefits,
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 24, 2009, in Marion County Court,
Indianapolis by teachers Dennis Mcallen, Dennis Dittrick,
Cheryl Lakes, and Shirley O'Neill.  It is docketed as Cause
No. 49D05-09-07-PL-034768.

The teachers say that 88 percent of the pension funds were put
into "hedge funds, derivatives, private equities, and long-term
real estate investments," which are "extremely volatile,
inherently high-risk, illiquid, and presently are virtually
worthless," reports Mr. Kahn.

"These investments were drastically ill-suited for investment of
insurance trust funds, which are intended to protect Plan
participants in times of need due to health issues or
disability," according to the complaint.

Until recently, the pension money was put into "conservative,
and far more appropriate, investment vehicles such as United
States Treasury Bonds," the plaintiffs state.

However, the plaintiffs claim that that "the Plan engaged in an
extremely high volume of investment trades in 2008 for a
portfolio of this size, which is reflective of an
inappropriately high-risk investment strategy.  This high volume
of trades generated a correspondingly high amount of commissions
for defendants David M. Karandos, Morgan Stanley, and UBS,"
Courthouse News Service reported.

Mr. Karandos is an investment adviser and broker who worked for
UBS and then Morgan Stanley, and whom the teachers blame for the
"inappropriate investments."

The ISTA has relinquished control of the trust fund to the
National Education Association, which appointed Edward Sullivan
sole trustee of the Plan.  

The teachers say their trust agreement calls for nine trustees.  
They want eight other trustees appointed to serve with Mr.
Sullivan, according to report.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4102

Representing the teachers is:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Cohen & Malad, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
          Phone: 317.636.6481     
          Fax: 317.636.2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
          Web site: http://www.cohenandmalad.com/


OFFICE DEPOT: Pursues Dismissal of Amended Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
filed against the company is pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers,
alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in
November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor
program funds.

Each of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, and are captioned as:

       * Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia
         McKay, Case Number, 07-14348), filed on Nov. 6, 2007;
         and

       * Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve
         Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-81038),
         filed on Nov. 5, 2007.

On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in the Nichols case moved to
consolidate the two class action lawsuits.  On March 21, 2008,
the court entered an order consolidating the cases.  The lead
plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New Mexico Educational
Retirement Board, filed a consolidated amended complaint on
July 2, 2008.

On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to
state a claim.

On March 31, 2009, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, but allowed the lead plaintiff leave to amend.  

On April 20, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On May 21, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is pending before
the court, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 27, 2009.

The suit is Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No.
07-cv-14348, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David J. George, Esq. (dgeorge@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Alleghney Building
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-338-2266

Representing the defendants is:

          Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq. (aflindsay@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-459-6500
          Fax: 305-459-6550


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Mich. Litigation Over Stained Teeth
-----------------------------------------------------------
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., and Proctor & Gamble
Distributing LLC are facing a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by a Detroit-area lawyer who claims his teeth have brown
stains after he used Crest Pro-Health mouthwash, The Associated
Press reports.

Mark C. Rossman's law partners filed the lawsuit on Aug. 6, 2009
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Case No. 09-cv-13099), and seeks class action status.  He says
P&G should put a warning on the bottle, writes the AP.

Mr. Rossman of Harper Woods says his wife noticed brown on the
edges where teeth meet other teeth.  Despite flossing and
brushing, the 34-year-old says the stains won't go away,
according to the AP report.

Representing Mr. Rossman is:

          David F. Hansma, Esq.
          Mantese and Rossman
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Phone: 248-457-9200
          Fax: 248-457-9201
          E-mail: dhansma@manteselaw.com


SAFENET INC: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Some Defendants in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed seven executives named as
defendants in a securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
software security firm SafeNet, Inc., and a group of directors
and officers, Law360 reports.

On Aug. 5, 2009, the judge dismissed the six named directors
from the suit and one of SafeNet's former officials.  But, the
judge kept actionable claims of stock options backdating against
the company and two former officers, according to Law360.

Two securities fraud lawsuits have been lodged against SafeNet
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York:

     -- Golde v. SafeNet, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-cv-06194,
        filed August 15, 2006; and

     -- Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
        v. SafeNet, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-cv-05797, filed
        August 1, 2006.


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonoco Products Co. continues to face a securities fraud lawsuit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System v. Sonoco Products Company, et al., Case No. 08-cv-02348.

The company was served with the complaint, filed by the City of
Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, on July 7, 2008.

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 7, 2007, and
Sept. 18, 2007, except officers and directors of the company.

It alleges that the company issued press releases during the
class period that were materially false and misleading because
the company allegedly had no reasonable basis for the earnings
projections contained in the press releases, and that such
information caused the market price of the company's common
stock to be artificially inflated.

The complaint also names certain company officers as individual
defendants and seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus
interest and attorneys' fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its July
28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2009.

The suit is City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, City
of v. Sonoco Products Company, et al., Case No. 08-cv-02348,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Judge Terry L. Wooten, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          (wehopkins@hopkinscampbell.com)
          Hopkins and Campbell
          P.O. Box 11963
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: 803-256-6152
          Fax: 803-256-6155

Representing the defendants is:

          William Clarence Boyd, Esq. (bboyd@hsblawfirm.com)
          Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd
          P.O. Box 11889
          Columbia, SC 29211-1889
          Phone: 803-779-3080
          Fax: 803-765-1243


SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery in Shareholders Securities Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a shareholder class-action lawsuit
against Sprint Nextel Corp., alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

In September 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging
that the company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and
misleading in violation of federal securities laws to the extent
they described new employment agreements with certain senior
executives without disclosing that, according to the
allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable.

These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit
originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the company and
certain current and former officers and directors, and seek to
recover any decline in the value of the company's tracking
stocks during the class period.

The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class
action.

All defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations and intend
to defend this matter vigorously, according to the company's
Nov. 7, 2008, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims
against the same defendants and the company's former independent
auditor, were dismissed by the Court in April 2004.

The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
denied, and the parties are engaged in discovery (Class Action
Reporter, May 29, 2009).

The company did not provide any updates on the case in its
Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Easement Cases v. Unit Remain Pending in Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cases filed against Sprint Nextel Corp.'s subsidiary, Sprint
Communications Company L.P., for alleged failure to obtain
easements for fiber optic network installations remain pending
in Tennessee.

A number of cases that allege Sprint Communications failed to
obtain easements from property owners during the installation of
its fiber optic network in the 1980's have been filed in various
courts.  Several of these cases sought certification of
nationwide classes, and in one case, a nationwide class was
certified.

In 2003, a nationwide settlement of these claims was approved by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
but objectors appealed the preliminary approval order to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the
settlement and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.  The parties proceeded with litigation and
settlement negotiations on a state by state basis, and
settlement negotiations have been coordinated in all cases but
those pending in Louisiana and Tennessee.  The Louisiana claims
have been separately settled for an amount not material to the
company, and that settlement was given final approval by the
Court, and the time to appeal that approval has expired.

The company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
claims in all the other states, excluding Tennessee, for an
amount not material to the company.  The Court issued its
preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2008, and the
Court is in the process of considering objections to the
settlement (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2009).

No developments on the matter were reported in the company's
Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


USG CORP: Defends Six Chinese-Made Wallboard Suits in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation remains named as a defendant in six different
class action lawsuits filed in Florida.

USG's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, is not named in the
lawsuits.  

USG did not manufacture, distribute, or sell any Chinese-made
wallboard.

The Chinese-made wallboard case is in a preliminary stage, and
the company expects that additional similar suits will be filed.  
However, the company says that L&W Supply's sales of the
allegedly defective Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined
to Florida, were limited.  Based on the company's records, it
believes that the amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially
sold by L&W Supply would completely furnish approximately 250-
300 average-size homes, although the actual number of homes
could be somewhat larger because some homes may contain a
mixture of different brands of wallboard.  

L&W Supply sold other Chinese-made wallboard, primarily
manufactured by Knauf entities, but the company is not aware of
any instances in which the non-Tianjin wallboard sold by L&W
Supply has been determined to cause odor or corrosion problems,
according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

USG Corporation -- http://www.usg.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building
materials, producing a range of products for use in new
residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel
construction, as well as products used in certain industrial
processes.  The company is organized into three reportable
segments: North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution
and Worldwide Ceilings.


USG CORP: Drywall Products Liability MDL Suit v. Unit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A multi-district litigation entitled In re Chinese-Manufactured
Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047, remains
pending against USG Corporation's subsidiary, L&W Supply
Corporation.

As of the end of the second quarter of 2009, L&W Supply was a
defendant in nineteen class actions filed in federal court in
Florida, Louisiana and Alabama relating to Chinese-made
wallboard.

In June 2009, all federal court class actions were transferred
by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

This multi-district litigation will also include any individual
homeowner lawsuits that are filed in federal court.

The Chinese-made wallboard case is in a preliminary stage, and
the company expects that additional similar suits will be filed.  
However, the company says that L&W Supply's sales of the
allegedly defective Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined
to Florida, were limited.  Based on the company's records, it
believes that the amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially
sold by L&W Supply would completely furnish approximately 250-
300 average-size homes, although the actual number of homes
could be somewhat larger because some homes may contain a
mixture of different brands of wallboard.  

L&W Supply sold other Chinese-made wallboard, primarily
manufactured by Knauf entities, but the company is not aware of
any instances in which the non-Tianjin wallboard sold by L&W
Supply has been determined to cause odor or corrosion problems,
according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

USG Corporation -- http://www.usg.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building
materials, producing a range of products for use in new
residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel
construction, as well as products used in certain industrial
processes.  The company is organized into three reportable
segments: North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution
and Worldwide Ceilings.


USG CORP: Unit Defends Homeowners' Suit on Defective Wallboard
--------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, remains a
named defendant, along with many other companies, in lawsuits
relating to Chinese-made wallboard primarily sold in Florida in
2006.

L&W Supply was one of a number of distributors of Chinese-made
wallboard.

These lawsuits, most of which were brought by homeowners, claim
that the Chinese-made wallboard is defective and emits high
levels of sulfur causing, among other things, a bad smell and
corrosion of copper or other metal surfaces.  The homeowners
also allege that the Chinese-made wallboard causes health
problems such as respiratory problems and allergic reactions.

Some of the lawsuits are brought by individual homeowners and
some are class actions brought on behalf of a group of
homeowners who claim their homes contain defective Chinese-made
wallboard.

Also named as defendants in these lawsuits are home builders,
contractors, other distributors, and the manufacturers of the
wallboard.

The Chinese-made wallboard at issue sold by L&W Supply was
manufactured by Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.

The named defendants include Knauf Tianjin, two other Knauf
Chinese wallboard facilities, Knauf Gips KG, another Knauf
affiliate, and three Chinese wallboard manufacturers unrelated
to Knauf.  

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for the costs of
removing and replacing the Chinese-made wallboard and other
allegedly damaged property as well as damages for personal
injury, including medical monitoring in some cases.

The Chinese-made wallboard case is in a preliminary stage, and
the company expects that additional similar suits will be filed.  
However, the company says that L&W Supply's sales of the
allegedly defective Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined
to Florida, were limited.  Based on the company's records, it
believes that the amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially
sold by L&W Supply would completely furnish approximately 250-
300 average-size homes, although the actual number of homes
could be somewhat larger because some homes may contain a
mixture of different brands of wallboard.  

L&W Supply sold other Chinese-made wallboard, primarily
manufactured by Knauf entities, but the company is not aware of
any instances in which the non-Tianjin wallboard sold by L&W
Supply has been determined to cause odor or corrosion problems,
according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

USG Corporation -- http://www.usg.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building
materials, producing a range of products for use in new
residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel
construction, as well as products used in certain industrial
processes.  The company is organized into three reportable
segments: North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution
and Worldwide Ceilings.


USG CORP: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Wallboard in State Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, remains a
named defendant in state court lawsuits filed in Florida and
Louisiana relating to Chinese-made wallboard.

As of the end of the second quarter of 2009, L&W Supply was a
defendant in more than 100 individual homeowner lawsuits and
five class actions filed in Florida state court and one
individual homeowner lawsuit and one class action filed in
Louisiana state court.

L&W Supply was also named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by
Lennar Homes in Florida state court relating to Knauf Tianjin
wallboard installed in homes built by Lennar in Florida.

Although USG did not manufacture, distribute, or sell any
Chinese-made wallboard, all of the Chinese-made wallboard
lawsuits filed against L&W Supply also name USG as a defendant.

The Chinese-made wallboard case is in a preliminary stage, and
the company expects that additional similar suits will be filed.  
However, the company says that L&W Supply's sales of the
allegedly defective Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined
to Florida, were limited.  Based on the company's records, it
believes that the amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially
sold by L&W Supply would completely furnish approximately 250-
300 average-size homes, although the actual number of homes
could be somewhat larger because some homes may contain a
mixture of different brands of wallboard.  

L&W Supply sold other Chinese-made wallboard, primarily
manufactured by Knauf entities, but the company is not aware of
any instances in which the non-Tianjin wallboard sold by L&W
Supply has been determined to cause odor or corrosion problems,
according to the company's July 28, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

USG Corporation -- http://www.usg.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building
materials, producing a range of products for use in new
residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel
construction, as well as products used in certain industrial
processes.  The company is organized into three reportable
segments: North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution
and Worldwide Ceilings.


WILLIS GROUP: Strasburger & Price Files Depositors' Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Strasburger & Price, LLP, and Castillo Snyder, PC, filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings Ltd. (NYSE:
WSH), a UK-based global insurance broker with more than 400
offices in nearly 120 countries, and other defendants.  The
suit, filed on behalf of a class of Venezuelan depositor clients
of Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, also names Willis of
Colorado, Bowen, Miclette & Britt, Inc., of Houston, and two
individuals.

     The class action, filed in federal court in Dallas, Tex.,
seeks damages totaling approximately $1.6 billion for more than
1,200 depositors with the potential to include as many as 5,000
depositors impacted in the Stanford Financial fraud.  This is
the second suit filed on behalf of Latin American depositors by
Strasburger & Price and Castillo Snyder.  On July 2, 2009, the
first of the two suits was filed on behalf of Mexican depositors
seeking $1 billion in damages against Willis and the defendants.

     In line with the previous case, the recent filing alleges
Texas securities law violations by Willis and the co-defendants
in the massive investment fraud scheme perpetrated by Stanford
Financial that led to the intervention by the Securities and
Exchange Commission in Texas.

     Strasburger Partners Edward F. Valdespino and David Cibrian
will serve as lead attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case.

     "This additional class action filed on behalf of depositors
in Latin America illustrates the breadth and depth of the
financial damage inflicted by Stanford Financial, and the extent
to which it went beyond U.S. borders," says Valdespino.  "In
just these two cases combined, we have identified thousands of
defrauded Stanford clients with losses now totaling over $2.6
billion. Our allegations are consistent with those expressed in
the first suit filed, as is our commitment to recovering
financial assets and holding the defendants liable for their
alleged role in marketing for Stanford."

     The 50-page filing alleges that Willis and the codefendants
provided Stanford Financial with certain "safety and soundness"
letters at Stanford's request. It further alleges that the clear
intention of the letters was that they be used for marketing
purposes to retain or obtain actual or prospective clients for
Stanford Financial.

     The suit also alleges the defendants' direct participation
in the fraud crossed the line from the role of insurance
brokers, to acting as sales agents for Stanford Financial and
its deposit products.  The suit further alleges that these
actions convinced depositors located throughout Latin America to
invest with Stanford Financial and in turn caused them to be
defrauded by the firm, losing assets totaling several billion
dollars.

For more details, contact:

          Strasburger & Price, LLP
          901 Main Street, Suite 4400
          Dallas, Texas 75202.3794
          Phone: 214.651.4300
          Fax: 214.651.4330
          Web site: http://www.strasburger.com/

               - and -

          Castillo Snyder, PC
          Bank Of America Plaza
          300 Convent, Suite 1020
          San Antonio, Texas 78205-3789
          Phone: (210) 630-4200
          Fax: (210) 630-4210
          Web site: http://casnlaw.com/


WOODBURY COUNTY: Eighth Circuit to Rule on Strip-Search Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is set to
decide whether to allow the lawsuit against Woodbury County over
the county jail's former strip-search policy to proceed as a
class-action case, Grant Schulte at The Des Moines Register
reports.

As early as this year, the court will decide whether to allow
the lawsuit to proceed as a blanket claim for those inmates, who
served time between February 2005 and October 2007, writes Mr.
Schulte.

The suit was filed on Feb. 13, 2007 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Iowa by Maureen Rattray.  It is captioned
Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa, Case No. 07-cv-04014.

The plaintiff specifically challenges the former policy that
allowed jailers to strip search offenders booked into jail for
serious misdemeanors and felonies.

The case revolves around the sheriff's use of strip-searches,
dating back as far as the 1970s, for all inmates charged with
serious misdemeanors or greater offenses.  Jail officials
stopped the practice on Oct. 15, 2007, eight months after Ms.
Rattray filed her complaint.  Two other women have since joined
the lawsuit, according to Mr. Schulte's report.

Ms. Rattray's complaint stems from her drunken driving arrest in
August 2006 wherein she claims jailers kept a door open during a
strip search and she was forced to hold a jail jumpsuit in front
of her naked body while she walked past men to her cell.

In 2008, a federal judge denied Ms. Rattray's motion to make
the case a class-action lawsuit and include thousands of people
who were booked in the jail since 1985 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 9, 2008).

The Des Moines Register reported that the district court case
remains in limbo until the federal appeals court rules on how
the case can proceed.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jean Pendleton
          Pendleton Law Firm, PC
          1501 - 42nd Street, Suite 445
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          Phone: 515 222 9111
          Fax: 515 243 0299
          E-mail: jpendleton@pendletonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Megan Jill Erickson, Esq.
          Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, PC
          699 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Phone: 515 246 4583
          Fax: 515 246 4550
          E-mail: merickson@dickinsonlaw.com

Wood County is represented by:

          Douglas L. Phillips, Esq.
          Klass Law Firm, L.L.P.
          Mayfair Center, Upper Level
          4280 Sergeant Road, Ste. 290
          Sioux City, IA 51106
          Phone: 712 252 1866
          Fax: 712 252 5822
          E-mail: phillips@klasslaw.com


WYETH: To Settle Shareholder Lawsuits Over Pfizer Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc., and Wyeth have agreed to settle shareholder
lawsuits that sought to rescind the drug makers' merger
agreement, Peter Loftus at Dow Jones Newswires reports.

In a regulatory filing, Wyeth said lawsuits seeking class-action
status were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in
federal and state court in New Jersey against Wyeth and members
of its board of directors.

The suits sought to invalidate Wyeth's January agreement to be
acquired by Pfizer in a cash-and-stock deal then valued at about
$68 billion, writes Mr. Loftus.

In June, both companies reached an agreement in principle to
settle the Delaware case, agreeing to include additional details
about the deal in regulatory filings, according to the report.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Allscripts-Misys Healthcare
Solutions, Inc. (formerly known as Allscripts Healthcare
Solutions, Inc.) (NASDAQ: MDRX) during the period between May 8,
2007 and February 13, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that adverse and
continuing delays in the installation of it newest version of
its EHR clinical software, Touchworks, version 11 ("V-11")
software systems occurred because Allscripts lacked the
necessary resources to install V-11 software at customer sites
and had no historical basis to estimate the timing of and impact
V-11 sales might have on the Company's 2007 revenues and
earnings such that defendants had no reasonable basis for their
statements and opinions concerning Allscripts' current and
future financial performance and projections.  According to the
complaint, after the Company revealed, on February 13, 2008, 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 and that V-11 installation delays
were likely to negatively impact sales and earnings well into
2008, the value of Allscripts' stock declined significantly.

     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 Oct. 5, 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


CONSECO INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     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 Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Conseco, Inc.
(NYSE: CNO) common stock during the period from August 4, 2005
to March 17, 2008.

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

     Conseco, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
development, marketing, and administration of supplemental
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance, and other
insurance products for senior and middle-income markets in the
United States.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous statements regarding the Company's
financial performance.  As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts, among others:

       -- that the Company was reporting materially inaccurate
          revenue figures;

       -- that the Company's reported financial results were
          materially misstated and did not present the true
          operating performance of the Company;

       -- that the Company's shareholders' equity was materially
          overstated during the Class Period, including the
          overstatement of shareholders' equity by $20.6 million
          at December 31, 2006; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company, its corporate governance practices, its
          prospects and earnings growth.

     On March 17, 2008, the Company disclosed that it did not
maintain effective controls over the accounting and disclosure
of insurance policy benefits and the liabilities for insurance
products and that it would therefore be restating its financial
results for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2006, along
with affected Selected Consolidated Financial Data for 2003 and
2004, and quarterly financial information for 2006 and the first
three quarters of 2007.

     In response to this announcement, shares of the Company's
stock fell $1.30 per share, or 12.9%, from a close of $10.06 per
share on March 14, 2008, the last trading date before the
announcement, to close at $8.76 per share, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Conseco 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/cno/


HURON CONSULTING: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors
of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) has filed a class
action lawsuit in United States District Court on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of Huron between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009,
inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

     The Complaint charges Huron and certain of its former
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.  
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants' public statements were false or misleading and
failed to disclose or indicate, among other things, that:

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

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

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

       -- 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 announced that the Company's
financial statements for the fiscal years 2006-2008, 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 non-cash compensation expenses related to the
sale of certain acquired businesses, and acquisition-related
payments received by the sellers, which they subsequently
redistributed among themselves and certain other Huron
employees.

     In response to this news, shares of Huron declined more
than $30 per share, or approximately 69%, to close at $13.69 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.

     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 Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


INTERNATIONAL GAME: 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
International Game Technology (NYSE: IGT) common stock during
the period from November 1, 2007 to October 30, 2008, inclusive.  
The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada against IGT and certain of its officers
and directors.

     IGT is a global gaming company that specializes in, among
other things, designing, manufacturing and marketing electronic
gaming equipment and network systems.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts.

     According to the complaint, the defendants misrepresented
or failed to disclose the following: that defendants diverted
substantial funds to the development of IGT's SB and AVP gaming
platforms, thereby compromising IGT's growth prospects and
undermining defendants' optimistic statements; that IGT was
unable to develop and market its SB and AVP gaming platforms
within the time frame that defendants had represented to
investors because of increasingly challenging market conditions
and mounting costs; that the positive representations made by
defendants regarding IGT's shift to non-machine based operations
were undermined by a slowdown in the gaming industry, the impact
of which was minimized by defendants; and, that defendants
concealed that as a result of the above, it was unlikely that
the Company would achieve or exceed its earnings guidance.  By
deceiving the public about IGT's business, operations, and
management, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices.

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
          Web site: http://www.lawssb.com


PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on August
5, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares in the ProShares UltraShort Real
Estate fund (NYSE: SRS), an exchange-traded fund offered by
ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and
misleading Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements
of Additional Information issued in connection with the SRS
Fund's shares.  The Class is seeking to pursue remedies under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

     The complaint names ProShares; ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M.
Mayberg, Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D.
Collier, as defendants.  ProShares sells its Ultra and
UltraShort ETFs as "simple" directional plays.  As marketed by
ProShares, Ultra ETFs are designed to go up when markets go up;
UltraShort ETFs are designed to go up when markets go down.  The
SRS Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The SRS Fund
seeks investment results that correspond to twice the inverse (-
200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index
(DJREI), which measures the performance of the real estate
sector of the U.S. equity market.  Accordingly, the SRS Fund is
supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the DJREI,
which fell approximately 39.2 percent from January 2, 2008
through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for
investors who anticipated a decline in the U.S. real estate
market.  In other words, the SRS Fund should have appreciated by
78.4 percent during this period.  However, the SRS Fund actually
fell approximately 48.2 percent during this period -- the
antithesis of a directional play.

     The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the
Securities Act by failing to disclose that the SRS Fund is
altogether defective as a directional investment play.
Defendants failed to disclose the following risks in the
Registration Statement:

       -- inverse correlation between the SRS Fund and the DJREI
          over time would only happen in the rarest of
          circumstances, and inadvertently if at all;

       -- the extent to which performance of the SRS Fund would
          inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJREI
          -- i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of
          spectacular tracking error;

       -- the severe consequences of high market volatility on
          the SRS Fund's investment objective and performance;

       -- the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in
          periods of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's
          performance;

       -- the role the SRS Fund plays in increasing market
          volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading;

       -- the consequences of the SRS Fund's daily hedge
          adjustment always going in the same direction as the
          movement of the underlying index, notwithstanding that
          it is an inverse leveraged ETF;

       -- the SRS Fund causes dislocations in the stock market;

       -- the SRS Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to
          obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not
          attainable through the SRS Fund.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Stefanie J. Sundel, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476 or (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: ssundel@labaton.com
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com


PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired shares in the ProShares UltraShort Real
Estate fund (NYSE: SRS), an exchange-traded fund offered by
ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares'
Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statement of
Additional Information issued in connection with the SRS Fund's
shares.  The lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by misrepresenting and failing to
disclose material adverse facts.

     According to the complaint, the defendants failed to
disclose exceptional risks associated with the SRS Fund.  
Investors who purchased shares of SRS Fund may have suffered
losses that may be compensable under the law.

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
          Web site: http://www.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  * * *