CAR_Public/091116.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 226
  
                            Headlines

CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery Continues in "Leathermon" Lawsuit
CURAGEN CORP: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Del. "Smith" Suit
DOT HILL: Amended Notice of Appeal in "Brody" Suit Dismissed
FEDERAL HOME: Wants "Kuriakose" Securities Suit in NY Dismissed
FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Still Pending

FEDERAL HOME: Defendants Want Consolidated Suit in NY Dismissed
FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Dismiss OPERS Securities Suit Pending
GAYLORD ENT: Settlement in Pension Fund's Suit Gets Final Nod
GOOGLE INC: Narrower Book Settlement Submitted to Judge Chin
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Court Certifies Class in Consolidated Suit

MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gas Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval
MOBILE CONTENT: Cash Refunds Offered to Settle 30 Lawsuits
OPLINK COMMS: Court Gives Final Nod to Settlement in IPO Suit
SPRINT NEXTEL: Settlement in Unit's Easement Cases Disapproved
SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery in Shareholders Securities Suit Ongoing

STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing
STEEL DYNAMICS: Plea to Dismiss "Panasuk" Suit Remains Pending

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

VERASUN ENERGY: Coughlin Stoia Sues Executives in S.D.N.Y.

                            *********

CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery Continues in "Leathermon" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-
action suit in Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-137 (S.D. Ind.) (Barker, J.).

On Aug. 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class-action
suit against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery
in Madison, Indiana, including Carriage subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery.

The plaintiffs claim that the cemetery owners performed burials
negligently, breached plaintiffs' contracts, and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

On April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been scheduled
to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint
to add new class representatives and claims, while also seeking
to abandon other claims.  The company, as well as several other
defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint
and add parties.  The Court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs'
motion to amend.

In April 2009, two defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs'
counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action.  
The company did not join in these motions.

The litigation is in the discovery stage.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John C. Eckert, Esq.
          Eckert Law Firm
          606 E. Main Street
          Madison, IN 47250
          Phone: 812-265-1606
          Fax: 812-265-2951
          E-mail: john@eckertlawfirm.net

               - and -

          J. Anthony Goebel, Esq.
          Goebel Law Office
          1034 Copperfield Drive
          Georgetown, IN 47122
          Phone: 812-951-2500
          Fax: 812-951-2522
          E-mail: tony@goebellawoffice.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert Lewis Barlow, II, Esq.
          Barlow Law Office
          201 East Main Street
          Madison, IN 47250
          Phone: 812-273-4440
          Fax: 812-273-2329
          E-mail: rbarlow@blueriver.net

               - and -

          John B. Drummy, Esq.
          Kightlinger & Gray
          151 North Delaware Street, Suite 600
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-638-4521
          Fax: 317-636-5917
          E-mail: jdrummy@k-glaw.com


CURAGEN CORP: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Del. "Smith" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CuraGen Corp. seeks approval from the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware of settlement in the action captioned Cheryl
Smith v. CuraGen Corporation, et al., according to the company's
Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition by Celldex
Therapeutics, Inc., of CuraGen, a putative class action
complaint, Margaret Capps v. Timothy Shannon, et al., was filed
in the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New
Haven, on June 9, 2009.

A second putative class action complaint, Cheryl Smith v. CuraGen
Corporation, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware on June 15, 2009.

Both lawsuits purport to have been brought on behalf of all
public stockholders of CuraGen, and name CuraGen, all of its
former directors, Celldex, and Cottrell Merger Sub as defendants.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the merger
consideration paid to CuraGen stockholders in the merger is
unfair and undervalues CuraGen.

In addition, the complaints alleged that CuraGen's former
directors violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
failing to maximize stockholder value and failing to engage in a
fair sale process.

The Plaintiffs in the two actions also sought to add claims that
CuraGen's former directors breached their fiduciary duty of
disclosure by making purportedly misleading and incomplete
disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement concerning the
merger.

The complaints also alleged that CuraGen and Celldex aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by CuraGen's
directors.

On July 21, 2009, the attorneys for the parties in the two
actions executed a memorandum of understanding pursuant to which
such actions will be dismissed with prejudice, subject to final
court approval of the settlement in the MOU.

CuraGen agreed to make certain revisions to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus (which was prepared in connection with the
approval by CuraGen's stockholders of the merger and by Celldex's
stockholders of the stock issued to the former stockholders of
CuraGen in the merger) as part of the agreement among the parties
to settle the actions and agreed to pay attorneys' fees and
expenses as awarded by the court, expected to be $300,000.

The settlement of the actions, subject to court approval, will
result in a dismissal of all merger-related claims against
CuraGen's former board of directors, CuraGen and Celldex.

The MOU resolves the allegations by the plaintiffs against the
defendants in connection with the proposed acquisition, and
includes no admission of wrongdoing.

The settlement outlined in the MOU remains subject to, among
other things:

     (i) drafting and execution of a formal stipulation of
         settlement and such other documentation as may be
         required to obtain final court approval of the
         settlement,

    (ii) final court approval of the settlement and entry of a
         final order and judgment by the court providing for
         such release language as is contained in the settlement
         documents, and

   (iii) the entry of orders dismissing the actions with
         prejudice on the merits.

On Aug. 27, 2009, a stipulation of settlement was submitted to
the court for the action captioned Cheryl Smith v. CuraGen
Corporation, et al, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, and thereafter a fairness hearing was set for Nov.
9, 2009, where the parties will seek approval of their settlement
of the Delaware Action.

CuraGen Corporation -- http://www.curagen.com/-- is a  
biopharmaceutical development company engaged in developing
therapeutics for the treatment of cancer.  The company is focused
on advancing its cancer treatments, belinostat and CR011-vcMMAE,
through clinical development.  In addition, it maintains a
portfolio of earlier stage assets, including proteins, antibodies
and small molecules that represent potential treatments for
cancer.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company has two
inactive programs; Velafermin is a protein therapeutic the
Company were investigating for the prevention of oral mucositis.  
Belinostat, previously referred to as PXD101, is a small molecule
histone deactylase (HDAC) inhibitor.  In October 2009, Celldex
Therapeutics, Inc. announced the completion of its acquisition of
CuraGen Corporation. Pursuant to the merger, CuraGen became a
wholly owned subsidiary of Celldex.


DOT HILL: Amended Notice of Appeal in "Brody" Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Amended Notice of Appeal by the plaintiffs of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California's decision
in Brody, et al. v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., et al., Case No. 06-
cv-00228 (S.D. Calif.) (Whelan, J.), has been dismissed,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Seurities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

In late January and early February 2006, numerous purported class
action complaints were filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The complaints allege violations of federal securities laws
related to alleged inflation in the company's stock price in
connection with various statements and alleged omissions to the
public and to the securities markets and declines in the
company's stock price in connection with the restatement of
certain of its quarterly financial statements for fiscal year
2004, and seeking damages therefore.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and the
Court appointed as lead plaintiff a group comprised of the
Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System and the General
Retirement System of the City of Detroit.

The consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 25, 2006, and the
company filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 5, 2006.

The Court granted the company's motion to dismiss on March 15,
2007.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on
April 20, 2007.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint on May 1, 2008, which the Court granted on
Sept. 2, 2008.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a Third Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 10, 2008, and on Nov. 24, 2008 the company
filed a motion to dismiss.

On March 18, 2009, the Court dismissed the Third Amended
Consolidated Complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend one
more time.

On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding
the Court's Sept. 2, 2008 and March 18, 2009 orders.

On May 19, 2009, the Court entered final judgment and dismissed
the action with prejudice; the plaintiffs subsequently filed an
Amended Notice of Appeal on June 8, 2009.

On Oct. 29, 2009, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of
Appeal.

On Oct. 30, 2009, the appeal was dismissed.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
         Murray Frank and Sailer
         275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818

               - and -  

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy and Blinkow
         1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney and Squire
         830 Third Avenue, Tenth Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-317-2300
         Fax: 212-371-6600

Representing the defendant is:

         Koji F. Fukumura, Esq.
         Cooley Godward Kronish, 4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121-9109
         Phone: 858-550-6000
         Fax: 858-550-6420
         E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com


FEDERAL HOME: Wants "Kuriakose" Securities Suit in NY Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a
putative class action lawsuit styled, "Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac,
Syron, Piszel and Cook," according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A putative class-action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and
certain former officers on Aug. 15, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 21, 2007
through Aug. 5, 2008.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially
inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and seeks
unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 20, 2009, FHFA, the company's Conservator, filed a motion
to intervene and stay the proceedings.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the court granted FHFA's motion to intervene and
stayed the case for 45 days.

On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.

Freddie Mac served a motion to dismiss the complaint on all
parties on Sept. 23, 2009.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit styled, "Jacoby v. Syron, Cook,
Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
and FTN Financial Markets," remains pending.

On Dec. 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others.

The complaint, as amended on Dec. 17, 2008, contends that the
defendants made material false and misleading statements in
connection with Freddie Mac's Sept. 29, 2007 offering of non-
cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred
stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated Freddie
Mac's capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie Mac's
exposure to mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting standards
and risk management procedures."

The complaint further alleges that Syron, Cook and Piszel made
additional false statements following the offering.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Defendants Want Consolidated Suit in NY Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in a consolidated putative class action lawsuit
against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others, has filed
a motion to dismiss complaint, according to the company's Nov. 6,
2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

By letter dated Oct. 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the company's Nov. 29, 2007 public offering of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.

On Jan. 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled, "Kreysar v. Syron, et al."

On April 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the Mark case with the
Kreysar case.  The Kreysar case on Jan. 29, 2009, as a putative
class action lawsuit in the same Court.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
July 2, 2009.

The consolidated complaint alleges that former Freddie Mac
officers Syron, Piszel, and Cook, certain underwriters and
Freddie Mac's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, violated
federal securities laws by making material false and misleading
statements in connection with an offering by Freddie Mac of $6
billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual
Preferred Stock Series Z that commenced on November 29, 2007.

The complaint further alleges that certain defendants and others
made additional false statements following the offering.

The complaint names as defendants Syron, Piszel, Cook, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Banc of America Securities
LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on Sept. 30, 2009.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Dismiss OPERS Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in "Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al,"
remains pending.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on Jan. 18, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
"false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry."

On April 10, 2008, the court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff
and approved its choice of counsel.

On Sept. 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint, which purportedly asserted claims
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock between
Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2007.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which removed certain allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony
Piszel, and Eugene McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading
allegations against only Patricia Cook.

The second amended complaint also extends the damages period,
but not the class period.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene
in its capacity as Conservator.

On April 6, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


GAYLORD ENT: Settlement in Pension Fund's Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee gave
its final approval to Gaylord Entertainment Co.'s proposed
settlement in NECA-IBEW Pension Fund v. Reed, et al., Case No.
08-cv-00814, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In August 2008, a union-affiliated pension fund filed a purported
derivative and class action complaint in Tennessee state court
alleging that the directors of the company breached their
fiduciary duties by adopting a shareholder rights plan.  

Subsequently, the plaintiffs purported to dismiss their state
court action, and they re-filed it in federal court.

On Oct. 27, 2008, the company (as the nominal defendant) filed a
motion to dismiss this lawsuit claiming, among other things, that
the plaintiff failed to make the required pre-suit demand on the
Company and that the allegations fail to state a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14, 2009).

On March 9, 2009, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the pending purported derivative and class-action
complaint.  The company and the plaintiffs in the action,
together with their counsel, have agreed that the changes to the
company's Board of Directors and amendments to the Original
Rights Agreement reflected in the Amended Rights Agreement will
form the basis for that settlement.

The settlement agreement between the parties was preliminarily
approved by the court on June 9, 2009.

The settlement was approved by the court on Sept. 14, 2009, and
all claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Headquartered in Nashville, Tenn., Gaylord Entertainment Co. --
http://www.gaylordentertainment.com/-- is a hospitality and   
entertainment company that owns and operates Gaylord Hotels --
http://www.gaylordhotels.com/-- its network of meetings-focused   
resorts and the Grand Ole Opry -- http://www.opry.com-- the   
weekly showcase.  The company's entertainment brands and
properties include the Radisson Hotel Opryland, Ryman
Auditorium, General Jackson Showboat, Gaylord Springs Golf
Links, Wildhorse Saloon and WSM-AM Radio.  The company's
operations are organized into three principal business segments:
Hospitality, which includes its hotel operations; Opry and
Attractions, which includes its Nashville attractions and assets
related to the Grand Ole Opry, and Corporate and Other.


GOOGLE INC: Narrower Book Settlement Submitted to Judge Chin
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica E. Vascellaro, Scott Morrison And Jeffrey Trachtenberg at
The Wall Street Journal report that Google Inc. and two author
and publisher groups submitted a narrower version of a legal
settlement that would allow Google to distribute millions of
digital books online, hoping to mollify the Justice Department
and other critics who blasted the original settlement as overly
broad and anticompetitive.

The revised settlement in The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v.
Google, Inc., Case No. 05-cv-8136 (S.D.N.Y.) (Chin, J.), will
only cover books that were either registered with the U.S.
Copyright Office or published in the U.K., Australia, or Canada.

The new agreement also addresses concerns about orphan works, or
books whose right holders are unknown, while keeping them in the
settlement. The fixes include limiting what is done with the
revenue generated from those works and appointing an independent
fiduciary to look out for the interests of those rights holders.

And it clarifies how Google's algorithm will work to establish
consumer purchase prices that simulate the prices in a
competitive market.

Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American
Publishers filed the modified agreement with the U.S. District
Court of the Southern District of New York late Friday evening,
minutes before the midnight deadline the court gave them, the
Journal relates.

Clean and redlined copies of the Amended Settlement Agreement are
available at:

     http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/Amended-Settlement-Agreement.zip

The Authors Guild provides this summary of the changes in a
Friday posting on their Web site:

     1. Smaller Class; Representation of Foreign Countries on
Registry Board.  We've narrowed down the class to authors and
publishers of works registered in the U.S. and authors and
publishers of works published in the three other countries that
have contributed the largest number of English-language works to
American libraries: Australia, Canada, and the U.K. Each of these
countries will have an author and a publisher seat on the Book
Rights Registry board.

     2. Independent Fiduciary for Unclaimed Works. An independent
fiduciary approved by the court will be solely responsible for
decisions regarding unclaimed works.

3. Unclaimed Funds Held for up to 10 Years, Will Go Only to
Charities and Finding Rightsholders. The Book Rights Registry
will now hold unclaimed funds for ten years, instead of five.
(After five years, one-quarter of the unclaimed funds can be
earmarked for finding rightsholders.) There will be no
distribution of any of the unclaimed funds to claiming
rightsholders. Instead, unclaimed funds will go to charities in
the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Australia as determined by court
order after 10 years.

4. Elimination of "Most-Favored Nation" Clause,
Restrictions on Discounting. The so-called "most-favored nation"
clause is out (if you don't know what it is, no need to get up to
speed on it). Also out are various restrictions on discounting by
Google. Authors will get their cut, regardless: Google's
discounts still come out of its own pocket.

5. Well-Defined Future Potential Business Models. Future
business models have been pared down to three: individual
subscriptions, print-on-demand, and digital downloads. None of
these business models can be implemented by Google without
approval of the Registry's board, and none can be implemented
without notice to all claiming rightsholders, who will have the
absolute right not to participate. (The Unclaimed Works
Fiduciary, of course, will determine whether unclaimed works will
participate in any future business models.) Note: this doesn't
affect the previously well-defined business models that get the
green light on approval of the settlement -- ad-supported
previews, consumer online editions, page-fees for print-outs from
public access terminals, and institutional subscriptions.

6. Plenty of Time. There's extra time to make claims for
the $60 to $300 per book digitization payments -- it's been
extended to March 31, 2011. There's also plenty of time to remove
your works from Google's database: you can ponder this until
March 9, 2012. (Remember, we don't recommend removal, since it's
irreversible: you'll remove yourself from this market forever.)

What hasn't changed? Almost everything else, The Authors Guild
says, explaining that the revised settlement still provides these
benefits to authors:

     A. Find new readers. Out-of-print books need no longer be
relegated to the used book market. The settlement will make out-
of-print works available to hundreds of millions of readers,
through ad-supported previews, sales of online editions, and
institutional subscriptions. If a book catches on, there will be
sales data to prove it, which may create an opportunity to bring
the work back into print in traditional form.

     B. In-print books are unaffected. A cardinal rule in the
negotiations was not to disturb the market for in-print books.
Titles that are in print won't be made available through any of
the means described in the settlement, unless the author and
publisher expressly want them to be.

     C. A Book Rights Registry to protect rightsholders. A non-
profit registry governed by authors and publishers will oversee
the settlement on their behalf, to help make sure rightsholders
receive the benefits they're entitled to. (Sign up for the
Registry by filing a claim at googlebooksettlement.com.)

     D. A fair share of revenues. 63% of gross revenues go to
authors and publishers; Google keeps 37%. The funds will be paid
to the new Book Rights Registry, which will pay authors and
publishers after retaining a modest administrative fee. If rights
have reverted to authors, they will receive 100% of the
rightsholder revenue.

     E. Unprecedented control for authors and publishers. Authors
and publishers will manage their rights through an account
management page at the Book Rights Registry. Authors who control
rights to their works, for example, may choose to allow Google to
display ad-supported previews of books, sell online editions
(authors may set the price or let an algorithm do it for them),
and license the work to colleges and universities, or they may
choose to block all display uses. Authors can change their minds,
at any time, with reasonable notice. What if a book comes back
into traditional print? The rightsholder can then simply turn off
all display uses, if it chooses, and permit the publisher to sell
the work through standard retail outlets.

     F. Authors' estates, too. Authors' estates exercise the same
rights as authors.

     G. At least $45 million in payments for unauthorized
scanning. Any of Google's digitizing of in-copyright books done
before May 5, 2009 is considered unauthorized under the
settlement. Google will pay to obtain a release of these
copyright infringement claims. Under the settlement, Google will
pay at least $60 and as much as $300 to rightsholders for each
book that it scanned without authority, for a total payment to
rightsholders of at least $45 million.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Court Certifies Class in Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
certified a plaintiff class in a consolidated complaint against
Juniper Networks, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On July 14, 2006 and Aug. 29, 2006, two purported class actions
were filed in the Northern District of California against the
company and certain of the company's current and former officers
and directors.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re
Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04327-JW,
and appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
on Jan. 12, 2007, and filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on April 9, 2007.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option
grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false
and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect
financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock
option grants.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claims for violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Juniper Networks' publicly-traded securities from July 12, 2001,
through and including August 10, 2006. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain
of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.

On March 31, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The order dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' section 10(b)
claim to the extent it was based on challenged statements made
before July 14, 2001.

The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, plaintiffs'
section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu.

The order upheld all of plaintiffs' remaining claims.

The order gave plaintiffs until May 1, 2008, to file an amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs chose not to amend their complaint.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities from July 11, 2003 to Aug. 10,
2006 inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including:

     -- those who received or acquired Juniper Networks' common
        stock issued pursuant to the registration statement on
        SEC Form S-4, dated March 10, 2004, for the company's
        merger with NetScreen Technologies Inc.; and

     -- purchasers of Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due
        June 15, 2008 issued pursuant to a registration
        statement on SEC Form S-3 dated Nov. 20, 2003.

Juniper Networks, Inc. -- http://www.juniper.net/-- designs,  
develops and sells products and services that together provide
its customers with network infrastructure that creates responsive
and trusted environments for accelerating the deployment of
services and applications over a single Internet Protocol (IP)-
based network.  The company's operations are organized into two
business segments: Infrastructure and Service Layer Technologies
(SLT).  Its Infrastructure segment primarily offers scalable
routing products that are used to control and direct network
traffic from the core, through the edge, aggregation and the
customer premise equipment level.  Its SLT segment offers
solutions that meet an array of its customer's priorities, from
protecting the network itself, and protecting data on the
network, to maximizing existing bandwidth and acceleration of
applications across a distributed network.


MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gas Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a purported lawsuit over defective
gasoline that Marathon Oil Corp. sold has been approved by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
and the case has been dismissed, according to the company's Nov.
6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum,
LLC, et al., Case No. 04-cv-00966 (S.D. W.Va.) (Chambers, J.),
alleges that the company's Catlettsburg refinery sold defective
gasoline to wholesalers and retailers, causing permanent damage
to storage tanks, dispensers and related equipment, resulting in
lost profits, business disruption, and personal and real property
damages.

In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Co. conducted extensive cleaning
operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent
damages resulted from the incident.

Class-action certification was granted in August 2007.

The company has entered into a tentative settlement agreement in
this case.  Notice of the proposed settlement has been sent to
the class members.  Approval by the court after a fairness
hearing is required before the settlement can be finalized.

On March 18, 2009, the settlement of the case was approved by
the.  Payment has been made and the case has been dismissed with
prejudice.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory B. Breedlove, Esq.
         Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove
         P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660
         Phone: 251/471-6191
         Fax: 251/479-1031
         E-mail: gbb@cbcbb.com

              - and -

         James M. Cawley, Jr., Esq.
         Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana Street
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/426-1700
         Fax: 713/425-5325
         E-mail: jay@jaycawley.net

Representing the defendants are:

         Joseph S. Beeson, Esq.
         Robinson & Mcelwee
         400 Fifth Third Center
         700 Virginia Street, East
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566
         E-mail: jsb@ramlaw.com

              - and -

         Jeffrey V. Mehalic, Esq.
         The Law Offices Of Jeffrey V. Mehalic
         P.O. Box 11133
         Charleston, WV 25339-1133
         Phone: 304/346-3462
         Fax: 302/346-3469


MOBILE CONTENT: Cash Refunds Offered to Settle 30 Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Sophia H. Hall granted preliminary approval to a
global settlement agreement in Paluzzi v. Cellco Partnership
d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and mBlox Inc., No. 07 CH 37213 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), which seeks to conclude over 30 separate
class action lawsuits filed throughout the country involving
claims that unauthorized charges for "mobile content" (like
ringtones and games) were placed on consumer cell phone bills.  

The settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Circuit
Court of Cook County in Illinois on September 10, 2009, provides
wireless customers across the country with either a cash award or
a cash refund for unauthorized mobile content charges and
requires that the defendants remain in compliance with the
consumer best practices guidelines established by industry trade
groups such as the Mobile Marketing Association, CTIA, and other
leading industry groups.

All of the defendants -- mBlox Inc., 2WayTraffic USA, Inc.,
DadaMobile, Inc., Lavalife, Inc., Mobile Entertainment, Inc.,
Playphone, Inc., SendMe, Inc., SJA Mobile LLC, Sony Pictures
Entertainment, Inc., UPOC Networks, Inc., and W3i Mobile, LLC --
have denied any wrongful conduct and the Court has not found the
defendants culpable for any wrongdoing.

Mobile content refers to products such as ringtones and games
that generally are received via text messages on mobile phones
and are charged directly to customers' mobile phone bills.

LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that the amount of the
settlement is $63 million, but if AT&T settles a similar
suit, and attorney's fees reach between $4 and $11.4 million,
that amount could be reduced to $36 million.

Members of the class action include anyone in the United
States and any of its territories, who at any time before
October 10, 2009, was billed and paid for unauthorized
content from any of the defendants.  To find out if you're
eligible, look for short codes that identify the various
mobile content companies on your past phone bills.  If you
are currently a plaintiff in the class action settlements
involving Media Breakaway or Mobile Messenger, or the pending
AT&T lawsuit, you are not eligible for this settlement.

Class action members are entitled to a once only cash payment
of $10 or a refund equivalent to three months of content
subscription fees.

Lead Class Counsel is:
     
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Steven Lezell, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 1-866-354-3015
          http://www.kamberedelson.com/

The Members of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee are:

          Robert Shelquist, Esq. (Chairman)
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2197

               - and -  

          David Healy, Esq.
          OFFICES OF DAVID HEALY
          2846 Remington Green Circle, Suite B
          Tallahassee, FL 32308
          
               - and -  

          John G. Jacobs, Esq.
          THE JACOBS LAW FIRM, CHTD.
          122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603

               - and -  

          David Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          
               - and -  

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
          627 208th Ave. SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          
               - and -  

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
          354 West Main Street
          Madison, WI 53703
          
               - and -  

          Philip Bock, Esq.
          Richard Doherty, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 North LaSalle, Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          
               - and -  

          Brian Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Ste. 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

Class members are encouraged to go to:

     http://www.MobileContentSettlement.com/

to learn more details about the settlement and how to apply for
refunds.  Class members may also call the claims administrator
directly at 1-800-262-0455 or class counsel at 1-866-354-3015.

mBlox, Inc., is represented by:

          Craig M. White, Esq.
          WILDMAN, HAROLD, ALLEN & DIXON, LLP
          225 West Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606

Mobile Entertainment, Inc., and Lavalife, LLC, are represented
by:

          Robert A. Horowitz, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166

SendMe, Inc., is represented by:

          Rodger R. Cole, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          Silicon Valley Venter
          801 California Street
          Mountain View, CA 94041

W3i Mobile, LLC, and W3i Holdings, LLC, are represented by:

          David A. Applebaum, Esq.
          LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
          150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402

2WayTraffic USA, Inc., its affiliates, and Sony Pictures
Entertainment, Inc., are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022

SJA Mobile LLC is represented by:

          Craig D. Joyce, Esq.
          FAIRFIELD AND WOODS, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2400
          1700 Lincoln Street
          Denver, CO 80203

Dada USA, Inc., Dada Entertainment, LLC, UPOC, Inc., and
Playphone, Inc., are represented by:

          Steven D. Allison, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          38 Technology Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618


OPLINK COMMS: Court Gives Final Nod to Settlement in IPO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a final order approving the settlement in a consolidated
IPO Lawsuit were Oplink Communications, Inc., is one of the named
defendants, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
qurter ended Sept. 27, 2009.

In November 2001, Oplink and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Oplink,
certain of Oplink's officers and directors and the underwriters
of Oplink's initial public offering violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that Oplink's
registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose material
facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock
allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.  The complaint
also contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that this
omission constituted a deceit on investors.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

Similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of
other public companies that went public in the late 1990s and
early 2000s and their IPO underwriters (collectively, the "IPO
Lawsuits").  The IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial
purposes in the Court.

During the summer of 2008, the parties engaged in a formal
mediation process to discuss a global resolution of the IPO
Lawsuits.  Ultimately, the parties reached an agreement to settle
all 309 cases against all defendants, which is memorialized in a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of April 1,
2009.

The settlement provides for a $586 million recovery in total.

This total amount is being divided over the 309 cases.

Oplink's share of the settlement is $327,458, which is the amount
Oplink will be required to pay if the settlement is finally
approved by the court.

The amount is included in accrued liabilities on the consolidated
balance sheet as of June 30, 2009.
The settlement was submitted to the district court for review and
approval on April 2, 2009, and was preliminarily approved by the
court on June 9, 2009.

Members of the plaintiff class had the opportunity to "opt out"
of the settlement or object to the settlement terms prior to the
settlement hearing.

The settlement hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2009.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the court issued a final order approving the
settlement.

The parties (including members of the plaintiff class that
objected to the settlement) have sixty days from the date of the
order to file an appeal of the settlement approval.

Oplink Communications, Inc. -- http://www.oplink.com/-- is  
engaged in designing, manufacturing and selling optical
networking components and subsystems.  The company's product
portfolio includes solutions for all-optical dense and coarse
wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM and CWDM, respectively),
optical amplification, switching and routing, monitoring and
conditioning, and line transmission applications.  The
addressable markets include long-haul networks, metropolitan area
networks (MANs), local area networks (LANs) and fiber-to-the-home
(FTTH) networks.  The company's customers include
telecommunications, data communications and cable television (TV)
equipment manufacturers located around the globe.  As a photonic
foundry, the company provides design, integration and optical
manufacturing solutions (OMS) for components and subsystem
manufacturing. Its product portfolio also includes optical
transmission products, including fiber optic transmitters,
receivers, transceivers and transponders.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Settlement in Unit's Easement Cases Disapproved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
said that it won't approve of the settlement agreement in the
cases filed against Sprint Nextel Corp.'s subsidiary, Sprint
Communications Company L.P., according to the company's Nov. 6,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A number of cases that allege Sprint Communications failed to
obtain easements from property owners during the installation of
its fiber optic network in the 1980's have been filed in various
courts.  Several of these cases sought certification of
nationwide classes, and in one case, a nationwide class was
certified.

In 2003, a nationwide settlement of these claims was approved by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
but objectors appealed the preliminary approval order to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the
settlement and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.  The parties proceeded with litigation and
settlement negotiations on a state by state basis, and
settlement negotiations have been coordinated in all cases but
those pending in Louisiana and Tennessee.  The Louisiana claims
have been separately settled for an amount not material to the
company, and that settlement was given final approval by the
Court, and the time to appeal that approval has expired.

The company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
claims in all the other states, excluding Tennessee, for an
amount not material to the company.  The Court issued its
preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2008.

However on Sept. 10, 2009, the Court announced that it would not
approve the settlement.

The Court did not decide whether the settlement was fair or in
the best interest of class members, but denied on jurisdictional
grounds.  The parties are negotiating whether revised settlement
agreements will be presented to another court or courts for
approval.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery in Shareholders Securities Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a shareholder class-action lawsuit
against Sprint Nextel Corp., alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

In September 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging
that the company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and
misleading in violation of federal securities laws to the extent
they described new employment agreements with certain senior
executives without disclosing that, according to the
allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable.

These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit
originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the company and
certain current and former officers and directors, and seek to
recover any decline in the value of the company's tracking
stocks during the class period.

The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class
action.

All defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations and intend
to defend this matter vigorously, according to the company's
Nov. 7, 2008, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims
against the same defendants and the company's former independent
auditor, were dismissed by the Court in April 2004.

The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
denied, and the parties are engaged in discovery.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global
communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline
communications products and services for individual consumers,
businesses and government customers.  The company conducts its
operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline.  The
company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS
Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states,
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the
Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple
access (CDMA) technology.  The company offers digital wireless
services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital
enhanced network (iDEN) technology.  It also offers wireless
services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost
Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost
Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. and other steel manufacturing companies
continue to defend direct purchaser class action antitrust
lawsuits after their joint motion to dismiss the case was denied
by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the company and eight other steel
manufacturing companies were served with a class action antitrust
complaint, filed in the Court in Chicago by Standard Iron Works
of Scranton, Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products
were sold in the United States, starting in 2005, by artificially
restricting the supply of such steel products.

Six additional lawsuits, each of them materially similar to the
original, have also been filed in the same federal court, each of
them likewise seeking similar class certification.

All but one of the Complaints purport to be brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products
between Jan. 1, 2005 and the present.

The other Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within
the same time period.

All Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and
injunctive relief.

On Jan. 2, 2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a
Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits.

On June 12, 2009, however, the Court denied the Motion.

No further updates were reported in the the company's Nov. 6,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com/-- is a   
steel producer and metals recycler. The company has three
segments: steel operations, steel fabrication operations, and
metals recycling and ferrous resources operations. The Company's
products in its steel segment include hot rolled, cold rolled,
galvanized, Galvalume and painted sheet steel; various
structural steel beams and rails; special bar quality steel, and
various merchant steel products, including beams, angles, flats
and channels. Its products in the metals recycling segment
include ferrous and nonferrous scrap processing, scrap
management, transportation, and brokerage and trading products
and services. The steel fabrication segment produces steel
joists and decking materials.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Plea to Dismiss "Panasuk" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc.'s Motions to Dismiss the amended complaint
in a lawsuit alleging securities fraud remains pending, according
to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.  

On March 18, 2009, the company, together with its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, Keith E. Busse, and John Bates, a member
of its board of directors, were served with a complaint,
captioned Panasuk v. Steel Dynamics, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 1109cv0066, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, purporting to represent
a class of purchasers of Steel Dynamics common stock between Jan.
26, 2009 and March 11, 2009.

The complaint, which was amended on July 13, 2009, alleges
securities fraud in connection with the company's issuance of
certain earnings guidance and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the company and Messrs. Busse and Bates filed
Motions to Dismiss the amended complaint.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com/-- is a   
steel producer and metals recycler. The Company has three
segments: steel operations, steel fabrication operations, and
metals recycling and ferrous resources operations. The Company's
products in its steel segment include hot rolled, cold rolled,
galvanized, Galvalume and painted sheet steel; various
structural steel beams and rails; special bar quality steel, and
various merchant steel products, including beams, angles, flats
and channels. Its products in the metals recycling segment
include ferrous and nonferrous scrap processing, scrap
management, transportation, and brokerage and trading products
and services. The steel fabrication segment produces steel
joists and decking materials.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

VERASUN ENERGY: Coughlin Stoia Sues Executives in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of VeraSun Energy Corp. (NYSE:VSUNQ.PK) between
March 12, 2008, and September 16, 2008, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
VeraSun is not named in this action as a defendant because it
filed for bankruptcy protection on October 31, 2008.

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/verasun/

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 certain of VeraSun's former executives with
violations of the Exchange Act. VeraSun engages in the production
and sale of ethanol and its co-products in the United States.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (i) VeraSun
was, in part, a speculative commodities trader in addition to an
ethanol producer; (ii) VeraSun engaged in speculative and risky
derivate transactions that exposed the Company to substantial
financial and liquidity risk; (iii) VeraSun experienced
substantial loses on speculative derivative transactions causing
margin pressures on the Company; (iv) as a result of margin
pressures from bad speculative derivative transactions, the
Company sold out of a large short position in corn and incurred
substantial losses; (v) the Company entered into highly risky
"accumulator" contracts that obligated VeraSun to purchase
increasing amounts of corn after the price of corn fell in price
per bushel; and (vi) VeraSun's financial condition and especially
its liquidity were negatively impacted as a result of speculative
commodity transactions, ultimately causing the Company to file
for bankruptcy.

On September 16, 2008, VeraSun announced that it commenced a
public offering of 20 million shares of its common stock to raise
money for "general corporate purposes." The true purpose of this
public offering was to raise capital in an effort to prevent a
disastrous impact from the huge losses experienced by the Company
as a result of its speculative trading and risky bets on the
price of corn. In response to the Company's announcement on
September 16, 2008, shares of the Company's stock fell $3.81 per
share, or 70%, from a close of $5.22 per share before the
announcement, to close at $1.41 per share on September 17, 2008,
on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
VeraSun 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, 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. The Coughlin Stoia Web site at
http://www.csgrr.com/has more information about the firm.


                            *********

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  * * *