CAR_Public/090819.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 163
  
                           Headlines

ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers
AT&T SERVICES: Faces California Litigation Over "On-Call Work"
CHICAGO: Seventh Circuit Affirms Ruling in Cell Phone Ban Case
CP SHIPS: Eleventh Circuit Issues Ruling in Securities Lawsuit
DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Settles Canadian Sexual Abuse Litigation

DOLLAR GENERAL: W.Va. Judge Denies Transfer Request in "Audia"
IBASIS INC: Wants Plaintiff to Reimburse Change of Venue Costs
INTERMUNE INC: Aug. 24 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Actimmune Suits
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Pollution Lawsuit in South Carolina
INVENTIV HEALTH: "Weisz" Suit Settlement Got Final OK in June

KING ARTHUR'S: Judge Rules in Favor of Strippers in Pay Lawsuit
MAMA MEXICO: Workers Sue Owner for Refusing to Pay Overtime
MONROE COLLEGE: Graduate Sues in N.Y. to Recover $70,000 Tuition
OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Pending
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Wage & Hour Suit in Calif. in Early Stages

OVERHILL FARMS: Faces Terminated Employees' Wage and Hour Suit
PEKIN INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Attorney Seeks Default Judgment
PRINCETON REVIEW: "Security Incident" Suit Deal Approved in Aug.
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder's Litigation in Texas
SACRAMENTO COUNTY: Settles Suit by Homeless People for $488,000

STANDARD CHARTERED: Amended Complaint Filed in "Pujals" Lawsuit
TALEO CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for Bid to Junk Securities Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Settlement Proposed in "King" Wage Litigation
WILLIS GROUP: Defending Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance
WILLIS GROUP: Faces Suit by South American Stanford Investors

WILLIS GROUP: Faces Suit Over Collapse of Stanford Financial
WILLIS GROUP: Faces Texas Suit by Venezuelan Stanford Investors
WILLIS GROUP: Gender Discrimination Case Ongoing in New York
WILLIS GROUP: Mulls Potential Suit by Mexican Stanford Investors

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSECO INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Suit Filing
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
HURON CONSULTING: Gardy & Notis Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
STURM RUGER: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
TEXTRON INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing

TEXTRON INC: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing

                           *********

ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to face claims raised in several
purported class-actions filed on behalf of purchasers of
filters, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including a prior
subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix
prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket
automotive filters.

This suit is a purported class-action on behalf of direct
purchasers of filters from the defendants.

Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of
indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other
plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States
and Canada.

On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida
filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois based on these same allegations.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- is a
global supplier of a range of integrated systems, modules and
components serving commercial truck, light vehicle, trailer and
specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and certain
aftermarkets.  ArvinMeritor serves a range of OEM customers
worldwide, including truck OEMs, light vehicle OEMs, trailer
producers and specialty vehicle manufacturers, and certain
aftermarkets.  The company operated 82 manufacturing facilities
in 22 countries worldwide as of Sept. 30, 2008, including
facilities operated by joint ventures, in which it has
interests.  Sales from continuing operations outside North
America accounted for approximately 59% of total sales from
continuing operations in fiscal 2008.


AT&T SERVICES: Faces California Litigation Over "On-Call Work"
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Services, Inc., faces a purported class-action lawsuit that
accuses the company of requiring its information technology
staff to remain on call at all times of the day for
troubleshooting, but not paying them for the work performed
while on call, Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports.

The suit, Green v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
09-01760 (S.D. Calif.), was filed on Aug. 12, 2009, by Antony
Green.  The plaintiffs allege that the company is not properly
paying troubleshooting staff who must remain on call "24 hours a
day, seven days a week," writes Ms. Baldas.  They also allege
that the company's on-call policy requires the information
technology staff to respond to pages seeking help -- sent by an
AT&T computer -- within 15 minutes and to provide an "immediate
resolution of the issue," the Law Journal reported.

Mr. Green is represented by

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 551-1223
          Fax: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com


CHICAGO: Seventh Circuit Affirms Ruling in Cell Phone Ban Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a
ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in a case by Chicago cell phone users, who are fighting
to fend off a city ordinance that bars them from driving and
chatting on their phone without a hands-free device, Lynne Marek
of The National Law Journal reports.

In a decision issued on Aug. 13, 2009, the Seventh Circuit
agreed with the federal court that the class-action case that is
mounting a constitutional challenge to the 2005 city law "has no
legs."  That law also precludes texting and surfing the Internet
while driving, the court noted.

"The district court was right: this case has no legs whatever,"
a unanimous decision written by Judge Diane Wood said, reports
Ms. Marek.

In 2008, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs had no
real constitutional argument, despite claims under the Fourth
and Fourteenth amendments, to justify their 2007 lawsuit and
that a proposed attempt to modify the suit would be frivolous.  
The plaintiffs, all of whom had been ticketed for violating the
law, appealed the decision late last year, Ms. Marek reported.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Blake Horwitz, Esq., of Chicago-based
Horwitz, Richardson & Baker, said his clients won't appeal the
decision, according to the Law Journal.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available free of
charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?421f

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Blake Horwitz, Esq.
          Horwitz, Richardson & Baker
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 676-2100
          Fax: (312) 372-7076
          Web site: http://www.hrbattorneys.com/


CP SHIPS: Eleventh Circuit Issues Ruling in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court ruled that a district court had
jurisdiction over claims brought by foreign plaintiffs in a
securities class-action suit against CP Ships, Ltd., when it
approved a settlement in the case, denying a bid by one foreign
plaintiff to get out of the settlement, Law360 reports.

Judge R. Lanier Anderson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit issued the ruling on Aug. 13, 2009, on behalf
of a three-judge panel, according to Law360.

A free copy of the Eleventh Circuit's ruling is available at
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200816334.pdf



DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Settles Canadian Sexual Abuse Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     One year ago Ronald Martin filed a proposed class action in
the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Antigonish seeking compensation for himself and all
persons who were sexually abused by priests of the Diocese.

     On August 7, 2009, the parties to the lawsuit announced a
proposed settlement of the class action totaling more than $13
million for all persons who were sexually assaulted by any
priest of the Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Antigonish since
January 1, 1950, including the estates of those persons if they
have since passed away.  The class action is referred to as
"Martin v. Lahey, et al., Hfx No. 297827."

     Persons impacted and choosing to participate in the
settlement are considered "Class Members".

     The proposed settlement can be broken down as follows:

       -- up to $12 million will be paid by the Diocese into a
          "Settlement Fund" to pay compensation to eligible
          Class Members;

       -- The Diocese will create an "Expense Fund" $1 million
          to pay the expenses of the settlement; and

       -- The Diocese will create a "Costs Fund" to pay certain
          claimant's costs.

     Class Members must file a claim within specified time
limits in order to qualify for compensation and benefits under
the proposed class action settlement.

     The settlement process will be private and confidential.  
Class Members may be required to be evaluated by a neutral
medical expert.

     Class Members and the Diocese may settle claims by agreeing
to the amount of compensation, without the need for a hearing.

     If a class member and the Diocese cannot agree on the value
of a settlement, the claim will be considered by a judge or
retired judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia at a private
and confidential hearing.

     Claims can include compensation for pain and suffering, and
wage loss up to certain limits.  The Diocese will pay successful
claimants necessary counseling costs as well as certain costs
associated with pursuing a successful claim.  The amount each
claimant will receive depends upon the details of the claim, and
the number of claims made.

     In order for the settlement to become effective, it must be
approved by the court, which must be satisfied that the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the
Class Members.  The date and location for the approval hearing
is as follows:

          September 10 & 11, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.,
          Supreme Court of Nova Scotia,
          1815 Upper Water Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

For more details, contact:

          Arnold Pizzo McKiggan
          306-5670 Spring Garden Road
          Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1H6
          Toll Free in Atlantic Canada: (877) 423-2050
          Local: (902) 423-2050
          Fax: (902) 423-6707
          E-mail: dioceseclassaction@apmlawyers.com
          Web site: http://www.dioceseclassaction.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: W.Va. Judge Denies Transfer Request in "Audia"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Irene Keeley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia denied a motion from former Dollar
General workers to transfer a proposed class-action lawsuit
against the retailer to Judge John Preston Bailey, Steve Korris
at The West Virginia Record reports.

Audia, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-00098
(N.D. W.Va.), was filed on April 3, 2008 by Tammy Audia and
Robert Cole against Dolgencorp, Inc., and Dollar General Corp.,
and generally alleges that the defendants violated certain
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On Aug. 6, 2009, Judge Keeley signed a pair of orders that drew
a sharp line between the class-action case in her court and
individual suits against Dollar General in Judge Bailey's court,
reports Mr. Korris.

One order denied the class action transfer.  The other
transferred three individual cases from Judge Keeley to Judge
Bailey, who already presided over seven individual suits.

The suits allege that Dollar General improperly classified
workers as managers in order to deprive them of rights under
wage and hour laws, according to Mr. Korris.

The plaintiff lawyers had hoped to roll the class action and all
ten individual suits together before Judge Bailey, but Judge
Keeley disappointed them, the Record reported.

She wrote that the class-action lawsuit differed significantly
from the individual cases.  The class-action case involves
claims under state and federal law, she wrote, while the others
involve claims only under federal law.

All plaintiffs in the class action worked since 2005, she wrote,
while the individuals worked from 1999 to 2004.

Individual plaintiffs have stipulated that they regularly
supervised two or more employees, received the required minimum
as managers and hired clerks, she wrote, while plaintiffs in the
class-action case have entered no such stipulations, according
to the Record.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas G. Dyer, Esq.
          Dyer Law Offices
          PO Box 1332
          Clarksburg, WV 26302-1332
          Phone: 304-622-1635
          Fax: 304-622-1870 (fax)
          E-mail: dyerlawof@aol.com

               - and -

          Michelle Price Massingale, Esq.
          Sellers, Hinshaw, Ayers, Dortch & Lyons, PA
          410 Cameron-Brown Bldg.
          301 S. McDowell St.
          Charlotte, NC 28204-2686
          Phone: (704) 377-5050
          Fax: (704) 339-0172
          E-mail: mmassingale@sellershinshaw.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Joel S. Allen, Esq.
          Morgan Lewis & Brockius LLP
          1717 Main St., Suite 3200
          Dallas, TX 75201-7347
          Phone: (214) 466-4106
          Fax: (214) 466-4001
          E-mail: joel.allen@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Eric W. Iskra, Esq.
          Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC
          300 Kanawha Blvd E.
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          Phone: 304-340-3875
          Fax: 304-340-3801
          E-mail: eiskra@spilmanlaw.com


IBASIS INC: Wants Plaintiff to Reimburse Change of Venue Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
iBasis, Inc., wants to be reimbursed for its legal fees in
connection with a change of venue in a putative consumer class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of Orlando Ramirez concerning the
company's prepaid calling card practices.  

The company was named in a putative consumer class-action
complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The company was served on May 27, 2008.

The putative class-action plaintiff, Orlando Ramirez, asserted
violations of consumer protection statutes in New Jersey and
other states on behalf of an asserted nationwide class of
purchasers due to an alleged failure to adequately disclose the
actual calling time available on iBasis' prepaid calling cards.

The company filed a motion to change venue to the Eastern
District of New York where named plaintiff resides and purchased
the card.

Plaintiffs were granted a voluntary dismissal, without
prejudice, on July 9, 2008.

On Dec. 19, 2008, a substantially similar complaint was filed
against the company on behalf of Mr. Ramirez in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
company was served with the summons and complaint on April
16, 2009.

On June 30, 2009, the company filed a motion in the Eastern
District to require plaintiffs to pay its attorneys fees and
costs incurred in connection with plaintiff's prior filing in
the District of New Jersey.  Oral argument on the motion has
been set for Aug. 11, 2009.  

The company believes that it has substantial defenses to the
claims alleged in the complaint, according to its Aug. 7, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.

iBasis, Inc. -- http://www.ibasis.com/-- is a wholesale carrier
of international long distance telephone calls and a provider of
retail prepaid calling services and enhanced services for mobile
operators.  The company's operations consist of wholesale
trading business (Trading), in which it connects buyers and
sellers of international telecommunications services, and retail
services business (Retail).


INTERMUNE INC: Aug. 24 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Actimmune Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 24, 2009, hearing has been set for the motions to
dismiss the complaints against InterMune, Inc., alleging
fraudulent misrepresentation of the medical benefits of
Actimmune for the treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
(IPF).

On May 8, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah
Jane Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v.
InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case
No. C-08-02376.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered
Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of
consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune.  The complaint
alleged that the company fraudulently misrepresented the medical
benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted
Actimmune for IPF.  The complaint asserted various claims
against the Company, including civil RICO, unfair competition,
violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and
unjust enrichment.  The complaint sought various damages in an
unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award,
and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.  
The complaint also sought equitable relief.

On June 11, 2008, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
entitled Linda K. Rybkoski v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott
Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No. CV-08-2916.  Plaintiff
in this action alleged that she was administered Actimmune and
purported to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and other
end-payors of Actimmune.  The complaint alleged virtually
identical facts to those alleged in the Jarrett Action; it also
asserted the same claims against the Company and sought the same
relief.  On July 23, 2008, the Rybkoski Action was ordered
related to the Jarrett Action and is now pending before the same
judge and is proceeding on the same schedule.

On Aug. 8, 2008, a similar complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California entitled
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Genentech, Inc., InterMune,
Inc., and W. Scott Harkonen, Case No. CV-08-3797.  Plaintiff in
the Zurich Action, which allegedly provides health and pharmacy
benefits to its insureds in the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and several U.S. territories, alleged that it paid for
prescriptions of Actimmune and purported to sue on behalf of a
class of third-party payors of Actimmune.  The complaint alleged
similar facts to those alleged in the Jarrett and Rybkoski
Actions, and it also asserted civil RICO, unfair competition,
various state consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims
against the company.  The complaint sought various damages in an
unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all damages,
and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.
The complaint also sought a declaration that the conduct alleged
was unlawful, as well as injunctive relief.  On Sept. 5, 2008,
the Zurich Action was ordered related to the Jarrett Action and
assigned to the same judge.

On Sept. 26, 2008, Plaintiffs in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and
Zurich actions filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint, a
putative nationwide class action on behalf of consumers and
other end-payors of Actimmune, which is very similar to the
first complaint that was filed in the Jarrett Action.  It
alleged the same basic facts, namely, that the company
fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune
for the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF.  The
First Amended Complaint asserted various claims against the
company, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of
various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust
enrichment.  The First Amended Complaint sought various damages
in an unspecified amount, including the same categories of
damages and other relief that were originally sought in the
Jarrett Action.

On Oct. 20, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the Jarrett,
Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions.  

On Sept. 29, 2008, a similar complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
entitled Government Employees Health Association, Inc. v.
InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen and Genentech, Inc., Case No.
CV-08-4531.  Plaintiff in the GEHA Action is allegedly a
national health insurance plan serving federal employees and
retirees, as well as their families.  Plaintiff alleges that it
paid for more than $4 million of Actimmune prescriptions during
the class period, and it purports to sue on behalf of a class of
consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune.  The complaint
alleged that the company fraudulently misrepresented the medical
benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted
Actimmune for IPF.  The complaint asserted the same causes of
action against the company as the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich
Actions, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of
various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust
enrichment.  The complaint sought various damages in an
unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award,
and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.
The complaint also sought appropriate equitable relief.  The
GEHA action was subsequently related to the other actions, so
that all four are pending before the same judge.  By
stipulation, the parties to the GEHA Action agreed that the
briefing already submitted on the motions to dismiss in the
Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions would constitute the
briefing on a motion to dismiss in the GEHA Action.  

On Feb. 26, 2009, the Court consolidated the Jarrett, Rybkoski,
Zurich, and GEHA Actions for pretrial purposes.

The motions to dismiss in all four cases were heard on Feb. 2,
2009.  On April 28, 2009, the Court granted the motions to
dismiss the complaints in all four cases in their entirety.  The
Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaints and
ordered any such amended complaints to be filed within 30 days.

On May 28, 2009, plaintiffs in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich
Actions filed a single Second Amended Complaint, which added
Joan Stevens as a named plaintiff in the Zurich Action, and
which alleges that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the
medical benefits of Actimmune to treat IPF.  The Second Amended
Complaint eliminated the civil RICO claim and asserts other
claims against the company, including unfair competition, false
advertising, violation of various state consumer protection
statutes, and unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks various
damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any
monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal
fees and costs.  The complaint also seeks equitable relief.

Also on May 28, 2009, plaintiff in the GEHA Action filed a First
Amended Complaint, which makes substantially similar
allegations, brings the same claims, and seeks the same relief
against the company as the Second Amended Complaint in the
Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions.

On June 29, 2009, the company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Jarrett,
Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions and the First Amended Complaint in
the GEHA Action.  On July 27, 2009, Zurich American Insurance
Company dismissed its claims against the company.  Also on July
27, the remaining plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions
to dismiss.  Defendants' reply briefs are due on Aug. 10, 2009,
and the hearing on the motions is scheduled for Aug. 24, 2009.  
The Court had stayed discovery until at least the time of the
hearing on the first motions to dismiss, and no party has sought
to conduct discovery following that Feb. 2, 2009 hearing.

The company says it may enter into discussions regarding
settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement
agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interests
of its shareholders, 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.

InterMune, Inc. -- http://www.intermune.com/-- is a biotech  
company focused on developing and commercializing therapies in
pulmonology and hepatology.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Pollution Lawsuit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Co. faces a purported class-action lawsuit
that was filed by a group of Georgetown residents, who are
claiming that pollution from the company's Georgetown plant has
damaged their health and their properties, David Slade at The
Post and Courier reports.

The suit was filed on July 31, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina, and is captioned, "Anderson,
et al. v. International Paper Company, Case No. 09-02030."

The complaint -- filed by Bell Legal Group -- generally claims
that International Paper violated a number of state and federal
laws and environmental regulations.  It could potentially
include as plaintiffs anyone who lived within five miles of the
facility for at least two years, Mr. Slade reported.

"At all times pertinent hereto, International Paper knew, or
should have known, that the facility was releasing hazardous
substances, particulate matter, and noxious odors into the
environment at a level that was unlawful and at a level that
could cause injury to persons and property," according to the
suit.

The lawsuit seeks to stop International Paper from any further
release of "hazardous substances, particulate matter and noxious
odors" from the facility, and monetary damages of an unspecified
amount, an investigation of contamination throughout Georgetown,
and remediation of any contamination, according to Mr. Slade.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4221

The plaintiff are represented by:

          James Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          J Edward Bell III Law Office
          232 King Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Phone: 843-546-2408
          Fax: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com


INVENTIV HEALTH: "Weisz" Suit Settlement Got Final OK in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the matter "Weisz v. Albertsons, Inc., Case
No. GIC 830069," which names as defendant Adheris, Inc. -- a
business segment of inVentiv Health, Inc. -- received final
approval on June 5, 2009.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on May 17, 2004, in
the San Diego Superior Court, California, by Utility Consumer
Action Network against Albertsons, Inc., and its affiliated drug
store chains and 17 pharmaceutical companies.

The litigation alleged, among other claims, violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act arising from the
operation of manufacturer-sponsored, pharmacy-based compliance
programs similar to Adheris' refill reminder programs.

An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 4, 2004, adding Adheris
as a defendant to the lawsuit.  A subsequent amendment to the
complaint substituted plaintiff Kimberly Weisz as the class
representative to the purported class action.

After several rounds of pleading challenges to the plaintiff's
various renditions of the complaint, all but one pharmaceutical
manufacturing company, AstraZeneca LP, were dismissed from the
case, leaving only Albertsons Inc., Adheris, and AstraZeneca as
the remaining defendants in the action.

In pleading challenge to the plaintiff's fifth amended
complaint, the remaining defendants were successful in
eliminating a number of claims, including fraud-based and breach
of privacy claims.  The plaintiff's class allegations were
stricken as improper with leave to amend.

An operative sixth amended complaint was filed on Jan. 6, 2008.
The defendants moved to strike certain of the plaintiff's claims
and the plaintiff's class allegations as improper.  These
motions were denied.

In conjunction therewith, the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration as to her breach of privacy claim was granted.

As a result, there are four live claims alleged against Adheris:

       -- violation of the CMIA;
       -- breach of fiduciary duty;
       -- unjust enrichment; and
       -- breach of privacy.

On July 9, 2008, Albertsons filed a motion for summary judgment
on the grounds that all of the plaintiff's claims were barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.  Adheris intends to join
in these arguments.  This motion currently is set to be heard on
Oct. 3, 2008.

On July 11, 2008, the counsel for the parties entered into a 60-
day litigation standstill to pursue settlement through
mediation.  The agreement included taking off calendar all
pending motions, discovery and depositions for 60 days.  The
parties are in the process of selecting a mediator and preparing
for mediation.

On Feb. 8, 2009, the remaining parties to the Weisz action
entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release.  

The court-ordered period for objection to the settlement expired
on April 27, 2009 and to date no objections to the settlement
have been received by the company.

Under the terms of the Weisz Settlement, which received final
court approval on June 5, 2009, Adheris agreed to refrain from
knowing participation in any refill reminder programs, targeted
mailings or notifications regarding medical conditions of
specific California residents except those residents who have
expressly opted in to the communication or as otherwise
permitted by California law.  Adheris currently does not conduct
significant business in California of the type encompassed by
Weisz Settlement.  It is expected that Adheris' financial
contribution to the settlement in excess of its retention amount
will be funded by insurance, 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.

inVentiv Health, Inc. -- http://www.inventivhealth.com/-- is a
provider of value-added services to the pharmaceutical, life
sciences and healthcare industries.  The company supports a
range of clinical development, communications and
commercialization activities that are critical to its customers'
ability to complete the development of drug products and medical
devices and commercialize them.  inVentiv provides services to
over 325 client organizations, including all top 20 global
pharmaceutical companies, specialty biotechnology companies and
payors.  The company's service offerings reflect the changing
needs of its clients as their products move through the late-
stage development and regulatory approval processes and into
product launch, and then throughout the product lifecycle.


KING ARTHUR'S: Judge Rules in Favor of Strippers in Pay Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Superior Judge Frances A. McIntyre ruled that about 70
strippers who worked at King Arthur's Lounge are each entitled
to recover thousands of dollars in damages in a class-action
lawsuit because their employer misclassified them as
"independent contractors," depriving them of wages and tips,
Jonathan Saltzman at The Boston Globe reports.

Judge McIntyre certified the suit brought by Lucienne Chaves, a
32-year-old former stripper at the club, as a class-action case
on behalf of her and other dancers who were misclassified as
independent contractors, Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq., a Boston
lawyer for the strippers told Mr. Saltzman.

The suit, which a lawyer for one of the strippers described as
the first of its kind in Massachusetts, seeks to recover money
they should have received at King Arthur's Lounge in Chelsea
since 2004.

King Arthur's Lounge, a club that has been the scene of more
than one notorious crime, did not pay the strippers any
salaries, required each to pony up $35 to perform each night,
and kept $10 of every $30 that each made for "private dancing"
in secluded booths, according to court documents, according to
the Globe reports.

The club had argued that selling alcohol is its main business,
not putting on strip shows, and that the performers were
independent contractors who provided extra entertainment akin to
televisions and pool tables at a sports bar.

Judge McIntyre dismissed that argument, saying, "A court would
need to be blind to human instinct to decide that live nude
entertainment was equivalent to the wallpaper of routinely-
televised matches, games, tournaments, and sports talk in such a
place."  She further said, "The dancing is an integral part of
King Arthur's business," reports Mr. Saltzman.

The strippers are represented by:

          Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Phone: 617-994-5800
          Fax: 617-994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com


MAMA MEXICO: Workers Sue Owner for Refusing to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Workers for Mama Mexico restaurant owner Juan Rojas Campos filed
a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that he is cheating
them out of wages, Thomas Zambito at The New York Daily News
reports.

In a proposed class-action lawsuit, seven workers accuse Mr.
Campos of violating federal wage and labor laws by refusing to
pay them overtime, writes Mr. Zambito.

"Mr. Campos seems to have forgotten his humble beginnings and
the struggles of low-wage restaurant workers trying to make ends
meet," according to the workers' attorney, Justin Swartz, Esq.

The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court also accuses Mr.
Campos of denying the workers minimum wage and forcing them to
share tips with higher ups.

The workers include servers, bussers and bartenders who worked
at two Mama Mexico locations in the city and one in Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., Mr. Zambito reported.


MONROE COLLEGE: Graduate Sues in N.Y. to Recover $70,000 Tuition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monroe College is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed
by a New York woman who claims that the business-oriented school
has not done enough to land her a job, AttorneyAtLaw.com
reports.

Trina Thompson is suing her college for the $70,000 she spent on
tuition, claiming that she can't find a job.  She graduated from
Monroe College with an information technology degree in April
2009.  

Ms. Thompson, 27, filed the class-action lawsuit in the New
York State Supreme Court on July 24, 2009, according to
AttorneyAtLaw.com.


OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Occam Networks, Inc., continues to face an amended complaint in
the consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class-action
complaints were filed before the district court against the
company and certain of its officers.  The complaints allege that
the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect revenue recognition.

The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf
of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the
period from May 2, 2006, and April 17, 2007.

On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated the
actions into a single case, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund --
The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  This consolidated complaint adds as defendants
certain of the company's current and former directors and
officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead
underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006,
and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the
company.

The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated
sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that
required restatement.

The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during the period from
April 29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified
amount.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On July 1, 2008, Judge Christina A.
Snyder issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motions.  This order dismissed all claims against
certain of the company's current and former directors, the 20A
claim in its entirety, the section 10(b) claim against the
auditors and venture capital firms, and the section 11 claims
against the venture capital firms.

On July 16, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
to conform to the court's July 1 order.  Defendants answered
this amended complaint on Aug. 29, 2008.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit were disclosed by the
company in its according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

The suit is "Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-02750," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-785-0800

               - and -

          Matthew Isaac Alpert, Esq. (malpert@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants are:

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300

               - and -

          Philip T. Besirof, Esq. (pbesirof@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-6091


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Wage & Hour Suit in Calif. in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit by Charlia Cornish against
Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., alleging class-wide wage and hour
issues at its California hospice programs is in its early
stages, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

The suit was filed on Nov. 6, 2008, in Superior Court of
California, Los, Angeles County.  It alleges failure to provide
overtime compensation, meal and break periods, accurate itemized
wage statements, and timely payment of wages earned upon leaving
employment.

The purported class includes all persons employed by the Company
in California as an admission nurse, a case manager registered
nurse, a licensed vocational nurse, a registered nurse, a home
health aide, a medical social worker, a triage coordinator, an
office manager, a patient care secretary or a spiritual
counselor at anytime on or after Nov. 6, 2004.

The lawsuit seeks payment of unpaid wages, damages, interest,
penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2009, the company successfully moved the lawsuit to
Federal District Court in the Central District of California.

Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- is a
provider of hospice care in the U.S. in terms of both patient
census and number of Medicare-certified hospice programs. On
March 6, 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of
VistaCare, Inc.  After the completion of the VistaCare
acquisition, it serves approximately 12,000 patients and their
families each day through approximately 110 Medicare-certified
hospice locations in 30 states.


OVERHILL FARMS: Faces Terminated Employees' Wage and Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Overhill Farms, Inc. faces a putative class action lawsuit by
Bohemia Augustiana, Isela Hernandez and Ana Munoz.  

On July 7, 2009, the company was served with the lawsuit filed
in Los Angeles Superior Court on July 1, 2009.  

The three individuals are former company employees who had been
terminated on May 31, 2009, because they did not have valid
social security numbers, and they had furnished false social
security numbers to the company.  

In their lawsuit, they allege failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to furnish wage and hour statements, waiting time
penalties, conversion and unfair business practices.  

They seek unspecified damages, restitution, an equitable
accounting, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs of
suit, and they allege that they are bringing the action as a
class action on behalf of other similarly situated employees,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
June 28, 2009.

Overhill Farms, Inc. -- http://www.overhillfarms.com/-- is a  
value-added manufacturer of prepared frozen food products for
branded retail, private label, foodservice and airline
customers.  The company's product line includes entrees, plated
meals, bulk-packed meal components, pastas, soups, sauces,
poultry, meat and fish specialties, and organic and vegetarian
offerings.  It provides custom prepared foods to a number of
customers, such as Jenny Craig, Inc., H. J. Heinz Company,
American Airlines, Inc., Safeway Inc., Pinnacle Foods Group LLC
and Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.  The company operates as a
single business segment, the development and production of
frozen food products.  Overhill Farms, Inc., markets its
products through both an internal sales force and outside food
brokers.  Its customers are foodservice, retail and airline
accounts.  


PEKIN INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Attorney Seeks Default Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for LakinChapman, LLC, filed a motion that seeks
class-action certification by default in a lawsuit against Pekin
Insurance, Steve Korris at The St. Clair Record reports.

LakinChapman lawyers sued Pekin in 2005, claiming it didn't
deliver benefits it promised for joining a preferred provider
organization.  Their clients Frank Bemis, Dale Fischer and
Richard Kaltenbronn, all local chiropractors, seek certification
as class representatives.

Andrew Kuhlmann, Esq., of LakinChapman asked for default
judgment in a motion for sanctions that he filed on Aug. 4,
2009, with Judge Barbara Crowder of Madison County Circuit
Court, the Record reports.

"Defendants have not provided complete responses to plaintiffs'
discovery requests and continue to engage in a pattern of
obfuscation and gamesmanship," according to Mr. Kuhlmann.

The attorney asked Judge Crowder to order Pekin to pay for class
notice.  He also asked her to set a hearing on class damages.

Though Mr. Kuhlmann alleged inadequate response, he pleaded
excess response.  According to him, "Defendant has supplemented
its document production to include a 'dump truck' production."

He further said, "Defendant has purported to produce unlabeled
electronic files of every single individual claim file with
wholly irrelevant information other than an admission of its
ability to identify members of the proposed class," writes Mr.
Korris.

"Furthermore, defendant has provided an unduly burdensome
privilege log with over 46,000 unsubstantiated entries,"
according to Mr. Kuhlmann.

Mr. Kuhlmann also claimed that a man Pekin identified as its
most knowledgeable person turned out not to be the most
knowledgeable, Mr. Korris reported.

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


PRINCETON REVIEW: "Security Incident" Suit Deal Approved in Aug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, on Aug. 5, 2009, settlement agreement a putative
class-action suit against The Princeton Review, Inc.

In August 2008, the Company learned that certain of its Web
pages that appeared to contain confidential information were
available to the public on the Internet for a short period of
time.

On Sept. 19, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit captioned,
"Virginia B. Townsend v. The Princeton Review, Inc. (Case No.
8:08-CIV-1879-T-33TBM)," was filed against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division relating to the security incident alleging negligence,
breach of contract and unfair trade practices.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief including the provision of personal data monitoring and
identify theft insurance and unspecified enhancement of the
security of the Company's computer data systems, together with
attorneys' fees and costs.

In April 2009, the parties have entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the litigation.

In July 2009, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
which was approved preliminarily by the Court on Aug. 5, 2009.  
Under the settlement agreement, subject to final approval by the
Court, the company will provide a specified identity protection
service to the class members that elect to participate and pay
the fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel as approved by the
Court.  The company believes that the full cost of the
settlement will be within the limits of its applicable insurance
policies, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The Princeton Review, Inc. -- http://www.princetonreview.com/--
provides integrated classroom-based, print and online products
and services that address the needs of students, parents,
educators and educational institutions.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated through the three divisions:
the Test Preparation Services division, which provides
classroom-based, as well as online test preparation courses; the
Supplemental Education Services (SES) division, which provides
tutoring and No Child Left Behind supplemental educational
services, and the K-12 Services division, which provides a range
of services to K-12 schools and school districts to help primary
and secondary school students and teachers improve academic
performance, including online and print-based assessment,
professional development and materials to support school-based
intervention programs.  In July 2008, the Company completed the
acquisition of The Princeton Review of Orange County, Inc.


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder's Litigation in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
     Repros Therapeutics (Nasdaq: RPRX) disclosed that on
August 7, 2009, R.M. Berry filed a putative class action lawsuit
naming the Company, Joseph Podolski, Paul Lammers, and Louis
Ploth, Jr., as defendants.

     The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The
lawsuit alleges that the defendants made certain misleading
statements related to the Company's Proellex drug.  

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


SACRAMENTO COUNTY: Settles Suit by Homeless People for $488,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento County agreed to pay $488,000 to partially resolve a
purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of homeless people who
have had their property seized and destroyed by city and county
authorities, Denny Walsh at The Sacramento Bee reports.

The proposed settlement was revealed on Aug. 13, 2009, during a
federal court hearing on a motion to certify the lawsuit as a
class-action case.

The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., of the District Court
for the Eastern District of California, granted the motion and
said he will issue a written order allowing homeless people to
proceed as a class against the county and the city of
Sacramento.  

The City of Sacramento is not settling, writes Mr. Walsh.

The class that Judge England agreed to certify consists of "all
persons in the city of Sacramento or the county of Sacramento
who were, or are, or will be homeless at any time after Aug. 2,
2005, and whose personal belongings have been taken and
destroyed, or will be taken and destroyed, by the defendants."

In the course of keeping homeless people moving, city and county
police, sheriff's deputies and park rangers have been cleaning
campsites by disposing of personal property, particularly if
owners are not present, according to Mark Merin, Esq., attorney
for the homeless, the Sacramento Bee reported.

The system violates the 14th Amendment's protection against loss
of property without due process and the constitutional right to
be heard before it is destroyed, Mr. Merin said.  "They are
seizing and destroying the very necessities of life: shelter,
medicine and clothing," he stated.

In his motion for class certification, Mr. Merin cited language
from a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court opinion: "A homeless person's
personal property is generally all he owns; therefore, while it
may look like 'junk' to some people, its value should not be
discounted."

According to Mr. Merin, in addition to the monetary component of
the proposed settlement, the county has proposed giving 48
hours' notice of a sweep of a homeless camp.  All property
seized would be tagged and kept for three months, he adds,
reports Mr. Walsh.

The plaintiffs are represented by

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


STANDARD CHARTERED: Amended Complaint Filed in "Pujals" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported class-action suit,
Pujals, et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Limited, et al., Case No. 09-21611, Law360 reports.

The amended complaint -- filed on Aug. 13, 2009 -- was brought
by a couple, who are seeking the return of potentially millions
of dollars in "phantom fees" that were paid for funds invested
in a Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities feeder fund,
according to Law360.

The suit was filed on June 12, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida by Jose Antonio Pujals and
Rosa Julieta A. De Pujals (Class Action Action Reporter, June
18, 2009.

According to the suit, the Mexican couple was charged $758 in
November by Standard Chartered Bank for investing money into a
large Madoff feeder fund, the Sentry Fund, which at one point
had $7 billion in it, reports South Florida Business Journal.

The fees allegedly were to service the Pujalses' $609,547
account with Sentry.  But, after Madoff imploded, the Pujalses
discovered this year that their fund was really worth no more
than $4.52, according to the South Florida Business Journal
report.

The suit asks that $5 million in fees allegedly charged by
Standard Chartered be returned to members of a class that the
Pujalses represent, the South Florida Business Journal reported.

"Such payments were neither legal nor equitable, and the parties
that received those phantom fees . should be required to return
them," according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained
by the South Florida Business Journal.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Alan Rothstein, Esq.
          Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein
          2665 South Bayshore Drive
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Phone: 305-374-1920
          Fax: (305) 374-1961
          E-mail: drothstein@dkrpa.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Hilarie Bass, Esq.
          Greenberg Traurig
          1221 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-579-0745
          Fax: 305-579-0717
          E-mail: bassh@gtlaw.com


TALEO CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for Bid to Junk Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing regarding the motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in the action tagged "In re Taleo Corporation Securities
Litigation" is scheduled for Nov. 13, 2009, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.

On Nov. 14, 2008, following the announcement that the company
was re-evaluating certain of the company's historical and then
current accounting practices, a shareholder class action lawsuit
entitled Brett Johnson v. Taleo Corporation, Michael Gregoire,
Katy Murray, and Divesh Sisodraker, CV-08-5182 SC, was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The complaint alleged violations of 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The Johnson lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice on Dec. 22, 2008.  

On Dec. 17, 2008, a second substantially similar shareholder
lawsuit entitled Terrence Popyk v. Taleo Corporation, Michael
Gregoire, Katy Murray, and Divesh Sisodraker, CV 08-5634 PH, was
filed in the Northern District of California; the Popyk lawsuit
was dismissed without prejudice on Jan. 20, 2009.  

On Jan. 13, 2009, a third shareholder lawsuit entitled Scott
Stemper v Taleo Corporation, Michael Gregoire, Katy Murray, and
Divesh Sisodraker, CV 09-0151 JSW, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.  

On Feb. 9, 2009, the court renamed the Stemper action "In re
Taleo Corporation Securities Litigation" and appointed the
Greater Pennsylvania Carpenter's Pension Fund as lead plaintiff.  

On June 15, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
naming Taleo Corporation, Michael Gregoire, Katy Murray, and
Divesh Sisodraker as defendants.   

The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants engaged in
securities fraud in violation of 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5.  The fraud allegations include a failure to
apply GAAP in the reporting of quarterly and annual financial
statements and securities prospectuses from the time of the
company's initial public offering to recent filings with the
SEC.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of a purported class of individuals or institutions who
purchased or acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between Sept. 29, 2005 and Nov. 12, 2008.  In response to the
Amended Complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on July 31, 2009.  

Taleo Corporation -- http://www.taleo.com/-- is a provider on-
demand talent management software solutions.  The company offers
recruiting, performance management, internal mobility and other
software solutions.  Taleo Corporation delivers its solutions
on-demand as a hosted service that is accessed through an
Internet connection and a standard Web browser.


WAL-MART STORES: Settlement Proposed in "King" Wage Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A settlement has been proposed in the class-action lawsuit
captioned King v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., MDL No. 1735; Master
Docket No. 06-CV-00225 (D. Nev.).

     The proposed settlement covers all hourly employees of Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. who were participants or beneficiaries of the
Wal-Mart Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan and/or the Wal-Mart
Puerto Rico Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan, and any and all
predecessors during the period from February 1, 1997, to May 26,
2009.

     The case was brought by plaintiffs on behalf of
participants or beneficiaries in the Plans against Wal-Mart and
certain Wal-Mart officials to recover losses allegedly sustained
by the Plans.

     The lawsuit claimed that defendants breached their
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA).  It alleges that defendants breached fiduciary
duties with respect to the failure to make certain employer
contributions to the Plans

     The settlement will provide $5.0 million in cash to fully
resolve the lawsuit.  

For more details, contact:

          Leigh Anna Thomure, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 202-686-4111 or 1-800-424-6690
          Fax: 215-875-4604
          Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com/


WILLIS GROUP: Defending Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. continues to defend the purported
class-action suits filed against the company and its newly
acquired Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Company.

Since August 2004, the company and HRH (along with various other
brokers and insurers) have been named as defendants in purported
class-action suits in various courts across the United States.

All of these actions have been consolidated or are in the
process of being consolidated into a single action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

There are two amended complaints within the MDL, one that
addresses employee benefits ("EB Complaint") and one that
addresses all other lines of insurance ("Commercial Complaint").

HRH was a named defendant in the EB Complaint, but has since
been voluntarily dismissed.  HRH is a named defendant in the
Commercial Complaint.  The company is a named defendant in both
MDL Complaints.

The EB Complaint and the Commercial Complaint seek monetary
damages, including punitive damages, and equitable relief and
make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that have
been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys general
and insurance commissioners, including allegations that the
brokers have breached their duties to their clients by entering
into contingent compensation agreements with either no
disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated in
other improper activities.

The Complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among
insurance carriers and brokers and allege violations of federal
antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) statute and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

In separate decisions issued in August and September 2007, the
antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice and the
state claims were dismissed without prejudice from both
Complaints.

In January 2008, the Judge dismissed the ERISA claims with
prejudice from the EB Complaint and the state law claims without
prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding the dismissal of
the antitrust and RICO claims and oral arguments on this appeal
were heard in April 2009 but there is no indication when a
ruling will be issued.  Additional actions could be brought in
the future by individual policyholders, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Faces Suit by South American Stanford Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint, captioned Ranni v. Willis
of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CV-22085, was filed on
July 17, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The complaint was filed against Willis Group Holdings and Willis
of Colorado, Inc., relating to the same alleged course of
conduct as the class action complaint, captioned Troice v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al.

Based on substantially the same allegations as the Troice
complaint, but on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and
other South American Stanford investors, the Ranni complaint
asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as various claims
under Florida statutory and common law, and seeks damages in an
amount to be determined at trial and costs, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Faces Suit Over Collapse of Stanford Financial
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action complaint, captioned Troice v. Willis
of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CV-01274, was filed on
July 2, 2009, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis
Group Holdings Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis
associate, relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial
Group, for which the company acted as brokers of record on
certain lines of insurance.

The complaint generally alleges that the company actively and
materially aided the fraud alleged by the Securities and
Exchange Commission by providing Stanford with certain letters
regarding coverage that it knew would be used to help retain or
attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors.

The suit alleges that these letters, which contain statements
about Stanford and the insurance policies Willis placed for
Stanford, contain untruths and omit material facts and were
drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its
alleged fraudulent certificates of deposit.

The putative class consists of investors in Mexico and the
complaint asserts various claims under Texas statutory and
common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Faces Texas Suit by Venezuelan Stanford Investors  
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action complaint, captioned Canabal v. Willis
of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CV-01474, was filed on
Aug. 6, 2009.

The complaint was filed against Willis Group Holdings, Ltd.,
Willis of Colorado, Inc., and a Willis associate in the Northern
District of Texas, relating to the same alleged conduct as the
class action complaint, captioned Troice v. Willis of Colorado,
Inc., et al.  

Based on similar allegations as in Troice, but on behalf of a
putative class of Venezuelan investors, the complaint asserts
various claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, according to the company's Aug. 7,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Gender Discrimination Case Ongoing in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., continues to face a purported
class-action suit filed by a former female employee, alleging
gender discrimination.

The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female employees alleging that the company
discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of
trial.

The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the
Court did not grant the Company permission to immediately file
an appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss.

The suit was recently amended to include two additional
plaintiffs.  The parties are still in the discovery phase of the
litigation.

The suit was amended to include one additional plaintiff and
another has filed an arbitration demand that includes a class
allegation, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Mulls Potential Suit by Mexican Stanford Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican Stanford investors intend to take "appropriate action"
against certain of Willis Group Holdings, Ltd.'s subsidiaries
and a company associate, according to Willis' Aug. 7, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On or about July 10, 2009, certain of the company's subsidiaries
and a Willis associate received a letter from a Texas law firm,
which, based on substantially the same allegations as the class
action complaint, captioned Troice v. Willis of Colorado, Inc.,
et al., and on behalf of 53 predominantly Mexican Stanford
investors, threatens claims under the Texas Insurance Code
(permitting damages of up to three times actual loss) and
various unspecified Mexican, Venezuelan and "other Latin
American" laws.

According to the letter, these clients intend to take
"appropriate action" against the recipients 61 days after
receipt, unless payment is made beforehand in the amount of
approximately $63.4 million (plus an additional $21 million in
attorneys' fees).

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSECO INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class
action has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Conseco, Inc. (NYSE:
CNO) during the period from August 4, 2005 through and including
March 17, 2008.

     The Complaint charges that defendant violated federal
securities laws.  Throughout the Class Period defendant failed
to disclose:

       -- that the revenue figures reported by the Company were
          materially inaccurate;

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

       -- that Conseco without the internal controls necessary
          to properly report its revenues and earnings;

       -- that Conseco's financial statements were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles ("GAAP");

       -- that Conseco shareholders' equity was materially
          overstated during the Class Period; and

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

     On March 17, 2008, Conseco announced that it would be
restating its financials for the years ended December 31, 2004
and 2006, as well as affected Selected Consolidated Financial
Data for 2003 and 2004, and quarterly financial information for
2006 and the first three quarters of 2007.  The price of
Conseco's Stock dropped 12.9% on this news.

     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:

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


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Flotek
Industries, Inc. (FTK) stock during the period between May 8,
2007 through January 23, 2008 for violations of the federal
securities laws.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants made a series of
materially false or misleading statements about Flotek's
business, prospects and operations during the Class Period.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse
facts:

       -- that the Company was experiencing weakness in its
          Rocky Mountain sales region due to its decision to not
          cut prices to the level of its competitors;

       -- that the Company's operating profit margins were being
          negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to
          rent equipment instead of purchasing it;

       -- that sales in the Company's chemicals division were
          declining due to a decrease in fracking activity; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
          statements concerning the Company's guidance and
          prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
          relevant times.

     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. 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq.
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          E-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


HURON CONSULTING: Gardy & Notis Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class
action lawsuit on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN)
common stock during a class period of April 27, 2006 to and
including July 31, 2009.  The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and
charges defendants Huron, Gary E. Holdren (CEO), Gary L. Burge
(CFO) and Wayne Lipski (CAO) with issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

     The complaint alleges that defendants 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, Huron understated its non-cash
          compensation expenses;

       -- that Huron's financial statements were not prepared in
          accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles ("GAAP");

       -- that Huron lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

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

     On July 31, 2009, Huron shocked investors when it revealed
that its 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 its
accounting for certain acquisition-related payments.  Huron
further disclosed that, as a result, aggregate net profit for
the period dropped to just $63 million from $120 million.  As a
result of this news, shares of Huron declined $30.66 per share,
or 69.13%, to close on August 3, 2009, at $13.69 per share.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
Huron securities between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

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

For more details, contact:

          Charles Germershausen, Esq.
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          E-mail: cgermershausen@gardylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/


STURM RUGER: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Sturm, Ruger
& Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) common stock between April 23, 2007
and October 29, 2007, inclusive.  The lawsuit is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that:

       -- the reductions in inventory balances by RGR in the
          first and second quarters of 2007 had reduced its
          parts and components inventories below efficient
          levels, preventing it from meeting production and
          shipment schedules, and resulting in its inability to
          sustain current or historical sales levels;

       -- because of RGR's inability to meet current production
          and shipping schedules, its "backlog" of unfilled
          purchase orders was materially inflated;

       -- orders received from RGR's independent distributors
          were artificially boosted by RGR's mandated change to
          firm and noncancellable purchase order submissions,
          and did not reflect actual demand for its products;

       -- these independent distributors were carrying large
          quantities of unsold products, increasing the risk
          that they would reduce or curtail future purchases;
          and

       -- based on the above, defendants did not have a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements and
          opinions concerning RGR's current financial
          performance and condition.

     On October 24, 2007, RGR announced that its firearm sales
for the third quarter of 2007 fell 26%, resulting in a loss of
$0.03 per share, and that this decline in sales was attributable
to inventory reductions.  On this news, the price of RGR common
stock fell more than 37%.

For more details, contact:

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


TEXTRON INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of Textron,
Inc. (NYSE: TXT) stock during the period between July 17, 2007
and January 29, 2009 for violations of the federal securities
laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     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. 12, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq.
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          E-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


TEXTRON INC: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of Textron,
Inc. (NYSE: TXT) securities between July 17, 2007 and January
29, 2009.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that:

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

       -- hundreds of orders for future business-jet production
          reported as "backlog" at Cessna were subject to
          deferral and cancellation, causing Textron to
          overstate its projected fiscal 2008-09 business-jet
          production and to initiate production cutbacks and
          worker reduction programs, thereby eroding its
          revenues and earnings;

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

       -- in light of Textron's Finance segment's losses and the
          additional debt the Company would incur, Textron's
          credit ratings were deteriorating.

     On January 29, 2009, Textron announced that its Cessna
segment would incur an estimated $30 million in "restructuring"
costs due to production cutbacks and worker layoffs planned for
the first quarter of 2009.  On this news, the price of Textron's
common stock fell 31%.

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.    

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *