CAR_Public/090817.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 17, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 161
  
                           Headlines

AB&C GROUP: W.Va. Court Certifies Class in Workers' Litigation
AMERICAN HOME: Seeks Approval of $24 Mil. D&O Insurer Settlement
AMERICAN INT'L: Former CEO, Executives to Settle N.Y. Litigation
APPLE INC: Calif. Court Denies Certification Motion in "Somers"
APPLE INC: Faces La. Suit for Failure to Provide iPhone with MMS

BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in Missouri
CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Consumer Credit Card Interest Rates
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Broker Files N.Y. Suit Over "Signing Bonus"
HEELYS INC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement for Texas IPO Lawsuit
MAPLES INDUSTRIES: Officers, Employees Face RICO Suit in Alabama

MCIC INC: Class Certification Bid in Md. Suit v. Insurers Denied
MEAD JOHNSON: Faces Calif. Suit Over "False Claims" for Enfamil
MERCK & CO: Drug Wholesalers File Antitrust Suit Over Singulair
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over "Intelligent Key"
ON2 TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Sue to Halt Google Acquisition

PZENA INVESTMENT: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Pa. Air, Groundwater Contamination Suit
SACRAMENTO: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Illegal" Towing Practice
SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in S.D. Litigation
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defects in Prius Headlights

VARIAN INC: Kendall Law Group Files Suit Over Agilent Agreement
VIRGIN MOBILE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Sprint Agreement
WACHOVIA CORP: N.C. Settlement Over Sale to Wells Fargo Opposed
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Cling to $39M Claim in Chapter 11

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

STURM RUGER: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
STURM RUGER: Izard Nobel Announces Conn. Securities Suit Filing
TEXTRON INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas

                           *********

AB&C GROUP: W.Va. Court Certifies Class in Workers' Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Preston Bailey of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia ruled that a lawsuit filed on
behalf of AB&C Group, Inc., workers who were abruptly laid off
in March 2008 may proceed as a class-action proceeding.  AB&C is
charged with failing to provide 60 days' notice of the company's
shutdown, Matthew Umstead of The Herald-Mail reports.

The decision, filed on Aug. 10, 2009, means workers at three
former AB&C Group work sites in Jefferson and Berkeley counties
in West Virginia and Orange County, Va., automatically will be
included in the legal action and stand to benefit from the
litigation, attorney David Hammer, Esq., said in a press
release.

Judge Bailey also ruled that workers' claims for wages owed to
them for time spent logging into AB&C Group's computer programs
may proceed as a class-action, Mr. Umstead reported.

The purported class-action lawsuit, Nolan, et al. v. Reliant
Equity Investors, LLC, et al., Case No. 08-00062 (N.D. W.Va.),
was filed on March 20, 2008, by Joseph Nolan, Eric Woomer, Carla
Coble, Stephanie Laing and Poppy Chrisman, and names Reliant
Equity Investors LLC, Tatum LLC, Bluesky Brand Inc., Richard
Hebert, Cathy Jo Van Pelt, Kimberly Myers, Michael Lutz and
Larry Muzzy as defendants.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Hammer, Esq.
          Hammer, Ferretti & Schiavoni
          408 W. King St.
          Martinsburg, WV 25401
          Phone: 304-264-8505
          Fax: 304-264-8506
          E-mail: dhammer@hfslawyers.com

               - and -

          Garry G. Geffert, Esq.
          114 S. Maple Ave.
          P.O. Box 2281
          Martinsburg, WV 25402
          Phone: 304-262-4436
          Fax: 304-262-4436
          E-mail: geffert@wvdsl.net

The defendants are represented by:

          Craig T. Boggs, Esq.
          Perkins Coie LLP
          131 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 324-8400
          E-mail: cboggs@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Craig W. Snethen, Esq.
          Jackson Lewis LLP
          One PPG Place, 28th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 232-0404
          Fax: (412) 232-3441
          E-mail: snethenc@jacksonlewis.com


AMERICAN HOME: Seeks Approval of $24 Mil. D&O Insurer Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Home Mortgage Holdings Inc. asked a bankruptcy judge to
allow the company's directors and officers insurance policy to
cover a $24 million settlement in a securities class-action suit
against the leaders of the bankrupt mortgage financing company,
Law360 reports.

The plaintiffs in the securities action joined AHM in the
motion, which was filed on Aug. 11, 2009, in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, according to Law360.


AMERICAN INT'L: Former CEO, Executives to Settle N.Y. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, American International Group,
Inc.'s former chief executive, and a group of former AIG
executives have agreed to pay $115 million to settle a
shareholder lawsuit over alleged false statements regarding the
insurer's financial results, Chad Bray at Dow Jones Newswires
reports.

A person familiar with the matter told Mr. Bray that the
settlement by Mr. Greenberg and other executives is in a
consolidated shareholder action brought by a group of Ohio
pension funds in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The agreement is contingent in part on approval of the case as a
class-action lawsuit.  Judge Deborah A. Batts in Manhattan held
a contested two-day hearing on Aug. 13 and 14, 2009, on whether
to grant class-action status, reports Mr. Bray.

The settling defendants are: Mr. Greenberg, Howard Smith, AIG's
former chief financial officer; Christian Milton, AIG's former
vice president of reinsurance; Michael J. Castelli, AIG's former
controller; and two AIG sister companies controlled by
Greenberg, C.V. Starr, and Starr International Co., Mr. Bray's
source said.


APPLE INC: Calif. Court Denies Certification Motion in "Somers"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied a class certification motion filed in Stacie Somers, et
al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 07-6507, which alleges Apple, Inc.,
illegally tied the iPod and iTunes Store, Stephen Withers at
iTWire reports.

According to Rae Theodore at FindLaw, Judge James Ware found
Apple's expert witness to be more credible than the plaintiff's,
and said that the plaintiff had "failed to provide a reliable
method to show common damages across the class."

The suit, filed on Dec. 31, 2007, accuses the company of making
digitally recorded music sold through its online stores
inoperable with operating systems other than iPods, and of
making iPods unable to play music downloaded through
competitors' Web sites (Class Action Reporter, Jan 7, 2009).

Named plaintiff Stacie Somers brought the action pursuant to
Rules 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf of all persons or entities in the U.S., that, during
the class period, purchased an Apple iPod, or who purchased
audio or video content from Apple's Music Store, from Dec. 31,
2203 through the conclusion of the trial of this matter.

Ms. Somers wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) the definition of the relevant markets;

     (b) Apple's market power within these markets;

     (c) Apple monopolized and continues to monopolize the
         relevant markets;

     (d) Apple attempted to monopolize and continues to attempt   
         to monopolize the relevant markets;

     (e) the contractual conditions Apple imposes upon its
         customers are unconscionable;

     (f) whether Apple's conduct caused damage to the plaintiff
         which prices paid by the classes are higher than the
         and members of the classes, including the degree to
         prices that would be paid in a market free from tying,
         monopolization, and other illegal conduct; and

     (g) the appropriateness of injunctive relief to restrain
         ongoing and future violations of the law.

The plaintiff asks that the court declare, adjudge and decree
that:

     -- the action may be maintained as a class action
        pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        with respect to the claims for damages and other
        monetary relief, and declaring plaintiff as
        representatives of the class and her counsel as counsel
        for the classes;

     -- the conduct alleged constitutes unlawful tying,
        monopolization, and attempted monopolization in
        violation of Cartwright Act, California common law, and
        sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act;

     -- the conduct alleged is in violation of the  
        California Unfair Competition Law and appropriate
        injunctive relief be granted pursuant to this law;

     -- the plaintiff and the classes are entitled to damages,
        penalties and other monetary relief provided by
        applicable law, including treble damages;

     -- the plaintiff and the classes recover their costs of
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and pre- and
        post-judgment interest;

     -- the company is permanently restrained and enjoined
        from continuing the alleged unfair and anti-competitive
        activities;

     -- all funds acquired from Apple's unfair business
        practices, including disgorgement of revenues and
        profits require full restitution;

     -- the plaintiff and the class are awarded expenses and
        costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to
        the extent provided by law; and

     -- the plaintiff and the classes are granted such other,
        further, and different relief as the nature of the case
        may require or as may be determined to be just,
        equitable, and proper by the court.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alreen Haegguist, Esq.
          Haegguist Law Group
          501 West Broadway, Suite A-276
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-955-8218
          Fax: 619-342-7878

               - and -

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. (helenz@zeldeslaw.com)
          Law Office of Helen Zeldes
          249 S. Highway 101, #370
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Phone: 858-523-1713
          Fax: 858-523-1783

               - and -

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq. (sskalet@findjustice.com)
          Craig L. Briskin, Esq. (cbrinskin@findjustice.com)
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-822-5100
          Fax: 202-822-4997


APPLE INC: Faces La. Suit for Failure to Provide iPhone with MMS
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., and AT&T Mobility, LLC, face a purported class-
action lawsuit, alleging that they touted the iPhone as
supporting multimedia messaging service, but have not as yet
provided the service, Mike Magee at TG Daily reports.

The suit, Carbine, et al. v. Apple, Inc, et al., Case No.
09-05470 (E.D. La.) was filed on Aug. 7, 2009.

The class-action suit will consist of at least 10,000
individuals.  It is brought both under the Louisiana Unfair
Trade Practices Act and other Louisiana civil codes, according
to TG Daily.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that Apple "advertised heavily
that the new version of iPhone, the 3G, as well as the even
newer version the 3G-S would allow MMS.  Apple's print and video
advertisements in and on television, the internet, the radio,
newspapers and direct mailers all touted the availability of
MMS."  AT&T advertised the same functionality, the suit says.

However, according to the court filing, since the launch, MMS
functionality is not yet available, reports Mr. Magee.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Martzell & Bickford
          338 Lafayette St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 581-9065
          E-mail: usdcedla@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronnie Glynn Penton, Esq.
          Law Offices of Ronnie G. Penton
          209 Hoppen Place
          Bogaalusa, LA 70427
          Phone: 985-732-5651
          E-mail: fedcourtmail@rgplaw.com


BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois
Metropolitan District, and S.M. Huber Enterprises, Inc. face a
purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The suit, Burks v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-
Illinois Metropolitan District, et al., Case No. 09-01302 (E.D.
Mo.), was filed on Aug. 13, 2009.  

Meia Burks, a former Metro employee, alleges that call center
workers were forced to work off the clock.  The federal suit,
which seeks class action status for 25 or 30 people, says they
had to log on to computers before their shifts and log off,
review reports, continue calls and receive training after their
shifts, according to the newspaper.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?41cd

Ms. Burks is represented by

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          Weinhaus and Potashnick
          11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: 314-997-9150
          Fax: 314-997-9170
          E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com


CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Consumer Credit Card Interest Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
     E. Adam Webb, Esq., in Atlanta, Ga., has filed a class
action lawsuit against Capital One Bank alleging that the
financial institution has operated in bad faith by unilaterally
increasing the interest rates on consumer credit card accounts.

     Capital One is charged with raising rates even for
consumers who have always maintained their good standing by
satisfying all account requirements (e.g., making all required
payments and not exceeding credit limits), notwithstanding that
the cardholders' credit scores and general creditworthiness have
not declined.

     The suit claims that Capital One, which is headquartered in
McLean, Virginia, has engaged in improper and unfair practices
in order to increase the revenue it generates via the interest
rates imposed on consumer credit card accounts.

     Lemond v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 09-CV-
01582 (N.D. Ga.), alleges that Capital One raised the interest
rates associated with credit card accounts by over nine percent
even though accounts were in good standing and had been at all
relevant times.  

     Although Capital One did not purport to impose these new
higher rates on balances accrued prior to its notice to
consumers, the effect is the same because of the Bank's practice
of crediting all payments to the portion of the account balance
with the lowest interest rate.

     In addition, the suit alleges that Capital One's offer that
customers could reject this interest rate increase by closing
their credit card accounts is inadequate because, as Capital One
is well aware, closing a credit line has a negative impact on a
consumer's credit score.  

     A lower credit score can cost a consumer thousands of
dollars over the term of a home mortgage or other loan.  As a
result, customers have been forced to accept Capital One's
unilateral rate increases.

     The Plaintiffs allege that Capital One is liable for all
damages that have resulted from its bad faith and improper
conduct, to include the differential in interest payments paid
by the class members to Capital One.

For more details, contact:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          Webb, Klase & Lemond, L.L.C.
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, Georgia 30339
          Phone: (770) 444-9325
          Fax: (770) 444-0271
          E-mail: contact@webbllc.com
          Web site: http://www.webbllc.com


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Broker Files N.Y. Suit Over "Signing Bonus"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. faces a purported class-action
lawsuit filed by a former broker over a so-called signing-bonus
loan given to established brokers who join the bank, Chad Bray
at Dow Jones Newswires reports.

The suit, Banus v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., et al., Case
No. 09-07128 (S.D.N.Y.) (Kaplan, J.), was filed on Aug. 12,
2009, by Thomas A. Banus, a former broker of Citigroup, Inc.'s
securities unit.

Mr. Banus alleges that Citigroup offered him a $45,675.36
signing bonus structured as a forgivable loan over seven years
when he joined the bank in October 2004, writes Mr. Bray.

According to the complaint, which is seeking class-action
status, one of Citigroup's considerations when they hired Mr.
Banus was that his established "book of business" would follow
him to Citigroup.

In 2006, Mr. Banus quit the firm, and Citigroup wants him to
repay the $39,150.31 unforgiven portion of the note, with
interest, the suit said.

The suit states, "Because the defendant may terminate the
employment and accelerate the note at will with no loss to
itself, with or without prior notice, this is an illusory
contract, with lack of mutuality and lacking any consideration
for the executory portion of what is essentially a unilateral
contract."  It adds, "The employee, on the other hand, must pay
an accelerated note with accumulated interest if he or she
decides to terminate employment with the defendant," according
to the Dow Jones report.

Mr. Banus is represented by:

          Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
          633 South 4th Street, Suite 4
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Phone: (702) 383-6085
          Fax: (702) 385-1827
          E-mail: wagelaw@aol.com


HEELYS INC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement for Texas IPO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Heelys, Inc., reached a proposed settlement of a class-action
lawsuit over its initial public offering, Sheryl Jean of The
Dallas Morning News reports.

Pending court approval, the proposed $7.5 million settlement
includes all persons who owned Heelys common stock as of
July 16, 2009, and who continue to hold their Heelys common
stock as of the date of the final settlement approval hearing,
excluding the Individual Defendants, the officers and directors
of Heelys, members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity
in which Individual Defendants have or had a controlling
interest.

The proposed settlement stems from lawsuits filed in 2007 and
2008 alleging that Heelys and certain officers and directors
made or allowed "false and misleading statements" about the
company's risk factors, business model and business prospects in
its IPO registration in 2006, according to documents filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.  

A settlement hearing in In re Heeleys Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Master Docket No. 07-CV-1682 (N.D. Tex.), is
scheduled for Nov. 17, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. in U.S. District
Court in Dallas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
     George C. Aguilar
     Ashley R. Palmer
     ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
     600 B Street, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 525-3990
     Facsimile: (619) 525-3991

        - and -

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     Brett M. Weaver, Esq.
     JOHNSON BOTTINI, LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 230-0063
     Facsimile: (619) 233-5535

        - and -

     Balon B. Bradley, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BALON B. BRADLEY
     5473 Blair Road, Suite 100
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Telephone: (972) 991-1582
     Facsimile: (972) 755-0424

The Defendants are represented by:

     Karen L. Hirschman, Esq.
     Michelle S. Spak, Esq.
     Elizabeth C. Brandon, Esq.
     Allen W. Yee, Esq.
     Daniel J. Kelly, Esq.
     VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
     2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Telephone: (214) 220-7700
     Facsimile: (214) 220-7716

        - and -

     Kenneth P. Held, Esq.
     VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
     First City Tower
     1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 758-4353
     Facsimile: (713) 615-5219


MAPLES INDUSTRIES: Officers, Employees Face RICO Suit in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain officers and employees of Maples Industries, Inc., face
a purported class-action lawsuit, alleging violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Ken Bonner
at The Daily Sentinel reports.

Broussard, et al. v. Maples, et al., Case No. 09-01563 (N.D.
Ala.) was filed Aug. 4, 2009, on behalf of Audrey Broussard-
Wadkins and Darlene Harbin and "all those similarly situated."  

The complaint alleges that company CEO Wade Maples, John Maples,
Mark Maples, Howard Moore, and Gina Mateo, conspired to depress
wages by hiring large numbers of illegal immigrants.  It
specifically alleges the defendants, all employees of Maples
Industries, "conspired to depress the Class' wages by knowingly
employing large numbers of illegal immigrants," in what the suit
refers to as an "illegal immigrant hiring scheme," writes Mr.
Bonner.

According to the suit, Maples saved millions of dollars in labor
costs by employing illegal immigrants.  It further states the
practice increased the company's profits and resulted in
increased compensation for each person named as a defendant.

The complaint says that the action is being "brought on behalf
of all hourly-paid workers, legally authorized to be employed in
the United States, who have been employed by Maples Industries,
Inc. . . . since 2005," Mr. Bonner reported.

The plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctions
barring the defendants from committing further racketeering
activity, judgment equal to three times the damages caused by
the alleged activity; attorney's fees; costs of the plaintiffs
action; and other relief deemed just and proper by the court,
reports the Sentinel.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lance Harrison Swanner, Esq.
          The Cochran Firm PC
          163 W Main Street
          P.O. Box 927
          Dothan, AL 36302
          Phone: 334-793-1555
          Fax: 334-793-8280
          E-mail: shughes@cochranfirm.com


MCIC INC: Class Certification Bid in Md. Suit v. Insurers Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Baltimore City Circuit Court ruled that a massive lawsuit
against a group of insurance companies for allegedly
misrepresenting the extent of their coverage of MCIC, Inc., an
asbestos insulation contractor, can't proceed as a class-action
case, Brendan Kearney at The Daily Record reports.

The decision means that each of the more than 11,000 prospective
plaintiffs will have to be named and their damages must be
evaluated individually if they wish to proceed.

The case, filed in May 2005, alleges that insurers for MCIC,
including U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Lumbermens Mutual
Casualty Co., Continental Insurance Co., Hartford Accident and
Indemnity Co., Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., and Royal Indemnity
Co., fraudulently understated its insurance coverage in
negotiations leading to a $12.3 million settlement in 1994,
according to the Record.

According to Judge W. Michel Pierson, while certain factors
favored certification as a class, legal uncertainties and
insufficient factual evidence at this point precluded that
approach, writes Mr. Kearney.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arnold M. Weiner, Esq.
          Law Offices of Arnold M. Weiner
          2002 Clipper Park Road, Unit #108
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Phone: 410.769.8080
          E-mail: aweiner@wwlawoffice.com
          Web site: http://www.wwlawoffice.com/

               - and -

          John Amato, IV, Esq.
          Goodman, Meagher & Enoch, LLP
          111 N. Charles St.
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: (410) 752-3666
          Fax: (410) 752-3105
          E-mail: jamato@gmelaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gmelaw.com/


MEAD JOHNSON: Faces Calif. Suit Over "False Claims" for Enfamil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co., and Mead Johnson & Co. face a
purported class-action suit, accusing them of falsely
advertising that Enfamil is the only baby formula with two drugs
that promote brain and eye development in babies.

Michelle Weeks v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, et al., Case
No. 09-05835 (C.D. Calif.), was filed on Aug. 11, 2009.

Michelle Weeks says that defendants claim Enfamil is the only
baby formula that contains two types of fat -- docosahexaenoic
acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) -- which promote brain and
eye development in infants.  Ms. Weeks claims that at least five
other baby formulas contain the same fatty acids, including
Abbot Nutrition, Similac Advance, and generic brands for Target,
Wal-Mart and Kohler.  According to the suit, the defendants'
false claims tricked Ms. Weeks into buying more expensive baby
formula than she otherwise would have bought.  The lawsuit seeks
class-action status, and damages.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?41cc

Ms. Weeks is represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          The Consumer Law Group
          9466 Black Mountain Road Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Phone: 619-308-5034
          Fax: 888-341-5048
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC
          1540 Broadway 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-447-7070
          Fax: 212-447-7077
          E-mail: ekallas@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          Howard Rubinstein, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard Rubinstein
          914 Waters Avenue Suite 20
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Phone: 832-715-2788
          E-mail: howard@pdq.net


MERCK & CO: Drug Wholesalers File Antitrust Suit Over Singulair
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several drug wholesalers filed a proposed class-action lawsuit
against Merck & Co., Inc., alleging the drugmaker engaged in
anti-competitive tactics to block generic versions of its asthma
and allergy drug Singulair, Law360 reports.

Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., et al. v. Merck & Co. Inc.,
et al., Case No. 09-04050 (D. N.J.), was filed on Aug. 11, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Phone: (201) 845-9600
          E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com


NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over "Intelligent Key"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., and Nissan North America, Inc., face
a purported class-action lawsuit that claims people are being
injured by Nissan vehicles that do not meet federal standards,
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports.

Taragan, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
09-03660 (N.D. Calif.), was filed on Aug. 10, 2009.

Helen Taragan, Frances Jeanette Taylor, and Clarence Taylor take
issue with Nissan's "Intelligent Key," which they say can be
turned off in any gear and removed even if the car is not in
park.

Nissan's Intelligent Key has an electronic chip; it starts the
ignition with the press of a button on the dashboard and also
can be used to start the car remotely.  But unlike its
competitors, Nissan vehicles are not equipped with a solenoid
that locks that transponder in place, according to the
complaint.  As a result, Nissan vehicles can be turned off in
any gear and the key can be removed whether or not the car is in
park, writes Ms. Dinzeo.

Mrs. Taylor, one of the plaintiffs in the case, says her 2009
Nissan Murano injured her when it rolled backward on its own.  
She had parked the car in a parking lot, turned off the engine,
and removed the key, and had opened the back door to retrieve a
package when the car moved, catching her foot in the open door
and "dragging her along, severely crushing her foot."

Her husband says he witnessed the incident and saw the car
stopped on top of his wife's foot though the key was still in
her hand.  Mrs. Taylor says she can no longer work because of
her injury, Ms. Dinzeo reported.

"The Taylors are excellent examples of what happens when
vehicles are non FMSV compliant," according to their attorney
Scott Nealey, Esq.

The suit seeks punitive damages and a permanent injunction
requiring Nissan to repair the defect.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?41cb

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq.
          Scott Purington Nealey, Esq.
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-956-1000
          Fax: 415-956-1008
          E-mail: snealey@lchb.com
                  ecabraser@lchb.com


ON2 TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Sue to Halt Google Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
On2 Technologies, Inc., shareholders sued the video compression
technology company, its board of directors, and Google Inc. over
their alleged failure to conduct an open and fair auction
process during Google's recent acquisition of On2 for $106.5
million, Law360 reports.

Jack Miller and Pual Uy filed the class-action complaint on Aug.
10, 2009, in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of On2
shareholders, according to Law360.

The complaint seeks class-action status, as well as a permanent
injunction blocking the deal.  It also called on the defendants
to account for all damages caused (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
14, 2009).

"Defendants rushed to announce the proposed transaction at $0.60
per share on August 5th ahead of the positive earnings results
announced the next day, thereby placing a cap on the company's
stock price," the suit reads.

According to the complaint, the deal contained various
provisions -- including a "no shop" clause and a $2 million
termination fee if On2's board accepts a superior deal - to
ensure that no competing offers emerge.


PZENA INVESTMENT: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pzena Investment Management, Inc. (NYSE: PZN) announced that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the Judgment of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York that dismissed the putative class
action lawsuits alleging securities law violations that were
filed against the Company, its CEO, and its underwriters in
2007.

On Nov. 21, 2007, and Jan. 16, 2008, substantively identical
putative class-action suits were commenced against the company
and Richard S. Pzena, its chief executive officer, seeking
remedies under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

The court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed co-lead
plaintiffs who filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the
company, Mr. Pzena, and two of the underwriters of the company's
initial public offering -- Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. and UBS
Securities LLC.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Class A common stock issued
pursuant or traceable to the company's IPO.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus relating to the IPO of the company's
Class A common stock contained material misstatements and
omissions and wrongfully failed to disclose net redemptions in
the John Hancock Classic Value Fund for which the company acts
as sub-investment advisor.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount including rescission or rescissory damages.

A copy of the Second Circuit's ruling in Lowinger v. Pzena Inv.
Mgmt., Inc., No. 08-4932-cv (2d Cir. 2009), affirming dismissal
of the underlying lawsuit is available at no charge at
http://tinyurl.com/oqxu9a

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq.
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655
          E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com

               - and -

          Catherine A. Torell, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          150 East 52nd Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-838-7797
          Fax: 212-838-7745
          E-mail: ctorell@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Brian Howard Polovoy, Esq.
          Shearman & Sterling LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4000
          Fax: 212-848-7179
          E-mail: bpolovoy@shearman.com

               - and -

          Eric Foster Leon, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          153 East 53rd Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-446-4731
          Fax: 212-446-4900
          E-mail: eleon@kirkland.com


ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Pa. Air, Groundwater Contamination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Haas Co. continues to face a purported class-action
claims over alleged toxic contamination of air and groundwater
by one of its installations located about one mile north of
McCullom Lake Village in Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company,
et al., Case No. 06-01743 (E.D. Pa.).

The lawsuit was filed by Glenn and Donna Gates on April 25, 2006
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2008), and seeks certification
of a class comprised of the owners and residents of about 500
homes in McCullom Lake Village, seeking medical monitoring and
compensation for alleged property value diminution, among other
things.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq.
          Layser & Freiwald PC
          1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-875-8000
          E-mail: ajf@layserfreiwald.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer A. Battle, Esq.
          Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286
          Phone: 215-751-2647
          E-mail: jbattle@schnader.com

               - and -

          Albert G. Bixler, Esq.
          Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
          Two Liberty Place 22nd Floor
          50 South 16th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-851-8412
          E-mail: abixler@eckertseamans.com


SACRAMENTO: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Illegal" Towing Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Fred Hiestand, Esq., general counsel of the Civil
Justice Association of California, filed a purported class-
action lawsuit against the city of Sacramento, California, the
city's police chief, city police officers and a tow truck
company for towing his car after he left it in a no-parking
zone, Cheryl Miller at The Recorder reports.

Mr. Hiestand is seeking damages from the tow truck company under
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 otherwise know as
California's Unfair Competition Law.

A year ago, Mr. Hiestand parked illegally on 18th and Capital.  
He saw the no parking sign, but was willing to pay the fine.  He
did not realize, however, he could be towed, according to FOX40
News.

According to the suit, authorities illegally towed Mr.
Hiestand's car because state law requires that the city to post
signs warning would-be illegal parkers that their vehicles will
be towed.  And there were no such signs where Mr. Hiestand
parked, according to Ms. Miler.

Mr. Hiestand is represented by

          Mark E. Merin, Esq.
          Law Office of Mark E. Merin
          2001 P. St., Ste. 100
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Phone: 916-443-6911
          Fax: 916-447-8336
          E-mail: mark@markmerin.com


SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in S.D. Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was recently filed in Kinney, et al v.
Siouxland Urology Associates P.C., et al., Case No. 09-04051 (D.
S.D.), The Associated Press reports.



Siouxland Urology faces a purported class-action lawsuit for
allegedly exposing patients to blood-borne infectious diseases
(Class Action Reporter, June 25, 2009).

The suit was filed on April 17, 2009, by Theresa Kinney,
Katherine Moir, Gloria Todd, James Peters and William P.
Collins.  The federal complaint was filed in Sioux Falls against
Siouxland Urology Center in Dakota Dunes and its owners: Drs.
John A. Wolpert, David D. Howard, Patrick M. Walsh, Kenneth E.
McCalla, Timothy G. Kneib, and Craig A. Block.

The center sent letters on April 13, 2009, to more than 5,000
patients telling them that single-use products such as saline
solution bags and tubing were used on more than one patient
before being discarded, which created a minimal risk of exposure
to HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

For more details, contact:

          William G. Beck, Esq. (Bill.Beck@woodsfuller.com)
          Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, PC
          PO Box 5027
          Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5027
          Phone: (605) 336-3890
          Fax: (605) 339-3357
          Web site: http://www.woodsfuller.com/

               - and -

          Scott L. Bixenman, Esq. (murphlaw@premieronline.net)
          Murphy, Collins & Bixenman, P.L.C.
          38 1st Avenue N.W.
          PO Box 526
          Le Mars, IA 51031
          Phone: (712) 546-8844
          Fax: (712) 546-8847


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defects in Prius Headlights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., faces a purported class-action
lawsuit over the upgraded optional lights, known as high-
intensity discharge headlamps on its Prius vehicles that have a
tendency to fail, Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service
reports.

The suit -- filed in Los Angeles Superior Court -- claims that
the headlights shut off without warning, and Toyota knows it but
fails to warn customers.

The plaintiff claims the factory-installed high-intensity
discharge headlights in 2006-2008 models have the dangerous
defect, and that "hundreds of consumers" have reported it to the
National Traffic Safety Administration, but Toyota still refuses
to acknowledge it, reports Mr. Kahn.

The complaint specifically claims that Toyota "has long been
aware that the Prius vehicles equipped with its premium HID
Headlight System are susceptible to intermittent headlight
failure, but rather than alerting Prius owners and lessees of
this safety hazard and offering to repair the vehicles, Toyota
is concealing the problem from its customers."

It also claims that "even when Prius owners and lessees do
finally discover the problem on their own, Toyota dealers
replace part or all of the Prius's HID headlight system with
equally defective parts, resulting in further headlight failures
and additional repair expenses."

The suit seeks restitution, an injunction and costs, according
to Courthouse News Service.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street Suite 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846
          E-mail: gam@girardgibbs.com
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com


VARIAN INC: Kendall Law Group Files Suit Over Agilent Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former
U.S. Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against
Varian, Inc. (NASDAQ: VARI) challenging the proposed acquisition
of Varian by Agilent Technologies (NYSE: A).  

     According to the complaint, filed in Santa Clara County
Superior Court, Varian has announced that it has entered into a
definitive merger agreement with Agilent.  Under this agreement,
Varian shareholders will receive $52.00 in cash for each Varian
share they own, for a total transaction value of approximately
$1.5 billion. Given that Varian shares traded close to $70.00
per share in 2008, this transaction appears to be unfair.  Also,
the Varian Board agreed to a no-solicitation provision and a $46
million termination fee that will ensure that no superior offer
will be forthcoming.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Sprint Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in New Jersey state court challenging the proposed
acquisition of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. (NYSE: VM).  The
Complaint arises out of the announcement by Virgin Mobile
stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with Sprint Nextel Corp. (NYSE: S).  Under the proposed
agreement, each Virgin Mobile shareholder will receive Sprint
shares having a 10-day average closing price equivalent to $5.50
per Virgin Mobile share for a total equity value of
approximately $483 million.

     The complaint alleges that the price is unfair and the
Company did not take adequate steps to maximize shareholder
value.  In particular, Sprint already owns approximately 13.1%
of Virgin Mobile, which uses Sprint's cellular network to offer
its services, and Sprint has entered into voting agreements
that, together with the Virgin Mobile shares it owns, comprise
approximately 40% of the outstanding voting power of Virgin
Mobile.  In addition, the Company agreed to refrain from
soliciting competing offers that may be superior than the Sprint
offer and also agreed to pay Sprint a termination fee of $14.2
million in the event the agreement is terminated under certain
circumstances that will all but ensure that no superior offer
will ever be forthcoming.

     The companies expect to consummate the transaction in the
fourth quarter of 2009 or in early 2010, subject to customary
closing conditions, including all necessary regulatory and
stockholder approvals.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/vm1.html


WACHOVIA CORP: N.C. Settlement Over Sale to Wells Fargo Opposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former Wachovia Corp. shareholders, including prominent
Charlotte businessman Cameron Harris, oppose a proposed
settlement related to the bank's sale to Wells Fargo & Co.,
Christina Rexrode and Rick Rothacker at The Charlotte Observer
reports.

The shareholders object to how the settlement would pay them
nothing, while giving nearly $2 million to a New York law firm
that was purportedly representing their interests.  They are
also concerned the settlement could bar other suits related to
Wachovia.

Joe Millsaps, Esq., a Charlotte attorney representing three
North Carolina shareholders, called the proposal "an
unconstitutional taking of shareholder rights without due
process," reports the Observer.

In an affidavit, Mr. Harris, who sold his insurance business to
Charlotte-based Wachovia in 2002, said that the banks and the
New York attorneys are the only ones "to benefit monetarily from
this proposed settlement."  

After a hearing this week in N.C. Business Court in Charlotte, a
judge will determine whether the proposed settlement should be
tweaked, upheld or thrown out completely, according to the
Observer reporters.

Last December, Wachovia Corp. settled a class-action lawsuit
brought by an investor who sought to block the company's sale to
Wells Fargo & Co. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2008).

The suit, captioned Irving Ehrenhaus v. John D. Baker, et
al., was filed on Oct. 8, 2008, in the Superior Court for the
County of Mecklenburg in the State of North Carolina.  It names
as defendants Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and the directors of
Wachovia.

The lawsuit is contending that the $15 billion price was too low
and the shareholder vote would be unfair.   It alleges that the
Wachovia directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the merger with Wells Fargo at an allegedly inadequate price,
and that the Wells Fargo directors aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaint alleges that Wachovia would force the sale without
true approval from shareholders, saying the Charlotte, N.C.-
ased bank essentially disenfranchised the voters ... and locked
up the vote in favor of the merger by giving Wells preferred
stock representing 39.9 percent of Wachovia voting shares as
part of the merger agreement.

The action seeks to enjoin the Wells Fargo merger, or to recover
compensatory or rescissory damages if the merger is consummated,
as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Under the settlement, Wachovia Corp. and Wells Fargo have agreed
not to appeal a ruling made early this month that prevented the
banks from redeeming the preferred shares for at least 18 months
following the shareholder vote on the merger.  The defendants
also agreed to make additional disclosures related to the
proposed merger.

In April 2009, Mr. Ehrenhaus' lawyers submitted their proposal
for terms of a settlement, according to The Charlotte Observer.

In that proposal, which Judge Albert Diaz will consider on Aug.
20, 2009, shareholders of the former Wachovia would not receive
any monetary compensation.  But Wells Fargo would pay $1.975
million to Mr. Ehrenhaus' lawyers, led by a New York firm Wolf
Popper, LLP, "for their efforts in achieving the benefits of the
settlement."

The proposed settlement also says that other former Wachovia
shareholders would be barred from filing any future lawsuits
related to the deal.  

Mr. Ehrenhaus and the Wolf Popper lawyers said in a filing that
they decided to settle because of the expense, time and
"uncertain outcome" of a trial, reports Ms. Rexrode and  Mr.
Rothacker.

On April 24, 2009, Judge Diaz granted preliminary approval to
the settlement and told Wells Fargo to begin notifying Wachovia
shareholders about it.  According to court filings, Wells Fargo
paid a third-party firm $989,000 to mail more than 1 million
notices, the Observer reported.

For more details, contact:

          Joe T. Millsaps, Esq.
          404 Charlotte National Bldg.
          428 East Fourth St.
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Phone: (704) 358-8524
          Fax: (704) 358-8405
          E-mail: attyjtm@bellsouth.net
          Web site: http://www.lawyers.com/joemillsapslaw


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Cling to $39M Claim in Chapter 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a securities fraud class-action suit against
Washington Mutual, Inc., have asked the bankruptcy court not to
dismiss their $39 million claim against WaMu, despite the
company's argument that it's no longer liable because it was
dropped from the suit, Law360 reports.

The creditor plaintiffs, New Orleans Employees' Retirement
System and MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan, filed
their response to WaMu's objection to their claim on Aug. 12,
2009 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware,
according to Law360.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

STURM RUGER: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of Sturm, Ruger & Company,
Inc. (NYSE: RGR) common stock between April 23, 2007 and October
29, 2007.

     The complaint charges Sturm Ruger and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Sturm Ruger's primary business is the
design, manufacture and sale of firearms.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made positive statements about the Company's revenues
and earnings.  As alleged in the complaint, these statements
were materially false and misleading because defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts, among others:

       -- that the reductions in inventory balances by Sturm
          Ruger in the first and second quarters of 2007 had
          reduced the Company's parts and components inventories
          below efficient levels, preventing Sturm Ruger's
          manufacturing units from meeting production and
          shipment schedules and resulting in the Company's
          inability to sustain current or historical sales
          levels;

      -- that Sturm Ruger's "backlog" of unfilled purchase
         orders was materially inflated because of the Company's
         inability to meet current production and shipping
         schedules due to inventory shortages;

      -- that orders received from the Company's independent
         distributors were artificially boosted by the Company's
         mandated change to firm and noncancellable purchase
         order submissions and were not reflective of actual
         demand for the Company's products;

      -- that Sturm Ruger's independent distributors were
         carrying large quantities of the Company's unsold
         products, increasing the risk that these distributors
         would reduce or curtail their future purchases; and

      -- that based on the above, defendants had no reasonable
         basis for their positive statements and opinions
         concerning Sturm Ruger's current financial performance
         and condition.

     The truth came out on October 24, 2007, when the Company
announced that its firearm sales for the third quarter of 2007
fell 26%, resulting in a loss of $0.03 per share, and that sales
had declined due to inventory issues at its distributors.
Following this news, the price of Sturm Ruger's common stock
fell by $6.45 per share, closing at $10.65 per share -- a one-
day decline of more than 37% on volume of 4.1 million shares.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Sturm Ruger's common stock during the Class
Period.

For more details, contact:

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


STURM RUGER: Izard Nobel Announces Conn. Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     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 District of Connecticut on behalf of those who purchased the
common stock of Sturm Ruger &  Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) between
April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Sturm Ruger and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements about the Company's revenues
and earnings.

     Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose the following:

       -- that the reductions in inventory balances by Sturm
          Ruger in the first and second quarters of 2007 had
          reduced the Company's parts and components inventories
          below efficient levels, preventing Sturm Ruger's
          manufacturing units from meeting production and
          shipment schedules and resulting in the Company's
          inability to sustain current or historical sales
          levels;

       -- that Sturm Ruger's "backlog" of unfilled purchase
          orders was materially inflated because of the
          Company's inability to meet current production and
          shipping schedules due to inventory shortages;

       -- that orders received from the Company's independent
          distributors were artificially boosted by the
          Company's mandated change to firm and noncancellable
          purchase order submissions and were not reflective of
          actual demand for the Company's products;

       -- that Sturm Ruger's independent distributors were
          carrying large quantities of the Company's unsold
          products, increasing the risk that these distributors
          would reduce or curtail their future purchases; and

       -- that based on the above, defendants had no reasonable
          basis for their positive statements concerning Sturm
          Ruger's current financial performance and condition.

     On October 24, 2007, the Company announced that its firearm
sales for the third quarter of 2007 fell 26%, resulting in a
loss of $0.03 per share, and that sales had declined due to
inventory issues at its distributors.  On this news, Sturm
Ruger's common stock fell $6.45 per share to close at $10.65 per
share.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 12, 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/


TEXTRON INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the District of
Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT)
securities between July 17, 2007 and January 29, 2009.

     The complaint charges Textron and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Textron is a manufacturer of aircraft and industrial
products, including such brands as Cessna Aircraft, Bell
Helicopter, and E-Z-GO golf carts, among others.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
concerning Textron's stability and profitability by repeatedly
publicizing record "backlogs" of unfilled customer orders for
aircraft generated primarily by Cessna and by making positive
statements about the Company's finance segment.  

     As alleged in the complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts, among others:

       -- that Textron was accepting orders for business jets
          from a growing number of customers that were mere
          startup and/or financially distressed fleet operators
          who neither intended nor possessed the financial
          resources to pay for or take delivery of aircraft
          during 2008-09 and beyond, which materially inflated
          Textron's "backlog" of unfilled orders for the
          Company's Cessna segment, which in turn materially
          overstated the Company's current financial condition
          and future prospects;

       -- that hundreds of orders reported as "backlog" at              
          Cessna for future business-jet production were subject
          to deferral and cancellation causing the Company to
          overstate its projected fiscal 2008-09 business-jet
          production and to initiate costly production cutbacks
          and worker reduction programs, which eroded Textron's
          revenues and earnings;

       -- that the Company's Finance segment had incurred
          material losses in the fair market value of its
          finance receivables and other financial assets, and
          these unrealized market losses were omitted from or
          misrepresented in the Company's periodic reports of
          earnings and income; and

       -- that Textron's credit ratings were deteriorating in
          light of its Finance segment's losses and the
          additional debt the Company would incur in connection
          with its Finance segment's distressed asset base.

     On January 29, 2009, the last day of the Class Period,
Textron announced that an estimated $30 million of the $65
million in "restructuring" costs would be incurred by the
Company's Cessna segment due to production cutbacks and worker
layoffs planned for the first quarter of 2009.  After this
announcement, Textron common stock traded to a new low of $8.83
per share before closing at $9.05 per share on volume of more
than 26 million shares, a one day decline of $4.19, or 31%.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Textron securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

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

                            *********

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  * * *