CAR_Public/091203.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 3, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 239
  
                            Headlines

AK STEEL: Retirees Win $51 Million Pension Benefit Class Action
ANESIVA INC: "Gluck" Suit Undergoing Confirmatory Discovery
CIT GROUP: Still Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in SDNY
CIT GROUP: Faces Derivative Action on $3 Billion Facility
CIT GROUP: SLX Reaches Pact to Resolve Claims in Various Suits

CITY OF FARGO: Paying $1.5 Million to Settle Traffic Fine Lawsuit
E.T. BROWNE: Epiq Systems Begins Notice & Claim Filing Process
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 3
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in "Santana"
EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Amezcua" Labor Violations Suit Still Pending

EPL INTERMEDIATE: Calif. Labor Breach Suit Settlement Pending
EPL INTERMEDIATE: In Settlement Talks with "Penaloza" Plaintiffs
FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Wash. Merger Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice
KEN DENTON: South African Group Mulls Suing Alleged Slumlord
NATIONAL BEEF: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Tannery in Missouri

NORTEL NETWORKS: Suits Against Executives Remains Stayed in N.Y.
NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Suit is Ordered Administratively Closed
NORTEL NETWORKS: PBA Violations Lawsuit in Canada Remains Stayed
OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Settles Two American Shareholder Lawsuits
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Files Notice of Appeal on Court's Ruling

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" Pending in Calif.
SAN FRANCISCO: Agrees to Spend $4 Mil. Per Year on Sidewalks
UNITED PARCEL: Class Certified in Alabama Over-Billing Case
VERIZON COMMS: Idearc Retirees File Pension Suit in N.D. Tex.

                            *********

AK STEEL: Retirees Win $51 Million Pension Benefit Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that retired AK Steel workers
finally won their eight-year old pension benefits class action
and got some money last week.  The settlement totalled $51
million and will be distributed among 1,000 retirees.  The suit
alleged that the company had miscalculated the employees lump sum
payments. The plaintiffs won their case in 2006, but it then went
to an appeals court, where the decision was upheld.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 14, 2009, the
proceeding before the trial court is Bailey, et al. v. AK Steel
Corp., Case No. 06-cv-00468 (S.D. Ohio.) (Barrett, J.).


ANESIVA INC: "Gluck" Suit Undergoing Confirmatory Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a derivative complaint are now in the process of
confirmatory discovery, according to Anesiva, Inc.'s Nov. 16,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On March 19, 2009, Sheryl Gluck, an alleged stockholder, filed a
derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, purportedly on behalf of Anesiva, named as a nominal
defendant, against Anesiva's chief executive officer, certain
members of Anesiva's board of directors and certain stockholders
of Anesiva affiliated with the directors relating to the Investor
Agreement with the Investors.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by causing Anesiva to enter into
the Investor Agreement.

On Sept. 8, 2009, an amended complaint was filed, which also
alleges, among other things (including allegations relating to
the Investor Agreement), that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Anesiva in connection
with the proposed merger of Arca Acquisition Corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Anesiva, and Arcion Therapeutics,
Inc., pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated Aug. 4, 2009, among Anesiva, Arca and Arcion and, with
respect to only Articles V and IX of the agreement, each of the
Arcion stockholders listed on Schedule I thereto.

The amended complaint adds, among others, Arcion as a defendant
to the suit.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from completing the Merger as currently contemplated.

The amended complaint is styled both as a derivative suit and as
a class action and seeks, in addition to the injunctive relief
noted, damages to certain of the Anesiva stockholders based on a
theory that the purchase price offered to such stockholders is
less than the value of their shares.

Anesiva and Plaintiff Gluck have since agreed upon a tentative
settlement.

Anesiva, Inc. -- http://www.anesiva.com/-- is a  
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and
commercialization of therapeutic treatments for pain management.  
Its portfolio includes two products.  Adlea, a long-acting, site-
specific, non-opioid analgesic, is being developed for moderate
to severe pain, and has completed multiple Phase II trials in
post-surgical, musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain and Phase III
trials in bunionectomy and total knee arthroplasty (TKA, or total
knee replacement surgery).  The company is initially pursuing an
indication for Adlea for the management of acute pain associated
with orthopedic surgeries. Zingo (lidocaine hydrochloride
monohydrate) powder intradermal injection system, was approved by
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August 2007, to reduce
the pain associated with peripheral intravenous (IV) insertions
or blood draws in children 3 to 18 years of age.  Zingo was
approved in January 2009, to reduce the pain associated with
blood draws in adults.


CIT GROUP: Still Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in SDNY
-------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc. continues to face a consolidated amended complaint
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Securities Act of 1933 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's Nov.
16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In July and August 2008, putative class action lawsuits were
filed against CIT, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer.  In August 2008, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the New York District Court by a holder of
CIT-PrZ equity units against CIT, its CEO, CFO, former Executive
Vice President and Controller and members of its Board of
Directors.

In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder
actions into a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca &
Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which
consists of all acquirers of CIT securities from Dec. 12, 2006
through March 5, 2008, who allegedly were damaged, including
acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant to the Oct. 17,
2007 offering of such preferred stock.

In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, it is alleged that the company, its CEO, CFO,
former Executive Vice President and Controller, and a former Vice
Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by allegedly
making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
CIT's subprime home lending and student lending businesses.

The allegations relating to the company's student lending
businesses are based upon the assertion that the company failed
to account in its financial statements or, in the case of the
preferred stockholders, its registration statement and
prospectus, for private loans to students of a helicopter pilot
training school, which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be
repaid and should have been written off.

The allegations relating to the company's home lending business
are based on the assertion that the company failed to fully
disclose the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime
mortgage loans.

It also is alleged that its CEO, CFO, former Executive Vice
President and Controller and a former Vice Chairman violated
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act as controlling persons of the
company.

The lead Plaintiff also alleges that the Company, its CEO, CFO,
and former Executive Vice President and Controller and those
Directors of the company who signed the registration statement in
connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ preferred offering
violated Sections 11 and/or 12 of the 1933 Act by making false
and misleading statements concerning the company's student
lending business.  It also is alleged that its CEO and CFO, as
well as the Directors who signed the registration statement,
violated Section 15 of the 1933 Act as controlling persons of the
company.

In September 2008, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in
the New York District Court on behalf of CIT against its CEO and
members of its Board of Directors, alleging defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to CIT and abused the trust placed in them
by wasting, diverting and misappropriating CIT's corporate
assets.  Also in September 2008, a similar purported shareholder
derivative action was filed in New York County Supreme Court
against CIT's CEO, CFO and members of its Board of Directors.  On
Oct. 10, 2009, the derivative shareholder plaintiffs served their
amended derivative complaint, generally alleging that certain CIT
directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties to CIT and
its shareholders and unjustly enriched themselves by taking
compensation and causing CIT to engage in risky subprime and
student lending businesses and failing to disclose this "high-
risk" activity to shareholders.  In addition to certain current
and former CIT directors, the amended derivative complaint names
as defendants, CIT's CEO, CFO, former Executive Vice President
and Controller, and a former Vice Chairman.

In these shareholder and derivative lawsuits, plaintiffs seek,
among other relief, unspecified damages and interest.

CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding  
company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing assets
that provides financial products and advisory services to small
and middle market businesses.  Operating in more than 50
countries across 30 industries, CIT provides an unparalleled
combination of relationship, intellectual and financial capital
to its customers worldwide.  CIT maintains leadership positions
in small business and middle market lending, retail finance,
aerospace, equipment and rail leasing, and vendor finance.  
Founded in 1908 and headquartered in New York City, CIT is a
member of the Fortune 500.


CIT GROUP: Faces Derivative Action on $3 Billion Facility
---------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc. faces a derivative action in connection with the
$3 billion financing facility entered into by the company in July
2009, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In September 2009, three noteholders filed a derivative action in
the Delaware Chancery Court against the directors of CIT Group
Funding Company of Delaware, LLC, alleging that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties to CIT Funding by allowing CIT
Funding to guaranty and grant liens upon its assets in connection
with the $3 billion financing facility entered into by the
company in July 2009.

On the same date, a group of noteholders, including the
plaintiffs in the Delaware Action, commenced an action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
CIT Funding and many of the lenders involved in the Funding
Facility.

Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of all holders or owners of notes issued by CIT
Funding.

Plaintiffs assert the Funding Facility constituted a fraudulent
transfer under New York law, and accordingly should be annulled.  
Plaintiffs also allege that additional claims against the
defendants and others may exist in the event of a bankruptcy
filing by CIT Group Inc. and/or any of its affiliates.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle pursuant to
which these actions will be dismissed with prejudice following
the effective date of the company's Amended Plan of
Reorganization.

CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding  
company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing assets
that provides financial products and advisory services to small
and middle market businesses.  Operating in more than 50
countries across 30 industries, CIT provides an unparalleled
combination of relationship, intellectual and financial capital
to its customers worldwide.  CIT maintains leadership positions
in small business and middle market lending, retail finance,
aerospace, equipment and rail leasing, and vendor finance.  
Founded in 1908 and headquartered in New York City, CIT is a
member of the Fortune 500.


CIT GROUP: SLX Reaches Pact to Resolve Claims in Various Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Student Loan Xpress, Inc., a subsidiary of CIT Group Inc.,
reached an agreement to resolve claims in putative class action
lawsuits and collective actions, according to the company's Nov.
16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In February 2008, a helicopter pilot training school filed for
bankruptcy and ceased operating.  SLX, who is engaged in the
student lending business, had originated private (non-government
guaranteed) loans to approximately 2,600 students of the Pilot
School, which totaled approximately $196.8 million in principal
and accrued interest, SLX ceased originating new loans to
students of this school in September 2007, but a majority of
SLX's student borrowers had not completed their training when the
school ceased operations.

After the Pilot School filed for bankruptcy and ceased
operations, SLX voluntarily placed those students who were
attending school at the time of the closure "in grace" such that
no payments under their loans have been required to be made and
no interest on their loans have been accruing.

Multiple lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits and
collective actions, have been filed against SLX and other lenders
alleging, among other things, violations of state consumer
protection laws.  SLX participated in a mediation with several
class counsels and the parties have reached an agreement to
resolve the students' claims against SLX, which agreement was
submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida for approval on Oct. 27, 2009.

Upon preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court and
after giving notice to the students, the students will have the
right to opt out of the class settlement.

Based on the assumption that no students will opt out of the
class settlement and the Court will overrule any objections and
finally approve the settlement, CIT expects to charge off
approximately $120 million in the fourth quarter which has been
fully reserved.

SLX also completed a settlement of a mass action commenced by
students in Georgia, which is binding upon 37 SLX borrowers.

The Attorneys General of several states also engaged in a review
of the impact of the Pilot School's closure on the student
borrowers and any possible role of SLX.  SLX cooperated in the
review and has reached agreement with twelve state Attorneys
General, pursuant to which, among other things, the Attorneys
General support the class settlement SLX has filed with the
court.

CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding  
company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing assets
that provides financial products and advisory services to small
and middle market businesses.  Operating in more than 50
countries across 30 industries, CIT provides an unparalleled
combination of relationship, intellectual and financial capital
to its customers worldwide.  CIT maintains leadership positions
in small business and middle market lending, retail finance,
aerospace, equipment and rail leasing, and vendor finance.  
Founded in 1908 and headquartered in New York City, CIT is a
member of the Fortune 500.


CITY OF FARGO: Paying $1.5 Million to Settle Traffic Fine Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Daum at INFORUM reports that a federal court judge
approved a million-dollar settlement Monday afternoon for a
class-action lawsuit against the city of Fargo over excessive
traffic fines.

As part of the settlement in Sauby v. City of Fargo, Case No.
07-cv-00010 (D. N.D.), the city agreed to pay up to $1.5 million
for eligible claims that were sent in by early November.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit contended that Fargo's traffic
fines illegally exceed those in North Dakota's Century Code.

According to documents filed in U.S. District Court earlier this
month, at least 13,900 eligible claims amount to more than $1
million that the city will pay.

Fargo city attorney Erik Johnson said the city's payments should
be sent out within 2 to 3 months.

The Class Action Reporter covered the Court's preliminary
settlement of this matter on July 3, 2009.  


E.T. BROWNE: Epiq Systems Begins Notice & Claim Filing Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
A notice program authorized by the Los Angeles County Superior
Court began this week to alert those who purchased certain
Palmer's brand Cocoa Butter for Stretch Marks products from April
3, 2003, through September 30, 2009, about a proposed settlement
with E.T. Browne Drug Company, Inc.  The notice is a result of
the Court certifying for settlement purposes only, on November
24, 2009, a plaintiff class in a lawsuit alleging that E.T.
Browne made misleading or false statements about certain Palmer's
Brand Coca Butter for Stretch Marks products.

The lawsuit, Mary Fallon, et al. v. E.T. Browne Drug Company,
Inc., Case No. BC 411117 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.),
claims Defendant made false and misleading statements in its
labeling and advertising of Defendant's Palmer's brand Cocoa
Butter Formula Massage Lotion for Stretch Marks, Cocoa Butter
Formula Massage Cream for Stretch Marks, Organics Cocoa Butter
Massage Lotion for Stretch Marks, Organics Cocoa Butter Massage
Cream for Stretch Marks, and Organics Cocoa Butter Tummy Butter
for Stretch Marks.  The settlement includes only those five
Palmer's Products.

The Settlement does not mean that Defendant did anything wrong,
and the Court has not decided that Defendant did anything wrong.
Indeed, Defendant has denied any wrongdoing whatsoever, and is
settling the case only to avoid the expense and inconvenience of
litigation.

All Class Members can submit claims online at:

     http://www.PalmersSettlement.com/

or via U.S. mail. Each Class Member who makes a claim will be
sent a check, via U.S. Mail, in the amount of $1.25 for each
bottle of the Palmer's Products purchased during the Class
Period, up to a maximum of four bottles.  Class Members are not
required to submit receipts, but are required to submit a
Declaration included in the Claim Form saying that they purchased
the product.

Notices informing Class members about their legal rights are
appearing in U.S.A. Today, on Facebook at:

     http://www.facebook.com/PalmersSettlement

and on 30 internet websites during the period December 1, 2009,
through January 1, 2009 leading up to the Final Approval Hearing
on February 25, 2009.

The Court has preliminarily appointed the law firm of Milstein,
Adelman, & Kreger, LLP to represent the Class as Plaintiffs' Lead
Class Counsel.

Epiq Systems, Inc., is providing noticing and claim processing
services.  

In addition to submitting a claim form to ask for payment, Class
members can ask to be excluded from, or object to, the
settlement.  Claim forms must be postmarked no later than
February 4, 2009. The deadline for exclusions and objections is
February 4, 2009.

A toll-free number, 1-888-643-2168, has been established in this
case along with a website at http://www.PalmersSettlement.com/
where notices, claim forms, the settlement agreement, and the
Court's preliminary approval order may be obtained.  Those
affected also may write to:

          Palmer's Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 4277
          Portland, OR 97208-4277


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 3
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a
purported class-action lawsuit against EPL Intermediate, Inc., is
scheduled on Dec. 3, 2009, according to the company's Nov. 16,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

EPL Intermediate, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-
action lawsuit against the company in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On or about April 16, 2004, former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco
Ramirez and Javier Rivera filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members
composed of former and current general managers and restaurant
managers from April 2000 to present.  The suit alleges certain
violations of California labor laws, including alleged improper
classification of general managers and restaurant managers as
exempt employees.

The requested remedies include compensatory damages for unpaid
wages, interest, certain statutory penalties, disgorgement of
alleged profits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs
as well as certain injunctive relief.

The court has lifted the stay on the class action pursuant to a
recent California Supreme Court decision.  The matter is now
proceeding in Superior Court, and the parties are conducting
limited discovery on the issue of class certification.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is expected to be
filed in April 2009, and briefing completed.

The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was set
for Sept. 18, 2009.  

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in "Santana"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class-action suit filed on behalf of
all assistant shift managers against EPL Holdings, Inc. are
finalizing a settlement agreement.

In April 2007, Dora Santana filed a purported class action in
state court in Los Angeles County on behalf of all "Assistant
Shift Managers."

Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations including working off
the clock, failure to pay overtime, and meal break violations on
behalf of the purported class, currently defined as all
Assistant Managers from April 2003 to present.

Written discovery is completed on the limited issue of class
certification.

The Court has ordered that plaintiffs file their motion for
class certification no later than Aug. 15, 2009.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
matter and are in the process of finalizing that agreement.  

In the second quarter of 2009, the company accrued the estimated
settlement expense of $900,000, according to the company's
Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Amezcua" Labor Violations Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Amezcua's purported class-action lawsuit against EPL
Intermediate, Inc. is pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

On Oct. 18, 2005, Salvador Amezcua, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a purported class-action
complaint against EPL.

Carlos Olvera replaced Mr. Amezcua as the named class
representative on Aug. 16, 2006.

This action alleges certain violations of California labor laws
and the California Business and Professions Code, based on,
among other things, failure to pay overtime compensation,
failure to provide meal periods, unlawful deductions from
earnings and unfair competition.

Plaintiffs' requested remedies include compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The court denied EPL's motion to compel arbitration, and the
company has appealed that decision.  

The Court of Appeal issued its ruling on April 27, 2009,
affirming the trial court ruling on the arbitration issue.  

No further developments of this case were reported in the
company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Calif. Labor Breach Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class-action suit filed by a former
assistant manager of EPL Intermediate, Inc., against the company
is pending California court approval.

On May 30, 2008, former assistant manager Jeannette Delgado
filed a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of all hourly
(i.e. non-exempt) employees of EPL in state court in Los Angeles
County alleging violations of certain California labor laws and
the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods and unfair business practices.  By statute, the
purported class extends back four years to May 30, 2004.

The plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

This lawsuit was served on the company in early September 2008.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
matter and executed a Memorandum of Understanding in June 2009.  

The class-wide settlement requires Court approval, and it is
expected that administration of the settlement can be completed
by year end.

In the second quarter of 2009, the company accrued the estimated
settlement expense of $1.5 million, according to the company's
Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: In Settlement Talks with "Penaloza" Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action filed on behalf of all
non-exempt employees against EPL Intermediate, Inc., are engaged
in settlement negotiations.  

On May 26, 2009, in Superior Court in Orange County, California,
Martin Penaloza, a former Assistant Manager, filed the action on
behalf of all non-exempt employees.  

The claims, requested remedies, and potential class in this case
overlap those in the Delgado and Santana cases.  

The settlement of this matter is included in the settlement of
the Delgado and Santana lawsuits.  

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 16, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its
wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a
restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of
Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company-
operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in
California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new
company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants.


FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Wash. Merger Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: FTBK), the parent company
of Frontier Bank, says that the putative shareholders' class
action lawsuit that was filed in the Superior Court of
Washington, Snohomish County, on August 20, 2009, against
Frontier, its directors and SP Acquisition Holdings, Inc., was
dismissed with prejudice on November 24, 2009.

As reported on Sept. 24, 2009, in the Class Action Reporter, the
litigation challenged Frontier's merger transaction with SP
Acquisition Holdings, Inc., and was brought by Charles C. Hilton,
an alleged shareholder, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated.

Frontier Financial Corporation -- http://www.frontierbank.com/--  
is a Washington-based financial holding company, providing
financial services through its commercial bank subsidiary,
Frontier Bank, since 1978. Frontier Bank offers a wide range of
banking and financial services to businesses and individuals in
its market area, including trust, cash management, and investment
and insurance products. Frontier operates 47 offices in Clallam,
Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston,
Whatcom counties in Washington and 3 offices in Oregon.


KEN DENTON: South African Group Mulls Suing Alleged Slumlord
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hayward at the Weekend Post reports that outraged citizens
of Nelson Mandela Bay are gearing up to launch a massive class
action against the municipality in a bid to get it to force Irish
"slumlord" Ken Denton to repair his decaying and derelict
properties in the city's historical heart.

Some of the city's top legal minds have already been consulted
and a campaign to raise R150000 to start the class action will be
launched shortly, according to members of the Save Our City (SOC)
organisation, established earlier this year to gather support for
the protection of historical buildings.

Having bought more than 400 properties around the Bay since his
arrival in the city from Dublin in the late 1990s, Mr. Denton has
often been accused of creating an "inner-city slum" by residents,
business leaders and visitors who have visited some of the
derelict national monuments which he owns.

Mr. Hayward's complete report is available at:

     http://www.weekendpost.co.za/article.aspx?id=503797


NATIONAL BEEF: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Tannery in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Beef Packing Company, LLC's wholly-owned subsidiary,
National Beef Leathers, LLC, defends eleven lawsuits involving
NBL's tannery located in St. Joseph, Missouri, according to the
company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug.
29, 2009.

NBL purchased the assets of the tannery from Prime Tanning Corp.
in March 2009.

The lawsuits are pending in the Circuit Courts of Buchanan
County, Clinton County and DeKalb County, Missouri and in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri and were
filed between April 22, 2009 and Aug. 21, 2009.

The lawsuits allege that Prime and NBL spread wastewater sludge
containing hexavalent chromium in four counties in northwest
Missouri.

The lawsuits currently include nine actions filed by individuals
and two purported class actions.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages for
wrongful death, personal injury, pain and suffering, economic
damages, punitive damages, diminished property values and
medical monitoring.

National Beef Packing Company, LLC --
http://www.nationalbeef.com/-- is a beef processing company in
the United States.  The company processes packages and delivers
fresh beef for sale to customers in the United States and
international markets.  The products include boxed beef and beef
by-products, such as hides and offal.  In addition, National
Beef sells beef products including branded boxed beef, case-
ready beef, chilled and frozen export beef and portion control
beef.  The company markets its products to retailers,
distributors, food service providers, further processors, and
the United States military.  It has the ability to process
approximately 14,000 head per day in its beef processing
facilities.  The company reports in two business segments: Core
Beef and Other.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Suits Against Executives Remains Stayed in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Securities Class Action Claim against Nortel Networks Ltd.'s
former Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer
remains stayed, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On May 18, 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of
federal securities law between the period of May 2, 2008 through
Sept. 17, 2008, against Mike Zafirovski (Nortel's former
President and CEO) and Pavi Binning (Nortel's Executive Vice
President, CFO and Chief Restructuring Officer).

Although Nortel is not a named defendant, this lawsuit has been
stayed as a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings.

Nortel Networks Ltd. -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a global  
supplier of networking solutions serving both service provider
and enterprise customers.  It supplies end-to-end networking
products and solutions that help organizations enhance and
simplify communications.  These organizations range from small
businesses to multi-national corporations involved in all aspects
of commercial and industrial activity, and from federal, state
and local government agencies and the military to cable
operators, wireline and wireless telecommunications service
providers, and Internet service providers. Nortel's networking
solutions include hardware and software products and services.  
It designs, develops, engineers, markets, sells, supplies,
licenses, installs, services and supports these networking
solutions worldwide. Nortel operates in four segments: Carrier
Networks (CN), Enterprise Solutions (ES), Metro Ethernet
Networks (MEN) and Global Services (GS).


NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Suit is Ordered Administratively Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has
ordered that the consolidated purported class action lawsuit
against Nortel Networks Ltd. is administratively closed,
according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

Beginning in December 2001, Nortel, together with certain of its
then-current and former directors, officers and employees, were
named as a defendant in several purported class action lawsuits
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of
1974.

These lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

This lawsuit is on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of
the Nortel Long-Term Investment Plan, who held shares of the
Nortel Networks Stock Fund during the class period, which has yet
to be determined by the court.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, material
misrepresentations and omissions to induce participants and
beneficiaries to continue to invest in and maintain investments
in NNC common shares through the investment plan.

The court has not yet ruled as to whether the plaintiff's
proposed class action should be certified.

As a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings, on Sept. 25,
2009, the district court ordered the case administratively
closed.

Nortel Networks Ltd. -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a global  
supplier of networking solutions serving both service provider
and enterprise customers.  It supplies end-to-end networking
products and solutions that help organizations enhance and
simplify communications.  These organizations range from small
businesses to multi-national corporations involved in all aspects
of commercial and industrial activity, and from federal, state
and local government agencies and the military to cable
operators, wireline and wireless telecommunications service
providers, and Internet service providers. Nortel's networking
solutions include hardware and software products and services.  
It designs, develops, engineers, markets, sells, supplies,
licenses, installs, services and supports these networking
solutions worldwide. Nortel operates in four segments: Carrier
Networks (CN), Enterprise Solutions (ES), Metro Ethernet
Networks (MEN) and Global Services (GS).


NORTEL NETWORKS: PBA Violations Lawsuit in Canada Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Nortel Networks Ltd. and
its parent company Nortel Networks Corp. remains stayed,
according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.   

On June 24, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Nortel and NNC in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
in Ottawa, Canada alleging, among other things, that certain
recent changes related to Nortel's pension plan did not comply
with the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario) or common law
notification requirements.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and equitable relief, and
unspecified monetary damages.

As a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings, this lawsuit
has been stayed.

Nortel Networks Ltd. -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a global  
supplier of networking solutions serving both service provider
and enterprise customers.  It supplies end-to-end networking
products and solutions that help organizations enhance and
simplify communications.  These organizations range from small
businesses to multi-national corporations involved in all aspects
of commercial and industrial activity, and from federal, state
and local government agencies and the military to cable
operators, wireline and wireless telecommunications service
providers, and Internet service providers. Nortel's networking
solutions include hardware and software products and services.  
It designs, develops, engineers, markets, sells, supplies,
licenses, installs, services and supports these networking
solutions worldwide. Nortel operates in four segments: Carrier
Networks (CN), Enterprise Solutions (ES), Metro Ethernet
Networks (MEN) and Global Services (GS).


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Settles Two American Shareholder Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh Joshi at Lloyd's List reports that Overseas Shipholding
Group has reached a tentative settlement with two groups of
shareholders which had brought class action lawsuits designed to
derail the privatisation processes of the company's US-flag spin-
off OSG America.  The revelation, made in a US regulatory filing
at the weekend, is silent on the status of a third class action
lawsuit, Mr. Joshi reports.  


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Files Notice of Appeal on Court's Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. has filed a Notice of Appeal on the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York's ruling denying
approval of its motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by
the nominative plaintiff, Cynthia Hines, according to its Nov.
16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On March 10, 2009 the company was sued in the class-action filed
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Ms. Hines alleges the company failed to properly disclose its
returns policy to her and that it improperly imposed a
"restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner.

The nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach of
contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws.

The company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that
the company's agreement with its customers requires all such
actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Alternatively, the company asked that the case be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, so that
arbitration may be compelled in that district.

On Sept. 8, 2009 the motion to dismiss was denied, the court
stating that the company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient
under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to
arbitrate disputes in Utah.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the Company has filed a Notice of Appeal of the
court's ruling.

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online
closeout retailer offering discount brand name merchandise,
including bed-and-bath goods, home decor, kitchenware, watches,
jewelry, electronics and computers, sporting goods, apparel, and
designer accessories, among other products.  The company also
sells books, magazines, compact disc (CD), digital versatile
disc (DVD), and video games (BMMG).  In addition, it operates as
a section on its Website, an online auction site, a marketplace
for the buying and selling of goods and services, as well as,
the section on its Website for listing cars and real estate for
sale.  The company utilizes the Internet to aggregate the
fragmented supply and demand and create a market for liquidation
merchandise.  It focuses on providing a one-stop discount
shopping destination for products and services sold through the
Internet.  The company's shopping business includes direct
business and a fulfillment partner business.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. continues to face a class-action lawsuit
styled, "Sean Lane et al. v. Facebook Inc. et al., Case No. C08
03845," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to its Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

On Aug. 12, 2008, the company along with 7 other defendants, was
sued by Sean Lane, and 17 other individuals, on their own behalf
and for others similarly in a class action suit, alleging
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and
California' Consumer legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law.

The complaint relates to the company's use of a product known as
Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the company by
Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook
users to share purchasing data among their Facebook friends.

The plaintiffs and defendants, including the company, have
stipulated to an extension in the time for answering the
complaint, while the parties engage in a mediation of the
dispute.  The company has not responded to the Complaint.

The company has notified Facebook, Inc. of its indemnification
obligations under the contract by which the company obtained and
deployed Facebook Beacon.

The parties have entered stipulation specifying the party
defendants need not answer the complaint while the parties
discuss resolution alternatives.

The Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated resolution to
the court for approval, which would resolve the case without
requirement of financial contribution from the company.

A third party has intervened to block the approval.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          2757 Leonis Blvd.
          Vernon, CA 90058-2304
          Phone: 323-585-8696
          E-mail: ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online
closeout retailer offering discount brand name merchandise,
including bed-and-bath goods, home decor, kitchenware, watches,
jewelry, electronics and computers, sporting goods, apparel, and
designer accessories, among other products.  The company also
sells books, magazines, compact disc (CD), digital versatile
disc (DVD), and video games (BMMG).  In addition, it operates as
a section on its Website, an online auction site, a marketplace
for the buying and selling of goods and services, as well as,
the section on its Website for listing cars and real estate for
sale.  The company utilizes the Internet to aggregate the
fragmented supply and demand and create a market for liquidation
merchandise.  It focuses on providing a one-stop discount
shopping destination for products and services sold through the
Internet.  The company's shopping business includes direct
business and a fulfillment partner business.


SAN FRANCISCO: Agrees to Spend $4 Mil. Per Year on Sidewalks
------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION: PERSONS WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS WHO USE PUBLIC
SIDEWALKS IN SAN FRANCISCO

Settlement of Disability Access Class Action Lawsuit

The Parties have reached a proposed settlement of King v.
City and County of San Francisco, a class action lawsuit on
behalf of residents and visitors to San Francisco with mobility
impairments.  According to the settlement, the City has agreed to
continue to spend a minimum of $4 million annually on curb ramp
construction.  If a class member wishes to preserve the right to
sue the City for individual statutory damages, the class member
may do so by notifying the court.  Any written objections to the
proposed settlement are due in court by February 26, 2010.
The court will hold a hearing on March 26, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to
address any objections.

Additional information and a detailed summary of the proposed
settlement terms are available at:

     http://www.sfgov.org/site/mod_index.asp.

or contact the attorneys for the class plaintiffs:

          Keith Daniel Cable, Esq.
          CABLE LAW OFFICE
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 608-7995
          E-mail: cablelaw@yahoo.com


UNITED PARCEL: Class Certified in Alabama Over-Billing Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy L. Williams at The Birmingham News reports that a Birmingham
federal judge gave class action status to a lawsuit filed by an
Alabama-based auto parts distributor accusing shipping giant
United Parcel Service of over-billing customers -- a charge the
company denies.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Inge Johnson in Barber Auto
Sales, Inc. v. United Parcel Service Co., Inc., Case No. 06-cv-
04686 (N.D. Ala.), means more than one million individuals and
companies alleging breach of contract by UPS could join the suit,
said:

          Peter A. Grammas, Esq.
          Lowe & Grammas LLP
          Liberty Park
          1952 Urban Center Pkwy.
          Birmingham, AL 35242-2594
          Telephone: 205-380-2400

who represents plaintiff Barber Auto Sales Inc.

The case was filed in November 2006 and centers on Barber's
charge that Atlanta-based UPS has overcharged the firm and others
through so-called "shipping charge corrections" that it bills
after items have been shipped. Barber says it has used UPS for
years to ship auto parts across the country.

In an interview, Mr. Grammas told Mr. Williams that the
"corrections" apply to customers who use UPS-supplied software
that calculates what it costs to ship packages.

According to UPS' Web site, the company says it re serves the
right to make adjustments to shipping invoices.  Once it checks
packages delivered, UPS often makes adjustments to the price and
bills clients such as Barber Auto Sales, Mr. Grammas said.

"We are alleging that UPS engages in improper billing," he said.

UPS spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg denied the lawsuit's claims. She
said the company, which ships goods to 200 countries, plans to
appeal the judge's ruling giving the case class action status.

"It (the decision) was a procedural ruling and does not relate to
the actual merits of the case," she said. "UPS' measuring devices
are accurate and we look forward to proving that at trial."

In her Nov. 17 ruling, Judge Johnson denied a motion by UPS
seeking to block class-action status.  UPS received a partial
victory when the judge sided with the shipping company that
Barber can challenge only billing adjustments for an 18-month
period prior to when it filed the lawsuit, citing a contract
between the two parties.

According to the suit, Barber presented evidence that UPS was
aware of widespread complaints regarding the accuracy of its
charges. The suit says Barber, after complaining, received a
credit from UPS for nearly $3,500 of the $4,679.01 in billing
adjustment invoices it received after shipments were delivered
over a period between May 1, 2005, and Nov. 30, 2006.

In an e-mail cited in the lawsuit, a UPS regional coordinator was
informed by a finance manager for the shipping company that one
customer was credited $1,502 due to erroneous charges.

Mr. Grammas said the case is now in the discovery period and
could go to trial within a year.  He said it is unclear how much
money Barber and others involved in the class action could have
lost due to the price adjustments practice.

"With potentially one million individuals and businesses involved
in the class-action, it could add up to a substantial amount,"
Mr. Grammas said.

Other counsel of record for Barber Auto are:

          E. Clayton Lowe, Jr., Esq.
          LOWE & GRAMMAS LLP
          1952 Urban Center Parkway
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35242
          Telephone: 205-380-2400

               - and -  

          Brian M. Clark, Esq.
          Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street, North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
          Telephone: 205-314-0500

               - and -  

          James M. Corder, Jr., Esq.
          ALEXANDER CORDER PLUNK & SHELLY, PC
          PO Box 1129
          Athens, AL 35612
          Telephone: 256-232-1130

               - and -  

          Nicholas B. Roth, Esq.
          EYSTER KEY TUBB ROTH MIDDLETON & ADAMS LLP
          402 E. Moulton Street
          PO Box 1607
          Decatur, AL 35602
          Telephone: 256-353-6761

UPS is represented by:

          Barry Goheen, Esq.
          Sidney S. Haskins, II, Esq.
          Paul J. Murphy, Esq.
          Anthony Ventry, III, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-572-4618

               - and -  

          Natasha L. Wilson, Esq.
          GREENBERG TAURIG
          3290 Northside Parkway, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: 678-553-2182

               - and -  

          Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq.  
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-326-3336

               - and -  

          Terrence W. McCarthy, Esq.
          Jere F. White, Jr., Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC
          The Clark Building
          400 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-581-0700


VERIZON COMMS: Idearc Retirees File Pension Suit in N.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone company retirees have filed a complaint for proposed
class action relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) charging that they and over two thousand others were
involuntarily switched in November 2006, post-retirement, from
the financially secure Verizon Communication Inc. (NYSE: VZ)
pension plans to pension plans sponsored by a newly spun-off
company, Idearc Inc. (PINKSHEETS: IDARQ).

Less than 2 years after Verizon transferred the retirees, Idearc
encountered financial problems and began cutting back various
earned retiree benefits. These benefit reductions were not
experienced by retirees remaining in Verizon's pension plans. In
March 2009, Idearc filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In mid-November, 2006, after each Plaintiff had been retired for
at least ten years, they together with more than 2,000 others
were involuntarily reclassified and switched into pension plans
run by Idearc. All three Plaintiffs were fully vested in the
Verizon pension plans with rights to continued payment of monthly
annuities and other Verizon welfare benefits. No party received
any Plaintiff's consent to be switched over to Idearc's pension
plans. From the point of the spin off, concluded on November 17,
2006, Verizon treated the retirees' rights to the usual Verizon
retiree benefits as being terminated.

Plaintiff Philip A. Murphy, former President of CWA Local No.
1301, a resident of Mills, MA, retired from a predecessor of
Verizon in 1996. Plaintiff Sandra R. Noe of Ipswich, MA and
Plaintiff Claire M. Palmer of West Newton, MA both retired from
predecessors of Verizon in 1995 and had for years been
participants in Verizon pension plans. None of the Plaintiffs had
actually ever worked for Idearc.

When retirees tried to administratively challenge their
involuntary transfer to Idearc and its pension plans, without
going to court, the respondent companies stonewalled and missed
mandated deadlines to respond to the retirees' internal claims.
The retirees' proposed class-wide administrative claim sought to
remedy the mistreatment accorded to both non-management and
management retirees who have suffered tremendous losses not
suffered by their fellow retirees who were not transferred to
Idearc. The respondents refused to treat Plaintiffs' internal
claims as class-wide claims.

Therefore, Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action on November
25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division.  The Complaint filed in Civil Action No.
3:09-CV-2262 charges pension plan administrators with numerous
ERISA violations including:

     --  Failure to provide requested plan documents;

     --  Breach of fiduciary duty for refusal to disclose pension
         related plan information;

     --  Breach of fiduciary duty for failure to comply with
         pension plan document rules;

     --  Various other ERISA violations justifying court ordered
         declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief;

     --  Unlawful refusal to make payment of Verizon pension plan
         benefits; and

     --  Unlawful interference with retirees' rights to receive
         Verizon retiree pension and welfare benefits.
    
The Federal Complaint states that when Verizon transferred
hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus pension assets to
Idearc in November 2006, no pension plan language identified and
traced the transferred monies to actual liabilities owed to
particular plan participants for the payment of pension benefits.
When Verizon conducted the transfer, there were no existing plan
terms giving the plan sponsor or any other entity the authority
to change the status of the retirees.

"What Verizon did to these retirees is disgraceful," said C.
William Jones, who heads the Association of BellTel Retirees
Inc., (www.belltelretirees.org) a retiree activist organization.
"They are ducking a fiduciary responsibility to employees who
gave decades of service and earned these benefits. These pension
funds were set aside over the years for the benefit of employees
who worked 20, 30 or more years and earned their pensions over
their careers. It is reprehensible to refuse to provide plan
documents so retirees can make informed judgments on the state of
their pension plan and other benefits which they earned during
their working years."

The Complaint asks that all retirees who were transferred to
Idearc be put back into Verizon's pension and welfare benefit
plans. It also asks that Verizon's and Idearc's pension plan
administrators be order to pay a daily penalty for failure to
timely provide requested records.  

A copy of the 34-page Complaint in Murphy, et al. v. Verizon
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-02262 (N.D. Tex.),
is available at:

     
http://www.belltelretirees.org/images/stories/docket_01_-_complaint.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Curtis L. Kennedy, Esq.
          8405 E. Princeton Avenue
          Denver, Colorado 80237-1741
          Telephone: 303-770-0440
          E-mail: CurtisLKennedy@aol.com

               - and -  

          Robert E. Goodman, Jr., Esq.
          FRANCIS GOODMAN PLLC
          8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1000
          Dallas, Texas 75231
          Telephone: 214-368-1765
          E-mail: rgoodman@francisgoodman.com
                  rgdallas@flash.net

                            *********

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  * * *