CAR_Public/091005.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 5, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 196
  
                            Headlines

ALLERGEN INC: Botox Manufacturer Sued in C.D. Calif.
CCA INDUSTRIES: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Mega-T Product
FARMERS GROUP: Insurer Sued For Labor Law Violations in Calif.
HERTZ CORP: Ohio Lawsuit Complains About "Fuel & Service" Fees
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Employees' Restitution Lawsuit Pending

INTELIUS: Accused of Improper Credit Card Billing in C.D. Calif.
LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit in Discovery Stage
LUNDAN PARTNERS: Tenants Sue Landlord in Cook County, Ill.
MDL 1628: Fresh Del Monte Defeats Pineapple Antitrust Claims
MERCK & CO: N.J. Sup. Ct. Affirms $4.5 Mil. Vioxx "McDarby" Award

MOODY'S CORP: Defends Remaining Claims in Merged Securities Suit
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Defending Suit by N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund
NOVASTAR FIN'L: To Defend Claims in N.Y. Lawsuit v. J.P. Morgan
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Suit Still Pending
NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to 401(k) Plan Suit Certification Pending

POZEN INC: District Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
PREFERRED CASH: Philadelphia Payday Lender Sued in State Court
RAYTHEON CO: Court Certifies Class in Chemical Contamination Suit
SMITH BARNEY: "Asher" Bond Suit v. Citigroup Pending in New York
SMITH BARNEY: Zentner Securities Suit v. Citigroup Nixed in July

SMITH BARNEY: Zentner Plaintiffs Agree to Junk Falcon Plus Suit
SMITH BARNEY: CGM Continues to Face Subprime-Related Actions
SMITH BARNEY: Consolidated AIG 2008 Securities Lawsuit Pending
SMITH BARNEY: ECA Acquisitions' Amended Complaint Pending in NY
TALON INT'L: Awaits Approval of Deal in Calif. Shareholder Suit

WESTERN DIGITAL: Unit Defends "Durrani" Suit Over Unpaid Wages

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

IMMERSION CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in N.D. Calif.
PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Bernstein Liebhard Sues Oil & Gas Fund
UCBH HOLDINGS: Murray Frank Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif.

                            *********

ALLERGEN INC: Botox Manufacturer Sued in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that Allergan,
Inc., which makes Botox, tells doctors to administer the drug in
a way that is "grossly unsafe and inappropriate" and could expose
patients to HIV or hepatitis, a doctor says in a class action in
Los Angeles Federal Court. Allergan advertises vials of Botox as
safe for multiple use, and even recommends "Botox parties" in
which a single vial is used for multiple patients, even though
the drug's label warns against just that, the class claims.
     
Lead plaintiff Ivan Goldsmith says Allergan has aggressively
promoted Botox, while jacking up its wholesale price from $400
per vial in 2005 to more than $1,000 per vial today. Sales of the
drug have exceeded $1 billion.
     
One single-use vial of Botox contains 50 to 100 units, which must
be used or discarded within 4 hours, Mr. Goldsmith says.  A
typical treatment for wrinkles accounts for just 20 units, and a
dosage to treat certain eye disorders takes about 2 units; the
rest of the Botox should be discarded, Mr. Goldsmith says.
     
If responsible physicians use Botox as directed on its label, a
$500 treatment would not offset the purchase of a single-use
$1,000 vial, according to the complaint.
     
Botulinum toxin, the active ingredient in Botox, decreases muscle
activity and blocks nerve impulses that trigger muscle
contractions.  Mr. Goldsmith says the FDA is investigating
whether Allergan has promoted Botox for used other than the four
that have been approved by the FDA.
     
Sharing a single-use vial among multiple patients violates
guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and medical
boards, Mr. Goldsmith says.  He claims that Allergan
misrepresents the correct use of Botox to physicians and provides
physicians with unrealistic profit estimates based on multiple
use of Botox vials.
     
A Las Vegas-based scandal erupted in February 2008 when the state
notified more than 40,000 patients of a chain of clinics "about a
potential exposure to hepatitis from multiple uses of single-use
vials of Propofol, another drug product approved for single-use
administration and often promoted and used in multiple
procedures," according to the complaint. "Following this
controversy, in May 2008 Allergan began importing and/or
repackaging Botox in smaller 50-unit vials.  *   *   *  The
smaller vials are still promoted for multi-use by Allergan."

Mr. Goldsmith says Allergan has spent $41 million marketing the
drug to physicians and consumers in a single year -- 2007.

Mr. Goldsmith says he "is aware of countless instances of off-
label and misleading promotion, both publicly and privately, by
Allergan sales representatives.  References to 'Botox parties'
using a single 100-unit vial across numerous 'party' attendees
were included in continuing medical education ('CME') programs
and other promotional forums hosted or promoted by Allergan."

Mr. Goldsmith seeks class damages for breach of warranty and
unfair business practices and an order barring Allergan from
pushing Botox for uses warned against on its label.

A copy of the Complaint in Goldsmith v. Allergen, Inc., Case No.
09-cv-7088 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/01/BotoxCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-398-8700


CCA INDUSTRIES: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Mega-T Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Wally, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, has sued CCA Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. BC422833 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), on Sept.
29, 2009, for deceptive marketing of its Mega-T weight loss
product.  The plaintiff is represented by:

          Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
          Peter J. Farnese, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, ADELMAN & KREGER, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Phone: 310-396-9600
          Fax: 310-396-9635

CCA Industries, Inc. (NYSE Amex: CAW), confirmed recipt of
Ms. Wally's lawsuit.  The Company believes that the claim is
without any merit and intends to vigorously defend the case.

CCA Industries Inc. manufactures and markets health and
beauty aids, each under its individual brand name.  The
products include, principally, "Plus+White" toothpastes and
teeth whiteners, "Mega-T" Green Tea diet supplements,
"Mega-T" Green Tea gum and mint products, "Bikini Zone",
medicated topical and shave gels, "Nutra Nail" nail care
treatments, "Scar Zone" scar treatment products, "Sudden
Change" anti-aging skin care products, "Parfume de Vanille"
fragrances, "Solar Sense" sun protection products, "Hair
Off" hair removal and depilatory products, "Wash 'N Curl"
shampoos and conditioners and Pain Bust RII, an analgesic
product.


FARMERS GROUP: Insurer Sued For Labor Law Violations in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Stepp, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, has sued Farmers Group, Inc.,
Farmers Underwriters Association, and Farmers Insurance Company,
Inc., Case No. BC422817 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.),
alleging labor law violations.  The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Meuser, Esq.
          MEUSER LAW GROUP, INC.
          PO Box 5412
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: 415-577-2850
          Fax: 925-262-4656


HERTZ CORP: Ohio Lawsuit Complains About "Fuel & Service" Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hertz charges a "fuel and
service" fee even when customers return rental vehicles with a
full tank of gas, according to a class action in Cuyahoga County
Court, Cleveland.

A copy of the Complaint in King v. The Hertz Corporation, Case
No. CV 09 705526 (Ohio Ct. of Common Plead, Cuyahoga Cty.)
(O'Donnell, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/01/CCAHertz.pdf

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Andrew Samtoy, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: 440-352-3391

          
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Employees' Restitution Lawsuit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Integrated Healthcare Holdings,
Inc. is at its early stages, according to the company's Aug. 14,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On June 5, 2009, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the
company by certain hourly employees alleging restitution for
unfair business practices, injunctive relief for unfair business
practices, failure to pay overtime wages, and penalties
associated therewith.

Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ihhioc.com/
-- is a physician owned company that acquired and began
operating the four hospital facilities: Western Medical Center
in Santa Ana; Western Medical Center in Anaheim; Coastal
Communities Hospital in Santa Ana, and Chapman Medical Center in
Orange.


INTELIUS: Accused of Improper Credit Card Billing in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP initiated Baxter v.
Intelius, et al., Case No., 09-CV-1031 (C.D. Calif.), last week.  

The class action lawsuit alleges that Bellevue, Wash.-based
Intelius automatically enrolls California consumers into programs
of its affiliate, Adaptive Marketing, improperly and without
consent.  The complaint describes how defendants automatically
bill California consumers' credit cards for these unrequested
"memberships", and intentionally frustrate victims' ability to
recognize and dispute the charges.

If you are a California resident who lost money when Intelius
posted unauthorized charges to your credit or debit card, you may
be a member of the class represented by the complaint.  

To receive additional information, participate, or share
information you'd like the plaintiff's lawyers to consider,
please contact:

          William R. Restis, Esq.
          Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-238-1333
          E-mail: wrr@classactionlaw.com


LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class-action suit, Global
Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc., according to the
company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. (GES) filed a
consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against the company in King
County (Washington) Superior Court.

GES has alleged in its complaint that the company's use of
activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.

GES is seeking injunctive relief against our use of the checks,
as well as a judgment in an amount equal to three times the
alleged damages sustained by GES and the members of the class.

LiveDeal has denied the allegations.

Legal proceedings in the matter are ongoing, and discovery began
in late January 2009.

LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com-- delivers best of
breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium-
sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow
Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way
for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local,
relevant customers via the Internet.  Through its online
property, www.livedeal.com, LiveDeal delivers local search
engine marketing (SEM) through its LiveAdvisor TM and LiveClicks
TM products that combine best-of-breed technology with a strong
partnership model and an inside sales team to create an
efficient platform local businesses need to create and optimize
their Internet search advertising campaigns.  Livedeal partners
with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK, Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com
and others. LiveDeal, Inc. is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


LUNDAN PARTNERS: Tenants Sue Landlord in Cook County, Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
James Dimas and Jessyca Dimas, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, sued
Lundan Partners, LP, Case No. 2009-CH-36504 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty.), on Sept. 30, 2009, for alleged violations of the Chicago
Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance.  The Plaintiffs are
represented by:

          Michael D. Spinak, Esq.
          SPINAK & BABCOCK, P.C.
          134 N. LaSalle, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-346-1337

               - and -  

          Mark A. Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          225 W. Washington, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-775-1015


MDL 1628: Fresh Del Monte Defeats Pineapple Antitrust Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
David Glovin at Bloomberg News reports that Fresh Del Monte
Produce Inc., the Grand Cayman-based fruit and vegetable packer,
won dismissal of In Re Pineapples Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1628; Master Docket No. 04-md-01628 (S.D.N.Y.), in which it was
accused of using monopoly power over the sale of extra-sweet
pineapple.

U.S. District Judge Richard Berman in New York threw out the 2004
lawsuit last week brought on behalf of purchasers of Fresh Del
Monte Gold pineapples, or MD-2 pineapples, from 1996 to the
present.  The plaintiffs claimed Fresh Del Monte maintained a
monopoly over the sale of fresh, whole, extra-sweet pineapple by
improperly securing a patent for a variety of the fruit, by
threatening competitors, and by pursuing sham litigation.

The monopoly "claims fail because MD-2 pineapples do not
constitute appropriately a separate submarket, and plaintiffs do
not appear to argue that defendants had monopoly power in the
broader pineapple market," Judge Berman wrote in a 43-page
opinion.  Mr. Gloven relates that Judge Berman also said the
plaintiffs in the case failed to advance enough evidence for a
jury to conclude that Fresh Del Monte pursued sham litigation.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is represented by:

          Carlos M. Sires, Esq.      
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-356-0011


MERCK & CO: N.J. Sup. Ct. Affirms $4.5 Mil. Vioxx "McDarby" Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court issued on May 7, 2009, but just
released last week, its ruling dismissing an appeal by Merck &
Co. in the McDarby v. Merck, Docket No. L-1296-05 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Atlantic Cty.).  

The case was tried by Weitz & Luxenberg on behalf of John
McDarby, a diabetic who suffered a heart attack due to his use of
Merck's prescription drug Vioxx. The Order fully affirmed an
earlier court's compensatory award of $3 million for Mr.
McDarby's pain and suffering and $1.5 million for his wife, Irma
McDarby's loss of consortium, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

"Although we are thrilled to finally see this measure of justice
for the McDarby family, we are saddened by the fact that Mr.
McDarby did not survive the delays in the appellate process,"
said Jerry Kristal, one of the members of the McDarby trial team.

In April 2006, Weitz & Luxenberg attorneys Robert Gordon, Esq.,
Jerry Kristal, Esq., and Ellen Relkin, Esq., together with Mark
Lanier, Esq., of the Lanier law firm, secured a $13.5 million
verdict against Merck for plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. McDarby in a
failure-to-warn case involving Vioxx and the risk of heart
attacks and strokes. The jury awarded the McDarbys both
compensatory, punitive and consumer fraud damages.  

Subsequently, the New Jersey Appellate Division, the intermediate
appellate court, affirmed the compensatory damage awards for
personal injury to Mr. McDarby, but overturned the punitive
damage and consumer fraud awards.

The propriety of the punitive and consumer fraud damages awards
was a legal issue of first impression since this was the first
New Jersey case in which punitive and Consumer Fraud Act damages
were awarded in a pharmaceutical case since the passage of the
New Jersey Product Liability Act. The Court found that such
relief was not allowed by the Act.

Merck appealed the compensatory award to the New Jersey Supreme
Court, which granted the drug company certification limited only
to the issue of federal preemption, which had yet to be settled
before the Supreme Court in Wyeth v. Levine (06-1249).  On March
4, 2009, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth that
federal approval of prescription drug labels does not immunize
drug companies from being sued, under state law, for inadequately
warning of health risks.

On the heels of that decision, after extensive briefing before
the Supreme Court, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the
certification should not have been granted to Merck, thus fully
affirming the findings of the Appellate Division regarding the
compensatory verdict of $4.5 million.  

Weitz & Luxenberg said in a written statement that it is
gratified that Mr. McDarby's family will finally receive this
award to compensate for his injuries arising from Vioxx.

Jef Feeley and David Voreacos at Bloomberg News report that Merck
still faces at least 18 lawsuits filed by governmental agencies,
including those by 10 state attorneys general, alleging the
drugmaker violated consumer-protection laws with its marketing of
the drug, citing an Aug. 3 regulatory filing.  


MOODY'S CORP: Defends Remaining Claims in Merged Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody.s Corporation continues to defend the remaining claims
in the consolidated class action complaint, In re Moody's
Corporation Securities Litigation.

Two purported class action complaints have been filed by
purported purchasers of the company's securities against
Moody's and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims
under the federal securities laws:

     -- Nach v. Huber, Case No. 07-cv-04071 (N.D. Ill.,
        filed July 19, 2007); and

     -- Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund v. Moody's
        Corporation and Linda S. Huber, Case No. 07-cv-08375
        (S.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 26, 2007).

Both actions have been consolidated into a single
proceeding, In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-08375 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's securities during the period Feb. 3, 2006 through
Oct. 24, 2007.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and/or
misleading statements concerning the company's business
conduct, business prospects, business conditions and
financial results relating primarily to MIS's ratings of
structured finance products including RMBS, CDO and
constant-proportion debt obligations.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
connection with the case.

The company moved for dismissal of the consolidated amended
complaint in September 2008.

On Feb. 23, 2009, the court issued an opinion dismissing
certain claims and sustaining others, according to the
company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

In the Consolidated Action:

Moody's Corporation and Linda S. Huber are represented by:

          Darrell Scott Cafasso, Esq.
          Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
          Sharon L. Nelles, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1430 Broadway, Suite 1603
          New York, NY 10018

               - and -  

          Benjamin Jay Hinerfeld, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Keeney, Esq.
          Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq.
          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087

               - and -  

          Aaron D. Hovan, Esq.
          Daniel Hume, Esq.
          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022

Moody.s Corporation -- http://www.moodys.com/-- provides  
credit ratings and related research, data and analytical
tools, quantitative credit risk measures, risk scoring
software, and credit portfolio management solutions and
securities pricing software and valuation models.  The
company operates in two segments: Moody.s Investors Service
and Moody.s Analytics.


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Defending Suit by N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. continues to defend an amended
purported class-action complaint filed by the New Jersey
Carpenters' Health Fund, according to the company's Aug. 14,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class-action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.

Defendants in the case include NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation and its individual directors, several securitization
trusts sponsored by the company, and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and plaintiff has filed a motion to remand
the case to state court.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and
the purported class members.

Pursuant to a stipulation, the company has not yet filed its
initial responsive pleading, and discovery is not yet underway.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and
the purported class members.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


NOVASTAR FIN'L: To Defend Claims in N.Y. Lawsuit v. J.P. Morgan
---------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. expects to defend any claims asserted
in relation to a putative class action lawsuit filed against
J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp., according to the company's Aug. 14,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On May 6, 2008, the company received a letter written on behalf
of J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acceptance Corp. and certain affiliates
demanding indemnification for claims asserted against Morgan in
a case entitled, "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local #562 Supplemental
Plan and Trust v. J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp. et al.," filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau.

The case seeks class action certification for alleged violations
by Morgan of sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
on behalf of all persons who purchased certain categories of
mortgage backed securities issued by Morgan in 2006 and 2007.

Morgan's indemnity demand alleges that any liability it might
have to plaintiffs would be based, in part, upon alleged
misrepresentations made by the company with respect to certain
mortgages that make up a portion of the collateral for the
securities at issue.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri's dismissal of a consolidated
amended putative class action complaint remains pending,
according to Novastar Financial, Inc.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In February 2007, a number of substantially similar putative
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

The complaints name the company and three of its former and
current executive officers as defendants and generally allege,
among other things, that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results.

The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock during the period May 4, 2006 through Feb. 20,
2007.

Following consolidation of the actions, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on Oct. 19, 2007.

On Dec. 29, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss all of
plaintiffs' claims.

On June 4, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints
without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Court's ruling.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to 401(k) Plan Suit Certification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. continues to appeal the class
certification order in the lawsuit filed in relation to the
company's 401(k) plan, according to its according to the
company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jennifer Jones filed a purported
class action case in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri against the company, certain of its former
and current officers, and unnamed members of its "Retirement
Committee."

Plaintiff, a former employee of the company, seeks class-action
certification on behalf of all persons who were participants in
or beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) plan from May 4, 2006
until Nov. 15, 2007 and whose accounts included investments in
its common stock.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages alleging that the company's
common stock was an inappropriately risky investment option for
retirement savings, and that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by allowing investment of some of the assets contained in
the 401(k) plan to be made in the company's common stock.

On Nov. 12, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss which
was denied by the Court on Feb. 11, 2009.

On April 6, 2009 the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The company sought permission from the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals to appeal the order granting class certification.  On
May 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals granted the company
permission to appeal the class certification order.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage
portfolio manager.  The company previously originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced
residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed
securities.  It retained, thorough the mortgage securities
investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans,
originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform,
serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued
the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing
rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the
servicing operations.


POZEN INC: District Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2009, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina granted POZEN Inc.'s (NASDAQ:
POZN) motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit
against the it, its chief executive officer and certain of its
officers.  

The plaintiffs in Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case No.
07-CV-00559 (M.D.N.C.), alleged, among other claims, violations
of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 arising out of statements made by the
Company concerning its migraine drug candidate, Treximet(R),
during the purported class period, July 31, 2006, through August
1, 2007 which were alleged by the plaintiffs to have been false
or misleading.

The Court dismissed the claims in their entirety with prejudice.

Under the federal rules, the plaintiffs have a period of 30 days
in which to appeal the court's decision.

POZEN -- http://www.pozen.com/-- is a pharmaceutical company  
committed to developing therapeutic advancements for diseases
with unmet medical needs where it can improve efficacy, safety,
and/or patient convenience. POZEN's efforts are focused primarily
on the development of pharmaceutical products for the treatment
of acute and chronic pain and other pain-related conditions.
POZEN has development and commercialization alliances with
GlaxoSmithKline for Treximet(R), which was approved in 2008 by
the United States Food and Drug Administration for the acute
treatment of migraine attacks, with or without aura, in adults,
and with AstraZeneca for VIMOVO(TM), the proposed trade name for
the proprietary fixed dose combination of naproxen with the
proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole magnesium in a single tablet
for conditions such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in
patients who are at risk for developing NSAID-associated gastric
ulcers. The Company's common stock is traded on The NASDAQ Stock
Market under the symbol "POZN".


PREFERRED CASH: Philadelphia Payday Lender Sued in State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Preferred Cash Loans charges
"extortionate rates" on payday loans, a class action claims in
the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

A copy of the Complaint in Clerk v. Preferred Cash Loans, Case
No. _________ (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/30/Payday.pdf

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Miller, Esq.
          Christopher A. Gomez, Esq.
          Michele A. DiMartino, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          2 Bala Plaza, Suite 603
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-660-0622


RAYTHEON CO: Court Certifies Class in Chemical Contamination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Pittman at the St. Petersburg Times reports that for more
than a year, Nancy Sher has been holding her breath to see what a
federal judge would say about the lawsuit she and four neighbors
filed against Raytheon over chemical contamination spreading
beneath their homes.

On Wednesday she got an answer.  U.S. District Judge Virginia
Hernandez Covington ruled that Sher, et al. v. Raytheon Company,
et al., Case No. 08-cv-00889 (M.D. Fla.), can go forward as a
class-action suit.  That means Raytheon now could face claims for
damages from more than 1,000 property owners in the Azalea
neighborhood where its factory stood.

"I really feel like it's a blessing," Ms. Sher said. "The people
have all stood shoulder-to-shoulder on this."

Raytheon spokesman Jonathan Kasle noted that this is just the
first step in the case, and in the meantime the company is
working with state environmental officials to clean up the
contamination.

Mr. Kasle pointed out that the Azalea residents dropped their
claims that the toxic chemicals are damaging their health, and
instead focused on showing the plume damaged property values.

"Nobody will say there's no risk" from the chemicals, said Joseph
Saunders, one of the attorneys representing the residents. "But
the science doesn't rise to the level that we can prove in
court."

However, Raytheon lost on another front.  The judge's 44-page
ruling uses the estimate by the plaintiffs' expert, not Raytheon,
about how large the plume is now: a mile long and up to 1.7 miles
wide.

Workers discovered the contamination in 1991 during construction
of the Pinellas Trail. It originated from a drum storage area
when it belonged to a previous owner, E-Systems. When Raytheon
bought E-Systems in 1995, it inherited the pollution headache.

In February 1999, Raytheon told state officials the plume was
dissipating naturally, so it posed "no imminent . . . risk." But
six months later, in August 1999, state and Raytheon officials
met to discuss the fact that the plume had begun spreading. No
one notified residents of the problem until 2008.

Raytheon has submitted a 2,200-page cleanup plan to the state.
State officials have until next month to decide whether to
approve it.

Raytheon Company is represented by:

          Eugene F. Assaf, Esq.
          Andrew Clubok, Esq.
          Christopher Posteraro, Esq.
          Brian T. Stansbury, Esq.
          Edwin John U, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          655 15th St. NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005

               - and -  

          Landis Vernon Curry, III, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Hill, III, Esq.
          Dennis Parker Waggoner, Esq.
          HILL WARD HENDERSON
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
          PO Box 2231
          Tampa, FL 33601-2231

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian H. Barr, Esq.
          Neil Edward McWilliams, Esq.
          J. Michael Papantonio, Esq.
          Amanda R. Slevinski, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, ET AL.
          316 S. Baylen St., Ste. 400
          PO Box 12308
          Pensacola, FL 32591

               - and -  

          Keith Maxie Carter, Esq.
          Michael Steven Goetz, Esq.
          David G. Henry, Esq.
          Armando T. Lauritano, Esq.
          Clay M. Townsend, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          One Tampa City Center
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602

               - and -  

          Steven J. German, Esq.
          Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq.  
          GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP
          200 West 70th Street, Suite 8B
          New York, NY 10023

               - and -  

          Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin J. Madonna, Esq.
          KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP
          48 Dewitt Mills Rd.
          Hurley, NY 12443

               - and -  
          
          Christopher Thomas Nidel, Esq.
          NIDEL LAW, PLLC
          1111 14th St., N.W., Suite 777
          Washington, DC 20005

               - and -  

          Joseph H. Saunders, Esq.  
          SAUNDERS & WALKER, PA
          PO Box 1637
          Pinellas Park, FL 33780-1637
          

SMITH BARNEY: "Asher" Bond Suit v. Citigroup Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, Asher, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al.,
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, according to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund
L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

On May 11, 2009, the action was filed in New York, alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with
plaintiffs' investments in certain offerings of preferred stock
issued by the Citigroup.

On May 15, 2009, plaintiffs in In re Citigroup Inc. Bond
Litigation requested that Asher, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al.
and Pellegrini v. Citigroup Inc., et al. be consolidated with In
re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation.

No further details regarding the case were reported in the
regulatory filing.

New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a
limited partnership that was organized under the partnership
laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage,
directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a
diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures
contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.

      
SMITH BARNEY: Zentner Securities Suit v. Citigroup Nixed in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Zentner v. Citigroup, et al., in July 2009, according
to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The suit is a putative class action concerning In re MAT Two
Securities Litigation, In re MAT Three Securities Litigation and
In re MAT Five Securities Litigation.

On July 8, 2009, the court dismissed this action, without
prejudice, in connection with the dismissal of In re MAT Five
Securities Litigation.

New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a
limited partnership that was organized under the partnership
laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage,
directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a
diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures
contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.

      
SMITH BARNEY: Zentner Plaintiffs Agree to Junk Falcon Plus Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in Zentner v. Citigroup, et al., filed a
stipulation dismissing this action on July 6, 2009, according to
Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The suit is a putative class action concerning Falcon Plus.

On May 19, 2009, the New York Supreme Court issued a letter
order, stating that it would approve a settlement of plaintiff's
individual claims.

New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a
limited partnership that was organized under the partnership
laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage,
directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a
diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures
contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.

      
SMITH BARNEY: CGM Continues to Face Subprime-Related Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. continues to face several subprime-
related actions, including putative class actions, according to
Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In its capacity as a member of various underwriting syndicates,
CGM has been named as a defendant in several subprime-related
actions asserted against various issuers of debt and other
securities.

Most of these actions involve claims asserted on behalf of
putative classes of purchasers of securities for alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933.

New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a
limited partnership that was organized under the partnership
laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage,
directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a
diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures
contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.

      
SMITH BARNEY: Consolidated AIG 2008 Securities Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action complaint, In re American
International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation,remains
pending, according to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund
L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On March 20, 2009, four putative class actions were consolidated
by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 19,
2009.

These actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements contained in the registration statements
and prospectuses issued in connection with offerings of American
International Group debt securities and common stock, some of
which were underwritten by Citigroup Global Markets Inc.

New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a
limited partnership that was organized under the partnership
laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage,
directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a
diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures
contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.

      
SMITH BARNEY: ECA Acquisitions' Amended Complaint Pending in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended putative class-action complaint by ECA Acquisitions,
Inc. and Norbert Weissberg against MAT Three LLC is pending,
according to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug.
14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The class-action suit, ECA Acquisitions, Inc. et al. v.
MAT Three LLC, et al., as filed by investors in MAT One LLC,
MAT Two LLC, and MAT Three LLC.

Defendants removed the putative class action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 21,
2009.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for remand on Feb. 27, 2009. (Class
Action Reporter, June 5, 2009)

On May 1, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York denied plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to
state court.

On July 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a
limited partnership that was organized under the partnership
laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage,
directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a
diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures
contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.


TALON INT'L: Awaits Approval of Deal in Calif. Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of the purported shareholder class-action suit,
Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., is awaiting approval.

Talon International Inc. was formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the shareholder class-action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934,as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov.
14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
the purported class period.

The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1,
2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification.  The
plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also
sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class
certification.

Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007.  In
addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the
other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007 -
- the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and
his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007.  The
company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007.

The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments on Oct. 23, 2008.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished
memorandum, instructing the District Court to certify a class,
reversing the District Court's grant of summary judgment, and
remanding for further  proceedings consistent with its decision.
The District Court has scheduled a status conference for May 4,
2009 (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009).

The District Court has rescheduled the status conference for
June 15, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2009).

On July 31, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation  of
settlement intended to settle the matter and result in its
dismissal with prejudice.  The total settlement proceeds of $5.75
million are to be paid in full by the
company's insurers without any contribution from the Company or
individual defendants.  The Court has set a  hearing for
preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug. 17, 2009.  If
preliminary approval is given, notice will be provided to class
members and the Court will set a final fairness hearing on the
settlement, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The suit is Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 05-CV-7352 (C.D. Calif.) (Real, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

               - and -  

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -  

         Jules Brody, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

               - and -  

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600
         E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com

               - and -  

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com

              - and -

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         E-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
         Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
         695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-668-6200
         E-mail: pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com


WESTERN DIGITAL: Unit Defends "Durrani" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Technologies, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Western Digital Corporation, continues to defend a putative
class-action complaint filed by Ghazala H. Durrani, a former
employee of the company, in the Alameda County (California)
Superior Court.

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a putative class-action
complaint alleging that certain of the company's engineers have
been misclassified as exempt employees under California state
law and are, therefore, due unpaid hourly overtime wages and
other amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal
and rest periods.

By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was transferred to
the Orange County (California) Superior Court, where it is now
pending.

On June 16, 2009, the company was dismissed from the case without
prejudice by stipulation, leaving WDTI as the sole remaining
defendant.

On June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its Answer to the Complaint, denying
the substantive allegations thereof and raising several
affirmative defenses.

The case is in the preliminary stages, with no formal discovery
having occurred.

A court hearing on whether the case should be certified as a
class action will likely not occur until late calendar 2009 at
the earliest, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended July 3, 2009.

Western Digital Corporation -- http://www.westerndigital.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and sells hard drives.  It sells
its products worldwide to original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) and original design manufactures (ODMs) for use in
computer systems, subsystems or consumer electronics (CE)
devices, and to distributors, resellers and retailers.  The
company's hard drives are used in desktop computers, notebook
computers and enterprise applications, such as servers,
workstations, network attached storage, storage area networks
and video surveillance equipment.  Additionally, its hard drives
are used in CE applications, such as digital video recorders,
and satellite and cable set-top boxes.  It markets its hard
drives under brand names, including WD Caviar, WD Raptor, WD
VelociRaptor, WD Scorpio, WD Elements, My Passport, My Book, My
DVR Expander and GreenPower.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


IMMERSION CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Immersion Corporation (NASDAQ:IMMR)
between May 4, 2007, and June 30, 2009, against certain officers
and directors of Immersion pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. Sec.
240.10b-5].

The case is styled Buell v. Victor Viegas, et al.  The civil
action number is 09 cv 4561.  A copy of the complaint filed in
this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at
http://www.whafh.com/

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Defendants knowing concealed material information from the
investing public. Defendants knew that that Company's revenue
recognition practices for the Medical line of business failed to
comply with GAAP. Defendants also knew that Immersion's reported
revenue and earnings were materially overstated, as a result of
improper accounting practices.

The Company's stock was greatly inflated by the false statements
and misleading financial reports prepared by the Defendants.

On July 1, 2009, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Immersion Corporation Announces Internal Investigation." The
market reacted quickly and decidedly negatively to the news, the
Company's stock spiraled down over 23% from its previous closing
price of $4.94 per share to a closing price of $3.80 per share on
July 1, 2009, on a volume of 1.5 million shares.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of Immersion common stock. Had
plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth,
they would not have purchased Immersion securities at the
inflated prices that were paid.

If you purchased Immersion common stock, you may request that the
Court appoints you as lead plaintiff no later than November 2,
2009. 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. Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may
retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, San Diego, and West Palm
Beach. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder
and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex
securities multi-district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., or Derek
Behnke), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our Web
site at http://www.whafh.com/

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Immersion.

     CONTACT:  Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
               Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
               Derek Behnke
               Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
               Telephone: (800) 575-0735
               E-mail: classmember@whafh.com


PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Bernstein Liebhard Sues Oil & Gas Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP filed a class action lawsuit on Sept. 30,
2009 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares in the UltraShort Oil and Gas fund
(NYSE: DUG), an exchange-traded fund offered by ProShares Trust,
pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and misleading
Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of
Additional Information issued in connection with shares of the
DUG Fund.  The Class is seeking to pursue remedies under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint names ProShares, ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg,
Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D. Collier, as
defendants.  ProShares sells its Ultra and UltraShort ETFs as
"simple" directional plays. As marketed by ProShares, Ultra ETFs
are designed to go up when markets go up; UltraShort ETFs are
designed to go up when markets go down. The DUG Fund is one of
ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The DUG Fund seeks investment results
that correspond to twice the inverse (-200%) daily performance of
the Dow Jones U.S. Oil and Gas Index ("DJOGI"). Accordingly, the
DUG Fund is supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the
DJOGI, which fell approximately 37 percent from January 2, 2008
through December 31, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for
investors who anticipated a decline in the U.S. Oil and Gas
market. In other words, the DUG Fund should have appreciated by
over 74 percent during this period. However, the DUG Fund fell
approximately 30 percent during this period.

The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Act
by failing to disclose the following risks, inter alia, in the
Registration Statement: (1) if DUG Fund shares were held for a
time period longer than one day, the likelihood of catastrophic
losses was huge; and (2) the extent to which performance of the
DUG Fund would inevitably diverge from the performance of the
DJOGI -- i.e., the overwhelming probability, if not certainty, of
spectacular divergence.

Plaintiff in the DUG Action seeks to recover damages on behalf of
all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
ProShares DUG. If you purchased or otherwise acquired ProShares
DUG shares, and either lost money on the transaction or still
hold the shares, you may wish to join in the action to serve as
lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain
requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate
papers no later than November 23, 2009.

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. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the DUG Fund or
any ProShares leveraged funds, and either lost money on the
transaction or still hold the shares, please contact Christian
Siebott or Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414.

Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities and
consumer cases and recovered approximately $2 billion for its
clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal's
"Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last six years.

Bernstein Liebhard has also filed cases concerning the SRS and
SKF funds. You can view a copy of the DUG, SKF, or SRS complaints
online at http://www.bernlieb.com/or obtain them from the court.

     CONTACT:  Christian Siebott, Esq.
               Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
               BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
               10 East 40th Street
               New York, NY 10016
               Telephone: (212) 799-1414
               http://www.bernlieb.com/


UCBH HOLDINGS: Murray Frank Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against UCBH Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: UCBH) and certain
of its officers and directors on behalf of shareholders who
purchased UCBH common stock between April 24, 2008, and September
8, 2009, inclusive, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

UCBH operates as the bank holding company for United Commercial
Bank, which provides personal and commercial banking services to
small- and medium-sized businesses, business executives,
professionals and other individuals, and primarily engages in
generating deposits and originating loans.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and
misleading statements to the investing public. Specifically, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (1) loan terms were
inappropriately modified, including the extension of terms, the
lowering of interest rates, and the improper use of interest
reserve accounts to delay negative consequences; (2) the Company
had delayed the recognition of risk rating downgrades and
specific reserves; (3) the Defendants misrepresented the credit
risk of the Company's loan portfolio; (4) the Company failed to
properly reserve for loan losses and record impairment losses on
non-performing loans and other real estate owned assets; (5)
Defendants misstated the Company's loan loss provision and
related allowance, including charge-offs and the resulting change
in non-performing loan levels; (6) the Company's financial
results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (7) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (8) as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements were overstated and
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 8, 2009, UCBH shocked the market when the Company
disclosed the conclusions of an Investigation Subcommittee of the
Board Audit Committee regarding the recognition of impairment
losses on nonperforming loans and other real estate owned assets.
According to the Company, the Subcommittee's report identified
problems resulting both from weaknesses in the Bank's internal
controls and from deliberate and improper actions and omissions
of certain Bank Officers, and concluded that those problems were
driven by an apparent desire to downplay deteriorating financial
conditions by delaying or abating risk rating downgrades and
minimizing the Bank's overall loan loss allowance. Moreover, UCBH
disclosed that the report raised serious concerns regarding the
actions of certain current and former officers at various levels
of the Bank's management.

As a result of this news, shares of UCBH declined $0.17 per
share, or 14.29%, to close on September 8, 2009, at $1.02 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move
the Court, not later than November 10, 2009, to serve as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A Lead Plaintiff is a representative
chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you purchased UCBH common stock and
wish to discuss this litigation, or have any questions concerning
this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact us.

          CONTACT:  Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
                    Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
                    Telephone: 212-682-1818
                    E-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com
                    http://www.murrayfrank.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  * * *