CAR_Public/090813.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, August 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 159
  
                           Headlines

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement of Securities Suit Final in March
BIOVAIL CORP: Plaintiffs Seeks Documents in Wellbutrin XL Case
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settles Subscribers' Litigation Over Pupic SMS
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit Pending in N.Y.
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Federal Securities Lawsuits Pending in Md.

CONVERGYS CORP: Defending Intervoice Securities Lawsuit in Texas
COSTCO WHOLESALE: N.Y Court Denies Injunction Bid in "Verzani"
COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Misclassification of Workers
GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues
KITEC PLUMBING: Nev. Judge Approves More Settlements in Lawsuit

LOOKSMART LTD: Gave $100K Ad Credits to Click Fraud Suit Members
LOS ANGELES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Legality of "Measure U"
MASSACHUSETTS: Attorney Seeks Restraining Order in Turnpike Case
MERCK & CO: Swaps Lead Counsel for Vioxx Appeal to Supreme Court
ONTARIO: Nurses' Group Appeals Dismissal of SARS-Related Lawsuit

PEARSON EDUCATION: Firm Files N.Y. Suits Over Copyrighted Images
PETLAND INC: Lawyer to File Amended Puppy Mill Suit in Ariz.
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Faces RICO Violations Suit in Illinois
QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Court Grants Dismissal Motion in "Lorenzo"
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Notified of Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing

SEALED AIR: Defends Suit on Asbestos-Related Public Disclosures
SEALED AIR: Settlement of MPERS Suit Pending N.J. Court Approval
SEALED AIR: Suits Over W. R. Grace' Activities Pending in Canada
SUNRISE PROPANE: Still Faces CAD$300M Suit Over 2008 Explosion
TAYLOR BEAN: Faces Fla. WARN Act Violations Lawsuit Over Layoffs

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Minn. Court Approves $895M Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: Settles Ala. Lawsuit Over Dauphin Island Erosion
UNITED STATES: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over SS Act Implementation
WATERS CORP: To Reply to Amended Dearborn Complaint in Aug. 2009
WELD COUNTY: Appeals Ruling in "Operation Number Games" Lawsuit

YAHOO! INC: Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit Junked in June
YAHOO! INC: Congregation Beth Aaron's Amended Suit Nixed in June
YAHOO! INC: Watkins' Stockholder Derivative Suit Nixed in June

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Suit Filing
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Kendall Law Group Announces Lawsuit Filing

                           *********

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement of Securities Suit Final in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The $2-million settlement in a securities class-action lawsuit
filed in Colorado against Allos Therapeutics Inc. and one of its
former officers is final, according to 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.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado in May 2004.  The complaint was then amended in
August 2004.  It was brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period from
May 29, 2003, to April 29, 2004.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages relating to the
issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
the cancer drug EFAPROXYN during the class period and subsequent
declines in the company's stock price.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion
dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the
plaintiffs' complaint failed to meet the legal requirements
applicable to its alleged claims.

On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

In October 2006, the parties held talks to settle the matter,
and on Feb. 6, 2008, they signed a stipulation of settlement,
resolving the case for $2,000,000.

The Court of Appeals, accordingly, remanded the case to the
District Court for consideration of the settlement.  (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

On Sept. 15, 2008, the District Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing
on Jan. 21, 2009, to consider final approval of the settlement.  
Neither the company nor its former officer admits any liability
in connection with the settlement.  The amount of the settlement
in excess of the company's deductible has been covered by its
insurance carrier.  

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the company recorded $2,000,000 in
accrued litigation settlement costs, which represents its best
estimate of the potential gross amount of the settlement costs
to be paid to the plaintiffs, and $2,000,000 in prepaid expenses
and other assets, which represents the approximately $235,000
remaining deductible under its insurance policy paid by the
company and $1,765,000 paid by its insurance carrier into the
settlement fund escrow in September 2008.  

A claims administrator appointed by the parties will administer
the distribution of the settlement fund to authorized claimants
in 2009 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 30, 2008).

On Jan. 29, 2009, the District Court issued its Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement, including the releases of the
defendants for which the settlement provided.  

The period to appeal the District Court's approval of the
settlement lapsed during the three months ended March 31, 2009,
without any further appeals being filed and the settlement is
final.

The company has no further obligations related to this lawsuit
and has no accrual remaining related to the settlement.

The suit is Noble Asset Management LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et
al., Case No. 04-cv-01030 (D. Colo.) (Matsch, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. (jberens@dyershuman.com)
          Dyer & Shuman, LLP
          801 East 17th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80218-1417
          Phone: 303-861-3003
          Fax: 303-830-6920

Representing the defendants are:

         Tara L. Acton, Esq. (tacton@bw-legal.com)
         Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C.
         Republic Plaza, 48th Floor
         370 17th Street
         Denver, CO 80202-5698
         Phone: 303-825-0800
         Fax: 303-629-7610

              - and -

         Paul Howard Schwartz, Esq. (schwartzph@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
         Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
         Phone: 720-566-4000
         Fax: 720-566-4099


BIOVAIL CORP: Plaintiffs Seeks Documents in Wellbutrin XL Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the direct purchaser plaintiffs in an
antitrust class-action lawsuit, alleging that Biovail Corp., and
GlaxoSmithKline PLC conspired to stifle the market for a generic
version of antidepressant Wellbutrin XL filed a memorandum of
law in support of their request to have a set of documents
related to several underlying patent cases released for
discovery.

The group filed the memorandum of law on Aug. 10, 2009, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  
Their filing supports of an earlier motion to compel discovery.

The case is In re Wellbrtrin XL Antitrust Litigation, Civil
Action No. 08-2433 (E.D. Pa.) (McLaughlin, J.).


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Settles Subscribers' Litigation Over Pupic SMS
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel, Ltd. (NYSE:CEL) and Partner Communications, Ltd.
(NASDAQ: PTNR) settled for NIS 4.5 million a class-action
lawsuit filed against them by subscribers who received text
messages from the Pupic social network, Yitzhak Danon at Globes
reports.

The parties sent the settlement to the Tel Aviv District Court
for approval, writes Mr. Danon.

In the suit, claimants alleged that tens of thousands of Cellcom
and Partner subscribers were illegally included in Pupic's Web
site, and that they were charged for the SMS messages sent to
them, regardless of whether they consented to the messages,
according to Globes.

The court approved the claimants' request to recognize the
lawsuit as a class-action lawsuit.  The parties subsequently
held talks on a settlement.

Mr. Danon reported that under the deal, Cellcom subscribers will
receive NIS 2.35 million and Partner subscribers will receive
NIS 2.23 million.  The total refund will be no less than NIS
4.12 million.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint in a class-action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
remains pending, according to Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In the fall of 2008, multiple class action lawsuits were filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland and the
Southern District of New York against Constellation Energy; Mayo
A. Shattuck III, Constellation Energy's Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer; and others in their roles
as fiduciaries of the Constellation Energy Employee Savings
Plan.

The actions, which have been consolidated into one action in
Maryland, allege that the defendants, in violation of various
sections of ERISA, breached their fiduciary duties to prudently
and loyally manage Constellation Energy Savings Plan's assets by
designating Constellation Energy common stock as an investment,
by failing to properly provide accurate information about the
investment, by failing to properly monitor the investment and by
failing to properly monitor other fiduciaries.

The Consolidated Action seeks to compel the defendants to
reimburse the plaintiffs and the Constellation Energy Savings
Plan for all losses resulting from the defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duty, to impose a constructive trust on any unjust
enrichment, to award actual damages with pre- and post-judgment
interest, to award appropriate equitable relief including
injunction and restitution and to award costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com/-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it
is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to
large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's
largest wholesale power seller.  Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities.  It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity.  The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., its regulated utility in
Central Maryland.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Federal Securities Lawsuits Pending in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. continues to face federal
securities class-action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland.

Three federal securities class-action lawsuits were filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008.

The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons
who acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A
Junior Subordinated Debentures, of Constellation Energy between
Jan. 30, 2008, and Sept. 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures
in an offering completed in June 2008.

The securities class-action lawsuits generally allege that
Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers
or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws
by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27,
2008 offering of Debentures.

The securities class-action suits also allege that Constellation
Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of
material undisclosed information which contradicted public
statements including in connection with its announcements of
financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the
first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the
filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.

The securities class-action lawsuits seek, among other things,
certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory
damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees,
and rescission damages.

A lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed in the New York or
Maryland securities class-action lawsuits pursuant to the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and
Constellation Energy and other defendants have accordingly not
been required to respond to the complaints or take other action
to defend the litigation.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the securities class actions filed there to the
District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there.

On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who the
company expects to file a consolidated amended complaint,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com/-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it
is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to
large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's
largest wholesale power seller.  Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities.  It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity.  The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., its regulated utility in
Central Maryland.


CONVERGYS CORP: Defending Intervoice Securities Lawsuit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corp. continues to defend a consolidated class-action
lawsuit against Intervoice, Inc., according to the company's
Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its
acquisition of Intervoice.

Several related class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Intervoice during the period from
Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000.

The plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into
one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice as well as certain
named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on
behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger
with Brite and the alleged future business projections of
Intervoice.  They have asserted that these alleged statements
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because
it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet
the pleading standards applicable to federal securities
litigation.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in
part and reversed in part.  The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited
number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice
stock during the Class Period.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted Intervoice's
petition to appeal the District Court's decision to grant
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's
class-certification order and remanded the case to the District
Court for further consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's
decision in "Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance
Telecom, Inc."

The parties filed additional briefing in the District Court
regarding class certification and are awaiting the District
Court's ruling.

The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint and Intervoice moved to dismiss
portions of that amended complaint.  On March 14, 2008, the
District Court granted that motion in part and denied it in
part.

Intervoice has largely completed the production of documents in
response to the plaintiffs' requests for production (Class
Action Reporter, March 12, 2009).

On July 7, 2009, the District Court ordered the parties to file
additional briefing regarding class certification in light of
the Fifth Circuit's more recent decision in Alaska Electric
Pension Fund v. Flowserve Corporation, No. 07-11303 c/w 08-
10071, http://is.gd/2drBW(5th Cir. June 19, 2009)

After the additional briefs are filed, the District Court may
rule on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification or require
additional briefing and a court hearing before ruling.

Convergys Corp. -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global
player in relationship management.  The Company provides its
clients with solutions to support their customers (Customer
Solutions) and employees (human resource (HR) Solutions).  It
has three segments: Customer Management, which provides
outsourced customer care solutions, as well as professional and
consulting services to in-house customer care operations;
Information Management, which provides convergent rating,
charging and billing solutions for the global communications
industry, and Human Resources Management, which provides human
resource business process outsourcing (HR BPO) solutions and
learning solutions.  In September 2008, Convergys announced the
closing of its acquisition of Intervoice, Inc.  In October 2008,
the Company announced the acquisition of Ceon Corporation, a
developer of product lifecycle management and multi-play
fulfillment software for communications service providers.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: N.Y Court Denies Injunction Bid in "Verzani"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied a motion for preliminary
injunction filed in the purported class-action lawsuit entitled
Marc Verzani v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09 CV 2117, Bruce
Golding at The New York Post reports.

The lawsuit was filed by Marc E. Verzani on March 9, 2009.  The
plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract and violation of
the Washington Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure of
the company to disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with
Cocktail Sauce" the weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct
from the accompanying cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges
(Class Action Reporter, June 24, 2009).

The complaint seeks various forms of damages (including
compensatory and treble damages and disgorgement and
restitution), injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

On April 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the company from
selling the shrimp tray unless the company separately discloses
the weight of the shrimp and provides shrimp consistent with the
disclosed weight.

On June 5, 2009, the company filed its opposition to the motion,
as well as a motion to dismiss the complaint, according to
Costco's June 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 10,
2009.

In a July 31 decision turning down the preliminary injunction,
Judge McMahon slammed the complaint as "simply ridiculous"
because the weight "took into account both the shrimp and the
sauce, never mind the lemon wedges and lettuce also included in
the package," reports Mr. Golding.

"A reasonable consumer would understand that purchasing a ready-
to-serve, prepackaged convenience item is different than
purchasing shrimp at a fish counter, cocktail sauce in a jar and
a lemon at the produce department," Judge McMahon wrote,
according to the NY Post.

Mr. Verzani is represented by:

          William Robert Weinstein, Esq.
          Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP
          950 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646)723-2947 x2451
          Fax: (646)723-2948
          E-mail: wweinstein@nydclaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Kirtland & Packard
          2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Fourth Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (310)-536-1000 x1002
          Fax: (310)-536-1000
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com

Costco Wholesale is represented by:

          James Daniel Arden
          Sidley Austin LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 839-5889
          Fax: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: jarden@sidley.com


COVENTRY HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Misclassification of Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
     On Friday, August 7, 2009, Nichols Kaster, PLLP filed a
collective and class action complaint against Coventry Health
Care, Inc., and Concentra Integrated Services, Inc.

     Lead Plaintiff Charlene Folck claims that she and other
telephonic case managers were improperly classified as exempt
from overtime pay under federal and state overtime laws.  She
seeks unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of herself and all other current and
former telephonic case managers.  The complaint also seeks
compensation for unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks,
and waiting time penalties under California state laws.

     The Plaintiffs are represented by Paul Lukas, Robert Schug,
and Matthew Helland of Nichols Kaster, PLLP. Nichols Kaster has
offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California.

For more details, contact:

          Robert L. Schug, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 256-3220
          Fax: (612) 338-4878
          Web site: http://www.nka.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded Qwest Rights-of-Way Lawsuit faced by subsidiaries
of Global Crossing Ltd. is proceeding in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

In May 2001, a purported class-action suit was commenced against
three of Global Crossing's subsidiaries in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  The complaint
alleges that Global Crossing had no right to install a fiber-
optic cable in rights-of-way granted by the plaintiffs to
certain railroads.

Pursuant to an agreement with Qwest Communications Corp., Global
Crossing has an indefeasible right to use certain fiber-optic
cables in a fiber-optic communications system constructed by
Qwest within the rights-of-way.

The complaint alleges that the railroads had only limited
rights-of-way granted to them that did not include permission to
install fiber-optic cable for use by Qwest or any other
entities.

The action has been brought on behalf of a national class of
landowners whose property underlies or is adjacent to a railroad
right-of-way within which the fiber-optic cables have been
installed.

The suit seeks actual damages in an unstated amount and alleges
that the wrongs done by the Company involve fraud, malice,
intentional wrongdoing, willful or wanton conduct and reckless
disregard for the rights of the plaintiff landowners.  The
plaintiffs also request an award of punitive damages.

Global Crossing made a demand of Qwest to defend and indemnify
it in the lawsuit.  In response, Qwest has appointed defense
counsel to protect Global Crossing's interests.

The company's North American network includes capacity purchased
from Qwest on an Indefeasible Right of Use basis.  Though
the amount of the claim is unstated, an adverse outcome could
have an adverse impact on the company's ability to utilize large
portions of the company's North American network.

This litigation was stayed against the company pending the
effective date of its Plan of Reorganization, and the
plaintiffs' pre-petition claims against the company were
discharged at that time in accordance with the Plan of
Reorganization.

By agreement between the parties, the Plan of Reorganization
preserved plaintiffs' rights to pursue any post-confirmation
claims of trespass or ejectment.

If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the company could lose its
ability to operate large portions of its North American network,
although it believes that it would be entitled to
indemnification from Qwest for any losses under the terms of the
IRU agreement under which the company originally purchased this
capacity.

As part of a global resolution of all bankruptcy claims asserted
against the company by Qwest, Qwest agreed to reaffirm its
obligations of defense and indemnity to the company for the
assertions made in this claim.

In September 2002, Qwest and certain of the other
telecommunication carrier defendants filed a proposed settlement
agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

On July 25, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and entered an order enjoining competing class action
claims, except those in Louisiana.

The settlement and the court's injunction were opposed by a
number of parties who intervened and an appeal was taken to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In a decision dated Oct. 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed
the approval of the settlement and lifted the injunction.  The
case has been remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Global Crossing, Ltd. -- http://www.globalcrossing.com/-- is a  
communications solutions provider, offering a suite of Internet
protocol and legacy telecommunications services worldwide.


KITEC PLUMBING: Nev. Judge Approves More Settlements in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy C. Williams of the Clark County District Court in
Nevada approved 10 additional settlements in a class-action suit
over faulty Kitec plumbing fixtures manufactured by Canada-based
IPEX, Inc. that were installed in homes, Jeff Pope at The Las
Vegas Sun reports.

According to Judge Williams, the settlements were fair and
adequate and will be added to previous settlements that will
cover the cost of re-plumbing homes at no cost to owners.

In general, the suit alleges that Kitec fittings are defective
because they "dezincify" when exposed to water, resulting in
leaks and breaks in the pipes (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6,
2009).

The settlements include homebuilders and plumbers who installed
Kitec plumbing systems in homes between 1995 and 2005.  The
system's brass fittings corrode and block pipes, causing breaks,
court documents state, writes Mr. Pope.

Several builders and plumbers have settled already, and a jury
required Majestic Plumbing to pay $475,000 in the only trial in
the lawsuit so far.

IPEX, Inc., has settled for $90 million, but the settlement is
being appealed to the state Supreme Court (Class Action
Reporter, May 27, 2009).

The Las Vegas Sun reported that the latest settlement awards
more than $15.8 million to re-plumb about 2,600 homes including:

       -- $800,000 for 152 homes built by American Premiere and
          plumbed by Classic Plumbing.

       -- $3.7 million for 538 homes from Astoria Homes and
          Sharp Plumbing.

       -- $625,000 for 112 homes from Concordia Homes.

       -- $1.2 million for 285 homes from Developers of Nevada
          and Classic.

       -- $6.8 million for 1,078 homes from Plaster Development
          (Signature Homes), Classic, and Sharp.

       -- $372,000 for 113 homes from Platis Construction and
          Sharp.

       -- $500,000 for 106 homes from RL Homes and Classic.

       -- $222,000 for 48 homes from SBA Development and Pioneer
          Plumbing.

       -- $1 million for 131 homes from Highland Development
          (Westmark Homes) and Classic.

       -- $516,000 for 78 homes from William Lyon Homes and
          Sharp.

A second trial for remaining defendants is scheduled for Sept.
29, 2009, according to the newspaper.


LOOKSMART LTD: Gave $100K Ad Credits to Click Fraud Suit Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
LookSmart, Ltd., as of June 30, 2009, has provided approximately
$100,000 of advertising credits to class members in the matter
entitled Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., et al. v. Yahoo!
Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-4027 (W.D. Ark.).

The suit relates to contracts the company allegedly entered into
with the plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click advertising or
"Click Fraud."

On March 14, 2005, the company was served with a second amended
complaint in the class action lawsuit.  The complaint names
eleven search engines and web publishers as defendants,
including the company, and alleges breach of contract,
restitution, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and
civil conspiracy claims in connection with contracts allegedly
entered into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click
advertising.

The named plaintiffs on the second amended complaint are:

     * Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C.,
     * U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc.,
     * Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and
     * Max Caulfield, d/b/a Caulfield Investigations

On March 30, 2005, the case was removed from the Circuit Court
of Miller County, Arkansas (Civil Action No. CV-2005-52-1) to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
(Case No. 05-CV-4027).  In April 2005, plaintiffs U.S. Citizens
for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc., and Savings 4 Merchants, Inc.,
were voluntarily dismissed from the suit without prejudice.

Plaintiffs Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., and Max
Caulfield -- d/b/a Caulfield Investigations -- filed a motion to
remand the case to state court on April 13, 2005.  This motion
was granted in June 2005.

In July 2005, the defendants, including the company, petitioned
the U.S. Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit for an appeal of
the remand order, and moved to stay the proceedings while the
appeal is pending.  This petition was denied in September 2005,
and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court of Miller County,
Arkansas.

The company was served with discovery requests on Oct. 7, 2005.
It has also filed and joined motions to dismiss on the basis of
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, lack
of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue.

The court, however, entered an order staying all proceedings for
a period of 60 days on Jan. 9, 2006.  The Court extended the
stay until April 20, 2006, the date it preliminarily approved a
class settlement among the plaintiffs, defendant Google, Inc.,
and certain other defendants who display Google advertisements
on their networks.

                       Google Settlement

The Google Settlement purports to release Google of all claims
and also purports to release certain defendants, including the
company, for any claims associated with the display of Google
advertisements on their networks.  The Court approved the deal
on a final basis in July 2006.

                     Mediation & Settlement

On April 21, 2006, the Court ordered the remaining defendants,
including the company, to mediation and further stayed the
proceedings to June 21, 2006.  

The Court further extended the stay as to LookSmart until
August 16, 2006.  The parties thereafter stipulated that the
stay would remain in effect while the parties continue to comply
with the Court's order regarding mediation.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the Court further extended the stay until
May 1, 2007.  In November 2007, the plaintiffs and the company
entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement to settle
the matter in its entirety.

The Court approved the Settlement Agreement on a final basis on
Feb. 29, 2008.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the company has agreed to
establish a Settlement Fund in the amount of up to $2.54 million
(Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2008).

Upon the completion of the thirty day appeals period, which
ended on March 30, 2008, the company on April 7, 2008, paid
approximately $600,000 of legal fees to the plaintiff's counsel
representing the Fees Award to Class Counsel and the Incentive
Award as is stipulated in the Settlement Agreement.

As of June 30, 2009, the company has provided approximately $0.1
million of advertising credits to Class Member and $0.3 million
remains recorded as an accrued liability, according to the
company's Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.

LookSmart, Ltd. -- http://www.looksmart.com/-- is an online   
advertising and technology company that provides relevant
solutions for advertisers, publishers and consumers.  LookSmart
offers advertisers targeted, pay-per-click (PPC) search,
contextual search, and display advertising via a monitored ad
distribution network, and offers publishers a customizable set
of private-label open advertiser network solutions.  The
Company's application programming interface (API) allows search
advertisers and their advertising agencies to connect any type
of marketing or reporting software.  LookSmart's revenue sources
are divided into three categories: Advertiser Networks,
Publisher Solutions and Consumer Sites.  


LOS ANGELES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Legality of "Measure U"
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Los Angeles
County Superior Court (Case No. BC419572) challenging the
enactment on Nov. 8, 2008, of the Utility User Tax ("Measure
U"), on unincorporated Los Angeles County individuals and
businesses based upon violations of Proposition 13, Proposition
218, the California Elections Code, and the California and
United States constitutions.

     Patrick Owens and Patricia Munoz, as individuals and on
behalf of a Class of similarly situated residents of Los Angeles
County, both business and individual vs. the County of Los
Angeles alleges that the County is collecting UUTs without ever
conducting a lawful vote per the election laws of California and
laws and requirements of the federal government.

     In January 1991 the Original UUT was imposed by the Los
Angeles County Supervisors.  The Original UUT was never put in
front of the voters, contrary to Propositions 13 and 218, which,
as amendments to the California Constitution, mandates that all
new taxes and all tax increases must be approved by voters.

     The Original UUT was successfully challenged in court
(Oronoz v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC334027).  The
county reached a settlement that rescinded the Original UUT.  In
the settlement it also agreed to conduct a lawful election for a
new utility user tax to replace the invalid Original UUT.

     The County placed "Measure U" on the Nov. 4, 2008 ballot in
unincorporated Los Angeles, as agreed upon by the settlement.  
But both the Original UUT, which was being discontinued, and the
new UUT, which was to be the subject of the election, were
designated as Title 4 by the County.

     "We believe that by enacting and collecting the UUT, the
County is engaging in illegal taxation, just as it did with the
Original UUT," says Long Beach plaintiff attorney Stephen M.
Garcia of The Garcia Law Firm, co-counsel with Manhattan Beach
attorney Steven F. Carvel of the Law Offices of Steven F.
Carvel.

     "The County never told voters that the Original UUT was
being discontinued regardless of the outcome of the November
election," says Garcia. "In fact, the truth is -- which voters
were never told -- a 'no' vote meant that there would be no
utility tax in existence."

     Election law (section 9105) requires that "a true and
impartial statement" of the effect of the tax burdens must be
considered.  The County published a title, statements,
expressions, and a summary of "Measure U" with misleading and
false information.  It claimed that a "Yes" vote would reduce
the taxpayers' tax rate while a "No" vote would leave taxes
unchanged.  The materials never told voters that the Original
UUT was being rescinded and this was a new tax, not a
continuation of an existing tax.

     The Original UUT was collected by telephone and gas user
taxes.  Voters also were never told that the new utility user
tax created new taxes on forms of communication technologies not
previously taxed.

     Though only residents and business owners in unincorporated
Los Angeles County pay this tax, the monies collected do not
come back to them.  The monies go into the general fund and are
used for whatever the County chooses to use it for, anywhere in
Los Angeles County.

     This class action lawsuit is open to anyone living in
unincorporated Los Angeles County from Nov. 8, 2008, to Aug. 11,
2009.  The unincorporated county area is estimated to be 65% of
the 4,084 square miles that make up Los Angeles County.  These
are areas with no mayors or city councils, including Rowland
Heights, East Los Angeles, Stephenson Ranch, Altadena, Topanga,
and about 100 areas.

For more details, contact:

          Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
          The Garcia Law Firm
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Phone: (800) 281.8515 or 866.660.0012
          Web site: http://www.lawgarcia.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Attorney Seeks Restraining Order in Turnpike Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer representing more than 2,300 toll-payers in a class-
action lawsuit will argue for a restraining order to stop the
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority from using toll revenue
collected from the turnpike and tunnels to pay for costs related
to the Big Dig, Vivian Nereim at The Boston Globe reports.

Jan R. Schlichtmann, Esq., will argue for the restraining order
before Judge Herman Smith in Middlesex Superior Court, writes
Ms. Nereim.

Mr. Schlichtman represents toll-payers who have filed a class-
action lawsuit against the state, arguing the Turnpike Authority
has illegally diverted money collected from those drivers to pay
for the Big Dig (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2009).

For more details, contact:

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


MERCK & CO: Swaps Lead Counsel for Vioxx Appeal to Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Months after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merck & Co.
Inc.'s appeal of a decision that reinstated a securities fraud
class-action lawsuit alleging it concealed the health risks of
its recalled painkiller Vioxx, the pharmaceutical giant has
reportedly switched up its lead counsel, Law360 reports.

Merck directed Evan R. Chesler, Esq., the company's longtime
attorney from Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, to step aside and let
Williams & Connolly LLP partner Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq., head
up the case, according to Law360.

The proceeding before the High Court is Merck & Co., Inc., et
al., Petitioners v. Richard Reynolds, et al., Respondents, No.
08-905, seeking review of the Third Circuit's decision published
at 543 F.3d 150.  The question presented to the U.S. Supreme
Court is whether the Third Circuit erred in holding, in accord
with the Ninth Circuit but in contrast to nine other Courts of
Appeals, that under the "inquiry notice" standard applicable to
federal securities fraud claims, the statute of limitations does
not begin to run until an investor receives evidence of scienter
without the benefit of any investigation.  The Justices granted
certiorari on May 26, 2009.  The Petitioners' brief on the
merits is due this week, and the Respondents' merits brief is
due by Oct. 16, 2009.  The parties tendered a blanket consent to
the filing of amicus briefs in support of either party or of
neither party.  


ONTARIO: Nurses' Group Appeals Dismissal of SARS-Related Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Nurses Association will appeal the Ontario Court of
Appeal's decision earlier this year to dismiss a class-action
suit brought by registered nurses following the SARS outbreak in
the province in 2003, Canwest News Service reports.

According to the nurses association, the May 7 decision said the
province of Ontario owes no private duty of care to Ontario's
front-line registered nurses.  The nurses, however, allege
Ontario assumed responsibility for their health and safety when
it issued detailed directives to health-care workers advising
them what precautionary measures to take, according to Canwest.

The class-action lawsuit was brought by registered nurses
following the SARS outbreak in the province in 2003.  Two nurses
died of SARS they contracted on the job while caring for
patients and dozens of RNs were sickened (Class Action Reporter,
May 11, 2009).


PEARSON EDUCATION: Firm Files N.Y. Suits Over Copyrighted Images
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Nelson Law Firm, PC, filed a class action lawsuit on
July 23, 2009, against Pearson Education, Inc. in the Southern
District of New York on behalf of Norbert Wu, individually and
as class representative for a putative class of professional
photographers whose timely copyrighted images were
misappropriated in dozens of Pearson textbooks.

     The Nelson Law Firm, PC also filed a lawsuit on July 23,
2009, against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company in
the Southern District of New York on behalf of renowned
professional photographers Louie Psihoyos and Norbert Wu, whose
copyrighted images were misappropriated in dozens of Houghton
Mifflin textbooks.

     According to Dan Nelson, Esq., a copyright attorney in The
Nelson Law Firm, PC's New York office, Pearson and Houghton have
continually and systematically exceeded licenses for the use of
the plaintiffs' photographs in text books.  "Despite unambiguous
limitations on how many textbooks Pearson and Houghton could
print and sell containing the plaintiffs' images, these
companies have continuously printed and sold hundreds of
thousands or millions of additional books."  As a result, the
plaintiffs have suffered significant damages under the Copyright
Act, including statutory damages for willful infringement of the
plaintiffs' timely copyrighted images.

     The suits seek $25 million in damages.  According to
Nelson, "The Court should send a message to large institutional
infringers like Pearson and Houghton that they cannot license a
photograph for 40,000 books and sell 250,000.  Doing so
constitutes willful copyright infringement."

For more details, contact:

          Dan Nelson, Esq.
          The Nelson Law Firm, P.C.
          100 Park Avenue, 18th Floor
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: (646) 704-4900 or (212) 973-3426
          Fax: (646) 308-1178   
          E-mail: dn@dannelsonlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.dannelsonlaw.com


PETLAND INC: Lawyer to File Amended Puppy Mill Suit in Ariz.
------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for pet owners who accused Petland, Inc., and Hunte
Corp. of selling sick puppies said that he will file an amended
lawsuit with more specific allegations, The Associated Press
reports.

Simon Paris, Esq., the attorney for the pet owners, said the
amended complaint will also seek class-action status.  The court
asked "how the misrepresentations caused the harm or caused
these people to be duped," Mr. Paris told AP.

On Aug. 7, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the purported class-action lawsuit, which
accuses defendants of operating "puppy mills" (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 11, 2009).

Judge David Campbell of U.S. District Court in Phoenix gave the
pet owners until Aug. 29, 2009, to file a revised complaint with
more detailed allegations, according to the AP report.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona on March 16, 2009, by pet owners JoDell Martinelli,
Stephanie Booth, Melia Perry, Abbigail King, Nicole Kersanty and
Ruth Ross (Class Action Reporter, July 1, 2009).

The Humane Society of the United States and the pet owners who
purchased their animals from Petland allege that the company
conspired to sell sick puppies bred in filthy conditions,
according to The Joplin Globe report.

The suit is captioned, Martinelli, et al. v. Petland, Inc., et
al., Case No. 09-cv-00529, and seeks class-action status. It
challenges the companies' conduct under federal racketeering
statutes and consumer-protection laws in 20 states.

In addition, the suit accuses Hunte of selling to Petland
puppies that were "whelped at puppy mills."

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Donald Andrew St. John, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          2425 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 650
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602-840-5900
          Fax: 602-840-3012
          E-mail: andy@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC
          One Liberty Plaza
          1650 Market St., 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-575-3895
          Fax: 215-575-3894 (fax)
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Green, Esq.
          Humane Society of the United States
          2100 L St. NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Phone: 202-676-2334
          Fax: 202-778-6132
          E-mail: agreen@hsus.org

Representing the defendants are:

          Peter D. Baird, Esq.
          Lewis & Roca LLP
          40 N. Central Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Phone: 602-262-5364
          Fax: 602-734-3861
          E-mail: pbaird@lrlaw.com

               - and -

          Byron Jansen Walker, Esq.
          Rose Law Firm
          120 E. 4th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: 501-375-9131
          Fax: 501-375-1309
          E-mail: bwalker@roselawfirm.com


PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Faces RICO Violations Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc., faces a putative class
action lawsuit in federal district court in Illinois, according
to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

In February 2009, the company was added as a co-defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit that was previously filed in
Illinois federal district court alleging, among other things,
that it violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act in connection with the development of the
antibiotic Ketek.

Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. -- http://www.ppdi.com/  
-- is a global contract research organization engaged in
providing drug discovery and development services, post-approval
expertise and compound partnering programs.  The company's
customers and partners include pharmaceutical, biotechnology,
medical device, academic and government organizations.  It
operates in two segments: Discovery Sciences and Development.


QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Court Grants Dismissal Motion in "Lorenzo"
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Qualcomm, Inc. (NASDAQ: QCOM) announced that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
again granted Qualcomm's motion to dismiss a consumer class
action lawsuit alleging antitrust violations and unfair
competition by Qualcomm.

     U.S. District Court Judge William Q. Hayes rejected
arguments raised by plaintiff Christopher Lorenzo in his amended
complaint and affirmed his prior ruling that Lorenzo lacked
standing to bring antitrust claims.  As to the plaintiff's other
claims, the court affirmed that the allegations in the complaint
did not give him any right to compensation from Qualcomm under
California's unfair competition law.

     The case, filed in 2008, is Lorenzo v. Qualcomm, Case No.
08-cv-2124 (S.D. Calif.).

Qualcomm, Inc. -- http://www.qualcomm.com/-- is a leader in  
developing and delivering innovative digital wireless
communications products and services based on CDMA and other
advanced technologies.  Headquartered in San Diego, Calif.,
Qualcomm is included in the S&P 100 Index, the S&P 500 Index and
is a 2009 FORTUNE 500 company.


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Notified of Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     On August 7, 2009, Repros Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: RPRX)
received notification of a class action complaint against it and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of shareholders
who purchased Repros common stock between July 1, 2009 and
August 3, 2009.

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated certain
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading press releases regarding the
results of clinical trials for its drug Proellex.  Repros is
currently assessing all possible courses of action with respect
to the complaint.

Repros Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.reprosrx.com/-- focuses  
on the development of oral small molecule drugs for major unmet
medical needs that treat male and female reproductive disorders.


SEALED AIR: Defends Suit on Asbestos-Related Public Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation remains a defendant in a lawsuit seeking
class action status concerning the company's public disclosures
regarding asbestos-related claims.

According to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009, if the settlement of the asbestos-related
claims that the company has agreed to is not implemented, it
will not be released from the various asbestos-related,
fraudulent transfer, successor liability, and indemnification
claims made against Sealed Air arising from a 1998 spin-off
transaction with W. R. Grace & Co.

Sealed Air Corporation -- http://www.sealedair.com/-- is a
manufacturer of a range of packaging and performance-based
materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food,
industrial, medical and consumer applications.  The company
conducts its business through two direct wholly owned
subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (United
States).  It operates in three business segments: Food
Packaging, Food Solutions and Protective Packaging.  The Other
category includes specialty materials, medical applications and
new ventures.  Food Packaging segment focuses on industrial food
packaging and developments in technologies that enable food
processors to package and ship fresh and processed meats and
cheeses through their supply chain.  Its Food Solutions segment
focuses on case-ready packaging, ready meals and vertical pouch
packaging. Protective Packaging includes protective packaging
technologies and solutions.


SEALED AIR: Settlement of MPERS Suit Pending N.J. Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement in principle to settle the class action suit
entitled MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-
CV-4372 (D. N.J.), remains subject to documentation and court
approval.

This lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Sealed Air
during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002.

The lawsuit named the company and five current and former
officers and directors of Sealed Air as defendants.  One of
these individuals and the company remain as defendants after a
partial grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff's principal allegations against the defendants are
that during the above period the defendants materially misled
the investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, or U.S. GAAP, by failing to properly account and
accrue for the company's contingent liability for asbestos
claims arising from past operations of Grace.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

On April 27, 2009, the company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs to settle the "MPERS v. Sealed Air
Corporation, et al." case, subject to documentation and Court
approval.  The agreement provides for payment of $20.0 million,
which will be fully funded by the company's primary and excess
insurance carriers, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

Sealed Air Corporation -- http://www.sealedair.com/-- is a
manufacturer of a range of packaging and performance-based
materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food,
industrial, medical and consumer applications.  The company
conducts its business through two direct wholly owned
subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (United
States).  It operates in three business segments: Food
Packaging, Food Solutions and Protective Packaging.  The Other
category includes specialty materials, medical applications and
new ventures.  Food Packaging segment focuses on industrial food
packaging and developments in technologies that enable food
processors to package and ship fresh and processed meats and
cheeses through their supply chain.  Its Food Solutions segment
focuses on case-ready packaging, ready meals and vertical pouch
packaging. Protective Packaging includes protective packaging
technologies and solutions.


SEALED AIR: Suits Over W. R. Grace' Activities Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to face a number of cases,
including a number of putative class actions, arising from W. R.
Grace & Co.'s activities in Canada prior to Sealed Air's 1998
spin-off from W.R. Grace.

Since November 2004, the company and specified subsidiaries have
been named as defendants in several cases brought in Canada as a
result of Grace's alleged marketing, manufacturing or
distributing of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in
Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction in 1998.  Grace has
agreed to defend and indemnify the company and its subsidiaries
in these cases.

The Canadian cases are currently stayed.

A global settlement of these Canadian claims to be funded by
Grace has been approved by the Canadian court, and the PI
Settlement Plan provides for payment of these claims.

The global settlement of the Canadian claims will, unless
amended, become null and void if a confirmation order in the
Grace U.S. bankruptcy proceeding is not granted prior to Oct.
31, 2009.

According to the company's Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009, if a final plan of reorganization that is
confirmed and becomes effective does not provide for these
claims or if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final
plan of reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if in
addition Grace is unwilling or unable to defend and indemnify
the company and its subsidiaries in these cases, then the
company could be required to pay substantial damages, which it
cannot estimate at this time and which could have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial position and
results of operations.

Sealed Air Corporation -- http://www.sealedair.com/-- is a
manufacturer of a range of packaging and performance-based
materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food,
industrial, medical and consumer applications.  The company
conducts its business through two direct wholly owned
subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (United
States).  It operates in three business segments: Food
Packaging, Food Solutions and Protective Packaging.  The Other
category includes specialty materials, medical applications and
new ventures.  Food Packaging segment focuses on industrial food
packaging and developments in technologies that enable food
processors to package and ship fresh and processed meats and
cheeses through their supply chain.  Its Food Solutions segment
focuses on case-ready packaging, ready meals and vertical pouch
packaging. Protective Packaging includes protective packaging
technologies and solutions.


SUNRISE PROPANE: Still Faces CAD$300M Suit Over 2008 Explosion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Propane Energy Group, Inc., and landowner Teskey
Concrete Co., Ltd., continue to face a CAD$300 million class-
action lawsuit over a 2008 propane blast that killed two people
and left thousands temporarily homeless in Downsview, 680 News
reports.

The early morning blast on Aug. 10, 2008, at the Murray Road
plant, sent mushroom clouds high into the night sky and forced
more than 12,000 people out of their homes, according to 680
News.

680 News reported that the lawsuit was filed by 3,000 residents
affected by the explosion, and has yet to be certified by a
judge.


TAYLOR BEAN: Faces Fla. WARN Act Violations Lawsuit Over Layoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of workers who were laid
off, Suevon Lee at The Star-Banner reports.

The suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2009, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida by Nicholas A. Callahan.  It
is captioned Callahan v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.,
et al., Case No. 09-cv-00346.

The claims Taylor Bean failed to give advance notice of the mass
layoffs, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WARN) Act, according to the Star-Banner report.

Under that federal law, an employer must give at least two
months' notice if a mass layoff will result in the loss of 500
or more employees.

The lawsuit seeks to recover 60 days' worth of wages and
benefits on behalf of those newly unemployed workers, as well as
attorneys' fees, reports Ms. Lee.

For more details, contact:

          Melissa Ann Givens, Esq.
          Sivyer, Barlow & Watson, PA
          401 E. Jackson St., Suite 2225
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813/495-6047
          Fax: 813/227-8598
          E-mail: mgivens@sbwlegal.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Minn. Court Approves $895M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Rosenbam of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota gave final approval to a settlement that requires
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., to pay shareholders $895 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit, Sam Black at the St. Paul
Business Journal reports.

The suit, In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case
No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN (D. Minn.), resulted from a stock-
options backdating scandal involving former CEO William McGuire.

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class-action suits
alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought
by an individual shareholder against certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota (Class Action Reporter,
March 2, 2009).

The lawsuits were consolidated, and California Public Employees
Retirement System (CalPERS) was appointed as lead plaintiff.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants,
in connection with the same alleged course of conduct identified
in the shareholder derivative actions, made misrepresentations
and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005, and May
17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially
inflated the price of the company's common stock.

The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain
defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in
possession of material, non-public information concerning the
matters set forth in the complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims under Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act.  It seeks
unspecified money damages and equitable relief.

On March 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On July 2, 2008, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with CalPERS and the plaintiff class
representative Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension
Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of the class, to
settle the lawsuit.

The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against
the company, all current officers and directors of the company
named in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors
of the Company named in the lawsuit.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company has paid
$895 million into a settlement fund for the benefit of class
members.

In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company
will also supplement the substantial changes it has already
implemented in its corporate governance policies with additional
changes and enhancements.

The proposed settlement, which was approved by the boards of
directors of CalPERS and the company, is subject to final court
approval.

Further, the company has the right to terminate the settlement
if class members representing more than a specified amount of
alleged securities losses elect to opt out of the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, on Nov. 24,
2008, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the court a
stipulation of settlement entered into by all parties to the
litigation.  On Dec. 18, 2008, the court granted preliminary
approval of the stipulation of settlement.  Notice has been
provided to class members, and a final settlement approval
hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2009, according to the
company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

              -and -

         Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq.
         Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
         651 Nicollet Mall, Ste. 501
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
         Phone: 612-341-0400
         Fax: 612-341-0844
         E-mail: cga@zimmreed.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Gretchen A. Agee, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-492-6741
         Fax: 612-340-8856
         E-mail: agee.gretchen@dorsey.com

             - and -

         Charles E. Bachman, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         7 Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-408-2421
         E-mail: cbachman@omm.com


UNITED STATES: Settles Ala. Lawsuit Over Dauphin Island Erosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government settled a class-action lawsuit over
erosion that was filed by the Dauphin Island Property Owners
Association, Katherine Sayre at The Press-Register reports.

Court records indicated that the proposed settlement would give
$1.5 million to the Dauphin Island property owners to restore
tattered beaches.

The lawsuit was filed in 2000, blaming chronic erosion and land
loss on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' dredging activities in
the Mobile Ship Channel.  It claimed that sand naturally flowing
east-to-west on waves was trapped in the channel and prevented
from replenishing the island's shores, according to the Press-
Register.

Under the proposed settlement, the federal government would pay
$1.44 million and Alabama's government -- also a defendant in
the case -- would pay another $60,000, writes Ms. Sayre.

The payment, after legal fees, would be applied to a beach
restoration project.  It could pay for a feasibility study,
engineering or the placement of sand on the beaches, court
records indicated.

In 2006, both sides reached a settlement that called for a
scientific study to determine the causes and extent of erosion
on the island.  A beach restoration project paid for by the
federal government was a possible outcome of that settlement, if
the study found the dredging to be a cause, reports the
newspaper.

The study found no measurable erosion could be linked to the
dredging of the channel -- a finding that the plaintiffs
challenged, according to court records, obtained by the Press-
Register.

Instead of continuing with that challenge, which could have
lasted years, a new settlement was negotiated for a cash
payment, court records revealed.

In exchange for the payment, property owners would release the
federal and state governments from any past or future claims of
damage to their property from the dredging, court documents
said.

A hearing will be held in Sept. 15, 2009, during which property
owners can voice their opinions about the settlement.  A federal
judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama must approve the settlement before it is final, Ms.
Syare reported.


UNITED STATES: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over SS Act Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Social Security Administration has agreed to repay more
than $500 million in benefits that were unlawfully withheld from
80,000 people since January 2007.  The agreement is part of a
class action settlement preliminarily approved by U.S. District
Court Judge Claudia Wilken.  In addition, people whose benefits
were suspended or denied between 2000 and 2006 will be notified
of the new policy and invited to re-establish eligibility.  All
told, more than 200,000 people may have benefits reinstated
and/or receive back payments through the settlement.  All
beneficiaries must continue to be eligible to receive payments.

     The settlement resolves a lawsuit captioned Martinez v.
Astrue, Case No. 08-CV-4735 (N.D. Calif), challenging SSA's
method of implementing a provision of the Social Security Act.  
The law seeks to prevent people from using government benefits
to flee from arrest.  Rather than trying to determine which
Social Security recipients were actually fleeing prosecution,
SSA used an automated system that matched names in warrant
databases to those at SSA.  Many of the automatic benefit
suspensions involved false or unproven allegations, minor
infractions or long-dormant arrest warrants.  Although
regulations provide for an appeal process, individuals losing
benefits were routinely informed by SSA staff that they could
not appeal.

     Under the agreement, SSA has stopped, as of April 1, 2009,
suspending or denying benefits due to the mere existence of a
warrant -- unless the warrant is issued in a criminal proceeding
on a charge such as flight or escape.

     "The vast majority of class members were not fleeing at
all; many never knew that criminal charges were pending against
them, let alone that a warrant had been issued," Gerald
McIntyre, attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center,
said.

     In addition to granting preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, Judge Wilken ordered a final fairness
hearing to be held on September 24.  At that hearing, Judge
Wilken will hear any objections from class members and determine
whether to approve the agreement, which will not take full
effect until the appeal time has run.

     The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the National
Senior Citizens Law Center, pro bono counsel from the law firm
of Munger, Tolles & Olson, the Mental Health Project of the
Urban Justice Center, Disability Rights California, and the
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County.

Copies of case-related court documents are available at:

          http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4172


WATERS CORP: To Reply to Amended Dearborn Complaint in Aug. 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waters Corp. intends to file a reply brief in August 2009 in a
class action lawsuit commenced by the City of Dearborn Heights
Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System against the company.

The complaint initiating City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police
& Fire Retirement System v. Waters Corporation, et al., Case No.
08-cv-11889 (Dist. Mass.) was filed on November 12, 2008.  

The complaint alleges that the company misrepresented its
projected revenues and earnings, its effective tax rates and the
level of business activity in Japan between Jan. 24, 2007 and
Jan. 22, 2008, when it released earnings for the fourth quarter
of 2007.

The complaint asserts that the company, Douglas A. Berthiaume,
and John A. Ornell violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to fully disclose the information.

The plaintiff class is allegedly comprised of purchasers of
common stock that were injured during the time period stated
above.

In January 2009, Inter-Local Pension Fund ABC/IBT filed a motion
to be appointed as lead plaintiff, which was granted.

In April 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges
that between July 24, 2007 and Jan. 22, 2008, the company
misrepresented or omitted material information about its
projected annual revenues and earnings, its projected effective
annual tax rate, and the level of business activity in Japan.

The amended complaint seeks to recover under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who
purchased common stock of the Company between July 24, 2007 and
Jan. 22, 2008.

The company, Mr. Berthiaume and Mr. Ornell have filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, which the lead plaintiff has
opposed.  The company, Mr. Berthiaume and Mr. Ornell will file a
reply brief this month, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 4, 2009.

Waters Corp. -- http://www.waters.com/-- is an analytical
instrument manufacturer.  Through its Waters Division, Waters
designs, manufactures, sells and services high-performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC), ultra performance liquid
chromatography, referred to as liquid chromatography, and mass
spectrometry instrument systems and support products, including
chromatography columns and other consumable products.  The
Company operates in two business segments: Waters Division and
TA Division (TA).  Through its TA division, Waters designs,
manufactures sells and services thermal analysis and rheometry
and calorimetry instruments.  The company is also a developer
and supplier of software-based products that interface with the
Company's instruments, as well as other instrument manufacturers
instruments.  In July 2008, the Company completed the purchase
of the net assets of VTI Corporation.  In December 2008, Waters
Corporation completed the purchase of the net assets of
Analytical Products Group, Inc. (APG).


WELD COUNTY: Appeals Ruling in "Operation Number Games" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Weld District Attorney Ken Buck and Weld County
Sheriff John Cooke this week filed a brief with the Colorado
Supreme Court seeking to overturn a ruling in a purported class-
action lawsuit over "Operation Number Games," Sharon Dunn at The
Greeley Tribune reports.

The joint illegal immigration sting last fall seized more than
1,300 suspected illegal immigrants' tax records as evidence of
criminal impersonation and identity theft.

The brief asks the court to overturn the ruling, stating that a
state district court judge erred in April when he ruled that
operation violated the suspected illegal immigrants' rights to
privacy, reports Ms. Dunn.

In a class-action lawsuit filed in January, the American Civil
Liberties Union of Colorado argued that Messrs. Cooke and Buck
violated the privacy rights of thousands of taxpayers by keeping
copies of confidential information.

According to the ACLU, that information was obtained in an
illegal search of Amalia's Translation and Tax Service in
Greeley, the Tribune reported.

Larimer District Court Judge James Hiatt put a stop to the
investigation in April, saying deputies from the Weld County
Sheriff's Office wrongly seized the suspects' federal income tax
records.  The judge was the second district court judge to rule
the search was illegal.  

Earlier this year, Weld District Court Judge James Hartmann
ruled the search violated one suspect's Fourth Amendment rights
against unlawful search and seizure.  The Fourth Amendment
protects anyone in this country, regardless of citizenship,
according to the Tribune.

Mr. Buck has appealed that case to the state Supreme Court, and
now both appeals have been joined, potentially adding a few more
months to the case.

The ACLU has until Aug. 28, 2009, to respond to Messrs. Buck and
Cooke, after which their attorneys can respond in kind.  Then it
goes to the Supreme Court for a decision, Ms. Dunn reported.


YAHOO! INC: Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit Junked in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
in June 2009, dismissed the second amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Yahoo! Inc.

Two purported securities class-action complaints were filed
against Yahoo! and certain of its officers and members of its
board of directors:

     -- Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 07-cv-03125 (C.D. Calif.); and

     -- Manfred Hacker v. Yahoo! Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 07-cv-03902 (C.D. Calif.).

These actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and, on Dec. 21, 2007, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who
purchased Yahoo!'s common stock between April 8, 2004, and July
18, 2006.  They allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme
to inflate Yahoo!'s share price by making false and misleading
statements regarding Yahoo!'s operations, financial results, and
future business prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The plaintiffs also allege that the individual defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of the Section 20(A) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and as control persons are
subject to liability under Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of alleged insider trading
proceeds, and other equitable relief.

On March 10, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to
transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

Pursuant to the order, plaintiffs must file their Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint by Nov. 17, 2008.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on
Dec. 19, 2008.  On Feb. 2, 2009, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.

On April 23, 2009, the Court held a hearing on defendants'
motion to dismiss.  

On June 18, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered judgment on the merits, dismissing the
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint without leave to amend,
according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nate Bear, Esq. (nbear@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0853

               - and -

          Mark I. Labaton, Esq. (mlabaton@kreindler.com)
          Kreindler and Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-622-6469

Representing the defendants is:

          Jordan Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-7000


YAHOO! INC: Congregation Beth Aaron's Amended Suit Nixed in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congregation Beth Aaron's amended complaint in In re Yahoo! Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 1-08-CV-104693 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), was dismissed in June 2009, according to
the company's Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

Since Feb. 1, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County,
against Yahoo! Inc., members of the Board and selected former
officers by plaintiffs Edward Fritsche, the Thomas Stone Trust,
Tom Turberg, Congregation Beth Aaron, and the Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System.

The California Lawsuits were consolidated, and on March 12,
2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint was filed.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint alleges
that the Board breached fiduciary duties in connection with
Microsoft's unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo!.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit by plaintiff Congregation Beth Aaron was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice, and re-filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on Dec. 3, 2008.

On March 28, 2008, the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted
defendants' motion to stay the Consolidated Amended Class Action
and Derivative Complaint pending resolution of similar
proceedings pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On March 23, 2009, following entry of final approval of
settlement and final order of judgment in the Delaware Lawsuits,
the California Lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice by plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Congregation Beth Aaron filed an amended complaint on
Feb. 20, 2009.  The complaint also alleges claims under Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged false statements or
omissions in Yahoo!'s June 9, 2008, proxy statement regarding
the severance plans and for control person liability under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and also alleges that the
defendants' decision to settle similar Microsoft-related
Delaware lawsuits constituted an independent breach of fiduciary
duty.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, and an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and costs.  On June 15, 2009, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss all of Congregation Beth Aaron's claims
without leave to amend.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  The company's offerings to users fall into five
categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities;
Media, and Connected Life.  The majority of its offerings are
available in more than 20 languages.  Yahoo! generates revenues
by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority
of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites.  In addition, although
many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a
range of premium services that it offers.


YAHOO! INC: Watkins' Stockholder Derivative Suit Nixed in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Watkins voluntarily dismissed her stockholder derivative
action against Yahoo! Inc. on July 16, 2009, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

Jill Watkins v. Terry S. Semel, Susan L. Decker, Arthur H. Kern,
Jerry Yang, Eric Hippeau, Edward R. Kozel, Robert A. Kotick, Roy
J. Bostock, Gary L. Wilson, Ronald W. Burkle, Vyomesh Joshi
and Yahoo! Inc, Case No. 07-cv-03882 (C.D. Calif), was filed on
June 14, 2007.  

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and corporate
waste by the company and its officials, with the addition of a
claim for relief for alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and Ms. Watkins agreed to coordinate her action
with the federal class-action litigation.

On April 29, 2008, the federal court in Los Angeles granted
the defendants' motion to transfer the Watkins action to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and
declined to decide the Plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2009, Watkins filed a new motion for leave to file
an amended complaint seeking to:

   -- substitute a new plaintiff,

   -- add a derivative claim alleging violations of Section 20A
      of the Exchange Act,

   -- add a class claim for alleged violations of Section 14(a)
      of the Exchange Act,

   -- add a class claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty,
      and

   -- allege claims relating to Microsoft's unsolicited proposal
      to acquire Yahoo! Inc. on Feb. 1, 2008.

On June 18, 2009, the Court granted leave to the plaintiff
Watkins to file an amended complaint and ordered that the
amended complaint be filed forthwith.  

On July 16, 2009, the plaintiff Watkins voluntarily dismissed
the action against all defendants without prejudice.  

On July 17, 2009, plaintiff Miguel Leyte-Vidal, who had
previously substituted in as plaintiff prior to the dismissal of
the federal Watkins action, re-filed a shareholder derivative
action in Santa Clara County Superior Court against members of
the Board and selected officers.  The Santa Clara County
Superior Court derivative action purports to assert causes of
action on behalf of the company for violation of California
Corporations Code, for breaches of fiduciary duty regarding
financial accounting and insider selling and for unjust
enrichment.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  The company's offerings to users fall into five
categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities;
Media, and Connected Life.  The majority of its offerings are
available in more than 20 languages.  Yahoo! generates revenues
by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority
of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites.  In addition, although
many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a
range of premium services that it offers.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Align
Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALGN) between January 30, 2007 and
October 24, 2007, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges the Company and its chief executive
officer with violations of federal securities laws.  Align
Technology, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets the
Invisalign system for treating the misalignment of teeth.
Invisalign utilizes a series of nearly invisible, removable
appliances that gently move teeth to a desired final position.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Align's business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants failed
to disclose or indicate that the Company had shifted the focus
of its sales force to clearing backlog, causing a significant
decrease in the number of new case starts.  Consequently,
defendants' misleading statements and omission of materially
adverse information rendered their Class Period statements
concerning the Company's business, operations and financial
prospects materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

     On October 24, 2007, Align held a conference call with
analysts to discuss the Company's third quarter 2007 financial
results announced that same day.  During the conference call,
the Company shocked the market when certain of its executive
officers acknowledged that, among other things, in an effort to
clear prior backlog "we did not focus enough effort on filling
the pipeline for new case starts," and the Company had to
refocus its field and channel marketing teams to generate new
case growth.

     The next day, as a result of this news, shares of Align
declined more than 33%, or $9.63 per share, to close on October
25, 2007, at $19.07 per share, on unusually heavy volume of more
than 12 million shares traded.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased shares of Repros Therapeutics,
Inc.(NASDAQ: RPRX) common stock between July 1, 2009 and August
3, 2009, inclusive.

     The complaint alleges that Repros and certain of its
officers violated the federal securities laws.  According to the
complaint, Repros, a pharmaceutical company, made
misrepresentations relating to its experimental drug Proellex.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of those who purchased
the common stock of Repros Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RPRX)
between July 1, 2009 and August 3, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Repros and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading press releases regarding
the success of clinical trials for its drug Proellex.  On August
3, 2009, Repros revealed that it was suspending Proellex
clinical trials based on a clinically significant increase in
liver enzymes among participants.  On that day, Repros stock
fell to a close of $1.31, a 48% drop from a close of $2.53 on
the previous trading day.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          E-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/repros/


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Kendall Law Group Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former
U.S. Attorney, announces that a class action against Repros
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RPRX) was filed one week after the
company suspended clinical trials for its Proellex drug.  The
lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Texas, represents a
class of investors who purchased RPRX stock between January 1,
2009 and July 31, 2009.

     Repros Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on the development drugs concerning reproductive
disorders.  On August 3, 2009, Repros announced that it was
suspending the use of Proellex in clinical trials due to adverse
events that were more serious than the company had previously
reported.  As a result of this announcement, Repros stock fell
more than 48%, closing at $1.31 per share on August 3, 2009 with
unusually high trading volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 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


                            *********

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  * * *