CAR_Public/090818.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 18, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 162
  
                           Headlines

ALLSTATE CORP: Reaches Settlement in "Strasen" Case in Illinois
APPLE INC: Faces Illinois Suit Over MMS Functionality in iPhones
CANADIAN GOV'T: Appealing Dismissal of Chemical Spraying Case
CAVAN CONSTRUCTION: Conshohocken Fire Victims Still Seek Justice
COOK COUNTY: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Misuse of Advertising Money

COOK COUNTY: Jury Finds in Favor of Inmates in Strip Search Suit
COVENTRY HEALTH: One Remaining "Harrison" Claim in Arbitration
COVENTRY HEALTH: FHGC Appeals Summary Judgment in Providers Suit
DEBT RELIEF: Faces Tex. Litigation for Circumventing State Laws
DEERE & CO: Sept. 21 Trial Scheduled for Iowa "Brubaker" Lawsuit

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Antitrust Lawsuit
FUWEI FILMS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Some Claims in Securities Suit
GLOBAL CLIENT: Faces Wash. Suit Over "Illegal Fees" in Program
HSBC BANK: Faces Calif. Suit for Reneging on "Nonexistent Gifts"
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Class Certification Bid in Fraud Suit Pending

MEDIACOM LLC: Unit Continues to Defend Claims in "Ogg" Case
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Fees in Lawsuit Over Allied Waste Deal Paid
STAMPS.COM: Sept. '09 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
TV GUIDE: Faces Calif. Subscribers' Suit Over "Special Issues"
U.S. CONCRETE: Accrued $3.5M for Damages in Drivers' Lawsuits

UNIFUND CCR: Reaches Settlement for Debt Collection Suit in Neb.
UNITED PARCEL: Defends Lawsuit Alleging Price-Fixing in New York
UNITED PARCEL: To Defend Calif. Franchisees' Rebranding Lawsuit
UTSTARCOM INC: Securities Litigation Remains Ongoing in Calif.
UTSTARCOM INC: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for $9.5M Suit Settlement

VALERO ENERGY: Discovery in Kan. Fuel Temperature Suits Ongoing
VALERO ENERGY: Remanded "Rosolowski" Case Ongoing in Trial Court
VALUECLICK INC: Calif. Court Mulls Final OK for Suit Settlement
W.R. GRACE: Suits Over ZAI Damages Pending in U.S. and Canada
WAL-MART STORES: LakinChapman, LLC Files Suit Over Return Policy

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
CONSECO INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
HURON CONSULTING: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HURON CONSULTING: Glancy Binkow Announces Securities Suit Filing
MIND C.T.I.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit

REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit
STURM RUGER: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
STURM RUGER: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Fraud Suit
TEXTRON INC: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing

                           *********

ALLSTATE CORP: Reaches Settlement in "Strasen" Case in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Company and The Allstate Corporation (NYSE:
ALL) entered into a settlement of the nationwide class action
lawsuit entitled Strasen v. Allstate, No. 99-L-1040 (Cir. Ct. 3d
J. Dist., Madison Cty., Ill.), which has been pending for almost
10 years.  This settlement includes all Allstate and Encompass
entities.  The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on
July 16, 2009.

Plaintiffs alleged that Allstate utilized a computerized medical
bill review system provided by ADP which failed to correctly
calculate medical expenses from automobile and homeowner's
claims.  Allstate says it continues to believe its medical bill
review practices were and are appropriate and fully comply with
the law, but agreed to resolve the case on terms Allstate
considered fair and appropriate to avoid the burden and expense
of continued litigation.

Among other things, the Settlement provides that Class Members
who submit a Valid Claim Form will, subject to the applicable
policy limits, receive 60% of the difference between the amount
of the bills submitted and the amount previously paid by
ALLSTATE, as established by the documentation submitted by the
Class Member or ALLSTATE.  ALLSTATE has also agreed not to
contest a request by Class Counsel for a maximum award of
$9,000,000 in fees and costs.

Judge Ruth will convene a final fairness hearing at 10:30 a.m.
on November 25, 2009.  Objections to the Settlement and requests
for exclusion from the class must be filed and served by October
26, 2009.

The Settlement Class includes all Persons who, during the period
from October 26, 1989, through July 16, 2009, were injured in an
automobile accident while drivers or passengers in an automobile
insured by ALLSTATE or submitted a homeowner's claim to ALLSTATE
under a homeowner's policy, and (a) who submitted claims under
PIP or MedPay coverage for payment of medical bills to ALLSTATE;
(b) had those medical MedPay or PIP claims adjusted with the use
of an ADP/MBRS computer recommendation; (c) received an amount
less than the amount of the submitted medical expenses; and (d)
received or were tendered an amount less than the full amount of
the stated Medpay or PIP policy limits; as well as all medical
providers and entities who, by written assignment, have the
right to assert the claims.  

The Settlement Class excludes directors and officers of ALLSTATE
and all members of the settlement class in Coffell v. Allstate,
No. 05-2-33183-6 (Super. Ct. Wash. for King County).

For more details about the Strasen lawsuit and settlement, visit
http://www.strasensettle.com/

The Plaintiffs and the Class in this lawsuit are represented by:

      Bradley Lakin, Esq.
      LAKIN CHAPMAN LLC
      300 Evans Ave.
      Wood River, IL 62095
      Email: Medpay.classaction@Lakinlaw.com

          - and -
     
      Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
      FREED & WEISS LLC
      111 W. Washington, Suite 1331
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Email: Info@Freedweiss.com

          - and -
     
      William J. Harte, Esq.
      William J. Harte, Ltd.
      111 West Washington Street, Suite 1110
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Email: wharte@williamharteltd.com

          - and -
     
      Timothy Campbell, Esq.
      Campbell & McGrady
      3017 Godfrey Road
      P.O. Box 505
      Godfrey, IL 62035
      Email: tim@campbellmcgrady.com;

          - and -
           
      Arthur Aufmann, Esq.
      Edward T. Joyce & Associates, P.C.
      Eleven South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Email: aaufmann@joycelaw.com

          - and -
           
      Robert Holstein, Esq.
      Holstein Law Offices, LLC
      100 West Monroe Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Email: holsteinlaw@sbcglobal.net

          - and -
           
      Michael J. Freed, Esq.
      Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC
      2201 Waukegan Rd., Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015

          - and -
           
      Larry D. Drury, Esq.
      Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
      205 West Randloph, Suite 1430
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Email: ldrurylaw@aol.com

          - and -
     
      Klamann & Hubbard, P.A.
      929 Walnut Street, #800
      Kansas City, MO 64106

          - and -
           
      Ray Hodge & Associates, LLC
      135 North Main Street
      Wichita, KS 67202

          - and -
           
      Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chartered
      2600 Grand Boulevard, #550,
      Kansas City, MO 64108-4627;

          - and -
           
      Hayes and Kieler, LLC
      7300 W. 110th Street, #900
      Overland Park, KS 66210
      
ALLSTATE is represented by:
      
      Steven M. Levy, Esq.
      Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
      233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7800
      Chicago, IL 60606
      
The Allstate Corporation (NYSE: ALL) is the nation's largest
publicly held personal lines insurer.  Widely known through the
"You're In Good Hands With Allstate(R)" slogan, Allstate touts
that it is reinventing protection and retirement to help more
than 17 million households insure what they have today and
better prepare for tomorrow.  Consumers access Allstate
insurance products and services through Allstate agencies,
independent agencies, and Allstate exclusive financial
representatives in the U.S. and Canada, as well as via
http://www.allstate.com/and 1-800 Allstate(R).


APPLE INC: Faces Illinois Suit Over MMS Functionality in iPhones
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., and AT&T Mobility, LLC, face a purported class-
action lawsuit, Meeker v. Apple, Inc., et al., 09-00607 (S.D.
Ill.), alleging that they touted the iPhone as supporting
multimedia messaging service, but have not as yet provided the
service, MacNN reports.

The suit -- brought on behalf of Tim Meeker and other unnamed
plaintiffs -- accuses Apple and AT&T of having "misrepresented
and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted material facts as to
the iPhone having MMS functionality," according to MacNN.

Mr. Meeker is represented by:

          Joel J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, Glass, P.C.
          120 South Central Avenue, Suite 130
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-862-4332
          E-mail: jschwartz@rsrglaw.com


CANADIAN GOV'T: Appealing Dismissal of Chemical Spraying Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
A decision to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed against the
Canadian government for exposure to toxic chemicals sprayed at
Canadian Forces Base Gagetown for more than five decades is
being appealed, Shawn Berry at The Daily Gleaner reports.

Justice Stephen J. McNally of the Court of Queen's Bench
dismissed the suit recently, noting that the proposed classes of
claimants would include hundreds of thousands of people, and
that those eligible for the class action weren't required to
have any exposure to the chemicals, writes Mr. Berry.

"I find that the plaintiffs have failed to establish an
identifiable class, to define workable and manageable common
issues and to establish that a class action would be the
preferable procedure for proceeding," according to Justice
McNally.

The class-action case was filed against the Canadian government
by Charles Bryson and Donald Murrin.  It was originally filed by
Mr. Bryson in June 2006, and names Dow Chemical Company and
Pharmacia Corp. as third-party defendants.  

The case would have extended to all persons who "claim to have
suffered injury" who resided, were employed or visited the base
or any area within 10 kilometres of the perimeter.  It also
would have provided coverage to their family members, Mr. Berry
reported.  

In addition, the case would have included a medical monitoring
regime for everyone who may have been affected.

Nathalie Maude, Esq., at Barry Spalding, the law firm
representing the plaintiffs, confirmed that they have filed a
notice to start an appeal to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.  
She told the Gleaner they expect to present a motion on Oct. 16,
2009.


CAVAN CONSTRUCTION: Conshohocken Fire Victims Still Seek Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Dr. Irwin Becker never believed that one year after fire
drove him and his wife out of their Conshohocken apartment the
retired couple would still be "living like gypsies" and
agonizing over uncompensated losses.

     "We are lucky to be alive," says Dr. Becker, "but life
since the fire last August has been hell.  You can't go a day
without remembering what was lost, especially the family
keepsakes, and recall those responsible saying they were sorry
and would make us whole for our losses.  In our case, time
hasn't healed our wounds."

     Dr. Becker and his wife, Marci, were among the more than
200 residents of the Millennium apartments who became homeless
as a result of the eight-alarm fire that began with the unsafe
and improper use by a Cavan Construction welder of a highly
volatile, 3,500-degree oxyacetylene torch used to cut a steel
balcony away from the bone dry, mostly wooden building -- known
as The Stables -- in the Riverwalk complex along the Schuylkill
River.

     The couple is among the former residents in a class action
proceeding (No. 08-23265, Montgomery County, Pa. Court of Common
Pleas).  It alleges that negligence on the part of workers
employed by Cavan Construction of Aston, Delaware County -- and
others with roles in the construction, management and
development of the complex -- contributed to the devastating
losses suffered by the residents.

     "The Beckers and the other victims are shocked that they
continue to feel the pain of deep losses one year after the
accident, and that Cavan, which started the fire, hasn't offered
a single penny to right their wrong," said Robert J. Mongeluzzi,
Esq., of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, PC, who was
appointed by Judge Gerald Corso in December 2008 as Interim Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel for the proposed class.  "There isn't one
shred of evidence to contradict the finding that Cavan's welders
were responsible for starting this fire, and yet the victims
continue to be burned by the company's indifference."

     Mr. Mongeluzzi said the official investigation reports
concluded that the reckless handling of a welder's torch by
Cavan's workers initially started the inferno at the Stables and
set off a combustible chain reaction at the neighboring
Riverwalk apartment buildings.  Newly released, eyewitness
photos obtained by SMBB pinpoint the exact location of the
fire's origin.  The gutted building is being rebuilt by the same
developer -- O'Neill Properties and its billionaire president,
Brian O'Neill -- but under a new name and reportedly with
enhanced fire-safety features.

     Besides Cavan, defendants named in the Complaint are
Pennsylvania businesses:

        -- O'Neill Properties Group, King of Prussia;
        -- Merion Construction, Inc., King of Prussia;
        -- Lynch2, Inc. construction managers, Leesport; and
        -- Bozutto Construction, of Greenbelt, Maryland.

     The SMBB firm in recent years has successfully represented
victims of numerous construction disasters, including the
collapses of the Tropicana casino garage, Pier 34, and the
Kimmel parking garage.

     In addition to Mr. Mongeluzzi, the SMBB counsel team
includes Larry Bendesky, Esq. Michael F. Barrett, Esq., and
Patrick Howard, Esq..

For more details, contact:

          Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215.496.8282
          Fax: 215.496.0999
          E-mail: info@smbb.com
          Web site: http://www.smbb.com/


COOK COUNTY: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Misuse of Advertising Money
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook County Circuit Court and Clerk Dorothy Brown face a
purported class-action lawsuit that accuses Ms. Brown of
soliciting advertising for a court Web site and using the money,
along with millions of dollars in court filing fees, as a slush
fund to buy cars, pay for campaign events, hire vaguely defined
"consultants" and outfit a personal "protective detail," Tim
Hull at Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit, Perkins v. County of Cook, et al., Case No. 09-04930
(N.D. Ill.), was filed on Aug. 11, 2009, by Eric S. Perkins and
names as defendants, Ms. Brown, Cook County, and Chicago
attorney Paul Bubaris, Esq., and Allstate Insurance Co., which
purchased advertising on the court Web site.

The complaint claims that Ms. Brown, with the sanction of Cook
County, sells ad space on the court Web site to attorneys,
insurance companies and others and uses the site to promote
herself and her political career, writes Mr. Hull.

The ads give the appearance that certain attorneys and services
are "officially sanctioned" by the court, and the revenue is
used in whatever way Brown sees fit, according to the complaint,
a copy of which was obtained by the Courthouse News Service.

"The funds obtained from this unauthorized and illegal
advertising . . . are deposited by Ms. Brown into her own bank
accounts and later used -- at least in part -- as part of the
general revenue of Cook County," the lawsuit states.

The suit also accuses Ms. Brown and Cook County of diverting
millions of dollars in court filing fees meant to pay for court
automation and document storage into a county slush fund
referred to as "Fund 883", which has taken in $14 million to $20
million per year for two decades, reports Mr. Hull.

"Defendants admit that these fees, as well as all other fees
collected by the Clerk of the Court, are placed directly in the
General Revenue Fund of Cook County and thereby used as
discretionary general income funds for whatever purpose
defendants may deem appropriate rather than used as required by
statute," according to the lawsuit.

The money is used, according to the Cook County annual budget,
for "attorneys' fees ostensibly incurred by the Clerk of the
Circuit Court, vehicles purchased for her personal use, gasoline
and maintenance of those vehicles, as well as to create funds of
several million dollars per year for unrestricted and
discretionary use by Brown to hire 'consultants,'" the complaint
states.

"No restriction or limitation on use of those consultant fees is
placed on Ms. Brown," and "no identification of these
'consultants' or evidence of their work is available to the
public," according to the complaint.

Mr. Hull reported that the plaintiff demands that Ms. Brown be
removed from office, repayment of all fees she allegedly
converted for unauthorized or personal use, and unspecified
damages.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4206

Representing the plaintiff is:

          David A. Novoselsky, Esq.
          David A. Novoselsky & Associates
          120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 346-8930
          E-mail: dnovo@novoselsky.com


COOK COUNTY: Jury Finds in Favor of Inmates in Strip Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court jury sided with inmates in a class-action
lawsuit against the Cook County Sheriff's Department for
illegally strip-searching inmates at the Cook County Jail, The
Associated Press reports.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said damages from last week's
verdict could total hundreds of millions of dollars, but
Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Patterson said an appeal is
likely, according to the AP report.

Loevy & Loevy, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, said
thousands of searches were performed at the jail from February
2007 to March 2009, AP reports.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Loevy & Loevy
          312 North May Street, Suite 100
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Phone: (312) 243-5900
          Fax: (312) 243-5902
          Web site: http://www.loevy.com/


COVENTRY HEALTH: One Remaining "Harrison" Claim in Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss is pending in the class action captioned
Harrison v. Coventry Health Care of Georgia, Inc. (CHCGA) -- a
tag-along action that is included in In Re: Managed Care
Litigation, MDL No. 1334; Master Docket No. __-_____ (S.D. Fla.)
(Moreno, J.) -- which names Coventry Health Care, Inc., as
defendant.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company
on all claims asserted in Charles B. Shane, et al. v. Humana,
Inc., et al., and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the trial court's order granting summary
judgment.

The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class-
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals.  Each of these actions has been
transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along"
actions.  There are three tag-along actions currently filed
against the company.

The trial court had entered an order which stayed all
proceedings in these tag-along actions.

Recently, the trial court requested the parties in the tag-along
actions to refile all motions pending at the time of the stay
and to file any new motions.

On July 14, 2008, the trial court entered an order in the
Harrison tag-along action, dismissing all of the plaintiffs'
claims except their breach of contract claim, which the court
ordered to arbitration.

In addition, the court deferred to the arbitrator for decision
the company's affirmative defenses that the plaintiffs waived
their right to arbitration and their claim is barred by the
doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata.

The Harrison tag along action is a purported class-action suit
on behalf of all physicians in Georgia who had written provider
contracts with CHCGA.  The plaintiffs allege that CHCGA breached
their contracts by not paying statutory interest on claims not
adjudicated in compliance with Georgia's prompt pay statute.

On March 13, 2009, the plaintiffs in The Harrison tag-along
action filed their Demand for Arbitration.  The Demand, which is
a purported class action on behalf of all Georgia physicians who
had written provider contracts with CHCGA, alleges that CHCGA
breached those contracts by not paying statutory interest on
claims not adjudicated in compliance with Georgia's prompt pay
statute and by applying certain claim edits which reduced the
amount of reimbursement paid to the plaintiffs.  

CHCGA denies the allegations and has filed a motion to dismiss
the class action and prompt pay 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.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a
national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland,
operating health plans, insurance companies, network
rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation
services companies.


COVENTRY HEALTH: FHGC Appeals Summary Judgment in Providers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Health Group Corp, Inc., a subsidiary of Coventry Health
Care, Inc., is appealing the entry of a partial summary judgment
in a class action lawsuit filed by four provider plaintiffs.

Four providers who have contracts with FHGC filed a state court
class action lawsuit against FHGC and certain payors alleging
that FHGC violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act, which
requires a payor accessing a preferred provider network contract
to give a one time notice 30 days before that payor uses the
discounted rate in the preferred provider network contract to
pay the provider for services rendered to a member insured under
that payor's health benefit plan.

These provider plaintiffs allege that the Any Willing Provider
Act applies to medical bills for treatment rendered to injured
workers and that the Act requires point of service written
notice in the form of a benefit identification card.  If a payor
is found to have violated the Act's notice provision, the court
may assess up to $2,000 in damages for each instance when the
provider was not given proper notice that a discounted rate
would be used to pay for the services rendered.

In response to the state court class action, FHGC and certain
payors filed a suit in federal court against the same four
provider plaintiffs in the state court class action seeking a
declaratory judgment that FHGC's contracts are valid and
enforceable, that its contracts are not subject to the Any
Willing Provider Act since that Act does not apply to medical
services rendered to injured workers and that FHGC is exempt
from the notice requirements of the Act because it has
contracted directly with each provider in its network.

The federal district court ruled in favor of FHGC and declared
that its contracts are not subject to the Any Willing Provider
Act, that FHGC was exempt from the Act's notice provision notice
because it contracted directly with the providers, and that
FHGC's contracts were valid and enforceable, i.e., the four
provider plaintiffs were required to accept the discounted rate
in accordance with the terms of their written contracts with
FHGC.  Despite the federal court's decision, the provider
plaintiffs continued to pursue their state court class action
against FHGC and filed a motion for partial summary judgment
seeking damages of $2,000 for each provider visit where the
provider was not given a benefit identification card at the time
the service was performed.  

In response to the motion for partial summary judgment filed in
the state court action, FHGC obtained an order from the federal
court which enjoined, barred and prevented any of the four
provider plaintiffs or their counsel from pursuing any claim
against FHGC before any court or tribunal arising under
Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act.  Despite the issuance of
this federal court injunction, the provider plaintiffs and their
counsel pursued their motion for partial summary judgment in the
state court action.

Before the state court held a hearing on the motion for partial
summary judgment, FHGC moved to decertify the class on the basis
that the four named provider plaintiffs had been enjoined by the
federal court from pursuing their claims against FHGC.  The
state court denied the motion to decertify the class but did
enter an order permitting FHGC to file an immediate appeal of
the state court's denial of the motion.  Even though FHGC had
filed its appeal and there were no class representatives since
all four named plaintiffs had been enjoined from pursuing their
claims against FHGC, the state court held a hearing and granted
the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.  The trial
court granted the motion despite the fact that (1) the court
lacked jurisdiction due to the appeal filed by FHGC challenging
the denial of its motion to decertify the class; (2) there were
no named class representatives because all four named plaintiffs
had been enjoined from pursuing their claims against FHGC; (3)
none of the providers in the class ever submitted a claim for
payment to FHGC and therefore FHGC never made any discounted
payments to any of the providers in the class in the absence of
notice; (4) FHGC has contracted directly with every provider in
the class and therefore, under the Act's express language, FHGC
was exempt from giving notice under the Act; and (5) the claims
of the provider plaintiffs are time barred.  The amount of the
partial judgment was for $262 million.  

FHGC has taken an immediate appeal from the entry of that
judgment seeking to vacate its entry as invalid as a matter of
law and will file a motion with the federal court for sanctions
against the provider plaintiffs and their counsel for violating
the injunction issued by the federal district court which barred
and enjoined them from pursuing their claims against FHGC in the
state court action, 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.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a
national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland,
operating health plans, insurance companies, network
rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation
services companies.


DEBT RELIEF: Faces Tex. Litigation for Circumventing State Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from The Palmer Firm, P.C., and The Seidman Law Firm,
P.C., which created Debt Relief Group, LLC, face a purported
class-action lawsuit accusing them of "masquerading as attorney
referral services [and] unregulated debt negotiators," and
conspiring to create the "debt relief program" to duck Texas
laws on attorney solicitation and advertising and debt
management services, Kelli Vangilder at Courthouse News Service
reports.

The lawsuit, Wall, et al. v. Debt Relief Group, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 09-00637 (W.D. Tex.), was filed on Aug. 6, 2009, by
James R. Wall, Vickie L. Wall, and James W. Bagby.  In addition
to the two law firms, others listed as defendants in the matter
are: Debt Relief Group, Epic Financial Management, Inc., Robert
Ancel Palmer, III, Scott R. Seideman, Gregory M. Fitzgerald,
Keith J. Waring, and Joan Kearns.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants created the Debt Relief
Group to try "to elude strict attorney advertising and
solicitation restrictions," and "give potential debtor clients
the false impression" that their services have "the aura of
legitimacy," Ms. Vangilder reported.

According to the complaint, Scott R. Seidman, Esq., and his firm
"conceived, developed and copyrighted the debt management
services scheme" at issue, and used it with Messrs. Palmer,
Fitzgerald, and co-defendants Epic, Keith Waring and Joan Kearns
"to defraud debtor clients nationwide," according to the
complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Courthouse News
Service.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to disclose to the
Texas State Bar Advertising Committee that they provide services
out of California, and are the creators and sole principals of
the Debt Relief Group.

"The Texas Finance Code . . . provides that a fee related to a
debt management plan service may not be charged until the
provider has registered" with the Texas Consumer Credit
Commissioner, which the defendants have failed to do, the class
claims.  Nor does the State Bar of Texas show any applications
"for advertising approval to establish and maintain" the
multiple Web sites the defendants use, according to the
complaint.

The suit claims that the Debt Relief Group "served as the front
to provide the debtor client referral source to the Palmer Firm
for debt management services disguised as legitimate services,"
reports Ms. Vangilder.

The plaintiffs seek damages for conspiracy and violations of the
Debt Management Service Act, according to the report.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4204

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas A. Crosley, Esq.
          The Crosley Law Firm, P.C.
          755 E. Mulberry, Suite 250
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Phone: (210) 354-4500
          Fax: 210/354-4034
          E-mail: tom@crosleylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Ames, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          2712 Timberleaf Drive
          Carrollton, TX 75006-2103
          Phone: (214) 390-8111
          Fax: (214) 390-8112
          E-mail: charles@charlesames.com


DEERE & CO: Sept. 21 Trial Scheduled for Iowa "Brubaker" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative Sept. 21 trial is slated for the purported class-
action lawsuit, Brubaker, et al. v. Deere & Company, Plan
Administrator and Named Fiduciary of the John Deere Health
Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees, et al., Case No. 08-00113
(S.D. Iowa), Ann McGlynn at The Quad-City Times reports.

The Honorable Charles Wolle issued an order this month that said
while he has not made his final decision regarding the parties'
motions for summary judgment, "my present view from work I have
done on the motions so far is that all or most issues will
remain for trial."  

The Flex Retirees Organization filed the purported class-action
lawsuit in September 2008.  It alleges that changes Deere made
to the plaintiff's health, dental and vision insurance benefits
violated promises the company made to 5,000 retired employees.
Those changes went into effect Jan. 1, 2008.  The group asked
the court to order Deere to restore the benefits pending the
outcome of the case (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2009).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

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


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Madden NFL game purchasers will soon have their day in
court after a U.S. District Judge recently denied Electronic
Arts, Inc.'s (Nasdaq: ERTS) motion to dismiss a class-action
lawsuit that claims the company engaged in unlawful and
anticompetitive agreements that monopolized the market for
football videogames and nearly doubled the price of its popular
game, Madden NFL.

     The lawsuit alleges Electronic Arts established agreements
with the National Football League, The NFL Players Union, Arena
Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, that drove competition out of the market and
prevented new competitors from entering.

     The agreements resulted in the company's flagship product,
Madden NFL, to increase 70 percent from a cost of $29.99 to
$49.99, the suit states.

     "There is nothing wrong with good, strong competition in a
free market, but we believe EA rigged the game to take advantage
of consumers," said Steve Berman, Esq., lead attorney and
managing partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

     In 2004, EA experienced a blow to sales when competitor
game NFL 2K5 gained popularity forcing EA to lower the price of
its popular Madden NFL game and other football games.  Soon
after, EA entered into an agreement with the NFL and NFL Players
Union that prevented any other company from producing NFL-
branded interactive football software, the suit states.  EA
followed that agreement by entering into additional agreements
with the NCAA and Arena Football League.

     "EA knows that the demand for these games is based on how
realistically the players and teams are portrayed," said Berman.  
"When EA signed into exclusive agreements it knowingly killed
the only competing game of comparable quality, NFL 2K5."

     The suit claims that EA's manipulation of the market allows
the company to sell Madden for as much as $59.95 a game.

     In the company's annual report to investors, EA notes,
"that if it were unable to maintain licenses with major sports
leagues and players associations, revenue and profitability will
decline significantly."

     In February 2008, EA extended its anticompetitive
agreements with the NFL and NFL Players Union until 2012.  Two
weeks after signing the extension, EA announced a $2 billion
offer for Take Two Interactive, the maker of NFL 2K5.

     The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in California,
seeks to represent anyone who purchased Madden NFL, NCAA or
Arena Football branded videogames from Electronic Arts from
August 2005 until present.

     Recently, the court dismissed two counts against EA,
allowing four to move forward including violation of the federal
Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright Act,
violation of California's unfair competition act and unjust
enrichment.

For more details, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/maddennfl


FUWEI FILMS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Some Claims in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co. Ltd. (Nasdaq: FFHL), a
manufacturer and distributor of high-quality BOPET plastic films
in China, announced on July 20, 2009, that it received a
Memorandum and Order from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York regarding the shareholder class
action suit.  The Court granted the defendants' motions in part
and denied them in part.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims
to the extent they were based upon Fuwei's alleged failure to
disclose the DMT arbitration proceeding.

     On March 14, 2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Fuwei, certain of its
present and former officers, directors, and shareholders, and
the underwriters for Fuwei's December 19, 2006, initial public
offering, alleging that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus contained materially false and misleading information
in violation of federal securities laws.  The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Complaint on May 14, 2008 (Class Action
Reporter, July 22, 2009).

     At this preliminary stage of the litigation, the Court is
required to assume that the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are
true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs'
favor.  Applying that standard, the Court granted the
defendants' motions in part and denied them in part.  The Court
dismissed plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were based upon
Fuwei's alleged failure to disclose the DMT arbitration
proceeding.  The Court also dismissed certain of plaintiffs'
claims to the extent they were brought on behalf of shareholders
who did not purchase their shares directly in the IPO.

     The Court sustained plaintiffs' remaining claims.  However,
the Court noted that the defendants may be able to assert
affirmative defenses provided by the federal securities laws in
a motion for summary judgment, which could resolve the case
before trial.

     Now that the motions to dismiss have been ruled upon, the
defendants must submit responsive pleadings to the Complaint and
discovery will proceed.


GLOBAL CLIENT: Faces Wash. Suit Over "Illegal Fees" in Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Client Solutions, LLC, faces a purported class-action
lawsuit that accuses it of charging illegal fees for its "debt
settlement program," Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service
reports.

Carlsen, et al. v. Global Client Solutions LLC, et al., Case No.
09-00246 (E.D. Wash.), was filed on Aug. 7, 2009, by Chad M.
Carlsen, Shasta L. Carlsen, Carl Popham, and Mary Popham.  

The suit claims that the defendant is allowed to charge up to
$25 for its initial services, but the lead plaintiffs -- two
married couples -- say they were charged $6,944 and $2,053 up
front, Mr. McCann reported.  According to the complaint, the
company works with more than 400 debt adjusters and manages more
that 600,000 accounts.  Global claims to help consumers settle
credit card debts through monthly payments.  The suit claims
Washington's Debt Adjusting Statute prevents debt collectors
from retaining more than 15 percent of a debtor's payment.  But
Global's "program fees typically consumed the entirety of the
initial monthly payments made by the debtor," according to the
complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Courthouse News
Service.  Global had authority to send the debtors' money to
Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust, a Colorado bank, but closed those
settlement accounts on Aug. 6, 2009, without notifying the
debtors, the complaint alleges.  The plaintiffs demand punitive
damages, according to Mr. McCann.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4205

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Darrell W. Scott, Esq.
          Scott Law Group PS
          926 W. Sprague Avenue, Suite 583
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Phone: 509-455-3966
          Fax: 509-455-3906
          E-mail: scottgroup@mac.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Durkop, Esq.
          Timothy Durkop Law Office
          2312 N. Cherry, Suite 100
          Spokane Valley, WA 99216
          Phone: 509-928-3848
          Fax: 509-928-0125
          E-mail: tim@durkoplaw.com


HSBC BANK: Faces Calif. Suit for Reneging on "Nonexistent Gifts"
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Bank faces a purported class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles
Superior Court that accuses it of failing to deliver on promises
of gifts to customers who deposited $50,000 or more in "Premier
Relationship" accounts, but the bank reported the nonexistent
gifts to the IRS, so depositors had to pay taxes on something
they never got, Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service
reports.

The lead plaintiffs, Hiu Win Wong and Ying Liu Guo, allege
unfair and fraudulent business practices, false advertising, and
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, writes Ms.
Banicki.

The suit claims HSBC and its co-defendant marketing company TLC
Americas promised plane tickets to customers who kept their
$50,000 Premier account open for 6 months, kept at least
$100,000 in combined personal deposit and investment balances,
or $500,000 in combined personal deposit, investment or credit-
mortgage balances.

However, the customers say they never received their vouchers
for international plane tickets -- one of four gifts they could
choose -- and others received vouchers but never could get in
contact with a TLC representative to confirm their flight, Ms.
Banicki reported.

The suit alleges that despite reneging on those gifts, HSBC
still sent tax forms to the IRS reflecting the cash value of the
tickets as taxable income, according to the complaint.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jan Alison Yoss, Esq.
          5959 W. Century Blvd., Ste. 1118
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: 310-693-6180


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Class Certification Bid in Fraud Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification in the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit styled In Re: Juniper
Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-04327 (N.D. Calif.) (Ware,
J.), is pending.

On July 14, 2006, a purported class-action complaint, Garber v.
Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C-06-4327 MJJ (N.D. Calif.),
was filed against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.  The plaintiff filed a corrected complaint on
July 28, 2006.  The Garber lawsuit is brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Juniper Networks' common stock between Sept. 1,
2003, and May 22, 2006.

On Aug. 29, 2006, another purported class-action complaint,
Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C 06 5303 JW (N.D.
Calif.), was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  The Peters lawsuit is brought on behalf
of all purchasers of Juniper Networks' common stock between
April 10, 2003, and Aug. 10, 2006.

Both purported class-action lawsuits allege that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to
coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading
statements including, among others, incorrect financial
statements due to the improper accounting of stock option
grants.

Both suits were later consolidated.  On Nov. 20, 2006, the court
appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiff, who
filed a consolidated class action complaint in January 2007.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of, or those who otherwise acquired, Juniper
Networks' publicly traded securities from April 10, 2003,
through and including Aug. 20, 2006.  It alleges violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

In February 2007, the parties agreed in a court-approved
stipulation that the plaintiffs may file an amended consolidated
complaint within 30 days after the company files its restated
financial statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.
In March 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' dismissal motion.

Specifically, the Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs'
section 10(b) claim to the extent it was based on challenged
statements made before July 14, 2001.  The order also dismissed,
with leave to amend, the plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim against
Pradeep Sindhu.  All of the plaintiffs' other claims were
upheld.

The plaintiffs did not amend their complaint.  The defendants
filed their answer on June 23, 2008.

On March 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification for a modified plaintiff class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly-
traded securities from July 11, 2003, through Aug. 10, 2006.

The defendants filed their opposition to the motion for class
certification on June 1, 2009.  Plaintiffs' reply in support of
the motion for class certification is due on Aug. 7, 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.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Bemporad, Esq. (rbemporad@ldbs.com)
         Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger & Cohen, P.C.
         White Plains Plaza
         1 North Broadway, 5th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10601-2310
         Phone: 914-997-0500

              - and -

         William M. Audet, Esq. (waudet@audetlaw.com)
         Audet & Partners
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-982-1776
         Fax: 415-576-1776

Representing the defendants is:

         Joni L. Ostler, Esq. (jostler@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100


MEDIACOM LLC: Unit Continues to Defend Claims in "Ogg" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom LLC, one of Mediacom Communications Corporation's
wholly owned subsidiaries, continues to defend claims in a
putative class action filed by Gary and Janice Ogg.

Mediacom LLC is named as a defendant in a putative class-action
lawsuit captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC (Cir.
Ct. of Clay Cty., Mo.), originally filed in April 2001.

The lawsuit alleges that Mediacom LLC, in areas where there was
no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from landowners
to place the company's fiber interconnection cable
notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from
other third parties.

While the parties continue to contest liability, there also
remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.  Based on
a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim compensatory
damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal fees, prejudgment
interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could
increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.

The plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory of $42.0
million in compensatory damages.

Prior to trial, the company's experts estimated its liability to
be within the range of approximately $100,000to $2.3 million.  
This estimate does not include any estimate of damages
for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.

On March 19, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary
and Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and
punitive damages of $35,000.  

The Court did not enter a final judgment on this verdict and
therefore the amount of the verdict cannot at this time be
judicially collected, 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.

Mediacom Communications Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com/--  
is a cable television company serving smaller cities and towns
in the United States.  The company provides its customers with
an array of products and services, including video services,
such as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television (HDTV)
and digital video recorders (DVR); high-speed data (HSD), also
known as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service, and
phone service.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Fees in Lawsuit Over Allied Waste Deal Paid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Services, Inc., after the fairness hearing in May 2009,
paid an unspecified amount for plaintiffs' attorney's fees in
accordance with the stipulation of settlement of class-action
lawsuits in Delaware and Florida over its planned merger with
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.

On July 25, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed, and
on Aug. 15, 2008, was amended, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware by the New Jersey Carpenters Pension and the
New Jersey Carpenters Annuity Funds against the Company and the
members of the Company's board of directors, individually.

On Aug. 21, 2008, a second putative class action was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by David Shade
against the Company, the members of the Company's board of
directors, individually, and Allied.

On Sept. 22, 2008, the New Jersey Carpenters and the Shade cases
were consolidated by the Court of Chancery, and on Sept. 24,
2008, the plaintiffs in the Delaware case, now known as "In Re:
Republic Services Inc. Shareholders Litigation," filed a
verified consolidated amended class action complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On Sept. 5, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, by the
Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund against the Company and the
members of the Company's board of directors, individually.

Both the Delaware consolidated action and the Florida action
were brought on behalf of a purported class of the Company's
shareholders and primarily sought, among other things, to enjoin
the proposed transaction between Republic and Allied, as well as
damages and attorneys' fees.

The actions also sought to compel the Company to accept the
unsolicited proposals made by Waste, or at least compel the
Company's board of directors to further consider and evaluate
the Waste proposals, which proposals were subsequently
withdrawn.

On Sept. 24, 2008, the defendants in the Florida litigation
filed a Motion to Stay or to Dismiss the lawsuit in light of the
consolidated Delaware class action.

On Oct. 17, 2008, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to require
the defendants to make certain additional disclosures prior to
the shareholder vote on the merger.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the
Delaware and Florida actions.

As of Jan. 16, 2009, following completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to plaintiffs, the parties
executed a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement received court approval at a fairness hearing on May
19, 2009.  The stipulation of settlement resolved all of the
claims that were or could have been brought in the actions being
settled, including all claims relating to the merger
transaction, the merger agreement, the company's rejections of
the unsolicited Waste proposals, and any disclosures made in
connection therewith.  The time for appeal of the settlement has
now expired with no party filing a notice of appeal, 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.

Republic Services, Inc. -- http://www.republicservices.com/--
is a provider of services in the domestic non-hazardous solid
waste industry. Its operations primarily consist of the
collection, transfer and disposal of non-hazardous solid waste.
The company provides non-hazardous solid waste collection
services for commercial, industrial, municipal and residential
customers through 136 collection companies in 21 states.  It
also owns or operates 94 transfer stations, 58 solid waste
landfills and 33 recycling facilities.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, its
operations were organized into five regions: Eastern, Central,
Southern, Southwestern and Western.  Each region is organized
into several operating areas and each area contains multiple
operating locations.  Each of the company's regions and
substantially all its areas provide collection, transfer,
recycling and disposal services.


STAMPS.COM: Sept. '09 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing in September 2009, is set for the proposed
settlement relating to purported class-action lawsuits filed
against Stamps.com Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In 2001, the company was named, together with certain of its
current and former board members and officers, as a defendant
in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act in connection with the company's initial public
offering and a secondary offering of the company's common stock.

Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation, including
interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

In 2003, the company reached a proposed settlement that would
not have required it to make any payments, which was ultimately
terminated in 2007 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit determined that the class could not be certified
as defined.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and proposed an
alternative class definition in related litigation.

In 2009, the company approved a new proposed settlement which
has been documented and filed with the court for its review and
approval.  As with the company's previously proposed settlement,
this proposed settlement would not require the Company to make
any payments.

The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the court
in June 2009 and is scheduled to be the subject of a fairness
hearing in September 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.

Stamps.com Inc. -- http://www.stamps.com/-- is a provider of
Internet-based postage solutions.  Its customers use the
company's service to mail and ship a variety of mail pieces,
including postcards, envelopes, flats, and packages, using a
range of United States Postal Service (the USPS) mail classes
including First Class Mail, Priority Mail, Express Mail, Media
Mail, Parcel Post, and others.  The company's customers include
home businesses, small businesses, corporations, and
individuals.  It is an USPS-licensed vendor that offers personal
computer (PC) Postage in a software-only business model.


TV GUIDE: Faces Calif. Subscribers' Suit Over "Special Issues"
--------------------------------------------------------------
TV Guide, Inc., faces a purported class-action suit in Los
Angeles Superior Court that claims the company sends its three
million subscribers fewer issues of its magazine than it
promised, Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports.

John Burke, the lead plaintiff, says TV Guide unfairly counts
its "special issues" as two issues, though they contain neither
twice the pages nor twice the content of a regular issue.

Mr. Burke says the "special" or "double issue" is more like a
"slightly expanded single issue."  He claims TV Guide uses the
ruse to cheat its three million subscribers, writes Ms. Brown.

The plaintiff demands punitive damages for fraud, breach of
contract and consumer law violations, according to Courthouse
News Service.  

Mr. Burke is represented by:

          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          Girardi & Keese
          1126 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
          Phone: 213.977.0211
          Fax: 213.481.1554
          Web site: http://www.girardikeese.com/


U.S. CONCRETE: Accrued $3.5M for Damages in Drivers' Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Concrete, Inc., at June 30, 2009, accrued $3.5 million for
potential damages associated with four separate class actions
pending against the company in Alameda Superior Court
(California).  

The class-action suits were filed between Apr. 6, 2007, and
Sept. 27, 2007, on behalf of various Central Concrete Supply
Company, Inc., ready-mixed concrete and transport drivers,
alleging primarily that Central failed to provide meal and rest
breaks as required under California law.

The company has entered into settlements with one of the classes
and a number of individual drivers.

The other three classes have been consolidated and a single
class was certified on July 24, 2009.

The company's accrual is based on prior settlement values,
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.

U.S. Concrete, Inc. -- http://www.us-concrete.com/-- is a
producer of ready-mixed concrete, precast concrete products and
concrete-related products in select markets in the United
States.  The company operates its business through its ready-
mixed concrete and concrete-related products segment, and its
precast products concrete segment.  As of March 12, 2009, the
Company had 132 fixed and 12 portable ready-mixed concrete
plants, seven precast concrete plants, one concrete block plant
and seven producing aggregates facilities (including 27 fixed
ready-mixed concrete plants and one masonry block plant operated
by its 60%-owned Michigan subsidiary).  The company operates in
two business segments: ready-mixed concrete and concrete-related
products, and precast concrete products.


UNIFUND CCR: Reaches Settlement for Debt Collection Suit in Neb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unifund CCR Partners settled a purported class-action lawsuit in
Nebraska over its debt collection practices, Virgil Larson at
The Omaha World-Herald reports

Williamson, et al. v. Unifund CCR Partners, et al., Case No.
08-cv-00218 (D. Neb.), was filed on May 26, 2008, by Christina
Williamson and Galin R. Brown.  In addition to Unifund, other
defendants named in the suit are Unifund's general partners,
Credit Card Receivables Fund, Inc., and ZB Partners; 10 John
Does, who worked as collectors; and Bellevue attorney Dean
Jungers, Esq., who represented Unifund and whom the suit said
frequently filed debt-collection lawsuits, reports Mr. Larson.

The case revolved around alleged practices the collection
companies used: suggesting, if not outright threatening, legal
action; creating a false impression it was a law firm making the
contact; trying to improperly attach fees to the debt; and
trying to collect after a time limit set by Nebraska law had
passed, according to the World-Herald.

Under the settlement, about 2,371 Nebraskans on whom allegedly
illegal methods were used in trying to collect bills will get at
least some of their debt wiped out.

Meanwhile, the lead plaintiffs will each get $2,000 in statutory
damages and $3,000 for being the class representatives -- in
effect for bringing the lawsuit, Mr. Larson reports.

Ms. Williamson, who allegedly owed $697 on a credit card, also
will receive $662.50 in actual damages.  Mr. Brown, whose debt
was listed at $2,472, will receive $500.

The settlement also calls for the defendants to pay the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of $66,000, the World-Herald
reported.

The rest of the people who were sued by the collection company
for unpaid bills, mostly credit card debt, in Nebraska state
courts and thus became members of the class-action suit will get
up to $125 each in credits against the debts they owed.  The
debts for which they were pursued ranged from $500 to $2,000,
writes Mr. Larson.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          Car & Reinbrecht Law Firm
          8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Phone: (402) 391-8484
          Fax: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: carlaw@uswest.net
                  billr205@cox.net


UNITED PARCEL: Defends Lawsuit Alleging Price-Fixing in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., is defending a class action
complaint over alleged price-fixing in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

In January 2008, the complaint was filed in the Eastern District
of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the
provision of freight forwarding services.  UPS was not named in
that initial complaint.  

On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants.  UPS
and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are now among the 60 defendants
named in the 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.

United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- is a  
package delivery company.  The company delivers packages each
business day for 1.8 million shipping customers to 6.1 million
consignees in over 200 countries and territories. Its primary
business is the time-definite delivery of packages and documents
worldwide.  UPS operates in three segments: U.S. Domestic
Package operations, International Package operations, and Supply
Chain & Freight operations.


UNITED PARCEL: To Defend Calif. Franchisees' Rebranding Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., intends to defend a class action
relating to the rebranding of Mail Boxes Etc. centers to The UPS
Store in California state court.

UPS and Mail Boxes Etc., Inc., are defendants in various
lawsuits brought by franchisees who operate Mail Boxes Etc.
centers and The UPS Store locations.

These lawsuits relate to the rebranding of Mail Boxes Etc.
centers to The UPS Store, The UPS Store business model, the
representations made in connection with the rebranding and the
sale of The UPS Store franchises, and UPS's sale of services in
the franchisees' territories.

In one of the actions, which is pending in California state
court, the court recently certified a class consisting of all
Mail Boxes Etc. branded stores that rebranded to The UPS Store
in March 2003.

The company has denied any liability with respect to these
claims, 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.

United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- is a  
package delivery company.  The company delivers packages each
business day for 1.8 million shipping customers to 6.1 million
consignees in over 200 countries and territories. Its primary
business is the time-definite delivery of packages and documents
worldwide.  UPS operates in three segments: U.S. Domestic
Package operations, International Package operations, and Supply
Chain & Freight operations.


UTSTARCOM INC: Securities Litigation Remains Ongoing in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-04908 (N.D. Calif.) (Ware, J.),
continues, 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.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class-action
complaints alleging federal securities violations were filed
against the company and various officers and directors.  The
actions were later consolidated.

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on July 26, 2005, alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit was brought
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the
company's stock after April 16, 2003, and before Sept. 20, 2004.

On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of the
class period to Oct. 6, 2005.  In addition to the company
defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank.  The
plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an
unspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On March 21,
2007, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the
second amended complaint.  The court, however, granted the
plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which the
plaintiffs did on May 25, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the third
amended complaint.  This was granted by the court, but with
leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which the plaintiffs
also did on May 14, 2008.

On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008
dismissal order, the company and the individual defendants filed
objections to the form and content of the fourth amended
complaint.

On July 24, 2008, the court overruled the objections, but stated
that the company and the individual defendants would be
permitted to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the
fourth amended complaint.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain
allegations from the Fourth Amended Complaint.

On March 27, 2009, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss and granted defendants' motion to strike.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

              - and -

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100

              - and -

         Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. (halls@sullcrom.com)
         Sullivan & Cromwell
         1870 Embarcadero Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94303
         Phone: 650-461-5600
         Fax: 650-461-5700


UTSTARCOM INC: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for $9.5M Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is scheduled on Sept. 18, 2009, in San
Francisco, for the proposed $9,500,000 settlement in Peter
Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 07-cv-04578 (N.D. Calif.)
(Illston, J.).  

The purported shareholder class-action lawsuit was filed on
Sept. 4, 2007, against UTSTARCOM, Inc. and some of its current
and former directors and officers.  It alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed
improper accounting practices concerning the company's
historical equity award grants.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between July 24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court appointed James R. Bartholomew as
lead plaintiff.  On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint and in April, the court granted a motion by
the company to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court granted
the lead plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint no
later than May 16, 2008, which the lead plaintiff did so.  On
June 6, 2008, the defendants again filed a motion to dismiss,
this time pertaining to the second amended complaint.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, 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.

For more details, contact:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

               - and -

          UTStarcom Securities Litigation
          c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
          P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914
          Phone: (800) 766-3330
          Fax: (516) 931-0810
          Web site: http://www.berdonclaims.com/


VALERO ENERGY: Discovery in Kan. Fuel Temperature Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1840; Master Docket No. __-_____
(D. Kan.), which names Valero Energy Corp. as a defendant.

As of Aug. 1, 2009, the company was named in 21 consumer class-
action lawsuits relating to fuel temperature.  The complaints,
filed before federal courts in several states, allege that
because fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the
defendants have violated state consumer protection laws by
failing to adjust the volume of fuel when the fuel temperature
exceeded 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

The complaints seek to certify classes of retail consumers who
purchased fuel in various locations.  They seek an order
compelling the installation of temperature correction devices as
well as associated monetary relief.

In June 2007, the federal lawsuits were consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation proceeding.  

In February 2008, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaints.

In July 2008, the plaintiffs filed a pleading attempting to name
Valero and other petroleum companies as class representatives of
defendant classes composed of their respective branded outlets,
including retail outlets owned by other parties.

The court has scheduled briefing on class certification through
2008 and early 2009, although this schedule may be delayed
further into 2009.

Discovery has commenced.  The court is expected to rule on
certain class certification issues in 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.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


VALERO ENERGY: Remanded "Rosolowski" Case Ongoing in Trial Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded purported class-action lawsuit captioned
Rosolowski v. Clark Refining Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No.
95-L 014703 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.), is ongoing, according to
Valero Energy, Inc.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

The purported class-action lawsuit was assumed by the company
after its acquisition of Premcor Inc. under a merger agreement
on Sept. 1, 2005.

The suit, filed on Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release
to the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of
heavy metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery
on Oct. 7, 1994.  The release resulted in the temporary
evacuation of certain areas near the refinery.

The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three
classes, two of which received nominal or no damages, and one of
which received a sizeable jury verdict.  That class consisted of
local residents who claimed property damage or loss of use and
enjoyment of their property over a period of several years.

In November 2005, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs
of $80.1 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in
punitive damages.

However, following the company's motions for new trial and
judgment notwithstanding the verdict (citing, among other
things, misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel and improper class
certification), the trial judge in November 2006 vacated the
jury's award and decertified the class.

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to vacate the
$120 million judgment and decertify the class.  The plaintiffs'
appeal was heard before the state appeals court in February
2008, and in June 2008, the state appeals court reversed the
trial court's decision to decertify the class and set aside the
judgment.

The appeals court preserved the company's rights, and on Aug. 4,
2008, the company appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear the case and returned
it to the trial court.  The company has submitted renewed
motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or,
alternatively, a new trial.

Valero Energy Corp. -- http://www.valero.com/-- owns and
operates 18 refineries located in the U.S., Canada and Aruba
that produce refined products, such as reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, gasoline meeting the
specifications of the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CARB diesel fuel, low-sulfur and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel,
and oxygenates (liquid hydrocarbon compounds containing oxygen).


VALUECLICK INC: Calif. Court Mulls Final OK for Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the amended consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit captioned Carl Waldrep, et al. v.
ValueClick, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-05411 (N.D. Calif.)
(Pregerson, J.), is still subject to final approval by the
court.

A purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit was filed on
Aug. 17, 2007, by Carl Waldrep, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, presuming to represent all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
ValueClick between Nov. 1, 2006, and July 27, 2007.  The lawsuit
alleges violations of certain federal securities laws and is
brought against the company, its executive chairman and its
chief administrative officer.

A similar purported class-action lawsuit was filed after the
Waldrep action.  On Nov. 20, 2007, the two lawsuits were
consolidated.  

The court appointed the combined funds of Laborers'
International Union of North America National Pension and the
LIUNA Staff & Affiliates Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs.

In January 2008, the LIUNA Funds filed a consolidated complaint
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws based
upon the company's and its officers' alleged misrepresentation
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
company's compliance with laws and standards applicable to its
lead generation business, among other things.

The LIUNA Funds purport to represent all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of the company between
June 13, 2005, and July 27, 2007, and seek class certification,
damages, costs incurred in bringing suit, and
equitable/injunctive relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this matter in March 2008
and on Sept. 25, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint by Nov. 24, 2008.

The LIUNA Funds filed their First Amended Consolidated Complaint
on Nov. 24, 2008.  

The company has reached a settlement in this matter, which is
still subject to final court approval, 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.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. (dbacine@barrack.com)
          Barrack Rodos and Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600

               - and -

          Mary K. Blasy, Esq. (maryb@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael B. Smith, Esq. (mbsmith@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-849-5300


W.R. GRACE: Suits Over ZAI Damages Pending in U.S. and Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits alleging damages from Zonolite Attic
Insulation, a former W.R. Grace & Co. attic insulation product,
are pending, according to W.R. Grace's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001.  In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed
as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to
persons and homes in Canada.  The cases seek damages and
equitable relief, including the removal, replacement and
disposal of all such insulation.  The plaintiffs assert that
this product is in millions of homes and that the cost of
removal could be several thousand dollars per home.

On April 2, 2001, Grace and 61 of its United States subsidiaries
and affiliates, including Grace-Conn., filed voluntary petitions
for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  As a
result of the filing, the eight U.S. cases have been stayed.

W.R. Grace & Co. -- http://www.grace.com/-- through its   
subsidiaries, is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty
materials businesses on a worldwide basis.


WAL-MART STORES: LakinChapman, LLC Files Suit Over Return Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
     LakinChapman, LLC, filed a class action complaint (Cause
No. 09-L-525) in the circuit court of Madison County, Illinois,
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging the retailer has failed
to live up to the terms of its return policy.

     The complaint alleges that while Wal-Mart promises to
refund to its customers what they paid for merchandise, it fails
to do so if the merchandise is returned to a Wal-Mart store
location with a lower applicable sales tax rate than where the
merchandise was originally purchased.  

     LakinChapman, LLC, Managing Partner Brad Lakin, Esq., in
denouncing Wal-Mart's practices, said, "If a consumer buys
merchandise at the Collinsville Wal-Mart and returns it to the
Glen Carbon Wal-Mart he or she should get back exactly what they
paid for the merchandise.  What he or she receives should not
depend on the sales tax rate of the store where the merchandise
is returned.  That's the promise Wal-Mart has made to its
customers and the one it should keep.  We filed this class
action to recover what rightfully belongs to consumers and force
Wal Mart to stop this practice.  Other retailers keep their
promise and return exactly what was paid for merchandise no
matter where it's returned.  Why shouldn't Wal-Mart?"

For more details, contact:

          LakinChapman, LLC
          300 Evans Ave.
          PO Box 229
          Wood River, Illinois 62095
          Phone: 618-208-4240 or 866-839-2021
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of
Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (formerly,
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.) (NYSE: MDRX) between May
8, 2007 and February 13, 2008.  The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Allscripts' business and prospects, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Allscripts securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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

For more details, contact:

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


CONSECO INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO)
during the period between August 4, 2005 and March 17, 2008,
inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was
reporting materially inaccurate revenue figures that did not
present the true operating performance of the Company and that
the Company's shareholders' equity was materially overstated
during the Class Period such that the defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements during the class
period about the Company, its corporate governance practices,
its prospects and earnings growth.

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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

For more details, contact:

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


HURON CONSULTING: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
purchasers of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) common
stock during the period between April 27, 2006 and July 31,
2009.

     The complaint charges Huron and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Huron is a provider of financial and legal consulting
services.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results and compliance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.  Specifically, the
Company misaccounted for payments made as part of acquisitions.  
As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements,
Huron stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $83.25 per share on December
26, 2007.

     Then on July 31, 2009, Huron announced that it would be
restating its financial results from 2006 through 2008 and the
first three months of 2009 due to its failure to properly
account for earn-out payments made in connection with four of
its acquisitions.  As a result of the restatement, Huron
expected to dramatically reduce its revenue reported for the
period by 48% from $120 million on an aggregate basis to $63
million.  The Company further announced that the SEC had
commenced an inquiry into the Company's allocation of chargeable
hours related to its recognition of revenue.  The SEC's inquiry
was unrelated to the acquisition accounting issue.  Huron
further withdrew its 2009 earnings guidance, lowered its 2009
revenue guidance and provided preliminary second-quarter revenue
below analysts' expectations.  Finally, Huron announced that its
chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Accounting Officer had all resigned.  On this
news, Huron's stock collapsed $30.66 per share to close at
$13.69 per share on August 3, 2009, a 1-day decline of more than
69%.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Huron 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/huron/


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

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

For more details, contact:

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


MIND C.T.I.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     On August 13, 2009, Federman & Sherwood filed the first
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against MIND C.T.I., Ltd. (NASDAQ:
MNDO).  The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, as more specifically set forth below.  The
class period is from June 8, 2006 through February 27, 2008.

     Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial condition, cash
management and internal controls caused the Company's stock
price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on
investors.  MIND engages in the development, manufacture and
marketing of billing and customer care software and the sale of
related services for various types of communication providers,
including traditional cable and wireless, Internet protocol or
VOIP and broadband IP network operators.

     The Complaint alleges that Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded and concealed from the investing public that:

       -- most of MIND's reported cash position comprised
          illiquid Auction Rate Securities ("ARSs"), and

       -- internal controls over the monitoring, accounting and
          reporting of the Company's investment in cash
          equivalents and\or short-term investments were
          materially deficient.

     The Complaint further alleges that Defendants
misrepresented the Company's liquidity and its ability to
attract customers, finance current operations, and pursue
strategic acquisitions.  In a Form 20-F filed with the SEC,
Defendants later admitted that because "the stated maturity of
these securities is 2046" and "there is currently a very limited
market for these auction rate securities... this situation
leaves us with limited cash resources with which to pursue our
acquisition strategy."  Defendants ultimately restated the
Company's financial statements for 2006, and disclosed that
almost $23 million of the Company's originally reported $27
million liquid cash position was invested in highly illiquid
ARSs.  Defendants also admitted that, "In connection with
restatement, management determined that a material weakness in
internal control over financial reporting existed as of December
31, 2006 because at that time we did not have effective controls
designed and in place to ensure that our investments were
classified in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles."

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 12, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Repros
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: RPRX), between July 1, 2009 and
August 3, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges the Company and certain of its
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.  
Repros focuses on the development of oral small-molecule drugs
for the treatment of male and female reproductive disorders.  
Repros' lead drug, Proellex, is being developed for the
treatment of symptoms associated with uterine fibroids and
endometriosis and as a pre-surgical treatment for anemia
associated with excessive menstrual bleeding related to uterine
fibroids.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Repros' business and prospects were
materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose that Proellex
elevated liver enzymes to dangerous levels in certain patients
participating in the drug's clinical trials, which could result
in cancellation of the Proellex clinical trials.

     On August 3, 2009, Repros announced that it was suspending
Proellex clinical trials based in part on "the occurrence of
clinically significant increases in liver enzymes."  This
announcement caused the price of Repros stock to decline
approximately 48% from the previous day's closing price of
$2.53, to close on August 3, 2009, at $1.31 per share on
extremely high trading volume of more than 7.4 million shares
traded.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

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

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


STURM RUGER: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc
(NYSE: RGR), between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007,
inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Sturm Ruger's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 31, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


STURM RUGER: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former
U.S. Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) for securities
violations related to public statements made by the company
between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007.

     According to the complaint, filed in the District of
Connecticut, Sturm Ruger and certain officers and directors made
positive statements about the Company's revenues and earnings
that were false and misleading, failing to disclose that
reductions in inventory balances by Sturm Ruger in the two
quarters of 2007 had reduced the Company's parts and components
inventories below efficient levels, preventing their
manufacturing units from meeting production and shipment
schedules.  This resulted in the Company's inability to sustain
current or history sales levels.  Due to inventory shortages
caused the failure to meet production and shipping schedules,
Sturm Ruger's "backlog" of unfilled purchase orders was
materially inflated.  Orders received by the Company's
independent distributers were artificially boosted by the
mandated change to firm and noncancellable purchase order
submissions and did not relict the actual demand for products.  
Independent distributors were carrying large quantities of
unsold products, increasing the risk that these distributors
would reduce their future purchases.  Based on these facts,
Sturm Ruger had no reasonable basis for their positive
statements and opinions concerning their current financial
performance and condition.

     On October 24, 2007, the Company announced that its firearm
sales for the third quarter of 2007 fell by 25%, resulting in a
loss of $0.03 per share.  They also indicated that sales had
declined due to inventory issues at its distributors.  Following
this news, the price of Sturm Ruger's common stock fell by 37%,
dropping $6.45 per share and closing at $10.65 per share on
volume of 4.1 million shares.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 13, 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


TEXTRON INC: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of Textron, Inc. (NYSE:
TXT) securities during the period July 17, 2007 through 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.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's condition and profitability by
repeatedly publicizing record "backlogs" of unfilled customer
orders for its Cessna Aircraft brand products, and by making
positive statements about the Company's Finance segment.  

     The complaint alleges that those 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 - 2009 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 for future business-jet
          production reported as "backlog" at Cessna were
          subject to deferral and cancellation, causing the
          Company to overstate its projected fiscal 2008 - 2009
          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.

     As alleged in the complaint, the Company's stock price
declined after the Company announced at the end of the Class
Period that an estimated $30 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.  Upon this announcement, the price of Textron's
common stock fell to $8.83 per share, to close at $9.05 per
share, representing a one-day decline of $4.19 per share or 31%.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
Textron securities between July 17, 2007 and January 29, 2009.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 12, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212-490-2022
          E-mail: SSBNY@aol.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  * * *