CAR_Public/090907.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 176
  
                            Headlines

APARTHEID REPARATIONS: South African Govt. Will Support Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Police & Fire Retirement System's Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit by Wyoming State Treasurer in N.Y.
BANKWEST: Commercial Loan Customers Mulling Class Action Lawsuit
BROCADE COMMS: Appeal of Junked Calif. Amended Complaint Pending

CACHE INC: Settlement Gives Retail Customers $15 Vouchers
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Keller Rohrback Files ERISA Suit in M.D. Ala.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
HARRIS CORP: Defends Norfolk County's Federal Securities Action
HEALTH INSURERS: Maldonado Medical Sues Insurers for Underpaying

HEALTHWAYS: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Securities Suit
HEALTHWAYS INC: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Breach Lawsuit Pending
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Appeal to Approved Deal in N.J. Suit Pending
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues to Face Lawsuits by Policyholders
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery in Securities Suit Ongoing in N.Y.

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in New York ERISA Lawsuit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Derivative Claims Over Putnam Funds Pending
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues to Face ERISA Lawsuits with Putnam
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Funeral Directors' Suit to Void Ill. Order
MERRILL LYNCH: Pre-Need Contract Holders' Suit v. MLPF&S Pending

MERRILL LYNCH: MLPF&S Faces Clancy-Gernon Funeral Home's Lawsuit
METLIFE: Lawyers-As-Witnesses Problem Might Disqualify Debevoise
NBTY INC: Suit by Calif. Nutrition Bars Consumers Remain Stayed
NBTY INC: False Advertising Suit v. MET-Rx in N.J. Still Stayed
NOVELL INC: Corporate Waste & Unjust Enrichment Alleged in Mass.

PERSHING LLC: Sued for Improper Public Access to Customer Data
PFIZER: Sued for Off-Label Use Misrepresentation in E.D. Pa.
ST. PAUL, MINN: 27 Arrested Protesters Sue City
TARGET CORP: 7th Cir. Rejects Pitch for Class Certification
TJX COS: Settles Computer Hacking-Related Lawsuit for $525,000

TOYOTA: Sued for Hiding & Destroying Corolla Safety Documents
VIRGINIA: 4th Circuit Nixes Racial Profiling Case
VISTAPRINT NV: Pursues Dismissal of Consolidated Consumer Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Hamilton Considers Antitrust Dismissal Bid
ZUMIEZ INC: Securities Suit in Wash. Dismissed in March 2009

ZUMIEZ INC: Settles Former Employee's Unpaid Overtime Wages Suit
ZUMIEZ INC: "Berg" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Pending

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

HURON CONSULTING: Barroway Topaz Files Complaint in N.D. Ill.

                            *********

APARTHEID REPARATIONS: South African Govt. Will Support Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Online reports that the South African government has
overturned a decision made under ex-president Thabo Mbeki not to
support class action for apartheid reparations from eight US-
based companies, Business Report said on Thursday.

Justice Minister Jeff Radebe has written a letter to the
presiding judge in Khulumani v. Barclays National Bank Ltd., et
al, MDL No. 02-md-1499 (S.D.N.Y.), to announce that President
Jacob Zuma's government would support the lawsuit brought by
Khulumani Support Group.

This was in contrast with a letter written by his predecessor,
Penuell Maduna, to the court in July 2003, which said the state
would oppose Khulumani's action because it would "discourage
much-needed foreign investment".

Justice Radebe said the government would like to resolve the
matter outside the courts.

The companies being sued by Khulumani and 13 individuals that did
business in South Africa during the apartheid era are:

     -- Barclays,
     -- Daimler,
     -- Ford,
     -- Fujitsu,
     -- General Motors,
     -- IBM,
     -- Rheinmetall and
     -- UBS.

These conglomerates stand accused of aiding and abetting
apartheid acts by doing business with the apartheid government.

Khulumani welcomed the government's new decision.

"This represents a very significant shift from the government's
2003 position that (it) is not and will not be party to
litigation' against companies that did business with and in South
Africa during the apartheid period," Khulumani said.

Khulumani Support Group maintains a Web site at:

     http://www.khulumani.net/


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Police & Fire Retirement System's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint, entitled Police & Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., et
al., is pending.

On May 14, 2009, Bank of America Corporation, Countrywide
Securities Corporation, IndyMac MBS, IndyMac ABS, and other
underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in the  
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The allegations, claims, and remedies sought in the case are
substantially similar to those in the IBEW Local 103 case, which
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

No further details on the case were provided in 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.

Bank of America Corporation -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/--  
is a bank holding company and a financial holding company.  
Through its banking subsidiaries and various non-banking
subsidiaries throughout the United States and in selected
international markets, it provides a diversified range of banking
and non-banking financial services and products through three
business segments: Global Consumer and Small Business Banking,
Global Corporate and Investment Banking and Global Wealth and
Investment Management.  Bank of America operates in 50 states,
the District of Columbia and more than 40 foreign countries.  
Bank of America has 6,100 banking centers, approximately 18,700
automated teller machines (ATMs), nationwide call centers, and
online and mobile banking platforms.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit by Wyoming State Treasurer in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation and other underwriters and
individuals are named as defendants in a putative class action
complaint filed on June 29, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The complaint is Wyoming State Treasurer, et al. v. John Olinski,
et al.

The allegations, claims, and remedies sought in the case are
substantially similar to those in the IBEW Local 103 case, which
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

The company did not disclose further details on the case in its
Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Bank of America Corporation -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/--  
is a bank holding company and a financial holding company.  
Through its banking subsidiaries and various non-banking
subsidiaries throughout the United States and in selected
international markets, it provides a diversified range of banking
and non-banking financial services and products through three
business segments: Global Consumer and Small Business Banking,
Global Corporate and Investment Banking and Global Wealth and
Investment Management.  Bank of America operates in 50 states,
the District of Columbia and more than 40 foreign countries.  
Bank of America has 6,100 banking centers, approximately 18,700
automated teller machines (ATMs), nationwide call centers, and
online and mobile banking platforms.


BANKWEST: Commercial Loan Customers Mulling Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Bell at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that BankWest
may face a class action lawsuit by commercial loan customers
angry over changes that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia
subsidiary made to their lending facilities last year.

Property industry participant Guy Goldrick said on Thursday that
he had received a "huge" number of responses to his advertisement
in The Australian Financial Review last week asking BankWest's
commercial customers that had loans called up in the past 12
months to contact him.

"The responses so far have hugely exceeded my expectations," Mr.
Goldrick told AAP.

Mr. Goldrick said the aggrieved customers had loans from $2
million to "well above" $50 million and were involved in the
construction, property development and wider commercial sectors.

Mr. Goldrick said he was in discussions with several legal firms
and had sourced a funder for the proposed class action but
declined to comment on their identity.  He also declined to
discuss the substance of the allegations.

Ms. Bell's full report is available at http://is.gd/2Q2Ls



BROCADE COMMS: Appeal of Junked Calif. Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of their second amended
class-action complaint against Brocade Communications Systems,
Inc. remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 31, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

On Oct. 23, 2007, a class-action complaint was filed against
Brocade and certain of its former officers and current and
former directors.

This action was filed in the California Superior Court in Santa
Clara County on behalf of individuals who owned Brocade stock
between Feb. 21, 2001 and May 16, 2005.

The complaint generally alleges that Brocade and the individual
defendants breached the duty of disclosure by failing to
disclose alleged wrongful conduct, including conduct complained
of in the securities litigation, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief against the defendants.

On Nov. 26, 2007, this action was removed from State Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Dec. 3, 2007, Brocade filed a motion to dismiss the action in
its entirety on the ground that it is preempted by the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

On March 6, 2008, Brocade's motion to dismiss was denied and the
case was remanded to State Court.  On May 29, 2008, Brocade
filed a demurrer to the complaint.

On July 10, 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and
Brocade filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Aug. 4,
2008.  On Sept. 12, 2008, Brocade's demurrer was granted and the
amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.

On Oct. 15, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint generally alleges that Brocade and
the individual defendants violated or conspired to violate the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the
defendants.  Brocade filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on Nov. 17, 2008.  On Jan. 30, 2009, the Court
granted Brocade's motion and, on March 3, 2009, the Court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  On May 14, 2009,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. -- http://www.brocade.com/
-- is a supplier of data center networking solutions that help
enterprises connect and manage their information.  The company
offers a line of data center networking hardware, software
products and services.  The company is organized in four
operating units: The Data Center Infrastructure (DCI), The
Server Edge and Storage (SES), The Services, Support and
Solutions (S3) and The Files (Files). Brocade products and
services are marketed, sold to end-user customers through
distribution partners, including original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), distributors, systems integrators, value-
added resellers (VARs) and by Brocade directly.


CACHE INC: Settlement Gives Retail Customers $15 Vouchers
---------------------------------------------------------
A settlement's been proposed in Abiva, et al. v. Cache, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-cv-00556 (C.D. Calif.).  

The lawsuit generally alleges that Cache violated certain
requirements imposed by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act.  Specifically Plaintiffs claim that Cache printed the
account numbers of its customers' credit or debit cards on
receipts presented to them at a Cache store, in violation of
FACTA.

Cache has agreed to provide each eligible customer who purchased
items at a Cache store from December 4, 2006, to April 21, 2009,
a $15.00 voucher to be used for the purchase of goods or
merchandise at any Cache retail outlet or on Cache's Web site.

An eligible customer (and class member) is anyone provided a
receipt at Cache stores which printed the expiration date or more
than five digits of the credit or debit card number.

CPT Group, the Claims Administrator, has set up a Web site at
http://www.cachesettlement.com/to share information about the  
litigation and the claims process.  

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

          J. Mark Moore, Esq.
          SPIRO MOSS LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone (310) 235-2468

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone (215) 564-2300

Cache Inc. is represented by:

          Robert A. Weikert, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone (415) 984-8200


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Keller Rohrback Files ERISA Suit in M.D. Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed an ERISA class action complaint
initiating McKay v. The Colonial Bancgroup, Inc., et al., Case
No. 09-cv-00806 (M.D. Ala.), on behalf a class of all persons who
were participants in or beneficiaries of The Colonial BancGroup
401(k) Plan, between April 18, 2007, and the present and whose
accounts included investments in The Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
(PinkSheets: CBCGQ) common stock.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class by:

     (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
         assets;

     (2) failing to monitor fiduciaries;

     (3) failing to provide complete and accurate communications
         to the Plan's participants and beneficiaries; and

     (4) knowingly  participating in or enabling another
         fiduciary's breaches.

If you are a participant in The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. 401(k)
Plan and held Colonial common stock in the Plan during the Class
Period and you would like information regarding this matter, you
may contact paralegal Jennifer Tuato'o or attorneys Sarah
Kimberly, Esq., Erin Riley, Esq., Derek Loeser, Esq., or Lynn
Sarko, Esq., toll free at (800) 776-6044, or via e-mail at
investor@kellerrohrback.com.  You may also visit the Firm's Web
site at http://www.erisafraud.com/for additional information.

Keller Rohrback is one of America's leading law firms handling
ERISA retirement plan litigation. We are committed to helping
employees and retirees protect their retirement savings. Keller
Rohrback serves or has served as lead and co-lead counsel in
numerous ERISA class action cases, including cases against Enron,
WorldCom, and HealthSouth.  Keller Rohrback has successfully
provided class action representation for over a decade.  Its
trial lawyers have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf
of clients in excess of seven billion dollars.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The claims in an amended and consolidated class action complaint
against Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited are at a preliminary
stage.

During 2006, several lawsuits seeking class action status were
filed against Fairfax and certain of the company's officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The Court made an order consolidating the various
pending lawsuits and granted the single remaining motion for
appointment as lead plaintiffs.  The Court also issued orders
approving scheduling stipulations filed by the parties to the
consolidated lawsuit.

On Feb. 8, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint, which states that the lead plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of all purchasers and acquirers of
securities of Fairfax between May 21, 2003 and March 22, 2006
inclusive.

The amended consolidated complaint names as defendants Fairfax,
certain of the company's officers and directors, OdysseyRe and
its auditors.  

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants
violated U.S. federal securities laws by making material
misstatements or failing to disclose certain material information
regarding, among other things, Fairfax's and OdysseyRe's assets,
earnings, losses, financial condition, and internal financial
controls.  

The amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of the putative class; unspecified compensatory
damages (including interest); unspecified monetary restitution;
unspecified extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief;
and costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees).

Pursuant to the scheduling stipulations, the various defendants
filed their respective motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiffs filed their
oppositions thereto, the defendants filed their replies to those
oppositions and the motions to dismiss were argued before the
Court in December 2007.  The Court has not yet issued a ruling on
these motions, according to the company's Form F-10 Registration
Statement filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated Aug. 31, 2009.

Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited -- http://www.fairfax.ca/--  
is a financial services holding company which, through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance and investment management.


HARRIS CORP: Defends Norfolk County's Federal Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corporation's former subsidiary, Harris Stratex Networks,
Inc., intends to defend Norfolk County Retirement System's
federal securities class action complaint, according to the
company's Aug. 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 3, 2009.

HSTX and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, including certain current Harris officers, were named
as defendants in a federal securities class action complaint
filed on Sept. 15, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement
System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of HSTX
securities from Jan. 29, 2007, to July 30, 2008, including
shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of
Stratex for shares of HSTX as part of the combination between
Stratex and the company's former Microwave Communications
Division to form HSTX.

Similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on Oct. 6, 2008, and October 30, 2008. The
complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded complaint
filed on July 29, 2009 that adds Harris Corporation and Ernst &
Young LLP as defendants.

This action relates to public disclosures made by HSTX on Jan.
30, 2007, and July 30, 2008, which included the restatement of
HSTX's financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters
of its fiscal 2008 (the quarters ended March 28, 2008, Dec. 28,
2007 and Sept. 28, 2007) and for its fiscal years ended June 29,
2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005 due to accounting errors.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5  
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks, among other relief,
determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

Harris Corporation -- http://www.harris.com/-- together with its  
subsidiaries, is an international communications and information
technology (IT) company serving government and commercial markets
in more than 150 countries.  The company is focused on developing
assured communications products, systems and services for global
markets, including radio frequency (RF) communications,
government communications and broadcast communications.  The
company is organized in three segments: RF Communications
segment, Government Communications Systems segment and Broadcast
Communications segment.


HEALTH INSURERS: Maldonado Medical Sues Insurers for Underpaying
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maldonado Medical, a Durable Medical Equipment provider servicing
the southwestern United States, in continuing its commitment to
physicians, patients and the organized medical community, has
joined the American Medical Association and other physician
associations from several states in filing a nationwide
consolidated class action lawsuit.  This lawsuit is against the
following health insurers: Aetna Inc., Cigna Corp. and other co-
conspirators such as Wellpoint, Inc., Oxford Health Plans, Health
Net, Inc., and The Health Insurance Association of America over
the use of a 'rigged' database used to underpay physicians,
providers and patients for more than a decade.

This nationwide class action is brought on behalf of physicians,
subscribers, DME providers and other non-physician providers, as
well as the American Medical Association and several state
medical associations, including the Medical Society of New
Jersey, the Medical Society of the State of New York, the
California Medical Society, the Connecticut State Medical
Society, the Texas Medical Association, and the North Carolina
Medical Society.

These organized medical communities have been forced to absorb as
much as 28% reduction of the costs of treatments and services
provided based on the Usual, Customary and Reasonable (UCR)
allowable rates. This in turn diminishes the necessary resources
to run their health care practices and stands in the way of the
patient-physician relationship.

"Being a Plaintiff in this suit is unprecedented in the Durable
Medical Equipment industry," states Brandon Maxon Maldonado, whom
along with his brother Gregory Maxon Maldonado, own and operate
Maldonado Medical.  In an ongoing effort to increase  
reimbursement rates for physicians, Maldonado Medical is helping
to spearhead efforts to keep physicians from being systematically
trampled into submission and forced to accept the health
insurance industry's "Out of Network" UCR reimbursement rates.

Maldonado Medical has also been fighting other types of health
insurers' fraudulent claims practices since 2003. "We can no
longer ignore the improper business practices of health insurers
who decide to play by their own rules without any regard to
patients, or the legitimate costs required to care for them,"
said AMA President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.

"We have evidence that multiple health insurance companies have
attempted to put us out of business but we have taken a stand,
both for the rights of our patients and physicians, as well as
our own", says Brandon Maxon Maldonado.  With health insurance
reform in the forefront of the American political landscape,
health insurance companies have spent millions of dollars trying
to convince people that patient care is of the utmost importance.  
The real fact is that the health insurance industry continues to
earn billions of dollars and record profits at the expense of its
physicians and patients.

According to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, health
insurance companies have been able to defraud physician's
reimbursements by up to 28% nationwide.

"This class action is about a secret and intentionally concealed
agreement among health insurers to depress reimbursements,
thereby raising the cost of reimbursed health care services for
consumers and providers."  (As outlined in the consolidated class
action filed on July 1, 2009 in US State District Court, District
of New Jersey.)

When plaintiffs such as Maldonado Medical bring class action
lawsuits, they are often taking on the wealthiest corporations in
the world.  These corporations will allocate massive amounts of
their resources into the effort to prevent any recovery or
meaningful change in practices.  The Maldonado Medical legal team
is also exploring options to participate in various other class
action lawsuits. Examples of other lawsuits may include the
practice of using post-payment audit processes to place pressure
on providers.  The insurer's intention is to claim that the
providers have been overpaid in the past for services that are
not deemed to be covered under its health care policies for
various reasons.  This includes stating that the services are
purportedly experimental and/or investigational.  They feel this
will intimidate physicians into not using "Out of Network"
benefits that patients have paid substantial amounts for.

"Health Insurance companies consistently invalidate acceptable
medical procedures thus making the patient responsible for their
health care costs," states Gregory Maxon Maldonado. "In making
demands like this, health insurance companies fail to provide
even minimal due process, which is required under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), before health insurance
companies can make any unfavorable health benefit determinations.
These health insurance companies continue to violate the legal
rights of physicians, non-physician providers and the premium
paying patients."

"We are involved in this historic class action lawsuit to assist
physicians and patients in defending themselves.  We have
expended enormous resources to create a proprietary database of
thousands of violations of ERISA and to create transparency in
this corrupt system of reimbursement schedules with the intent to
change the system in making it more fair for doctors and
patients," says Brandon Maxon Maldonado.

On June 15, 2009, in the face of overwhelming accusation and
historical precedence, a federal judge ordered the Aetna class
action case to a preliminary settlement conference. It is at this
conference where Maldonado Medical, along with the American
Medical Association and associated plaintiffs, will attempt to
reform "Out of Network" reimbursement procedures and provide
physicians, non-physician providers and subscribers the
recompense that is long overdue from these fraudulent and
conspiratorial acts.

For more information, see http://www.Maldonado-Medical.com/


HEALTHWAYS: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated amended complaint filed on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased Healthways, Inc.
stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008.

Beginning on June 5, 2008, the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and/or directors were named as
defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the two
related cases, appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel, and granted lead plaintiff leave to file a consolidated
amended complaint.

The amended complaint, filed on Sept. 22, 2008, alleges that the
Company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control
persons" of Healthways.

The amended complaint further alleges that certain of the
individual defendants also violated Section 20A of the Act based
on their stock sales.

The plaintiff purports to bring these claims for unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
Healthways stock between July 5, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008.

In support of these claims, plaintiff alleges generally that,
during the proposed class period, the Company made misleading
statements and omitted material information regarding:

   -- the purported loss or restructuring of certain contracts
      with customers,

   -- the Company's participation in the Medicare Health Support
      pilot program for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
      Services, and

   -- the Company's guidance for fiscal year 2008.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Nov. 12, 2008.

On March 9, 2009, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The parties have exchanged discovery requests, and the
discovery phase of the lawsuit is presently underway, 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.

Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides
specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people
maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce
overall healthcare costs.  The company delivers its programs to
customers, which include health plans, governments, employers,
and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and Guam.  Its programs focus on prevention,
education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change
and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven
standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Breach Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute a purported class-
action lawsuit against Healthways, Inc. and certain of its
directors and officers alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act is pending.

On July 31, 2008, the purported class-action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against Healthways and certain of its directors and officers
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties to participants in the
Company's 401(k) plan.

The central allegation is that Company stock was an imprudent
investment option for the 401(k) plan.  The named defendants
are: the Company, Board of Directors, certain officers, and
members of the Investment Committee charged with administering
the 401(k) plan.

The complaint was amended on Sept. 29, 2008.  The amended
complaint alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by failing
to remove the Company stock fund from the 401(k) plan when it
allegedly became an imprudent investment, by failing to disclose
adequately the risks and results of the Medicare Health Support
(MHS) pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and by failing
to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to permit
the plan to hold Company stock.  It further alleges that the
Company and its directors should have been more closely
monitoring the Investment Committee and other plan fiduciaries.

The amended complaint seeks damages in an undisclosed amount and
other equitable relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 29, 2008.

On Jan. 28, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of the duty to disclose
with regard to any non-public information and information beyond
the specific disclosure requirements of ERISA and denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the remainder of the
plaintiff's claims.  A period of discovery ensued.

On May 12, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  After the plaintiff did not appear for his
scheduled deposition, the Court issued an Order on July 10, 2009,
warning the plaintiff that his failure to participate in the
lawsuit could result in sanctions, including but not limited to
dismissal.  After the plaintiff's failure to participate
continued, on July 23, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to prosecute the action, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides
specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people
maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce
overall healthcare costs.  The company delivers its programs to
customers, which include health plans, governments, employers,
and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and Guam.  Its programs focus on prevention,
education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change
and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven
standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Appeal to Approved Deal in N.J. Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's approval
of the settlement of a consolidated putative class action against
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. is being appealed.

Various putative class actions that were consolidated into two
actions in New Jersey included claims against MMC, its
subsidiary, Marsh Inc., and certain Marsh subsidiaries.

One of the actions was filed on behalf of a purported class of
"commercial" policyholders and the second on behalf of a
purported class of "employee benefit" policyholders.

In February 2009, the trial court approved a settlement of the
claims against MMC, Marsh and certain Marsh subsidiaries in both
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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues to Face Lawsuits by Policyholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., continues to face putative class
actions by policyholders relating to a civil complaint filed by
the New York State Attorney General.

Among other things, the NYAG Lawsuit alleged that Marsh's use of
market service agreements with various insurance companies
entailed fraudulent business practices, bid-rigging, illegal
restraint of trade and other statutory violations.

Fifteen actions instituted by individual policyholders and others
are pending in federal and state courts relating to matters
alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit.

Two putative class or representative actions on behalf of
policyholders are pending in state courts, and one putative class
action is pending in Canada.

No further details were provided in 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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery in Securities Suit Ongoing in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a purported securities class action against Marsh &
McLennan Cos., Inc., and its subsidiary, Marsh Inc., and certain
of their former officers is ongoing in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs make factual allegations similar to those asserted in
the New York Attorney General's lawsuit, including that MMC
artificially inflated its share price by making
misrepresentations and omissions relating to Marsh's market
service agreements and business practices.

Plaintiffs also allege that MMC failed to disclose alleged anti-
competitive and illegal practices at Marsh, such as "bid-rigging"
and soliciting fictitious quotes.

Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages.  

Trial is scheduled for early 2010, 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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in New York ERISA Lawsuit  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in the purported class action against Marsh
& McLennan Cos., Inc., alleging the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations.

A purported ERISA class action is pending against MMC and various
current and former employees, officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of an MMC retirement plan.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that in light of the
alleged misconduct described in the New York Attorney General's
lawsuit, the defendants knew or should have known that the
investment of the plan's assets in MMC stock was imprudent, that
certain defendants failed to provide plan participants with
complete and accurate information about MMC stock, that certain
defendants responsible for selecting, removing and monitoring
other fiduciaries did not comply with ERISA, and that MMC
knowingly participated in other defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

Trial is scheduled for early 2010, 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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Derivative Claims Over Putnam Funds Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action purporting to assert derivative claims on
behalf of all Putnam LLC mutual funds remains ongoing, according
to Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

Two putative class actions by investors in certain Putnam Funds
are pending against Putnam.

One action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940.

The other action purports to assert derivative claims on behalf
of all Putnam Funds under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company
Act.

Both suits seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly suffered
by the Putnam Funds and their investors as a result of purported
market-timing and late trading activity in certain Putnam Funds.

In December 2008 and April 2009, the court granted Putnam's
motion for summary judgment in the action relating to securities
claims, and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

In the derivative action, the court denied Putnam's motion for
summary judgment.

On Aug. 3, 2007, Great-West Lifeco Inc. completed its purchase of
Putnam Investments Trust. Under the terms of the stock purchase
agreement with GWL, MMC agreed to indemnify GWL in the future
with respect to certain Putnam-related litigation and regulatory
matters.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues to Face ERISA Lawsuits with Putnam
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., Putnam LLC and certain of their
current and former officers, directors and employees remain
defendants in purported Employee Retirement Income Security Act
class actions.

One class action was brought by participants in an MMC retirement
plan and the other case was brought by participants in a Putnam
retirement plan.

The actions allege, among other things, that, in view of the
market-timing that was allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the
investment of the plans' funds in MMC stock and the Putnam Funds
was imprudent and constituted a breach of fiduciary duties to
plan participants.

Both actions seek unspecified damages and equitable relief.

Following a September 2006 dismissal of the action regarding the
Putnam plan, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

In June 2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and
remanded the case for further proceedings, 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.

Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh Inc., the insurance broker,
intermediary and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter & Co., the risk and
reinsurance specialist; Kroll Inc., the risk consulting firm;
Mercer, the provider of human resources and related financial
advice and services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management
consultancy. MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional
capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries.  MMC
conducts business through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Services, Consulting and Risk Consulting and
Technology.


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Funeral Directors' Suit to Void Ill. Order
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action, Fred C. Dames Funeral Homes, Inc., et
al. v. Daniel W. Hynes, the Illinois Office of the Comptroller,
et al., is pending, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s Aug.
7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On July 7, 2009, the class action was filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of certain funeral directors.

On May 18, 2009, the Illinois Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation Division of Insurance and Merrill Lynch
Life Agency, Inc. entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order by
which MLLA agreed, among other things, to contribute $18 million
to a Fund to benefit certain affected purchasers of pre-need
funeral contracts and funeral directors.

The plaintiffs are seeking to void the Consent Order in its
entirety, and are asking for a declaratory judgment against the
Illinois Comptroller, the Department, Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, MLLA and Merrill Lynch Bank & Trust
Co., FSB, that only certain terms of the Consent Order are
unenforceable, an injunction against the Department and the
Illinois Comptroller from taking further action, and recovery of
attorneys' fees in pursuing the action.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Pre-Need Contract Holders' Suit v. MLPF&S Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Tipsword as Trustee of Mildred E. Tipsword Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
I.F.D.A. Services Inc., et al., is pending, according to Merrill
Lynch & Co. Inc.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

On June 16, 2009, the purported class action on behalf of a
proposed class of pre-need contract holders was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, among other
defendants.

The complaint alleges that MLPF&S breached purported fiduciary
duties and committed negligence.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: MLPF&S Faces Clancy-Gernon Funeral Home's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action on behalf of a proposed class of funeral
directors filed on June 30, 2009, is pending against Merrill
Lynch & Co. Inc. entities.

The action, Clancy-Gernon Funeral Home, Inc., et al. v. MLPF&S,
et al., was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
alleging that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Merrill Lynch Life Agency, Inc., among other defendants,
committed consumer fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment,
and conversion.

In each of these lawsuits, plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, among other relief, 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.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


METLIFE: Lawyers-As-Witnesses Problem Might Disqualify Debevoise
----------------------------------------------------------------
Last week, Daniel Wise at the New York Law Journal reports, the
Honorable Thomas C. Platt entered a single-sentence order
disqualifying Debevoise & Plimpton as counsel for MetLife in the
$8 billion class action proceeding entitled In re MetLife
Demutualization, Case No. 00-cv-2258 (E.D.N.Y.).  MetLife ran to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit without delay.  
The Second Circuit directed expedited briefing, with MetLife's
reply brief due by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 14.

Jury selection was scheduled to start tomorrow in the District
Court.  The trail won't start until the disqualification issue is
resolved.  

In disqualifying Debevoise, Judge Platt agreed with the class'
arguments that the firm had an impermissible dual representation
because it was counsel to MetLife and the policyholders prior to
the conversion, but afterwards, when the two became adversaries,
it continued to represent MetLife.  The class also contended that
disqualification was required because the class had listed four
Debevoise lawyers, three of whom had worked on the conversion
litigation, as possible witnesses.  Debevoise has been MetLife's
counsel for more than nine years.

Teresa Wynn Rosenborough, Esq., Senior Chief Litigation Counsel
at MetLife, says there is "no likelihood" that any of the
potential Debevoise witnesses would deliver testimony damaging to
MetLife, but if the lawyers were "compromised" during trial, the
problem could be "dealt with then."

The policyholder class, represented by Jared B. Stamell, Esq., at
Stamell & Schager, claims that policyholders were damaged by the
prospectus that Debevoise prepared to solicit their votes in
favor of the conversion.  The class contends that the prospectus
fraudulently omitted information that would have made it clear
that the policyholders would lose more than they would gain in
the conversion.

Mr. Wise's full story is available at http://is.gd/2S5bv


NBTY INC: Suit by Calif. Nutrition Bars Consumers Remain Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit filed by various California consumers
against NBTY, Inc.'s subsidiary, Rexall Sundown, Inc. and
certain of its subsidiaries remains stayed.

Rexall, and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in the
class-action lawsuit brought in 2002, on behalf of all
California consumers who bought various nutrition bars.

The plaintiffs allege misbranding of nutrition bars and
violations of California unfair competition statutes, misleading
advertising and other similar causes of action.   They seek
restitution, legal fees and injunctive relief.

In December 2007, while Rexall's and the other defendants'
renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending, the
Court again stayed the case for all purposes, pending rulings on
other relevant cases before the California Supreme Court.

The California Supreme Court issued a ruling in those other
cases on Feb. 11, 2008.  The parties to those other cases filed
a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  That
petition was denied on Jan. 12, 2009.

In light of still more relevant cases pending before the
California Supreme Court, all parties to this case have agreed
that the stay should remain in place, 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.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a vertically integrated
manufacturer, marketer and retailer of a line of nutritional
supplements in the United States and throughout the world.  The
company markets approximately 25,000 products under numerous
brands, including Nature's Bounty, Vitamin World, Pure Protein,
Body Fortress, Puritan's Pride, Holland & Barrett, Rexall, Osteo
Bi-Flex, Flex-A-Min, Knox, Sundown, MET-Rx, WORLDWIDE Sport
Nutrition, American Health, DeTuinen, Le Naturiste, SISU,
Solgar, Physiologics and Ester-C.  The company's vertical
integration includes the purchase of raw materials, formulation
and manufacture of products, which it markets through the four
channels of distribution: Wholesale/United States Nutrition,
North American Retail, European Retail and Direct Response/E-
Commerce.


NBTY INC: False Advertising Suit v. MET-Rx in N.J. Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit filed in New Jersey against
NBTY, Inc.'s subsidiary, MET-Rx USA, Inc., remains stayed,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

In March 2004, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in New
Jersey against MET-Rx, claiming that the advertising and
marketing of certain prohormone supplements were false and
misleading and that plaintiff and the putative class of New
Jersey purchasers of these products were entitled to damages and
injunctive relief.

Because these allegations are virtually identical to allegations
made in a putative nationwide class-action previously filed in
California, the company moved to dismiss or stay the New Jersey
action pending the outcome of the California action.  

The motion was granted, and the New Jersey action is stayed at
this time.

The California action against Met-Rx had been dismissed in 2008.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a vertically integrated
manufacturer, marketer and retailer of a line of nutritional
supplements in the United States and throughout the world.  The
company markets approximately 25,000 products under numerous
brands, including Nature's Bounty, Vitamin World, Pure Protein,
Body Fortress, Puritan's Pride, Holland & Barrett, Rexall, Osteo
Bi-Flex, Flex-A-Min, Knox, Sundown, MET-Rx, WORLDWIDE Sport
Nutrition, American Health, DeTuinen, Le Naturiste, SISU,
Solgar, Physiologics and Ester-C.  The company's vertical
integration includes the purchase of raw materials, formulation
and manufacture of products, which it markets through the four
channels of distribution: Wholesale/United States Nutrition,
North American Retail, European Retail and Direct Response/E-
Commerce.





NOVELL INC: Corporate Waste & Unjust Enrichment Alleged in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Novell, Inc.,
wasted corporate assets and unjustly enriched themselves with
backdated stock options, shareholders claim in Kimmel, et al. v.
Hovsepian, et al., File No. 09-3346 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex
Cty.).  A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/03/SCANovell.pdf


PERSHING LLC: Sued for Improper Public Access to Customer Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pershing LLC and the Bank of New York Mellon's unsecured Web site
gives the public easy access to customers' accounts and private
information, the class action lawsuit captioned Zeldman v.
Pershing LLC, et al., Case No. 09-cv-22609 (S.D. Fla.), claims,
according to Courthouse News Service.  

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/03/Banks.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33433
          Telephone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364
          E-mail: pgeller@csgrr.com
                  sdavidson@csgrr.com
                  cobrien@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          Stephen J. Calvacca, Esq.
          Law Offices of Calvacca Moran
          P.O. Box 1334
          66 Frazar Road
          West Falmouth, MA 02574-1334
          Telephone: 508-540-9911
          

PFIZER: Sued for Off-Label Use Misrepresentation in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action lawsuit, Zafarana v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 09-4026 (E.D. Pa.), claims Pfizer and Pharmacia & Upjohn
fraudulently pushed prescription drugs, including Geodon, Zyvox,
Lyrica, Aricept, Lipitor, Norvasc, Relpax, Viagra, Zithromax,
Zoloft and Zyrtec.  The class claims the companies pushed the
drugs for off-label uses, misrepresented their safety and
effectiveness, and paid doctors bribes and kickbacks for
prescribing them.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/03/PfizerPharmacia.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
          Robert G. Hughes, Esq.
          Michael P. Donohue, Esq.
          Michael J. Lorusso, Esq.
          THE HAVILAND LAW FIRM, LLP
          111 S. Independence Mall East, Suite 1000
          Philadelphia, PA 19106


ST. PAUL, MINN: 27 Arrested Protesters Sue City
-----------------------------------------------
Tewnty-seven citizens arrested a year ago as they tried to
protest outside the Republican National Convention at the Xcel
Energy Center sued the City of St. Paul, Minn.  The plaintiffs
say the city had no probable cause to arrest them, and the
police's use of chemicals and rubber bullets was excessive.  

A copy of the Complaint in Bernini, et al. v. City of St. Paul,
et al., Case No. 09-cv-02312 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/03/GOPRoundup.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Kolstad, Esq.
          1005 W. Franklin Ave., Suite 3
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone 612-721-3425

               - and -

          R. Travis Snider, Esq.
          Snider Law Firm, Ltd.
          1005 W. Franklin Ave., Suite 3
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone 612-872-1200

               - and -

          David L. Shulman, Esq.
          Law Office of David L. Shulman PLLC
          1005 W. Franklin Ave., Suite 3
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone 612-870-7410


TARGET CORP: 7th Cir. Rejects Pitch for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a customer who settled her
individual claim that Target sent her an unsolicited credit card
lost her interest in a class action, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled.

The lower court refused to grant class status to Christine Muro's
lawsuit against the retail giant.  Ms. Muro then settled her
claim that Target violated the Truth in Lending Act, but appealed
the lower court's denial of class certification.

"[W]e can discern no live, concrete controversy between Ms. Muro
and Target that can justify permitting her to appeal the district
court's determination with respect to the certification of the
class," wrote the Seventh Circuit panel said.  

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Opinion is available at:

      http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/QK0OCDH2.pdf

The appellate proceeding is Muro v. Target Corp., No. 08-1256
(7th Cir.).  The lower court proceeding is Muro v. Target Corp.,
Case No. 04-cv-06267 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).


TJX COS: Settles Computer Hacking-Related Lawsuit for $525,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivek Shankar at Bloomberg News reports that TJX Cos. agreed to
settle a class-action lawsuit that stemmed from the hacking of
its computer systems, according to an e-mailed statement.  

Under the settlement, TJX said it paid $525,000, which primarily
reimbursed the settling banks for a portion of their expenses,
excluding attorneys' fees, incurred in pursuing the putative
financial institutions class action, the Bloomberg reporter says.


TOYOTA: Sued for Hiding & Destroying Corolla Safety Documents
-------------------------------------------------------------
A RICO class action lawsuit, Basco, et al. v. Toyota Motor
Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 09-06307 (C.D. Calif.), claims
Toyota hid and destroyed documents about the roof strength of its
Corolla, in a personal injury case, according to Courthouse News
Service.  

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/03/Toyota.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          McCune Wright LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone (909) 557-1250
          Fax (909) 557-1275



VIRGINIA: 4th Circuit Nixes Racial Profiling Case
-------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a
class action accusing police in Charlottesville, Va., of
illegally seizing DNA evidence from black people who matched the
description of a serial rapist.

Larry Monroe said police officers violated his Fourth and 14th
Amendment rights by questioning him in the 2002 investigation of
a serial rapist. Officers allegedly stopped or questioned nearly
200 young black men over several years, looking for a match to
the suspect, who was described as a "youthful-looking black
male."

Mr. Monroe said this violated his equal-protection rights,
because police officers "do not perform such 'dragnet' stops of
individuals when the victim describes an assailant as white." He
also argued that an officer's request for a DNA sample
constituted an illegal seizure.

A federal judge in Virginia dismissed his equal-protection claims
in 2007, ruling that the government does not exclusively classify
people by race, and that the police based their investigation
solely on victims' physical description of the suspect.

The lower court also ruled that because Mr. Monroe had agreed to
the DNA sample, it wasn't an illegal seizure.

On appeal, Mr. Monroe argued that poor relations between police
and minority communities made young men believe that the requests
for DNA samples were mandatory.

The Richmond-based appeals court upheld both the lower court's
refusal to grant class-action status and its decision to dismiss
the constitutional claims.

Judge Beam cited the Supreme Court's rejection of a racial-
profiling claim over the detention and questioning of thousands
of young Arab-Muslim men following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks.  Because the attacks were carried about by people
matching that specific description, the high court had reasoned,
investigations "would produce a disparate, incidental impact on
Arab Muslims, even though the purpose of the policy was to target
neither Arabs nor Muslims."

Likewise, the court concluded, Charlottesville police questioned
Mr. Monroe and others in a "narrowly tailored" way based on
victims' descriptions, which had an "incidental impact" on local
black men.

A report about class certification in the underlying lawsuit
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Friday, August 10, 2007.

Representing the plaintiff are:  

           Neal L. Walters, Esq.
           Scott & Kroner, PC
           P.O. Box 2737,  
           Charlottesville, VA 22902-2737
           Phone: 434-296-2161  
           Fax: 434-293-2073
           E-mail: nwalters@scottkroner.com

              - and -

          Deborah Chasen Wyatt, Esq.
          Wyatt & Armstrong
          300 Court Square
          Charlottesville, VA 22902-5160
          Phone: 434-296-4130
          Fax: 297-3083
          E-mail: DWESQ@aol.com  

Representing the defendants is:

          Richard Hustis Milnor, Esq.
          Taylor Zunka Milnor & Carter, Ltd.
          414 Park Street
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Phone: 434-977-0191
          Fax: 434-977-0198
          E-mail: rmilnor@cstone.net

The appellate proceeding is Monroe v. The City of
Charlottesville, No. 08-1334 (4th Cir.).  The proceeding before
the trial court is Monroe v. The City of Charlottesville, Case
No. 05-cv-00074 (W.D. Va.).

A copy of the Fourth Circuit's Opinion is available at:

      http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081334.P.pdf


VISTAPRINT NV: Pursues Dismissal of Consolidated Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
VistaPrint USA, Inc., pursues a motion to dismiss a consolidated
purported class action complaint, according to VistaPrint,N.V.'s
Aug. 31, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Between July 29, 2008, and Sept. 11, 2008, a total of seven
purported class action lawsuits were filed against VistaPrint
USA, Inc., VistaPrint Corp. and/or Vistaprint Limited., and two
third party merchants, in U.S. Federal District Court in six
different states, asserting substantially identical claims
alleging that the defendants violated certain Federal and state
consumer protection laws in connection with the offer of
membership discount programs on the company's Vistaprint.com
website.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that after ordering
products on the company's Vistaprint.com website they were
enrolled in certain membership discount programs and that monthly
subscription fees for the programs were subsequently charged
directly to their credit or debit cards, in each case purportedly
without their knowledge or authorization.

The plaintiffs are seeking recovery of an unspecified amount of
damages, including statutory and punitive damages, together with
interest and legal costs, and are also seeking to prevent us and
the merchants from engaging in similar practices in the future.

The seven purported class action lawsuits have been transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On April 17, 2009, VistaPrint USA filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint, and on July 2, 2009 the Plaintiffs filed
an Opposition to VistaPrint USA's Motion to Dismiss.

Following that, on July 24, 2009, VistaPrint USA filed a reply
brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss.

VistaPrint, N.V. -- http://www.vistaprint.com-- is an online  
provider of coordinated portfolios of marketing products and
services to small businesses globally.  The company offers a
range of products and services ranging from printed business
cards, brochures and post cards to apparel, invitations and
announcements, holiday cards, calendars, creative design
services, copywriting services, direct mail services, promotional
gifts, signage, Website design and hosting services, and e-mail
marketing services.  The company has automated and integrated the
design and production process, from design conceptualization to
product shipment and service delivery.


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Hamilton Considers Antitrust Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton heard arguments last week in In re
Online DVD Rental Antitrust litigation, MDL No. 2029; Master File
No. 09-cv-02029 (N.D. Calif.), on Netflix and WalMart's request
to dismiss an antitrust class action that claims they conspired
to charge higher prices for Netflix's online DVD rental service,
which led Blockbuster to raise its prices too. "The real question
is whether you can prove that Blockbuster's response was
connected to this alleged conspiracy," U.S. District Judge
Phyllis Hamilton told class attorney Robert Abrams, Esq.  

Judge Hamilton said she was more concerned about the directness
of the class's alleged injury, since she agreed that customers
had been hurt by the higher prices.

The class claims that before WalMart and Netflix colluded, they
had been in a three-way price war with Blockbuster.

Mr. Abrams said that sometime in January 2005, Netflix CEO Reed
Hastings invited Wal-Mart.com CEO John Fleming to dinner, where
they discussed their companies' DVD sales and rental businesses.

"Our allegation is that this was when they began the conspiracy,"
Mr. Abrams said.

Mr. Abrams claimed the companies agreed that Netflix would eschew
DVD sales if WalMart would stay away from online DVD rentals. He
pointed out that neither company dropped their prices after that
meeting and that in June 2005, WalMart dropped out of the online
DVD rental market entirely.

In May 2005, Blockbuster announced that it would begin "testing"
a price increase from $14.99 to $17.99 for a three-movie plan,
which eventually became permanent. "This conspiracy is the
material cause of Blockbuster's prices going up," Mr. Abrams
said. "Wal-Mart dropping out is what allowed them to do it.  They
were a key competitor.  Get them out and you're left with a
market of only Netflix and Blockbuster."

But defendants' attorney Jonathan Jacobson, Esq., claims the
class does not have standing because they were only indirectly
injured by what he called "a promotion agreement" between the
companies. That agreement allowed WalMart DVD rental customers to
switch to Netflix at the same subscription cost.

"The plaintiffs' series of facts is plainly speculative and
wrong," Mr. Jacobson said.

Judge Hamilton said that whether the class has standing "is a
tough question, just like with all these other antitrust cases
you all keep bringing me. I'll have to wade through the case and
figure out which direction it should go."

Netflix, Inc., is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Jacobson, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, New York 10019
          Telephone: (212) 999-5800
          Fax: (212) 999-5899
          E-mail: jjacobson@wsgr.com

Wal-Mart is represented by:

          Neal S. Manne, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, Texas 77002
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          Fax: (713) 654-6666
          E-mail: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com


ZUMIEZ INC: Securities Suit in Wash. Dismissed in March 2009
------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint against Zumiez Inc. was
dismissed in March 2009, according to the company's Aug. 28,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

On Dec. 10, 2007, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers.  

The action was purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock during the period March 14,
2007, to Jan. 4, 2008, and alleged that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws during this period of time by, among
other things, having made materially false or misleading
statements and that the defendants engaged in insider trading.  

The defendants moved to dismiss all claims in October 2008.  

On March 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington issued its ruling without oral argument,
dismissing the case with prejudice.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based  
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.  
As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily
located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states.


ZUMIEZ INC: Settles Former Employee's Unpaid Overtime Wages Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc., on July 16, 2009, announced that the company had
reached an agreement to settle a former employee's class action
over unpaid overtime wages.

On March 5, 2008, a former employee commenced an action against
the company in California state court alleging that the company
failed to pay all overtime wages owing to him and other employees
in California, failed to provide meal breaks as required by
California law, failed to provide employees with proper itemized
wage statements (pay stubs) as required by California law, and
failed to pay terminated employees waiting time penalties under
California Labor Code section 203.

The suit is Evan Johnson v. Zumiez, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG08374968.   

According to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 1, 2009, the settlement agreement, which is subject to
documentation and court approval, provides for a claims made
settlement expected to cost the company approximately $1.3
million which includes settlement awards to class members, an
incentive payment to the plaintiff, attorney's fees and costs,
and claims administration costs.  This accrued charge was
recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses in the
condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three
months ended Aug. 1, 2009.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based  
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.  
As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily
located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states.


ZUMIEZ INC: "Berg" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, Chandra Berg v. Zumiez Inc., Case No.
BC408410, is pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The action, filed on Feb. 25, 2009, alleges causes of action for
failure to pay overtime wages to present and former store
managers in California, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks to store managers, failure to reimburse retail employees
for clothing required by the company's dress code, failure to
reimburse retail employees for business expenses, failure to
provide store managers with accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay terminated store managers all wages due at the
time of termination, unfair business practices and declaratory
relief.  

The company has filed an answer to the Complaint and discovery is
being conducted.  

No motion requesting certification of the case as a class action
has been filed, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based  
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.  
As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily
located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states.  


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

HURON CONSULTING: Barroway Topaz Files Complaint in N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP,
filed a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:
HURN) between April 27, 2006, and July 31, 2009 inclusive.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect
to these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., or David M. Promisloff, Esq.)
toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Huron and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Huron is a consulting company formed by former partners of Arthur
Andersen, LLP which claims to help clients comply with complex
regulations, resolve disputes, recover from distress, leverage
technology, and stimulate growth.  More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:  (1) that
since 2006, the Company had improperly accounted for earn-out
payments made in connection with four acquisitions; (2) that as a
result, the Company had overstated its net income and earnings
per share for the affected periods, and had understated its non-
cash compensation expenses; (3) that the Company's financial
statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2009, the Company shocked investors when it announced
that it would restate its financial results for fiscal years 2006
through 2008 and the first three months of 2009 due to the
Company's failure to properly account for certain payments made
in connection with four acquisitions.  These payments were
received by the sellers in connection with the sale of certain
acquired businesses that were subsequently redistributed among
themselves and to other select Huron employees.  Under the
accounting rules, these payments should have been classified as
non-cash compensation expenses.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined
$30.66 per share, or 69.13 percent, to close on August 3, 2009
(the next trading day) at $13.69 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer
& Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal
courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, or for additional information about participating in this
action, please visit http://www.btkmc.com/

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not
later than October 5, 2009, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability
to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member
of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  

    CONTACT:  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
              Darren J. Check, Esq.
              David M. Promisloff, Esq.
              280 King of Prussia Road
              Radnor, PA 19087
              1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
              Or by e-mail at info@btkmc.com

                            *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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  * * *