CAR_Public/091013.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 202
  
                            Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Tex. Lawsuit Says Xerox's Offer Inadequate
AROTECH CORP: N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still in Discovery
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Improper Credit Reporting Practices Alleged
BANKATLANTIC: Publishes Notice of Settlement of Derivative Action
CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Challenges State's Right to Collect DNA

DAIRY FARMERS: Milk Distribution Antitrust Suit Filed in Vermont
FIBERNET TELECOM: Defends "Chen" Civil Complaint in New York
FIBERNET TELECOM: Awaits Final Approval of Del. Suit Settlement
HORIZON BLUE: Class Action Lawyer Chided for Delaying Settlement
JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Employee Class Action Filed in N.D. Calif.

MDL 1203: Third Circuit Upholds $567 Mil. Fen-Phen Fee Award
NATURAL HEALTH: Securities Fraud Suit in Texas Dismissed in 3Q09
NEXCEN BRANDS: Pursues Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
NORTH CARLOINA: Charter Schools Challenge N.C. Funding Rule
ODYSSEY RE: CapGrowth Lawsuit Complains About Fairfax Merger

PELICAN BAY: Prison Officials Charges with Canteen Price Gouging
PEROT SYSTEMS: Lawsuit Challenges Dell Acquisition Purchase Price
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Defends Wells REIT Securities Suit in Md.
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Amended Securities Suit Ongoing
PNC BANK: N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Overdraft Fee Computations

TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Expects "Schlessinger" Status Motion
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: To Respond to Merged Consumer Suit
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: 5 Canadian Consumer Lawsuits Pending
TRAILER BRIDGE: Settlement of Pricing Practice Lawsuit Pending

TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Settlement Approved & Company Liquidated
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Employees' Suit Against JP Morgan Dismissed
ZIPCAR INC: Mass. Lawsuit Challenges Various Car Rental Fees

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Pomerantz Haudek Files Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y.
RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Fraud Suite in S.D.N.Y.
SPONGETECH DELIVERY: Rosen Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y.

                            *********

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Tex. Lawsuit Says Xerox's Offer Inadequate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class of stockholders of
Affiliated Computer Services say the $6.4 billion merger with
Xerox is "grossly inadequate and fundamentally unfair," in Dallas
County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rahe v. Affiliated Computer Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 09-13786 (Tex. Dist. Ct., 14th J. Dist.,
Dallas Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/09/Xerox.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          James E. Tullman, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: 212-682-3025

               - and -

          Roger K. Mandel, Esq.
          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          STANLEY, MANDEL & IOLA, LLP
          3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: 214-443-4300
     

AROTECH CORP: N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Akerman, et al. v. Arotech Corporation, et al., Case No.
07-CV-01838 (E.D.N.Y.) (Dearie, J.), is proceeding with
discovery, 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 May 2007, two purported class-action complaints were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the company and certain of its officers and
directors.  These two cases were consolidated in June 2007.

A similar case that was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan in March 2007 was withdrawn by
the plaintiff in June 2007.

The complaint seeks class status on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between Nov. 9, 2004 and Nov.
14, 2005, and alleges violations by it and certain of its
officers and directors of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
primarily related to the company's acquisition of Armour of
America in 2005 and certain public statements made with respect
to its business and prospects during the Period.

The Complaint also alleges that the company did not have
adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls,
and that its financial statements and reports were not prepared
in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules.  It seeks an unspecified
amount of damages.

A lead plaintiff has been named, and the plaintiff's
consolidated amended complaint was filed in September 2007.  The
company's motion to dismiss was due by the end of November 2007,
but a decision on the motion is not expected until mid-2008.

In April 2009, Arotech announced that its motion to dismiss as a
matter of law the class action case brought against it in
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
been denied.

The company has filed its answer to the Class Action Complaint,
and the case is now proceeding to the discovery phase.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310.209.2468
          Fax: 310.209.2087
          E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

               - and -

          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Phone: 860-526-1100
          Fax: 860-526-1120
          E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Ann Schmid, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, P.C.
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10028
          Phone: 212-501-9000
          Fax: 212-501-0300
          E-mail: schmid@browerpiven.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Randall W. Bodner, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-951-7000
          Fax: 617-951-7050
          E-mail: randall.bodner@ropesgray.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Improper Credit Reporting Practices Alleged
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debt collection agency Asset Acceptance, LLC, exercised its
option to remove a lawsuit filed by Johnny Wang, an individual,
on his own behalf of all others similarly situated, sued, to
federal court.   

The federal court proceeding is Wang v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-04797 (N.D. Calif.).  The original state
court proceeding is Wang v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, et al., Case
No. RG09469817 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.).  

Mr. Wang complains that Asset Acceptance improperly reports
information about disputed and so-called zombie debts to credit
reporting agencies, and suggests there are more than three
million similarly situated individuals.  

Mr. Wang is represented by:

          Ethan Preston, Esq.
          PRESTON LAW OFFICES
          1658 North Milwaukee Ave., No. 253
          Chicago, IL 60622
          Telephone: 312-492-4079

               - and -  

          Harry Shulman, Esq.
          THE MILLS LAW FIRM
          880 Las Gallinas Ave., Suite 2
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Telephone: 415-455-1326

Asset Acceptance is represented by:

          Tomio B. Narita, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq.
          SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP
          44 Montgomery St., Suite 3010
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4816
          Telephone: 415-283-1000


BANKATLANTIC: Publishes Notice of Settlement of Derivative Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 9, 2009, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., published a
Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Derivative Action relating
to the agreement that has been reached to settle the shareholder
derivative action captioned D.W. Hugo, Derivatively on behalf of
Nominal Defendant BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., v. Alan B. Levan,
Jarett S. Levan, Jay C. McClung, Marcia K. Snyder, Valerie
Toalson, James A. White, John E. Abdo, D. Keith Cobb, Steven M.
Coldren and David A. Lieberman, Case No. 08-61018-CV-UNGARO (S.D.
Fla.).  The settlement agreement remains subject to court
approval.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement: (i) the plaintiff
will release and forever discharge its claims (subject to certain
limited exceptions) against the Company and, among others, the
Company's past, present and future officers, directors and
employees, including the defendants, and all such released claims
will be dismissed with prejudice; and (ii) the defendants will
fully, finally, and forever release and relinquish all claims
that have been, or could have been, asserted against the
plaintiff relating to the institution, prosecution or settlement
of the Action.  The Company is not required to make any payments
and, as a result, the settlement, if finalized in accordance with
its terms, will not have any impact on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations. The complete terms of the
proposed settlement are set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement
dated as of August 24, 2009.

A full-text copy of the Notice is available at http://is.gd/4ckVf
and a full-text copy of the Stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/4ckWJ

Lead counsel to the Plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
          3600 B. North Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
     
Counsel to BankAtlantic is:

          Eugene E. Stearns, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, PA
          Museum Tower, Suite 2200
          150 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130

The settlement of this Derivative Action does not settle claims
against BankAtlantic asserted in a related securities fraud class
action filed against BankAtlantic Bancorp and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 07-61542-CIV-UNGARO,
filed on October 29, 2007, nor a related ERISA class action,
brought pursuant to section 502 of ERISA, filed against
BankAtlantic Bancorp, the Security Plus Plan Committee, the
Compensation Committee, and certain officers, directors, and
current and former members of the Security Plus Plan Committee in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Case No. 07-61862-CIV-UNGARO, on December 20, 2007.


CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Challenges State's Right to Collect DNA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Aida Haskell and Reginald Ento, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, filed suit against Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., the Attorney General of the State of California; Eva
Steinberger, the Assistant Bureau Chief for DNA Programs for
California Department of Justice; and Michael Hennessey, the
Sheriff for San Francisco County, Case No. 09-cv-4779 (N.D.
Calif.), on Oct. 6, 2009.  The Plaintiffs challenge a California
statute requiring people who are arrested for any felony to
provide DNA samples to be analyzed and included in a criminal
database, and assert that the statute violates their rights under
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution.  

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/08/DNA%20samples.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Temple Risher, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 621-2493
          Fax: (415) 255-8437
          E-mail: mrisher@aclunc.org

               - and -  

          Peter Clarence Meier, Esq.
          Eric Andrew Long, Esq.
          Katharine Chao, Esq.
          PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Fax: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: petermeier@paulhastings.com
                  ericlong@paulhastings.com
                  sarahchang@paulhastings.com


DAIRY FARMERS: Milk Distribution Antitrust Suit Filed in Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hallman at The Am Law Litigation Daily reports that an
antitrust class action against the Dairy Farmers of America and
Dean Foods Company was filed in Vermont last week.  

The complaint in Allen, et al., v. Dairy Farmers of America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-00230 (D. Vt.) (Sessions, J.) -- see
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/milkvermont.pdf-- charges Dairy  
Farmers (the nation's largest dairy co-op) and Dean (the largest
dairy processor in the country) with monopolizing milk
distribution in the Northeast and forcing dairy farmers to join
the co-op or its marketing affiliate to survive.  Together the
two processors bottle about 90 percent of the fluid milk in the
Northeast.  The suit also names marketing affiliate and milk
processor HP Hood for aiding the alleged monopolization and price
fixing.

Benjamin D. Brown, Esq., at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll,
representing the Plaintiffs, tells Mr. Hallman that Dairy
Farmers, which began as an organization to represent dairy
farmers and ostensibly operates with antitrust immunity, had
become so vertically integrated -- including owning an interest
in a major bottling operation -- that it had become a
"Frankenstein monster."  Mr. Brown anticipates a class of as many
as 10,000 northeast dairy farmers.

Mr. Hallman says that the Vermont class action is similar to
Benson, et al., v. Dean Foods Company, et al., Case No.
09-cv-00128 (E.D. Tenn.).  A copy of the Tennessee Complaint is
available at http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/milktn.pdfand Dean Foods'  
latest disclosures concerning that litigation appear in the May 26,
2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter.  

The Vermont Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          Daniel A. Small, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          Suite 500, West Tower
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-408-4600

               - and -  

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          George F. Farah, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          150 E. 52nd St., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-838-7797

               - and -  

          Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq.
          Gracel and Shea, P.C.
          76 St. Paul St., 7th Floor
          P.O. Nox 369
          Burlington, VT 05402-0369
          Telephone: 802-658-0220

Dean Foods is represented by:

          Paul T. Denis, Esq.
          Paul H. Friedman, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1775 I Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006-2401
          Telephone: 202-261-3300

in both the Vermont and Tennessee litigation.  


FIBERNET TELECOM: Defends "Chen" Civil Complaint in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc., is defending a putative class
action complaint captioned, Chen v. DeLuca, et al., filed in the
Supreme Court of New York for the County of New York.

On July 10, 2009, the civil action was filed against the company
and its directors, as well as Zayo Group, LLC and Zayo Merger
Sub, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Zayo Group.

The action was brought by a purported stockholder of the
company, on behalf of a putative class of company stockholders,
and, among other things, seeks to enjoin the consummation of the
merger of Merger Sub with and into the company and seeks an award
of monetary damages, costs and an accounting for all profits and
any special benefits obtained by the defendants as a result of
the proposed Merger.

Plaintiff alleges that the decisions by the company's directors
to approve the Merger constituted breaches of their respective
fiduciary duties because they failed to engage in an honest and
fair sales process and failed to disclose material facts
regarding the proposed Merger.

Plaintiff also contends that the company, Zayo Group and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by the company's directors, according to its Aug. 13, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. -- http://www.ftgx.com/-- provides
interconnection services enabling the exchange of voice, video
and data traffic between multiple, global networks.  The Company
owns and operates colocation facilities and diverse transport
routes in the gateway markets of New York/New Jersey, Los
Angeles, Chicago and Miami.  The Company's network infrastructure
and facilities are designed to provide broadband
interconnectivity for network operators, including domestic and
international telecommunications carriers and service providers.
In its network-neutral colocation facilities, FiberNet provides
racks, cabinets and customized caged spaces for its customers to
deploy networking equipment and establish network points of
presence.  The facilities are located in the carrier hotels of
gateway markets.  The Company also provides redundant power
systems, environmental controls and security for customers'
colocation needs at these network aggregation points.


FIBERNET TELECOM: Awaits Final Approval of Del. Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc., awaits final approval of the
settlement of a putative class action complaint filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On May 28, 2009, the company, Zayo Group, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and Zayo Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Zayo Group,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which
Merger Sub will merge with and into the company, with FiberNet
continuing after the Merger as the surviving corporation.

As a result of the Merger, the company will become a wholly owned
subsidiary of Zayo Group.

On June 19, 2009, the putative class action complaint, Masucci v.
FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company, its
directors, Zayo Group and Merger Sub.

On July 23, 2009, all parties to the Delaware Litigation executed
a Memorandum of Understanding, pursuant to which, inter alia, the
company would make additional public disclosures, and all claims
in the Delaware Litigation would be dismissed in accordance with
the terms of the MOU.  The settlement of the Delaware Litigation
is subject to approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery and is
conditional on consummation of the Merger, according to the
company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. -- http://www.ftgx.com/-- provides
interconnection services enabling the exchange of voice, video
and data traffic between multiple, global networks.  The Company
owns and operates colocation facilities and diverse transport
routes in the gateway markets of New York/New Jersey, Los
Angeles, Chicago and Miami.  The Company's network
infrastructure and facilities are designed to provide broadband
interconnectivity for network operators, including domestic and
international telecommunications carriers and service providers.
In its network-neutral colocation facilities, FiberNet provides
racks, cabinets and customized caged spaces for its customers to
deploy networking equipment and establish network points of
presence.  The facilities are located in the carrier hotels of
gateway markets.  The Company also provides redundant power
systems, environmental controls and security for customers'
colocation needs at these network aggregation points.


HORIZON BLUE: Class Action Lawyer Chided for Delaying Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Gottlieb at the New Jersey Law Journal reports that the
Honorable Faith Hochberg accused class action lawyer David Mazie,
Esq., at Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland, N.J., of trying
to delay a settlement that helped nearly 600 eating disorder
patients in a lawsuit against Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of
New Jersey so he could pursue a fight with a co-counsel over
shares of a $2.45 million fee award.

Judge Hochberg told Mr. Mazie that he'd put his own interests
above "those of people who are dying" when he sought to make the
division of fees an issue just before the preliminary settlement
in January.  Then she scolded Mazie for denying the accusation,
Mr. Gottlieb reports.  

The exchange took place, Mr. Gottlieb relates, near the end of an
unusual hearing in which Judge Hochberg gave Mr. Mazie and
opponent Bruce Nagel, Esq., at Nagel Rice in Roseland, N.J., an
opportunity to testify under oath and cross examine each other in
the fee dispute that continues months after the underlying case
settled.

It was like an exasperated parent ordering two children claiming
the largest dish of ice cream to duke it out in backyard, Mr.
Gottlieb says.  In this case, Judge Hochberg jumped into the fray
and gave Mr. Mazie a few verbal shots to the head before
dismissing both lawyers with a warning not to add their time at
the hearing to their bills.

Mr. Gottlieb reports that Judge Hochberg is studying how to
divide up $2.45 million in fees that Horizon and its claims
consultant agreed to pay to settle the class action eating
disorder case the firms pursued together for the class but for
different lead plaintiffs, Mazie's Beye v. Horizon, Case No.
06-5337 (D. N.J.), and Nagel's Drazin v. Horizon, Case No.
06-6219 (D. N.J.).

Mr. Gottlieb's full report is available at http://is.gd/489Un


JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Employee Class Action Filed in N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Convertibles, Inc., disclosed that on July 16, 2009, a
complaint styled as a putative class action was filed against it
in the United States District Court of the Northern District of
California by Ayisha Combs individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.  The complaint in Combs v. Jennifer
Convertibles, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-03242 (N.D. Calif.) (Illston,
J.), seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of the
California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7,
510, 512, 515, 1174, 1198 and 2802, violations of Section 17200,
et seq., of the California Business and Professions Code and
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  The alleged
violations include, among other things, failure to pay overtime,
failure to reimburse certain expenses, failure to provide
adequate rest and meal periods and other labor related
complaints.

Jennifer Convertibles' CEO Harley J. Greenfield says that the
Company "intend[s] to defend the matter vigorously."

Jennifer Convertibles is represented by:

          S. Fey Epling, Esq.
          Josephine Ko, Esq.
          Cheryl Denise Orr, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
          Telephone: 415-591-7500

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Dale Harris, Esq.
          Matthew Evan Kavanaugh, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: 323-962-3777

               - and -  

          David S. Harris, Esq.
          NORTH BAY LAW GROUP
          116 E. Blithedale Ave., No. 2
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: 415-388-8788


MDL 1203: Third Circuit Upholds $567 Mil. Fen-Phen Fee Award
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected
challenges to the $567 million attorney fee award in the fen-phen
diet-drug litigation, declaring that Chief U.S. District Judge
Harvey Bartle III of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had
handled the massive case properly at every step.

"The amount of the award, though extraordinarily large, is not
excessive in this extraordinary case," Third Circuit Judge Kent
A. Jordan wrote.  Judge Jordan found that Judge Bartle "employed
transparent procedures and undertook a thorough and proper
analysis -- based on the appropriate information -- in
determining the award."

The Legal Intelligencer's full report is available at
http://is.gd/46BFt

The Third Circuit's 75-page Opinion in In re Diet Drugs, etc.,
Nos. 08-2363 & 08-2387, is available at:

     http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/082363p.pdf

The proceeding before the trial court is In re Diet Drugs
(Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1203; Master Docket No. 99-cv-20593 (E.D.
Pa.).  


NATURAL HEALTH: Securities Fraud Suit in Texas Dismissed in 3Q09
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp, et al., Case No.
06-cv-01654 (N.D. Tex.) (Fitzwater, J.), a securities fraud class
action lawsuit, has been dismissed, 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 Sept. 11, 2006, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed a putative
class action suit purportedly on behalf of certain purchasers of
the company's common stock to recover damages caused by alleged
violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit names the company and certain current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the court granted an unopposed motion to
designate The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as lead counsel.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the named plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

The company and the other defendants have signed a definitive
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, pursuant to which the
shareholder class will receive a total payment of $2.75 million.
Of that amount, the company's directors and officers insurance
carriers have agreed in principal to pay $2.5 million, and the
company has agreed in principal to pay $250,000.

On July 21, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered an order dismissing all claims.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         HOEFFNER & BILEK
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

               - and -  

         Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
         THE HINTON LAW FIRM
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 646-723-3377
         Fax: 212-202-3827

              - and -

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Fax: 214-202-3827


NEXCEN BRANDS: Pursues Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NexCen Brands, Inc., seeks to dismiss an amended consolidated
putative securities class action complaint pending in the U.S.
District Court for Southern District of New York.

Four putative securities class actions have been filed in New
York against NexCen Brands and certain of the company's former
officers and current director for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws.

These actions are:

   -- Mark Gray v. NexCen Brands, Inc., David S. Oros, Robert W.
      D'Loren & David Meister, No. 08-CV-4906 (filed on May 28,
      2008);

   -- Ghiath Hammoud v. NexCen Brands, Inc., Robert W. D'Loren,
      & David B. Meister, No. 08-CV-5063 (filed on June 3,
      2008);

   -- Ronald Doty v. NexCen Brands, Inc., David S. Oros, Robert
      W. D'Loren & David Meister, No. 08-CV-5172 (filed on
      June 5, 2008); and

   -- Frank B. Falkenstein v. NexCen Brands, Inc., David S.
      Oros, Robert W. D'Loren, David Meister, No. 08-CV-6126
      (filed on July 3, 2008).

Although the formulations of the allegations differ slightly,
plaintiffs allege that defendants violated federal securities
laws by misleading investors in the company's public filings and
statements.  

The complaints assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and also assert that the individual
defendants are liable as controlling persons under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  

Plaintiffs seek damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 5, 2009, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed Vincent Granatelli as lead plaintiff and Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. as lead counsel.

On Aug. 24, 2009, plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint.  

The company intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on or before Oct. 8, 2009, in accordance with the
scheduling order entered by the court, according to its Oct. 6,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

NexCen Brands, Inc. -- http://www.nexcenbrands.com/-- is a
global brand management and franchising company.  The company is
focused on managing, developing and acquiring intellectual
property (IP) and IP-centric businesses.  It owns, licenses,
franchises and markets a portfolio of brands including Bill
Blass, Waverly,  The Athlete's Foot, Shoebox New York, Great
American Cookies, MaggieMoo's, Marble Slab Creamery, Pretzel
Time and Pretzelmaker.  It licenses and franchises these brands
to a network of retailers, manufacturers and franchisees that
includes segments of retail distribution from the luxury market
to the mass market in the U.S. and in over 50 countries around
the world.  The company's franchise network consists of
approximately 1,900 retail stores.  NexCen Brands operates in
three segments: Consumer Branded Products, Retail Franchising
and Quick Service Restaurant Franchising (QSR).


NORTH CARLOINA: Charter Schools Challenge N.C. Funding Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that North Carolina
law unconstitutionally omits charter schools from state funding
that would allow them to buy interest in real estate and other
capital outlays, as traditional public schools do, a class action
claims in Mecklenburg County Court.

The suit, filed on behalf of several charter schools, their
students and the students' parents, claims that the funding
regime established by the state's General Assembly, denies them
access to a funding source that's freely granted to traditional
public schools: the state's capital outlay fund.

As a result, the complaint says, state lawmakers have effectively
established two, non-uniform public school systems. The
plaintiffs seek a court declaration that the laws are
discriminatory and unconstitutional, and an order making them
eligible for such funding immediately.

Under North Carolina law, the county and local school districts
in which charter-school students live can transfer to charter
schools two of the three funding sources provided to traditional
public schools: an amount of state aid equal to the average per-
pupil allocation in the local public schools, and an amount equal
to the current expense appropriation to the local public school
district for the fiscal year.

But the statutes don't allow counties or local school
administrative units to provide charter schools with money from
the capital outlay fund, the complaint says.

This means that charter schools can lease property or mobile
classroom units for school use, the lawsuit explains, but they
can't receive state funds to buy any interest in the property.

"This funding scheme is disparate, discriminatory, unequal and
un-uniform," the plaintiffs claim.

In addition to violating the U.S. Constitution, it also violates
state laws that hold "people have a right to the privilege of
education and it is the duty of the state to guard and maintain
that right," the lawsuit states.

A copy of the Complaint in Sugar Creek Charter School, Inc., et
al. v. State of North Carolina, et al., Case No. 09CVS23289 (N.C.
Gen. Ct. J., Mecklenburg Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/09/Charter%20schools.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert F. Orr, Esq.
          Jason B. Kay, Esq.
          333 Six Forks Road, Suite 180
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Telephone: 919-838-5313


ODYSSEY RE: CapGrowth Lawsuit Complains About Fairfax Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 7, 2009, the directors of Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.,
the Company (as a nominal defendant), Fairfax Financial Holdings
Limited and Fairfax Investments USA Corp. were served with a
purported stockholder derivative and class action complaint,
dated October 7, 2009, filed in the Superior Court of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk.

The action, captioned CapGrowth Partners v. Watsa, et al., Docket
No. CV09-6002152-S, purports to assert claims against the members
of the Company's board of directors for alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with
the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of September 18, 2009, among the Company,
Fairfax, including the merger contemplated thereby and the cash
tender offer to purchase all of the Company's outstanding common
stock, other than those shares of common stock held by Fairfax
and its subsidiaries, at a price of $65.00 per share, net to the
seller in cash, without interest thereon and less any applicable
withholding of taxes, and a claim against Fairfax for allegedly
aiding and abetting such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The CapGrowth Complaint seeks, among other relief, a declaratory
judgment, monetary and recissory damages.  The plaintiff is also
seeking, by separate application, a temporary restraining order,
expedited discovery and a temporary injunction as to the Offer
and Merger.

The Defendants believe that the claims made in the CapGrowth
Complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against this action.

On-line docket information about this proceeding is available at
http://is.gd/46O3Z

CapGrowth is represented by:

          John F. Keating, Esq.
          71 Route 39, Suite One
          New Fairfield , CT 06812


PELICAN BAY: Prison Officials Charges with Canteen Price Gouging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports that Pelican Bay
State Prison officials drastically raised prices on coffee and
other foods sold to inmates in a prison store in order to fund
work on the prison's gym and library, according to a class action
filed in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff James Godoy says the price hikes violate the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because officials are
using the higher prices to illegally take inmates' private money
for use on public projects.

Prison officials allegedly funneled the extra money into the
prison's "Inmate Welfare Fund," which the prison uses to maintain
the prison's visiting areas, gym and library.

Suppliers of coffee and other commodities to the prison canteen
have not raised their prices, the inmates say.

Instead, the officials are allegedly using the raised prices to
replenish the fund after the hit it took from the 9th Circuit's
decision in Schneider v. California Department of Corrections. In
that case, the state corrections department agreed to stop using
interest from inmate trust accounts to pay for the Inmate Welfare
Fund, Mr. Godoy says.

On behalf of California's approximately 170,000 state prison
inmates, Mr. Godoy sued current Pelican Bay Warden Francisco
Jacquez, former Warden Robert Horel, Pelican Bay Chief of Inmate
Appeals N. Grannis, and Matthew Cate, California's secretary of
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The inmates demand damages and an injunction stopping officials
from using increased canteen prices to pay for the Inmate Welfare
Fund.
A copy of the Complaint in Godoy, et al. v. Horel, et al., Case
No. 09-cv-4793 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/09/Pelican%20Bay.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Herman Franck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Vogel, Esq.
          FRANCK & ASSOCIATES
          1801 7th Street, Suite 150
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 916-447-8400


PEROT SYSTEMS: Lawsuit Challenges Dell Acquisition Purchase Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Booth Family Trust v. Perot Systems Inc., et al., Cause No.
DC-09-13538 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty.), claims that the $3.9
billion Dell Inc., is offering to Perot shareholders is
inadequate.  The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 5, 2009.  

The action is brought by The Booth Family Trust, which claims to
be a stockholder of Perot Systems, on its own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and seeks certification
as a class action on behalf of all Perot Systems' stockholders,
except the defendants and their affiliates.  The lawsuit names
Perot Systems, each of Perot Systems' directors and Dell as
defendants.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Perot
Systems' directors breached their fiduciary duties by:

      (1) failing to maximize shareholder value;

      (2) securing benefits for certain officers and directors
          of Perot Systems in the Merger at the expense of Perot
          Systems' public shareholders;

      (3) discouraging and/or inhibiting alternative offers to
          purchase control of the corporation or its assets; and

      (4) failing to provide to Perot Systems' shareholders
          material information so that they can make an informed
          decision as to whether to tender their shares.

The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, the Offer
and the Merger are the result of an unfair process resulting in
an unfair price of $30.00 per share.  In addition, the lawsuit
alleges that Perot Systems and Dell aided and abetted such
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Perot Systems' directors.  
Based on these allegations, the lawsuit seeks, among other
relief, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from
consummating the Offer and the Merger.  It also purports to seek
recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable
attorney's fees.

A copy of the Complaint is available at http://is.gd/46PXp

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112

               - and -  

          Patricia Weiser, Esq.
          Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
          Henry J. Young, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, PC
          121 North Wayne Ave., Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087          
          Telephone: (610) 225-0273
          Fax: (610) 225-2678


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Defends Wells REIT Securities Suit in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., f/k/a/ Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc., continues to defend the class action suit
In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities
Litigation Case No. 07-cv-00862, according to Piedmont REIT's
Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a
purported class-action suit and derivative complaint entitled,
"Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real
Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al." before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells
REIT, and the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the internalization transaction.  The court then
granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the
case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on April
24, 2007.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate
the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which contains the same counts as the original complaint, with
amended factual allegations based primarily on events occurring
subsequent to the original complaint and the addition of a
Piedmont officer as an individual defendant.

On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part a motion by the
defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court
dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in
their entirety.  The court dismissed the remaining two counts
with the exception of allegations regarding the company's
failure to disclose in its proxy statement details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for Internalization omitted details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind
Internalization, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to
the defendants as consideration for Internalization.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.  On June 23, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.

On Jan. 16, 2009, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The plaintiff filed its reply
in support of its motion for class certification on Feb. 19,
2009, and the motion is presently pending before the court.  The
parties are presently engaged in discovery.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The time
for the defendants to respond to the motion for leave to amend
has not yet expired

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The
defendants responded to the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
on April 30, 2009.  The plaintiff filed its reply of its motion
for leave to amend on May 18, 2009.  The court denied the motion
for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

The suit is In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-00862 (N.D. Ga.) (Pannell,
J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
         CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
         One Haverford Centre
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500
         E-mail: nick@chimicles.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq.
         KING & SPALDING, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600
         E-mail: mcates@kslaw.com


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Amended Securities Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-02660, are engaged
in discovery, according to Piedmont REIT's Aug. 13, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

A second amended complaint in the matter captioned In Re Piedmont
Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
07-cv-02660, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The purported class-action suit was filed on Oct. 25, 2007, by a
Piedmont Office Realty Trust Inc. stockholder before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the
company and its board of directors.

The complaint attempts to assert class-action lawsuit claims on
behalf of:

       -- those persons who were entitled to tender their shares
          pursuant to the tender offer filed with the SEC by
          Lex-Win Acquisition LLC on May 25, 2007, and

       -- all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy
          statement filed with the SEC on Oct. 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated
thereunder.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed classes.

On Dec. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking that the
court designate it as lead plaintiff and its counsel as class
lead counsel, which the court granted on May 2, 2008.

On May 19, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which contains the same counts as the original complaint.

On June 30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On March 30, 2009, the court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court dismissed
two of the four counts of the amended complaint in their
entirety.  The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the
exception of allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose
information regarding the likelihood of a listing in Piedmont's
amended response to the Lex-Win tender offer and (ii)
misstatements or omissions in Piedmont's proxy statement
concerning then-existing market conditions, the alternatives to
a listing or extension that were explored by the defendants, the
results of conversations with potential buyers as to Piedmont's
valuation, and certain details of our share redemption plan.

On April 13, 2009, defendants moved for reconsideration of the
court's March 30, 2009 order or, alternatively, for
certification of the order for immediate appellate review.  The
defendants also requested that the proceedings be stayed pending
consideration of the motion.  On June 19, 2009, the court denied
the motion for reconsideration and the motion for certification
of the order for immediate appellate review.

On April 20, 2009, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal securities
laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder.  The second
amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages, to nullify and void any authorizations secured
by the proxy statement, and to compel a tender offer.  On May 11,
2009, the defendants answered the second amended complaint.  

On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The time for defendants to respond to the
plaintiff's motion for class certification has not yet expired.  

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041-0100
          Phone: 215-642-8500
          E-mail: nick@chimicles.com

               - and -  

          Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          E-mail: MEdelstein@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com

Representing the defendants is:

          J. Timothy Mast, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3312
          Fax: 404-962-6796
          E-mail: tim.mast@troutmansanders.com


PNC BANK: N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Overdraft Fee Computations
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that PNC Bank organizes
customers' checking account statements from high to low -- rather
than chronologically -- to confuse customers and collect more
overdraft fees, a class claims in New Jersey Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Casayuran v. PNC Bank, National
Association, Case No. 33-av-00001 (D. N.J.) (Doc. 6815, filed
Oct. 8, 2009), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/09/PNC%20Bank.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Coren, Esq.
          Andrew L. Watson, Esq.
          PELLETTIERI, RABSTEIN AND ALTMAN
          100 Nassau Park Boulevard, Suite 111
          Princeton, NJ 08543-5301
          Telephone: (609) 520-0900

               - and -  

          Edward J. Feinstein, Esq.
          Ellen M. Doyle, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE, LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1639
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Expects "Schlessinger" Status Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., expects the plaintiffs in Curt
Schlessinger, et al. v. Ticketmaster, to file another class
certification motion, according to its Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On Oct. 21, 2003, a purported representative action was filed in
California state court, challenging Ticketmaster Entertainment's
charges to online customers for UPS ticket delivery.

The complaint alleged in essence that it is unlawful for
Ticketmaster Entertainment not to disclose on its website that
the fee it charges to online customers to have their tickets
delivered by UPS contains a profit component.

The complaint asserted a claim for violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code and sought
restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i) the
total UPS delivery fees charged by Ticketmaster Entertainment in
connection with online ticket sales during the applicable
statute of limitations period, and (ii) the amount Ticketmaster
Entertainment paid to UPS for that service.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended class-action
and representative-action complaint alleging (i) as before, that
Ticketmaster Entertainment's website disclosures in respect of
its charges for UPS ticket delivery violate Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code, and (ii) for the first
time, that Ticketmaster Entertainment's website disclosures in
respect of its ticket order-processing fees constitute false
advertising in violation of Section 17500 of the California
Business and Professions Code.  On this latter claim, the
amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of the
entire amount of order-processing fees charged by Ticketmaster
Entertainment during the applicable statute of limitations
period.

On Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which Ticketmaster Entertainment opposed.  On
Sept. 25, 2006, Ticketmaster Entertainment filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, which the plaintiffs opposed.  On
Nov. 21, 2006, Ticketmaster Entertainment requested that the
court stay the case pending the California Supreme Court's
decisions in two cases (In re Tobacco II Cases, 142 Cal. App.
4th 891, and Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano), 141 Cal.
App. 4th 290) that present issues concerning the interpretation
of Proposition 64 that are directly pertinent to both of the
pending motions.  The plaintiffs opposed Ticketmaster
Entertainment's request.  On Nov. 29, 2006, the court ordered
that the case be stayed pending the California Supreme Court's
ruling on the two cases.

On July 11, 2007, the court lifted its stay of the action for
the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with
their motion for class certification.  The parties thereafter
submitted supplemental briefing in support of their respective
positions and argued the motion at a September 20 hearing.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice.
The court also issued an order staying the action for an
additional 180 days or until the California Supreme Court issues
a ruling in the Tobacco II and Pfizer appeals.  Oral argument in
the Tobacco II case took place on March 3, 2009.

On Feb. 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint, which purports to add the allegation
that Ticketmaster Entertainment's order processing fees are
unconscionably high.  Ticketmaster Entertainment opposed the
motion on March 16, 2009.

On March 3, 2009, the California Supreme Court heard oral
argument in the Tobacco II case, and the court decided on the
case on May 18, 2009.  

On April 1, 2009, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a Second Amended Complaint that clarifies plaintiff's
California Business and Professions Code claims and adds the
allegation that Ticketmaster's order processing fees are
unconscionable as a matter of law.  The case is otherwise stayed
pending the Tobacco II ruling.  Ticketmaster Entertainment filed
a demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint on May 8, 2009.

Plaintiffs have filed a Third Amended Complaint to attempt to
cure deficiencies in the Second Amended Complaint and to seek to
address the California Supreme Court's holding in Tobacco II.  
Ticketmaster Entertainment filed a demurrer to the Third Amended
Complaint on July 3, 2009.  The parties have stipulated to a
hearing on the demurrer on Aug. 7, 2009.  

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.ticketmaster.com/
-- is a live ticketing and marketing company.  It operates in
approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales,
ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through
www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-commerce sites on the
internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels,
approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers
worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., continues to defend the
consolidated amended securities class-action complaint, In re
Ticketmaster Entertainment Shareholder Litigation, in California
Superior Court.

Two putative class-action suits were filed against the company
and its Board of Directors.  The suits are:

   -- McBride v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
      BC407677 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
      County), filed on Feb. 13, 2009; and

   -- Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
      Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. BC408228
      (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County), filed
      on Feb. 20, 2009.

The plaintiff in the McBride case alleges that the Live Nation
transaction (the "Transaction") delivers insufficient value to
Ticketmaster Entertainment stockholders; that the board failed
to adequately consider alternative transactions; and that
Ticketmaster Entertainment insiders benefit disproportionately
from the Transaction.  Among other things, the complaint seeks
an injunction against the consummation of the Transaction and
compensatory damages for Ticketmaster Entertainment
stockholders.

The second putative class-action suit, Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit, was filed against Ticketmaster
Entertainment and the members of its Board of Directors in the
same Los Angeles court in which the McBride complaint was filed.
The focus of this case is the alleged failure of Ticketmaster
Entertainment to obtain the highest price and on alleged
insufficiencies in the deal protections.  Also included is a
disclosure claim, which alleges that Ticketmaster Entertainment
wrongfully failed to disclose certain antitrust-related
schedules with the merger agreement, which the plaintiff alleges
makes it difficult for stockholders to assess certain provisions
of the merger agreement.

These actions were consolidated under the caption In re
Ticketmaster Entertainment Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No.
BC407677, by a court order dated March 30, 2009.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action on July 2,
2009.  

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that
Ticketmaster Entertainment and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger Agreement without
regard to the fairness of the Merger Agreement to the
Ticketmaster Entertainment stockholders and by failing to obtain
the best possible value for shares of Ticketmaster Entertainment
common stock.  The consolidated amended complaint also alleges
that the amended proxy statement jointly filed on Form S-4/A by
Live Nation and Ticketmaster Entertainment with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2009, contains material
omissions and misstatements.  

Live Nation and its financial advisors, Goldman Sachs and
Deutsche Bank, and Ticketmaster Entertainment's financial
advisor, Allen & Co., are also named as defendants in the
consolidated action and are charged with aiding and abetting the
Ticketmaster Entertainment directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  

Among other things, the consolidated amended complaint seeks an
injunction barring the completion of the Merger until an adequate
proxy statement is filed and Ticketmaster Entertainment and its
directors have completed a process for selling Ticketmaster
Entertainment or evaluating its strategic alternatives that
produces the greatest possible consideration for shares of
Ticketmaster Entertainment common stock, rescission of the Merger
Agreement, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and
expenses, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.ticketmaster.com/
-- is a live ticketing and marketing company.  It operates in
approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales,
ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through
www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-commerce sites on the
internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels,
approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers
worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: To Respond to Merged Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., will have 30 days to respond to
a consolidated consumer class action complaint filed in the
Central District of California.

From February through June 2009, eleven purported class action
lawsuits asserting causes of action under various state consumer
protection laws were filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment and
TicketsNow in District Courts in California, New Jersey,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

The lawsuits allege that Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully
deceived consumers by, among other things, selling large
quantities of tickets to TicketsNow's ticket brokers, either
prior to or at the time that tickets for an event go on sale,
thereby forcing consumers to purchase tickets at significantly
marked-up prices on TicketsNow instead of Ticketmaster.com.

Plaintiffs further claim that Ticketmaster Entertainment violated
various state consumer protection laws by allegedly "redirecting"
consumers from Ticketmaster.com to Ticketsnow.com, thereby
engaging in false advertising and an unfair business practice by
deceiving consumers into inadvertently purchasing tickets from
TicketsNow for amounts greater than face value.

Plaintiffs claim that Ticketmaster Entertainment has been
unjustly enriched by this conduct and seek compensatory damages,
a refund to every class member of the difference between face
value and the amount paid to TicketsNow, an injunction preventing
Ticketmaster Entertainment from engaging in further unfair
business practices with TicketsNow, and attorney fees and costs.

On July 20, 2009, all of the cases were consolidated and
transferred to the Central District of California.  A
consolidated class action complaint must be filed no later than
Aug. 20, 2009.  Ticketmaster Entertainment will have 30 days to
respond, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.ticketmaster.com/
-- is a live ticketing and marketing company.  It operates in
approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales,
ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through
www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-commerce sites on the
internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels,
approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers
worldwide.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: 5 Canadian Consumer Lawsuits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., and several of its subsidiaries
continue to face putative consumer class-action complaints filed
in Canada, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In February 2009, five putative consumer class-action complaints
were filed in Canada against TNow Entertainment Group, Inc.,
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster Canada Ltd., and
Premium Inventory, Inc.

All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and
causes of action: each plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Ticketmaster Canada or TicketsNow
from early February 2007 to the present.

Each proposed class purports to extend to United States as well
as Canadian consumers.

The complaints allege in essence that Ticketmaster Entertainment
and Ticketmaster Canada conspired to divert a large number of
tickets for resale through the TicketsNow website at prices
higher than face value in violation of Ontario's Ticket
Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the Amusement
Act of Alberta, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.

Each lawsuit seeks $500 million in compensatory damages and $10
million in punitive damages on behalf of the class.

The Ontario case contains the additional allegation that
Ticketmaster Entertainment and TicketsNow's service fees run
afoul of anti-scalping laws.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.ticketmaster.com/
-- is a live ticketing and marketing company.  It operates in
approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales,
ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through
www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e-commerce sites on the
internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels,
approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers
worldwide.


TRAILER BRIDGE: Settlement of Pricing Practice Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of the consolidated purported class-action lawsuit
over Trailer Bridge, Inc.'s pricing practices awaits court
approval.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a grand jury investigation
of pricing practices among Puerto Rico ocean carriers.

The company was not served with a search warrant, although press
accounts indicate that other carriers were.  The company
representatives have met with DOJ attorneys and immediately
pledged the company's full and complete cooperation with the DOJ
investigation.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, and through May 10, 2008, customers in the
Puerto Rico trade lane have filed 34 purported class action
complaints against domestic ocean carriers, including Horizon
Lines, Sea Star Lines, and Crowley.  The company has been named
as a co-defendant in these lawsuits.

Specifically, the suits named as defendants:

     -- Horizon Lines, Inc.,
     -- Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.,
     -- Horizon Lines, LLC,
     -- Sea Star Line, LLC,
     -- Crowley Maritime Corp.,
     -- Crowley Liner Services, Inc., and
     -- Trailer Bridge, Inc.

The actions allege that the defendants inflated prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The actions, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, and the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico, have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes into a single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL
1962) in the District Court of Puerto Rico.

On March 10, 2009, the company filed an amended motion to
dismiss the claim with the court.  The court has not yet ruled on
that motion.  

In June 2009, Horizon Lines and its related companies entered
into a settlement agreement with certain named plaintiffs on
behalf of a purported class of consumers of shipping services,
while denying any liability for the underlying claims.  The
settlement agreement is subject to Court approval and is subject
to various objections, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The DOJ investigation is a criminal investigation, and the
parallel class actions by civil litigants seek remedies that
include treble damages.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- is a
trucking and marine transportation company with contract and
common carrier authority.  Highway transportation services are
offered in the continental U.S., while marine transportation is
offered between Jacksonville, Florida, San Juan, Puerto Rico and
Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Settlement Approved & Company Liquidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
On November 9, 2001, Arthur Mendoza filed a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging claims against Turnstone
Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of stock as well as the Company's secondary offering of
stock.  The complaint was brought on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased common stock in the Company's initial
public offering and secondary stock offering between January 31
and December 6, 2000.  The complaint alleged generally that the
prospectuses under which such securities were sold contained
false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and
commissions received by the underwriters.  The case was
coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over 300 cases raising
the same or similar issues and also currently pending in the
Southern District of New York.

In February 2009, the parties reached a proposed global
settlement of the litigation and so advised the district court.
Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company would
bear no financial liability. The Company, as well as its officer
and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the
action pursuant to tolling agreements, would receive complete
dismissals from the case.  In June 2009, the district court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement.  On October _, 2009, the district court issued its
final approval of the proposed global settlement of the
securities class action lawsuit.

On October 7, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Company
approved the making of a final liquidating distribution of the
Company's remaining assets to its stockholders.  The final
liquidating distribution is tentatively scheduled for October 30,
2009.  Based on the Company's projection of remaining liquidating
costs, the Company estimates that the amount of the final
liquidating distribution will be approximately $0.015 per common
share.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Employees' Suit Against JP Morgan Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that Tim Klass at The Associated Press reports
that an attempt by former Washington Mutual Inc. employees to
recoup their retirement account losses from JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
part of a complex tangle of litigation stemming from WaMu's
collapse last year, has been dismissed.

Some former WaMu directors and individuals who served on 401(k)
fund committees remain partly on the hook, Mr. Klass explains,
but the New York banking giant cannot be held liable for
mismanagement that may have occurred before the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp. seized what was once the nation's largest thrift
because of bad housing loans, U.S. District Judge Marsha J.
Pechman ruled last week.

Also dismissed as a defendant in the lawsuit was Kerry K.
Killinger, chief executive of WaMu from its explosive growth
after he took over in 1990 until shortly before it ran aground on
Sept. 25, 2008, in the largest bank failure in U.S. history.

Steve W. Berman, Esq., who represents the employees, said he
would move within a week to challenge the ruling in the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Klass' full report is available at http://is.gd/46HNj

The cases are In re Washington Mutual, Inc., Securities,
Derivative & ERISA Litigation, Case No. 08-md-1919 (W.D. Wash.)
(Pechman, J.), and In re Washington Mutual, Inc., ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1874 (W.D. Wash.) (Pechman, J.).


ZIPCAR INC: Mass. Lawsuit Challenges Various Car Rental Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Zipcar tacks on a "medley"
of secret fees for its car rentals, including unused rental fees,
charges for parking tickets and moving violations, and late fees,
a class claims in Massachusetts Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Blay v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No.
09-cv-11683 (D. Mass.) (Gorton, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/09/Zipcar.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Richard, Esq.
          WAYNE, RICHARD & HURWITZ LLP
          One Boston Place, Suite 3620
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 720-7870

               - and -  

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
     
               - and -  

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5501

               - and -  

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.      
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          222 W. Ontario Street, Suite 310
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Pomerantz Haudek Files Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit, Case No. 09-cv-06935, in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of investors of
ProShares' UltraShort Financials Fund (NYSE:SKF), 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 the SKF Fund's shares.

The SKF Fund is an inverse leveraged ETF that seeks investment
returns that are two times the inverse performance of the Dow
Jones U.S. Financials Index, which is a benchmark index for large
U.S. banks and insurance companies.  The investigation centers on
the allegation that the registration statement filed by ProShares
failed to adequately disclose that SKF shares should not be held
more than a single trading day and were not an appropriate hedge
against a decline in U.S. based financial stocks.

Those who invested and would like to discuss this action further
are advised to contact Jeremy Lieberman, Esq., at 888-476-6529 or
212-661-1100 or jalieberman@pomlaw.com.  

Pomerantz has prosecuted securities fraud claims for 70 years,
and is regarded as one of the country's premier class action
firms.  The firm has offices in New York City, Chicago,
Washington, D.C., Burlingame, Calif., and Columbus, Ohio.


RHI ENTERTAINMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Fraud Suite in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of RHI Entertainment, Inc. (Nasdaq:RHIE) pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about
June 19, 2008, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933.  

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel
H. Rudman, Esq., or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq., of Coughlin Stoia
at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com.
If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at:

     http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rhientertainment/

Any member of the putative 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.

The complaint charges RHI Entertainment and certain of its
executives with violations of the Securities Act. RHI develops,
produces, and distributes new made-for-television movies, mini-
series, and other television programming worldwide. The Company
also produces new episodic series programming for television.

On or about June 13, 2008, RHI filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a Form S-1/A Registration Statement (the
"Registration Statement") for the IPO. On or about June 19, 2008,
the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the
Registration Statement, became effective and, including the
exercise of the over-allotment, more than 13.5 million shares of
RHI's common stock were sold to the public, thereby raising more
than $189 million.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made numerous positive statements regarding the
Company's financial condition, business and prospects. According
to the complaint, the description of the Company's business in
the Registration Statement created the materially misleading
impression that at the time of the IPO the Company had orders for
40 MFT movies and mini-series which had been paid for, were in
production and would be delivered in the later half of the year.
The complaint further alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants failed to
disclose that, given the declining state of the credit markets
and other negative factors then impacting the Company's business,
the Company would not be able to complete 40 MFT movies and
miniseries in 2008.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
RHI Entertainment common stock during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia -- http://www.csgrr.com/-- a 190-lawyer firm with  
offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca
Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in
major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.


SPONGETECH DELIVERY: Rosen Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all purchasers of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. (OTCBB:
SPNGE) (OTCBB: SPNG) stock between April 15, 2008, and October 5,
2009, inclusive.

To join the SpongeTech class action, go to the Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq., or  
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York as Case No. 09-CV-8616 (JGK).  You
can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of court or you
may contact counsel for plaintiffs Laurence Rosen, Esq., or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.  YOU MAY
RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The complaint charges that SpongeTech, its CEO Michael Metter,
CFO Steven Moskowitz and director Frank Lazauskas violated
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading financial
information to investors and engaging in a stock manipulation
scheme.

The complaint alleges that SpongeTech misrepresented its sales
revenues, failed to disclose alleged short selling of the
Company's stock by certain, and improperly forged opinion letters
of counsel in order to permit the sale of the Company's stock.
The complaint further alleges that as the truth of the scheme was
disclosed publicly the price of SpongeTech stock fell
dramatically -- damaging investors.

As a result of this alleged misconduct, the Company is the
subject of a formal SEC investigation and the SEC has temporarily
suspended trading in the Company's stock.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of
SpongeTech shareholders.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than December 8, 2009. If you
wish to join the litigation or to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Laurence Rosen, Esq., or Phillip Kim, Esq., of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm focuses on prosecuting securities class action
litigation and actions involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law
Firm represents investors throughout the globe concentrating its
practice in securities class actions.

      Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
               Phillip Kim, Esq.
               THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
               350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
               New York, NY 10118
               Telephone: (212) 686-1060

                            *********

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  * * *