CAR_Public/090826.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 168
  
                           Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces AWP-Related Litigation in Mass.
ARIZONA: Ariz. Sup. Ct. Ruling Limits Class Status Appeals
BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $150M Settlement with La. Pension Funds
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Suits Over Sigma Finance Losses Pending
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Suits Over Madoff Investments Pending

BARRICK GOLD: Nov. 5 Hearing Set for "Wagner" Suit Settlement
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Pending in Mass.
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Suits Over 2007 IPO Prospectus Pending in N.Y.
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Court Certifies Subscribers' NIS 440M Lawsuit
CEPHALON INC: Faces Pa. Antitrust Litigation Over Provigil

GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Remain Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Antitrust Lawsuits Over American Export Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement of Delphi ERISA Suit Pending in Mich.
GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Faces Consolidated Analog Equipment Suit
GOOGLE INC: Tech Companies to Team Up v. $125M Book Settlement

INSURANCE COMPANIES: Court Rejects Law on Claims for Armenians
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Faces Appeal to Nixed Ariz. Securities Suit
MF GLOBAL: Motion to Amend Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
PATRIOT COAL: Unit Still Faces PI Suits Over Exposure to Dioxin
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Pursues Dismissal of Amended Securities Lawsuit

STATE STREET: Mich. Judge Denies Motion in "Pfiel" Litigation
TFS FIN'L: Appeal to Ohio Sup. Ct. in "Greenspan" Suit Pending
VALUECLICK INC: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for $10M "Waldrep" Settlement

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

DWS RREEF: Horwitz Horwitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MGM MIRAGE: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing

                           *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces AWP-Related Litigation in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories continues to defend itself in In re
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL
No. 1456; Master Docket No. 01-CV-12257 (D. Mass.) (Saris, J.),
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.

Initially, a number of cases, brought as purported class actions
or representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities,
that allege generally that Abbott and numerous other
pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information in
connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under
Medicare and Medicaid and by private payors are pending.

These cases, brought by private plaintiffs, the U.S. Department
of Justice, State Attorneys General, and other state government
entities, generally seek monetary damages and injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

Abbott has filed or intends to file a response in each case
denying all substantive allegations.

The federal court cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes before the Honorable Patti B. Saris in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  

MDL No. 1456 includes:

      -- a purported class action case in which plaintiffs seek
         to certify a nationwide class of Medicare Part B
         consumers and two Massachusetts classes of third party
         payors and other consumers (filed in June 2003);

      -- seven state Attorneys General and two state county
         suits, including a consolidated New York counties/City
         of New York suit (filed in June 2005);

      -- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by the U.S.
         Department of Justice (filed in federal court in the
         Southern District of Florida in May 2006); and

      -- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by Ven-A-Care of
         the Florida Keys, Inc., unsealed against Abbott in          
         August 2007 and in which the U.S. declined to
         intervene.

The MDL Court is transferring the case brought by the Montana
Attorney General back to the Montana federal court for a ruling
on defendants' motion for summary judgment.

In May 2009, in connection with the MDL 1456 litigation, Abbott
settled the case brought by the Arizona State Attorney General.  

In connection with the cases pending in state courts: (a) in May
2009, Abbott settled the State of Ohio case; and (b) in June
2009, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the Swanston case and dismissed Abbott from the case
without prejudice.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marjory P. Albee, Esq. (malbee@magergoldstein.com)
          Mager & Goldstein LLP
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3710
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-640-3280
          Fax: 215-640-3281

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101-1090
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594

Representing the defendants:

          Toni-Ann Citera, Esq. (tcitera@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          222 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017-6702
          Phone: 212-782-3939
          Fax: 212-755-7306

               - and -

          Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. (sbirnbau@skadden.com)
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Phone: 212-735-3000


ARIZONA: Ariz. Sup. Ct. Ruling Limits Class Status Appeals
----------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Supreme Court is making it harder to press class-
action lawsuits on behalf of groups of plaintiffs, The
Associated Press reports.

A unanimous ruling issued by the state high court on Aug. 24,
2009, says plaintiffs cannot routinely appeal trial judge's
denial of class-action status for cases.  That could make it
uneconomical for some plaintiffs to proceed with their cases on
an individual basis.

The ruling overturns a 1972 decision by the current justices'
predecessors and says the new ruling is based partly on a
subsequent holding by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the
PA.

The recent ruling comes in a lawsuit in which a truck driver
claimed that Swift Transportation Co. of Phoenix engaged in a
pattern of underpaying drivers for miles driven, reports the AP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $150M Settlement with La. Pension Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit against the former Merrill Lynch & Co. for $150 million,
according to a Reuters report.

The Honorable Jed Rakoff approved the settlement on Aug. 21,
2009, and the deal reached with two Louisiana pension funds was
made public on Aug. 24, 2009.

The case, In re Merrill Lynch & Co Inc Securities, Derivative
and ERISA Litigation, No. 07-9633 (S.D.N.Y.), accused Merrill of
issuing false and misleading prospectuses and registration
statements in connection with securities offerings made between
2006 and 2008.

Two Louisiana pension funds, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension and
Relief Fund and the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System, were the lead plaintiffs in the case, reports
Reuters.  

About 20 former Merrill executives and directors were named as
defendants, including former chief executives Stanley O'Neal and
John Thain.

Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch & Co. on Jan. 1, creating
the largest U.S. bank by assets.  A representative of the bank
was not immediately available for comment, according to Reuters.


BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Suits Over Sigma Finance Losses Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. continues to face class action
lawsuits by participants in the securities lending program over
losses related to investments in Sigma Finance Inc.

A number of participants in the securities lending program,
which is associated with the company's asset servicing business,
have filed or threatened lawsuits against the company or its
affiliates.

The participants allege that they have incurred losses,
including losses related to investments in Sigma Finance Inc.,
and seek damages as to those losses.

Certain of these cases seek to proceed as class actions,
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.

The participants assert contractual, statutory, and common law
claims, including claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary
duty.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. provides services that enable
institutions and individuals to manage and service their
financial assets in more than 100 markets worldwide.  The
Company is based in New York.


BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Suits Over Madoff Investments Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. is defending putative class
action lawsuits over alleged losses related to investments with
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

The company or its affiliates have been named in several civil
lawsuits relating to certain investment funds that invested
money with Madoff.

Ivy Asset Management LLC, a subsidiary that primarily manages
funds-of-hedge-funds, acted as a sub-advisor to the managers of
some of those funds.

Plaintiffs allege that the funds suffered losses in connection
with the Madoff investments.  Plaintiffs assert various causes
of action against the company or its affiliates, and other
parties, including securities and common-law fraud.  Certain of
the cases seek to proceed as class actions and/or to assert
derivative claims on behalf of the funds, 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.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. provides services that enable
institutions and individuals to manage and service their
financial assets in more than 100 markets worldwide.  The
Company is based in New York.


BARRICK GOLD: Nov. 5 Hearing Set for "Wagner" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Richard M. Berman has scheduled a fairness hearing
on Nov. 5, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., to discuss the proposed
$24,000,000 settlement in Wagner v. Barrick Gold Corp., et al.,
Case No. 03-4302 (S.D.N.Y.).

In March, Barrick Gold settled for $24,000,000, a class-action
lawsuit alleging that the gold miner misled shareholders about
the company's performance in 2002.

Investors filed the lawsuit in 2003, alleging that the gold
producer did not adequately disclose the impact of higher mining
costs, lower production, and its forward selling of gold,
factors they said led to a sharp fall in the company's shares in
late 2002, according to Reuters.

Named in the lawsuit were the company, former Barrick chief
executive Randall Oliphant, former chief operating officer John
Carrington, and current chief financial officer Jamie Sokalsky.

The Garden City Group, Inc., has established a Web site at
http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/fullcase/1523to provide  
information about this litigation, the proposed settlement, and
claims processing.  

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          Brower Piven
          488 Madison Avenue, Eighth Floor       
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-501-9000
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/

               - and -

          Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          Web site: http://www.btkmc.com/


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Pending in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust lawsuit is pending against The
Blackstone Group L.P. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts over private equity services,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against 16 private equity firms and investment banks,
including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.

The suit alleges that from mid-2003, the defendants have
violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids,
restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices
for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up
an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged
buyouts.

The suit seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions.

The complaint also includes three purported sub-classes of
plaintiffs seeking damages and restitution and comprised of
shareholders of three companies, including one purchased by an
investor group that included one of the company's private equity
funds.

In February 2008, a virtually identical lawsuit was filed in the
same court by a purported class of shareholders of the one
company referred to in the preceding sentence that was purchased
by an investor group that included one of Blackstone's private
equity funds.  This suit was subsequently consolidated with the
previous case.

In July 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
added two more purported subclasses of plaintiffs seeking
damages and restitution and comprised of shareholders of two
additional companies, including one purchased by an investor
group that included one of the company's private equity funds.

The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a
global alternative asset manager and provider of financial
advisory services.  It is an independent alternative asset
manager with assets under management of $102.43 billion, as of
Dec. 31, 2007.  Its alternative asset management businesses
include the management of corporate private equity funds, real
estate funds, funds of hedge funds, mezzanine funds, senior debt
vehicles, hedge funds and closed-end mutual funds.  The company
also provides various financial advisory services, including
corporate and mergers and acquisitions advisory, restructuring
and reorganization advisory, and fund placement services.  It
operates in four business segments, including Corporate Private
Equity, Real Estate, Marketable Alternative Asset Management and
Financial Advisory.  On March 3, 2008, the company acquired GSO
Capital Partners LP and certain of its affiliates.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Suits Over 2007 IPO Prospectus Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. continues to face several purported
class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to its Aug. 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In April and May 2008, four substantially identical complaints
were brought before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Blackstone; its chairman and chief
executive officer, Stephen A. Schwarzman; and its chief
financial officer, Michael A. Puglisi.

These suits purport to be class actions on behalf of purchasers
of Blackstone common units in the company's June 21, 2007,
initial public offering and claim that the prospectus for the
initial public offering was false and misleading for failing to
disclose that certain investments made by Blackstone private
equity funds were performing poorly at the time of the initial
public offering and were materially impaired.

The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a
global alternative asset manager and provider of financial
advisory services.  It is an independent alternative asset
manager with assets under management of $102.43 billion, as of
Dec. 31, 2007.  Its alternative asset management businesses
include the management of corporate private equity funds, real
estate funds, funds of hedge funds, mezzanine funds, senior debt
vehicles, hedge funds and closed-end mutual funds.  The company
also provides various financial advisory services, including
corporate and mergers and acquisitions advisory, restructuring
and reorganization advisory, and fund placement services.  It
operates in four business segments, including Corporate Private
Equity, Real Estate, Marketable Alternative Asset Management and
Financial Advisory.  On March 3, 2008, the company acquired GSO
Capital Partners LP and certain of its affiliates.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Court Certifies Subscribers' NIS 440M Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Petah Tikva District Court agreed to certify a NIS 440
million class-action lawsuit against Cellcom Israel, Ltd. (NYSE:
CEL; TASE: CEL) for allegedly charging subscribers to provide
details of their telephone bills in violation of the
subscribers' contracts, Yitzhak Danon at Globes reports.

The original lawsuit was filed in March 2008.  The petitioners
claim that, beginning in 2004, Cellcom began charging them NIS
4.90 per month for pages appended to their telephone bills, a
service that the company previously provided free of charge,
without obtaining their consent.  Cellcom subsequently expanded
the charge to business customers, charging them NIS 3 per month
for the service.

Cellcom stated, that based on legal counsel, it believes the
court's decision is mistaken and that it intends to appeal the
decision, according to Globes.

Judge Esther Stemmer approved the request to file the lawsuit as
a class-action lawsuit, after ruling that Cellcom was in breach
of its agreements with subscribers because there is no clause in
the terms of the agreements or in the company's license allowing
it to begin charging for a service previously provided for free.

Judge Stemmer said that when determining the amount that Cellcom
will have to refund subscribers, the company gave the
subscribers the option of discontinuing the service, and that
the service was also provided via the company's website, Globes
reported.


CEPHALON INC: Faces Pa. Antitrust Litigation Over Provigil
----------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit that
accuses it of conspiring with other drug makers to delay generic
competition for its blockbuster drug Provigil, Jeff Schreiber at
Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit, Rite Aid Corp., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., Case No.
09-03820 (E.D. Pa.), was filed on Aug. 20, 2009, by Rite Aid
Corp., Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., JCG (PJC) USA, LLC, Eckerd Corp.,
and Maxi Drug, Inc.  In addition to Cephalon, others listed as
defendants in the case are Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Phamaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva
Phamaceuticals USA, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., and
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The suit claims that Cephalon bought more time for its
"wakefulness promoting agent" by paying more than $200 million
to generic manufacturers in four patent settlements.  The
pharmacies say that had not Cephalon taken steps to "destroy the
market for generic Provigil and the potential benefits to
consumers from generic entry," generic versions of the drug
could have been available by January 2006.

Sales for Provigil, Cephalon's flagship drug, hit nearly $1
billion in 2008.  It is prescribed for sleep apnea and
narcolepsy, to help people stay awake.  It's become a popular
drug on college campuses, where students use it as a high-class
form of "speed" to study.

The pharmacies demand treble damages and an injunction.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4304

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          Hangley & Aronchick
          30 North Third Street, Suite 700
          Harrisburg, PA 17101-1701
          Phone: 717-364-1030
          Fax: 717-364-1020
          Web site: http://www.hangley.com/


GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Export Antitrust Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. continues to face consolidated Canadian
export antitrust class action lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maine and the California Superior
Court in San Francisco County.

Approximately 80 purported class actions on behalf of all
purchasers of new motor vehicles in the United States since
Jan. 1, 2001, have been filed in various state and federal
courts against General Motors Corporation, GMCL, Ford Motor
Company, Chrysler, LLC, Toyota Motor Corporation, Honda Motor
Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Company, Limited, and Bavarian Motor
Works and their Canadian affiliates, the National Automobile
Dealers Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers
Association.

The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings under the caption In re New Market Vehicle
Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maine, and the more than 30 California
cases have been consolidated in the California Superior Court in
San Francisco County under the case captions Belch v. Toyota
Corporation, et al. and Bell v. General Motors Corporation.

General Motors Corporation's liability in these matters was not
transferred to General Motors Company as part of the 363 Sale.  
GMCL was not part of the General Motors Corporation bankruptcy
proceeding and potentially remains liable in all matters.

In the California state court cases, oral arguments on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendants'
motion in limine will be heard on April 21, 2009.  The court
ruled that it would certify a class and defendants are preparing
a written appeal to the appropriate California court.

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant
manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired
among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to
U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and
sold by dealers in Canada.  The complaints alleged that new
vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the
United States, and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to
U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of higher than competitive
prices by U.S. consumers.  The complaints, as amended, sought
injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust law and treble damages
under U.S. and state antitrust laws, but did not specify
damages.  The complaints further alleged unjust enrichment and
violations of state unfair trade practices act.

On March 5, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine issued a decision holding that the purported indirect
purchaser classes failed to state a claim for damages under
federal antitrust law but allowed a separate claim seeking to
enjoin future alleged violations to continue.  The U.S. District
Court for the District of Maine on March 10, 2006, certified a
nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule
23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief, and on March 21, 2007
stated that it would certify 20 separate statewide class actions
for damages under various state law theories under Federal Rule
23(b)(3), covering the period from Jan. 1, 2001 to April 30,
2003.  

On Oct. 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
heard oral arguments on the company's consolidated appeal of
both class certification orders.

On March 28, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit reversed the certification of the injunctive class and
ordered dismissal of the injunctive claim.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit also vacated the certification of
the damages class and remanded to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maine for determination of several issues
concerning federal jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction still
exists, for reconsideration of that class certification on a
more complete record.

On remand, plaintiffs again moved to certify a damages class,
and defendants again moved for summary judgment and to strike
plaintiffs' economic expert.  

On July 2, 2009, the court granted one of defendant's summary
judgment motions.  Plaintiffs are expected to appeal, according
to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Aug. 7, 2009.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/
Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Antitrust Lawsuits Over American Export Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) and Motors Liquidation
Company (MLC), formerly known as General Motors Corporation,
continue to face antitrust class actions related to American
export.

On Sept. 25, 2007, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GMCL and MLC on behalf of a purported
class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada
claiming that a similar alleged conspiracy was now preventing
lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians.

No determination has been made that the case may be maintained
as a class action, and it is not possible to determine the
likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of
any damages, according to the company's Current Report on Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated Aug. 7, 2009.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/
Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement of Delphi ERISA Suit Pending in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In
re Delphi ERISA Litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan
remains pending, according to General Motors Corp.'s Current
Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated Aug. 7, 2009.

GMIMCo (General Motors Investment Management Corporation) is one
of numerous defendants in several purported class action
lawsuits filed in March and April 2005 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended (ERISA) with respect to the Delphi company stock plans
for salaried and hourly employees.

The cases have been consolidated under the case caption In re
Delphi ERISA Litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan for
coordinated pretrial proceedings with other Delphi stockholder
lawsuits in which GMIMCo is not named as a defendant.

The complaints essentially allege that GMIMCo, a named fiduciary
of the Delphi plans, breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA
to plan participants by allowing them to invest in the Delphi
Common Stock Fund when it was imprudent to do so, by failing to
monitor State Street, the entity appointed by GMIMCo to serve as
investment manager for the Delphi Common Stock Fund, and by
knowingly participating in, enabling or failing to remedy
breaches of fiduciary duty by other defendants.

No determination has been made that a class action can be
maintained against GMIMCo, and there have been no decisions on
the merits of the claims.

Delphi has reached a settlement of these cases that, if
implemented, would provide for dismissal of all claims against
GMIMCo related to this litigation without payment by GMIMCo.  
That settlement has been approved by both the District Judge in
the Eastern District of Michigan and the Bankruptcy Judge in the
Southern District of New York presiding over Delphi's bankruptcy
proceeding.  However, implementation of the settlement remains
conditioned upon (1) the resolution of a pending appeal of the
district court's approval and (2) the implementation of Delphi's
plan of reorganization approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/
Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Faces Consolidated Analog Equipment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp.'s wholly owned subsidiary, OnStar
Corporation, continues to face a consolidated class action
proceeding captioned In re OnStar Contract Litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

OnStar is party to more than 20 putative class actions filed in
various states, including Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and California.

All of these cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
in a multi-district proceeding under the caption In re OnStar
Contract Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

The litigation arises out of the discontinuation by OnStar of
services to vehicles equipped with analog hardware.  OnStar was
unable to provide services to such vehicles because the cellular
carriers which provide communication service to OnStar
terminated analog service beginning in February 2008.  In the
various cases, the plaintiffs are seeking certification of
nationwide or statewide classes of owners of vehicles currently
equipped with analog equipment, alleging various breaches of
contract, misrepresentation and unfair trade practices.

This proceeding is in the early stages of development and has
been stayed while the court considers the defendants' motions to
dismiss the claims.

Class certification motions have not been filed and the parties
have completed minimal document discovery, according to the
company's Current Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Aug. 7, 2009.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/
Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


GOOGLE INC: Tech Companies to Team Up v. $125M Book Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three tech companies are expected to team up in a class-action
settlement with the Internet Archive and the libraries and
nonprofits that make up the Open Book Alliance to oppose Google,
Inc.'s plans to digitize millions of books and put them on the
Internet, Mitchell Hall at The National Business Review reports.

While Microsoft Corp., and Yahoo, Inc., have confirmed they're
joining the coalition, Amazon, which as a book retailer arguably
has the most lose, is set to make its own announcement in coming
weeks.

All three companies have a financial stake in how the deal is
settled.

Google's Book Search service is controversial partly because it
allows Google (and no one else) to digitize "orphan works," in
which it is not clear who the copyright owner is or if the
copyright has lapsed.

Critics also say it is anticompetitive, because it gives Google
alone the unimpeded ability to set prices for libraries once
books are digitized, and uploaded to the web, reports Reuters.

Google reached a deal in October last year to settle a lawsuit
filed by the Author's Guild and the Association of American
Publishers three years earlier when Google began scanning books
without permission, but the deal has attracted the attention of
the U.S. Department of Justice, the European Commission and a
group of US state attorneys general.

The $125 million settlement set up a mechanism for Google, along
with a book rights registry operated by authors and publishers,
to display and sell millions of books online.

The settlement is set for a hearing regarding its approval on
Oct. 7, 2009, in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.


INSURANCE COMPANIES: Court Rejects Law on Claims for Armenians
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
invalidated a California law that allowed heirs of Armenians
killed in the Turkish Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago to
seek payment on the life insurance policies of dead relatives,
Lisa Leff at ClaimsJournal.com reports.

The federal appeals court in San Francisco said the law amounted
to unconstitutional meddling in U.S. foreign policy.  It based
its 2-1 ruling on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck
down another California law designed to help Holocaust survivors
collect on Nazi-era insurance policies.

The federal government does not recognize the mass killings of
Armenians during World War I as genocide, but the California
Legislature did in 2000 when it enacted the disputed law.

About half of the people of Armenian descent living in the U.S.,
currently reside in California.

Brian Kabateck, Esq., who represents Armenian-American heirs,
plans to appeal.  According to Mr. Kabateck, if the ruling is
not set aside, it would prevent Armenian heirs from claiming
inheritances and prohibit California and other states from
marking the anniversary of the onset of the ethnic bloodshed
that claimed the lives of up to 1.5 million Armenians between
1915 and 1919 in what is now eastern Turkey.

Mr. Kabateck alleges European banks and insurers illegally
retained assets valued in 1915 at about $15 million, a sum worth
substantially more at today's value.

The California Legislature passed a law giving heirs of
Armenians who died or fled to avoid persecution until the end of
next year to file claims for old bank accounts and life
insurance policies.

The ruling reversed a lower court judge who refused to dismiss
another class-action suit against the German life insurance
companies.

Turkey long has denied the loss of so many Armenian lives
constituted genocide and instead describes the deaths as
resulting from civil unrest that accompanied the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire.

The appeals court agreed with the German companies that
California's policy improperly conflicted with the federal
government's foreign policy aims.

Neil Soltman, Esq., the lawyer who represented the German
insurance companies that prevailed in the case, said his clients
had stood to lose in payouts to Armenian-Americans in
California.  Mr. Soltman said it was not clear the companies
ever sold life insurance policies to victims of the Ottoman
Empire violence.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Kabateck, Esq.
          Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          Fax: 213-217-5010
          Web site: http://www.kbklawyers.com/

The defendants are represented by:

          Neil Soltman, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: 213-229-9516
          Fax: 213-576-8148
          E-mail: nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
          Web site: http://www.mayerbrown.com/


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Faces Appeal to Nixed Ariz. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limelight Networks, Inc., continues to face an appeal from the
dismissal of Mustafa v. Limelight Networks, Inc. et al., Case
No. 07-cv-02238 (D. Ariz.) (Bolton, J.).

In August 2007, the company, certain of its officers and current
and former directors, and the firms that served as the lead
underwriters in the company's initial public offering were named
as defendants in several purported class action lawsuits filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Arizona and the
Southern District of New York.

The New York cases were transferred to Arizona and all were
consolidated into a single action.

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint asserts causes of action
under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of a purported class of individuals who
purchased the company's common stock in its initial public
offering and pursuant to its Prospectus.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the company omitted and misstated
certain facts concerning the seasonality of its business and the
loss of revenue related to certain customers.

On March 17, 2008, the company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims (Class Action
Reporter, April 2, 2008).  On Aug. 8, 2008, the court granted
the motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs' claims under
Section 12 with prejudice and granting leave to amend the claims
under Sections 11 and 15 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2008).

Plaintiffs chose not to amend the claims under Sections 11 and
15, and on Aug. 29, 2008, the court entered judgment in favor of
the company.  

On Sept. 5, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  
Appellate briefs were filed by the parties in January and
February 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 is:

           Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rljacobs@pipeline.com)
           Paskowitz Law Firm PC
           60 E 42nd St., 46th Floor
           New York, NY 10165
           Phone: 212-867-1156
           Fax: 212-504-8343

Representing the defendants is:

           Maureen Beyers, Esq. (mbeyers@omlaw.com)
           Osborn Maledon PA
           2929 N. Central Ave.
           Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
           Phone: 602-640-9305
           Fax: 602-664-2053


MF GLOBAL: Motion to Amend Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to file an amended complaint in the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against MF Global,
Ltd., Man Group plc, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and certain underwriters for the Initial Public
Offering is pending.

Five purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  These
actions, which purport to be brought as class-actions on behalf
of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the IPO and
Feb. 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under Section 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged  
misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's risk
management and monitoring practices and procedures.  The five
purported shareholder class-actions have been consolidated for
all purposes into a single action.

The company made a motion to dismiss, which has been granted,
with plaintiff having a right to replead or appeal the
dismissal.

Plaintiffs have made a motion to file an amended complaint,
which is pending.

Because the motion to dismiss was made before discovery, the
litigation is in its early stages, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The consolidated suit is Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd. et al, Case
No. 08-cv-02233 (S.D.N.Y.) (Marrero, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq.
          (racocelli@weisslurie.com)
          Weiss & Lurie
          The Fred French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-682-3025
          Fax: 212-682-3010

               - and -

          William J. Ban, Esq. (wban@barrack.com)
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838

Representing the defendants are:

          David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com)
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000

               - and -

          David A. Barrett, Esq. (dbarrett@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
          333 Main St.
          New York, NY 10504
          Phone: 212-446-2310
          Fax: 212-446-2350


PATRIOT COAL: Unit Still Faces PI Suits Over Exposure to Dioxin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apogee Coal Company, LLC, one of Patriot Coal Corporation's
subsidiaries, continues to face putative class action lawsuits
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to dioxin.

Apogee has been sued, along with eight other defendants,
including Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation and Akzo Nobel
Chemicals, Inc., by certain plaintiffs in state court in Putnam
County, West Virginia.

The lawsuits were filed in October 2007, but not served on
Apogee until February 2008, and each are identical except for
the named plaintiff.  They each allege personal injury
occasioned by exposure to dioxin generated by a plant owned and
operated by certain of the other defendants during production of
a chemical, 2,4,5-T, from 1949-1969.  Apogee is alleged to be
liable as the successor to the liabilities of a company that
owned and/or controlled a dump site known as the Manila Creek
landfill, which allegedly received and incinerated dioxin-
contaminated waste from the plant.  The lawsuits seek class
action certification as well as compensatory and punitive
damages for personal injury.  

Under the terms of the governing lease, Monsanto has assumed the
defense of these lawsuits and has agreed to indemnify Apogee for
any related damages.  The failure of Monsanto to satisfy its
indemnification obligations under the lease could have a
material adverse effect on the company, according to Patriot
Coal's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Patriot Coal Corporation -- http://www.patriotcoal.com/-- is a  
producer of coal in the eastern United States, with operations
and coal reserves in Appalachia and the Illinois Basin.  It is
also a producer of metallurgical quality coal.  The company's
operations consist of 16 mining complexes, which include company
operated mines, contractor-operated mines and coal preparation
facilities.


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Pursues Dismissal of Amended Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., is pursuing the dismissal of a
consolidated amended complaint filed as a putative class-action
on behalf of all purchasers of the company's units from July 17,
2007 to July 17, 2008.

Between July 21, 2008 and Sept. 4, 2008, these class-action
complaints were filed:

   1. Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed July 21,
      2008).   The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on
      Aug. 26, 2008;

   2. Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of Oklahoma
      (filed July 22, 2008);

   3. Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o Charles
      D. Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-cv-6598, in the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed July 25,
      2008);

   4. Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
      Civil Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the United States District
      Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 8,
      2008);

   5. Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
      Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the U.S. District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 25,
      2008); and

   6. William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et
      al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the United States
      District Court for the Southern District of New York
      (filed Sept. 4, 2008).

Pursuant to a motion filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, the Maurer case has been transferred
to the Northern District of Oklahoma and consolidated with the
Carson case.  The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman cases have also been
transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma.

A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held
in the Carson case on Oct. 17, 2008.  At that hearing, the court
granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for
pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now
pending as In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-425 (N.D. Okla.).

The court entered an order on Oct. 27, 2008, granting the motion
of Harvest Fund Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in
the consolidated litigation.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the court entered a Scheduling Order
providing, among other things, that the lead plaintiff may file
a consolidated amended complaint within 70 days of the date of
the order, and that defendants may answer or otherwise respond
within 60 days of the date of the filing of a consolidated
amended complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to modify
the stay of discovery provided for under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The court granted Plaintiff's motion,
and the company and certain other defendants filed a Petition
for Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that
was denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.

The lead plaintiff obtained an extension to file its
consolidated amended complaint until May 4, 2009; defendants
have 60 days from that date to answer or otherwise respond to
the complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
May 4, 2009.  In that complaint, filed as a putative class
action on behalf of all purchasers of the company's units from
July 17, 2007 to July 17, 2008 (the "class period"), lead
plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws
against the company, its general partner, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, certain underwriters in its
initial and secondary public offerings, and certain entities who
were investors in the Private Company and their individual
representatives who served on the Private Company's management
committee.

Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges that the
company's financial condition throughout the class period was
dependent upon speculative commodities trading by the Private
Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and
that Defendants negligently and intentionally failed to disclose
this speculative trading in the company's public filings during
the class period.

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges claims for
violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 for damages and rescission with respect to all
persons who purchased our units in the initial and secondary
offerings, and also asserts claims under section 10b, Rule 10b-
5, and section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class-action
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory and
rescissory damages for class members, pre-judgment interest,
costs of court, and attorneys' fees.

On July 22, 2009, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss
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 March 31, 2009.

SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. -- http://www.SGLP.com/-- owns
and operates a diversified portfolio of complementary midstream
energy assets.  SemGroup Energy Partners provides crude oil and
liquid asphalt cement terminalling and storage services and
crude oil gathering and transportation services.


STATE STREET: Mich. Judge Denies Motion in "Pfiel" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Denise Page Hood denied Bank & Trust Co.'s request
to move Pfeil, et al. v. State Street Bank and Trust Company,
Case No. 09-12229 (E.D. Mich.), to the Honorable Nancy G.
Edmunds in the same court, Barry B. Burr at Pensions &
Investments reports.

The lawsuit claims State Street failed to sell General Motors
Corp. stock before its price collapsed earlier this year,
resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars of losses to GM's
salaried and hourly employees' 401(k) plans.

The suit, filed by several participants in U.S. District Court
in Detroit, seeks class-action status.  It contends State
Street, breached its duty as independent fiduciary for the two
plans.  It also contends that the company's actions are in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
          Scott & Scott
          12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
          Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
          Phone: 216-229-6088
          Fax: 216-229-6092
          E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Elwood S. Simon
          Elwood S. Simon & Associates, P.C.
          21 E. Long Lake Road, Suite 250
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Phone: 248-646-9730
          Fax: 248-258-2335
          E-mail: esimon@esimon-law.com

The defendant is represented by:

          James D. VandeWyngearde
          Pepper Hamilton (Detroit)
          100 Renaissance Center, 36th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48243-1157
          Phone: 313-259-7110
          E-mail: vandewyj@pepperlaw.com


TFS FIN'L: Appeal to Ohio Sup. Ct. in "Greenspan" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio has yet to rule on TFS Financial
Corp.'s appeal from the decision of the Eighth District Court of
Appeals in the putative class-action lawsuit captioned Gary A.
Greenspan v. Third Federal Savings & Loan.

On June 13, 2006, Dr. Gary Greenspan filed a putative class
action lawsuit against TFS Financial's Third Federal Savings and
Loan Association of Cleveland, captioned Gary A. Greenspan v.
Third Federal Savings & Loan, Case No. CV 06 593882, in the
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of Ohio residents in
connection with mortgage loans that the company provided to the
plaintiff and the putative class members.

The plaintiff alleges that the company impermissibly charged a
"document preparation fee" that included the cost of preparing
legal documents in connection with the mortgages.  The plaintiff
further alleges that the company should disgorge the document
preparation fee because the document preparation constituted the
practice of law and was performed by company employees who are
not licensed to practice law in Ohio.  The plaintiff sought to
certify a class of individuals who were charged such a fee
"anytime after June 13, 2001."

The company answered the plaintiff's complaint and moved for
judgment on the pleadings.  The trial court granted the
company's motion and dismissed the action.  The plaintiff
appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.

On June 25, 2008, the appellate court reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint as to claims arising
before Sept. 15, 2004, the date that the relevant statute was
amended to expressly give the Ohio Supreme Court exclusive
jurisdiction over claims for the unauthorized practice of law.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the company appealed the decision of the Eighth
District Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio which
then accepted the appeal on Dec. 3, 2008.  The record was filed
with the Ohio Supreme Court on Jan. 2, 2009.

In addition, on Aug. 8, 2008, the company filed a Complaint in
Mandamus with the Ohio Supreme Court, which then dismissed the
mandamus action on Dec. 3, 2008.

The company filed its Appellant Brief in February 2009, and the
Appellee filed its Brief in April 2009.  Oral argument was held
on June 2, 2009.  As of June 30, 2009, the Court has not yet
issued a ruling.

On July 23, 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate
court's decision and reinstated the trial court's order granting
the company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which held
that the Plaintiff, Greenspan, has no private right of action.  
The favorable decision to the company on this matter is final,
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.

TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- is a
federally chartered stock holding company, conducts its
activities through its wholly owned subsidiaries.  The line of
business of the Company is retail consumer banking, mortgage
lending, deposit gathering and other financial services.  Third
Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, MHC (Third
Federal Savings, MHC), and its federally chartered mutual
holding company parent owns 71.82% of the outstanding shares of
common stock of the company.  The company's operating
subsidiaries include Third Federal Savings and Loan Association
of Cleveland and Third Capital, Inc.


VALUECLICK INC: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for $10M "Waldrep" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson will hold a fairness hearing on
Nov. 9, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in connection with the proposed
$10,000,000 settlement in Carl Waldrep, et al. v. ValueClick,
Inc., et al., Case No. CV 07-05411 (C.D. Calif.).

The 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 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18,
2009).

A similar purported class-action lawsuit, Brown v. ValueClick,
Case No. CV 07-05921 (C.D. Calif.), 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 on
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.  

Copies of the full printed Notice of Proposed Settlement of
Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness
Hearing and a Proof of Claim form, are available from the Claims
Administrator:

          ValueClick, Inc. Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 150
          Philadelphia, PA 19105
          Phone: (888) 665-1127

To participate in the Settlement, claimants must submit a Proof
of Claim no later than November 9, 2009.  Class Members who do
not exclude themselves from the Class will be bound by the Order
and Final Judgment of the Court.  Any objections to the  
Settlement must be filed by October 9, 2009.  

The plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The defendants are represented by:

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



                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DWS RREEF: Horwitz Horwitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     On August 24, 2009, Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys
at Law, filed a class action lawsuit in United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common shares of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund,
Inc., and DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc., from March 8,
2007 through November 17, 2008, who were damaged thereby,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Plaintiff alleges that RREEF America, LLC, Deutsche Asset
Management, Inc., DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund, Inc., DWS RREEF
Real Estate Fund II, Inc., Michael G. Clark, the President of
the Funds, and Paul H. Schubert, the Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Funds violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the Funds and the risks in
connection with an investment in the Funds common stock.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 23, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Schwartz, Esq.
          Frank Schirripa, Esq.
          Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis
          Phone: 212-986-4500
          E-mail: mschwartz@hhplawny.com
                  fschirripa@hhplawny.com
          Web site: http://www.hhplawny.com/


MGM MIRAGE: 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 Nevada on behalf of purchasers of MGM Mirage stock
during the period between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009,
inclusive for violations of the federal securities laws.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
concerning MGM's financial strength, liquidity and the prospects
for the development of MGM's CityCenter.  This caused MGM's
common stock price to be artificially inflated, allowing MGM
insiders to sell close to $90 million worth of MGM stock at
higher prices than they would otherwise have obtained.  As the
true facts about MGM's deteriorating financial condition and the
Company's inability to fund the CityCenter project leaked into
the market, the inflation in the price of MGM stock was removed,
causing plaintiff and the members of the Class damages.

     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.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          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/


                            *********

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  * * *