CAR_Public/100316.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 16, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 52

                            Headlines

AK STEEL: Ohio Court Retains $1.4 Mil. Award for Attorney's Fees
AK STEEL: AK RAPP Wants "Schumacher" Suit Dismissed
AK STEEL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit Over Pension Plan
AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit by Steel Purchasers in Ill.
AK STEEL: Units Continues to Defend Suit Over Health Benefits

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Defends Suit Filed by Tronox Equity Holders
COINSTAR INC: Redbox Wants "Piechur" Suit Dismissed
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Dismissal of ERISA-Related Suit
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Trial in Structured Settlement Suit Set
KINDER MORGAN: Various Affiliates Face "Lugliani" Suit in Calif.

LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending
MEDIVATION INC: 2nd Shareholder Fraud Suit filed in N.D. Calif.
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Plumbing Tubes Suit Settlement Hearing Set
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: California Lawsuit Over Copper Tubes Pending
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending

NORTHERN TRUST: Loses Motion to Dismiss "Patten" ERISA Suit
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Says Shareholder Suit is Without Merit
OFFICE DEPOT: Lead Plaintiff Appeal Dismissal of Amended Suit
SYNGENTA CROP: Calls Latest Atrazine Suit Frivolous & Harmful
TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending

TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
UNIT CORP: Appealing Court's Class Certification Ruling
VIRGINIA HARBOR: Port of Palm Beach Gets Unexpected Payment

                            *********

AK STEEL: Ohio Court Retains $1.4 Mil. Award for Attorney's Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied
plaintiffs' motion to amend the order granting an award of
attorneys' fees, leaving intact an Aug. 31, 2009 award of
approximately $1.4 million in a class action against the AK Steel
Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan, and the AK
Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee.

The suit was filed on Jan. 2, 2002 by John D. West, a former
employee of AK Steel Holding Corp.

On Jan. 2, 2002, John D. West, a former employee, filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans
Administrative Committee.

Mr. West claimed that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and resulted in
underpayment of benefits to him and the other class members.

The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff class and on
March 29, 2006 entered an amended final judgment against the
defendants in the amount of $37.6 million in damages and $7.3
million in prejudgment interest, for a total of approximately
$44.9 million, with post judgment interest accruing at the rate
of 4.7% per annum until paid.

The defendants appealed, but their appeals ultimately were
unsuccessful.

Pursuant to an agreed order, on April 1, 2009 defendants paid the
sum of approximately $51.5 million into a court-approved interest
bearing account.  The funds used to make this payment were from
the AK Steel Master Pension Trust.

The payment ended defendants' liability to the class members
pursuant to the judgment in this matter, including with respect
to interest which accrues on the judgment.  It did not, however,
resolve defendants' liability with respect to a claim for
attorneys' fees by plaintiffs' counsel.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the court granted a motion filed by plaintiffs'
counsel for a statutory award of fees, awarding fees in the
approximate amount of $1.4 million.

The court denied a motion that sought a separate award of fees in
the amount of 28% of the funds already paid into the court.

On Sept. 15, 2009, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to amend
the order granting an award of attorneys' fees.  On Nov. 18,
2009, the Court issued an order directing distribution to the
class members in the amount of approximately $51.3 million.  
This amount is part of the approximately $51.5 million previously
paid from the AK Steel Master Pension Trust to a court-approved
interest bearing account (the difference between the amounts
representing Court-approved payments to the Fund Administrator).


On Dec. 16, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend
the order granting an award of attorneys' fees, leaving intact
the Aug. 31, 2009 award of approximately $1.4 million.

No appeal of the December 16 order was filed and in January 2010
the approximately $1.4 in attorneys' fees were paid to class
counsel, concluding the Company's obligations with respect to
this litigation.  Additional litigation has been filed, however,
on behalf of other retirees who were excluded from the class
based upon prior releases provided to the company, according to
AK Steel Holding Corp.'s Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a  
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels,
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel).  The company's operations consist
of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon
steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products,
and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in
hot band, and sheet and strip form.  The company's operations
also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled
carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in
Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in
the automotive, large truck and construction markets.  In
addition, the company's operations include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials.


AK STEEL: AK RAPP Wants "Schumacher" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK
RAPP) and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative
Committee, wants the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio to dismiss a purported class action filed by
William Schumacher, according to AK Steel Holding Corp.'s Feb.
23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  

On Oct. 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK RAPP and AK BPAC in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794.

The complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits to
him and the other class members.

Plaintiff and the other purportedly similarly situated
individuals on whose behalf plaintiff filed suit were excluded by
the Court in 2005 from the suit filed by John D. West, a former
employee of AK Steel Holding Corp., based on previous releases of
claims they had executed in favor of the company.

On Jan. 11, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint based upon a statute of limitations ground.  That
motion remains pending.  Discovery has not yet commenced and no
trial date has yet been set.

AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a  
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels,
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel).  The company's operations consist
of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon
steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products,
and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in
hot band, and sheet and strip form.  The company's operations
also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled
carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in
Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in
the automotive, large truck and construction markets.  In
addition, the company's operations include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials.


AK STEEL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit Over Pension Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corp.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation, continues to defend a class action relating to the
benefits of its pension plan.

On Oct. 20, 2005, two individuals filed a purported class action
against AK Steel and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans
Administrative Committee in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:05-cv-681.

The complaint alleges that the defendants incorrectly calculated
the amount of surviving spouse benefits due to be paid to the
plaintiffs under the applicable pension plan.  On Dec. 19, 2005,
the defendants filed their answer to the complaint.

The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment
on the issue of whether the applicable plan language had been
properly interpreted.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to
the case issued a Report and Recommendation in which he
recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment be granted and that the defendants' motion be denied.

The defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate's Report
and Recommendation.  On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order
adopting the Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial
summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan
interpretation.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by the
Court on October 27, 2008.

The case is proceeding with respect to discovery on the issue of
damages.  No trial date has been set.

No updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  

AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a  
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels,
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel).  The company's operations consist
of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon
steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products,
and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in
hot band, and sheet and strip form.  The company's operations
also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled
carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in
Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in
the automotive, large truck and construction markets.  In
addition, the company's operations include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials.


AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit by Steel Purchasers in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corp., along with other steel manufacturers,
continue to defend purported class actions filed by companies who
purchased steel products, according to the company's Feb. 23,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In September and October, 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Holding.

The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371,
08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197.

The plaintiffs are companies which claim to have purchased steel
products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the
defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or
pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at
any time from at least as early as January 2005 to the present.

The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have
conspired to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and
maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products
in the United States.

On Jan. 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of
the claims set forth in the Complaints.

On June 12, 2009, the court issued an Order denying the
defendants' motions to dismiss.

Discovery has recently commenced.  No trial date has been set.

AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a  
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels,
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel).  The company's operations consist
of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon
steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products,
and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in
hot band, and sheet and strip form.  The company's operations
also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled
carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in
Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in
the automotive, large truck and construction markets.  In
addition, the company's operations include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials.


AK STEEL: Units Continues to Defend Suit Over Health Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corporation continues to defend a purported class action
alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make changes to
their healthcare benefits, according to AK Steel Holding Corp.'s
Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
AK Steel Holding Corp.

On June 18, 2009, three former hourly members of the Butler Armco
Independent Union filed a purported class action against AK Steel
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Case No. 1-09CV00423, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right
to make changes to their healthcare benefits.

On June 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The named plaintiffs in the 2009 Retiree Action seek, among other
things, injunctive relief for themselves and the other members of
a proposed class, including an order retroactively rescinding
certain changes to retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK
Steel with its unions.  The proposed class the plaintiffs seek to
represent would consist of all union-represented retirees of AK
Steel other than those retirees who were included in the class
covered by the Middletown Works Retiree Healthcare Benefits
Litigation.

On Aug. 21, 2009, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment which, if
granted in full, would end the litigation.  On Sept. 14, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and
responded to defendant's motion.

On Oct. 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, seeking to prevent certain scheduled January 2010
changes to retiree healthcare from taking effect.  On Nov. 25,
2009, AK Steel filed its opposition to the motion for a
preliminary injunction, opposition to plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment, and reply in support of its motion for
summary judgment.

A hearing on the pending motions was held on Dec. 8, 2009.

During the course of the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel notified
the court that the pending motion for a preliminary injunction
was limited to retirees from the company's Butler Works in
Butler, Pennsylvania.

On Jan. 29, 2010, the trial court issued an opinion and order
granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and
barring the Company from effecting any further benefit reductions
or new healthcare charges for Butler Works retirees until final
judgment in the case.

On Feb. 2, 2010, AK Steel filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal of the
decision to grant the preliminary injunction.  That appeal
remains pending.

Discovery in the underlying case has commenced, but no trial date
has yet been set.

If AK Steel is unable to obtain a reversal of the decision to
impose the preliminary injunction, either in connection with the
final judgment by the trial court or through appeal, then the
negotiated changes to retiree healthcare for the company's Butler
Works retirees would be rescinded and the company's other
postretirement benefit obligation would increase by approximately
$125.0 million based upon current valuation assumptions.  This
amount reflects the current value of the estimated amount of the
additional healthcare costs the Company will amortize and pay out
with respect to the Butler retirees over the course of their
remaining lives.

AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a  
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels,
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel).  The company's operations consist
of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon
steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products,
and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in
hot band, and sheet and strip form.  The company's operations
also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled
carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in
Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in
the automotive, large truck and construction markets.  In
addition, the company's operations include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Defends Suit Filed by Tronox Equity Holders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to defend a consolidated
class action complaint filed by purported purchasers of Tronox
Inc.'s equity and debt securities, according to the company's
Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

A consolidated class action complaint has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purported purchasers of Tronox's equity and debt securities
between Nov. 21, 2005 and Jan. 12, 2009 against Kerr-McGee Corp.,
Anadarko and others.

The complaint alleges causes of action arising pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and
omissions regarding, among other things, Tronox's environmental-
remediation and tort claim liabilities.  The plaintiffs allege
that these purported misstatements and omissions are contained in
certain of Tronox's public filings, including in connection with
Tronox's initial public offering.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees
and costs.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation -- http://www.anadarko.com/-- is  
an independent oil and gas exploration and production company,
with 2.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as
of Dec. 31, 2009.  The company operates in three operating
segments: Oil and gas exploration and production, Midstream and
Marketing.  Oil and gas exploration and production segment
explores for and produces natural gas, crude oil, condensate and
natural gas liquids (NGLs).  Midstream segment provides
gathering, processing, treating and transportation services to
Anadarko and third-party oil and gas producers.  The company owns
and operates natural-gas gathering, processing, treating and
transportation systems in the United States.  Marketing segment
sells much of Anadarko's production, as well as hydrocarbons
purchased from third parties.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, Anadarko divested certain oil and gas properties, primarily
in Qatar, onshore United States and other international
properties.


COINSTAR INC: Redbox Wants "Piechur" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Redbox Automated
Retail, LLC, is pursuing dismissal of a class action complaint
alleging illegal and excessive late fees, according to the
company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint against Redbox in the Circuit
Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
Illinois.

The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox charges
consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
other state statutes.

In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and has moved to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims.  The plaintiff opposes the motion
to dismiss, and has asked for the case to be remanded to Illinois
state court.

Coinstar, Inc. -- http://www.coinstar.com/-- is a multi-national  
company offering a range of 4th Wall solutions for retailers'
storefronts.  The company's services consist of self-service coin
counting; self-service digital versatile disc (DVD) kiosks where
consumers can rent or purchase movies; entertainment services,
such as skill-crane machines, bulk vending machines and kiddie
rides, money transfer services, and electronic payment (e-
payment) services, such as stored value cards, payroll cards,
prepaid debit cards and prepaid wireless products via point-of-
sale terminals and stored value kiosks.  The company operates in
four segments: Coin and Entertainment services, DVD services,
Money Transfer services and E-payment Services.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Dismissal of ERISA-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has
denied The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to
the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In November and December 2008, following a decline in the share
price of the company's common stock, seven putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut on behalf of certain participants in the company's
Investment and Savings Plan (Plan), which offers the company's
common stock as one of many investment options.
These lawsuits have been consolidated, and a consolidated amended
class-action complaint was filed on March 23, 2009, alleging that
the company and certain of its officers and employees violated
ERISA by allowing the Plan's participants to invest in the
company's common stock and by failing to disclose to the Plan's
participants information about the company's financial condition.

The lawsuit seeks restitution or damages for losses arising from
the investment of the Plan's assets in the company's common stock
during the period from Dec. 10, 2007 to the present.

In January 2010, the district court denied the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. --
http://www.thehartford.com/-- is an insurance and financial  
services company.  It provides investment products, individual
life, group life and group disability insurance products, and
property and casualty insurance products in the United States.  
The Hartford is organized into two operations: Life, and Property
and Casualty. The Life and Property & Casualty operations conduct
business in 11 operating segments.  Life is organized into six
segments: Retail Products Group (Retail), Individual Life, Group
Benefits, Retirement Plans, and International and Institutional
Solutions Group (Institutional).


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Trial in Structured Settlement Suit Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
A trial on liability and the methodology for computing class-wide
damages in a putative nationwide class action against The
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., is scheduled to commence
in September 2010, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In October 2005, a putative nationwide class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
the company and several of its subsidiaries on behalf of persons
who had asserted claims against an insured of a Hartford property
& casualty insurance company that resulted in a settlement in
which some or all of the settlement amount was structured to
afford a schedule of future payments of specified amounts funded
by an annuity from a Hartford life insurance company (Structured
Settlements).

The operative complaint alleges that since 1997 the company has
systematically deprived the settling claimants of the value of
their damages recoveries by secretly deducting 15% of the annuity
premium of every Structured Settlement to cover brokers'
commissions, other fees and costs, taxes, and a profit for the
annuity provider, and asserts claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive or
other equitable relief.

The company denies that any claimant was misled or otherwise
received less than the amount specified in the structured-
settlement agreements.  In March 2009, the district court
certified a class for the RICO and fraud claims composed of all
persons, other than those represented by a plaintiffs' broker,
who entered into a Structured Settlement since 1997 and received
certain written representations about the cost or value of the
settlement.  The district court declined to certify a class for
the breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims.

The company's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of
the class-certification ruling was denied in October 2009.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. --
http://www.thehartford.com/-- is an insurance and financial  
services company.  It provides investment products, individual
life, group life and group disability insurance products, and
property and casualty insurance products in the United States.  
The Hartford is organized into two operations: Life, and Property
and Casualty. The Life and Property & Casualty operations conduct
business in 11 operating segments.  Life is organized into six
segments: Retail Products Group (Retail), Individual Life, Group
Benefits, Retirement Plans, and International and Institutional
Solutions Group (Institutional).


KINDER MORGAN: Various Affiliates Face "Lugliani" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various affiliates of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., face a
suit captioned James Lugliani vs. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et
al., in the Superior Court of California, Orange County,
according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

James Lugliani, a former Kinder Morgan employee, filed suit in
January 2010 against various Kinder Morgan affiliates.

On behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and
former employees, Mr. Lugliani claims that the Kinder Morgan
defendants have violated the wage and hour provisions of the
California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code by:

     (1) failing to provide meal and rest periods;

     (2) failing to pay meal and rest period premiums;

     (2) failing to pay all overtime wages due;

     (3) failing to timely pay wages;

     (4) failing to pay wages for vacation, holidays and other
         paid time off; and

     (5) failing to keep proper payroll records.

Because the case was only recently filed and served, the Kinder
Morgan defendants have not yet filed an answer.  The defendants
will file their answer in February 2010 and intend to vigorously
defend the case.

Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or
operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150
terminals.  The company's pipelines transport more than two
million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum products,
and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.  The
company operates through four segments: Products
Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The petition for rehearing filed by each of the parties to the
class-action lawsuit, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No.
3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR, is pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002, by
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and
certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its
subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries.

The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005.  The Amended
Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor
carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent
Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and
sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and
attorney's fees.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the
plaintiffs to certify the case as a class-action.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification
of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of
determining remedies.

Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of
determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the
remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against
these Landstar subsidiaries:

        -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,
        -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and
        -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the
defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings
related to the decertification of the class and the denial of the
plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive relief.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by
Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of
the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its
rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and
other important elements of the Litigation relating to liability,
injunctive relief and monetary relief.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit of certain of the District Court's rulings
in favor of the Defendants.  The Defendants asked the Appellate
Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the
Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings of the
District Court.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which,
among other things, affirmed the District Court's rulings that:

       -- the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable
          federal leasing regulations from charging
          administrative or other fees to BCO Independent
          Contractors in connection with voluntary programs
          offered by the Defendants through which a BCO
          Independent Contractor may purchase discounted
          products and services for a charge that is deducted
          against the compensation payable to the BCO
          Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"),

       -- the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or
          disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants
          of the applicable federal leasing regulations but
          instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which
          they sustained as a result of any such violations, and

       -- the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be
          handled on a class action basis for purposes of
          determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they
          sustained as a result of any violations.

Further, the analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the
absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the
federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of
all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO
Independent Contractors.

However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District
Court's rulings:

       -- that an old version of the lease formerly used by
          Defendants but not in use with any current BCO
          Independent Contractor complied with applicable
          disclosure requirements under the federal leasing
          regulations with respect to adjustments to
          compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on
          certain loads sourced from the U. S. Dept. of Defense,
          and

       -- that the Defendants had provided sufficient
          documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the
          applicable federal leasing regulations relating to how
          the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were
          computed.

The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court
to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect
to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to
hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an
opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually
sustained as a result of such violations.

Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with
the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's
ruling.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010,
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009.

The suit is Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 02-cv-01005
(Fla.) (Adams, J).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel R. Unumb, Esq.
          Paul D. Cullen, Esq.
          Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq.
          Joseph A. Black, Esq.
          Susan Van Bell, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20007-3770
          Telephone: 202-944-8600

               - and -  

          Michael R. Freed, Esq.
          BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, PL
          Humana Centre Building
          76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-366-1500

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel R. Barney, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C.
          1850 M St., NW, Suite 280
          Washington, DC 20036-5804
          Telephone: 202-783-5485

               - and -  

          Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq.
          Robert L. Browning, Esq.
          Gregory M. Feary, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVEN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C.
          10 W. Market St., Suite 1500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968
          Phone: 317-637-1777
          Fax: 317-687-2414

               - and -

          Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq.
          Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT
          50 North Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-353-2000


MEDIVATION INC: 2nd Shareholder Fraud Suit filed in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that company insiders dumped
their own stock while Medivation inflated its share price by
misrepresenting prospects for a new Alzheimer's drug,
shareholders claim in San Francisco Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Shabanov v. Medivation, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01049 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/12/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: 215-638-4847

The Class Action Reporter covered Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP and other lawyers' filing of Applestein v.
Medivation, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (N.D. Calif.), on
Mar. 12, 2010.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Plumbing Tubes Suit Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in a class-action against Mueller Industries,
Inc., has received final approval from the court, according to
the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009.

Four Copper Tube Actions were filed in October 2004 in state
court in California and were consolidated to become the Indirect-
Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.  The Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing
Tube Action is a purported class action brought on behalf of
indirect purchasers of copper plumbing tubes in California and
alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of
copper plumbing tubes.  The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding
Company, Deno Holding Company, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are
named in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.  Deno
Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in the
Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

The claims against WTC Holding Company and Deno Holding Company
have been dismissed without prejudice in the Indirect-Purchaser
Plumbing Tube Action.  Mueller Europe has not yet been required
to respond in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.  The
company's demurrer to the complaint has been filed in the
Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

In October 2009, the court overseeing the Indirect-Purchaser
Plumbing Tube Action has granted the parties' motion for
preliminary approval of a class-action settlement.

In February 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of a class-action settlement and entered judgment
in accordance therewith.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.  
Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in
Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates
through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and
the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: California Lawsuit Over Copper Tubes Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit against Mueller Industries, Inc.,
with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes and copper
tubes used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes) remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The copper tube action, which the company calls as the Indirect-
Purchaser Copper Tube Action, was filed in July 2006, and is a
purported class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers
of copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes in the U.S. and
alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of
both copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes.  It seeks
monetary and other relief.

The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Co., Deno Holding
Company, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named defendants in the
Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, and Deno
Holding Company have been served, but have not yet been required
to respond, in the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.  

Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in
the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010,
Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 26, 2009.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.  
Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in
Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates
through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and
the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc., still faces a consolidated class-action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of copper
tubes used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes).

Two copper tube actions were commenced in June and August 2006 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
were consolidated to become the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action.

In general, the copper tube actions allege anticompetitive
activities with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes
(copper plumbing tubes).  These suits are seeking monetary and
other relief.

The company and Mueller Europe are named in the Indirect-
Purchaser ACR Tube Action.  The company and Mueller Europe have
been served, but have not yet been required to respond to the
claims.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010,
Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 26, 2009.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--  
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other
products.  The range of these products include copper tube and
fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum
and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions;
plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and
fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples.  The
company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves,
malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.  
Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in
Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates
through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and
the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


NORTHERN TRUST: Loses Motion to Dismiss "Patten" ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody reports that the Honorable Judge Lefkow
denied in part Northern Trust Company's motion to dismiss the
ERISA class action complaint which had been filed on behalf of
certain participants who held Northern Trust stock in their
Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan (the "Plan")
accounts.

The ERISA class action, Patten v. Northern Trust Co., et al., No.
08-CV-5912 (N.D. Ill.), was filed on October 15, 2008 and was
brought on behalf of all participants in the Plan who purchased
and/or held shares of the Northern Trust Stock Fund at any time
between October 19, 2007 and January 14, 2009. The case alleges
that Northern Trust and other fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan
negligently managed and administered the 401(k) plan by offering
the Northern Trust Stock Fund while the Northern Trust Stock Fund
was an imprudent retirement savings investment.

If you were a participant in Northern Trust's 401(k) plan and
held Northern Trust stock in your plan account at any time
between October 19, 2007 and January 14, 2009 and would like more
information about the lawsuit, or about how you may participate
in the lawsuit, you may contact Plaintiff's counsel:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 1-800-337-4983
          E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 8, 2010, another
lawsuit, Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of
Chicago, et al. v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-00619 (N.D. Ill.), is also pending.  


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Says Shareholder Suit is Without Merit
------------------------------------------------------------
Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company focused
on the development of therapeutics to treat cancer and hepatitis,
acknowledged receipt of a purported class action complaint was
filed on March 5, 2010 in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts by Drew Weaver, allegedly a
purchaser of shares of Novelos' common stock on February 1, 2010,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against
Novelos and Harry S. Palmin, Novelos' President and Chief
Executive Officer.

Weaver v. Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-10394 (D. Mass.) (Gorton, J.), claims that Novelos violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged
disclosures related to the Phase 3 clinical trial of its compound
NOV-002 for non-small cell lung cancer. The plaintiff seeks a
jury trial.  Mr. Weaver is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.  
          GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617-742-9700
          E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com

Counsel for Novelos has not yet entered an appearance.  

Novelos has reviewed the complaint and believes that the
allegations are without merit. Novelos plans to vigorously defend
against the litigation. Novelos' policy is to not discuss pending
litigation.

                  About Novelos Therapeutics, Inc.

Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.novelos.com/-- is a  
biopharmaceutical company commercializing oxidized glutathione-
based compounds for the treatment of cancer and hepatitis.
Novelos is building an oncology pipeline via in-licensing or
acquisition of clinical stage compounds or technologies for
oncology indications. Our lead compound, NOV-002, has been
administered to approximately 1,000 cancer patients in clinical
trials and is in Phase 2 development for solid tumors in
combination with chemotherapy. Novelos has a partnership with
Mundipharma, an independent associated company of Purdue Pharma,
to develop and commercialize NOV-002 in Europe and Asia
(excluding China). Novelos' second compound, NOV-205, which has
been administered to approximately 200 hepatitis patients in
clinical trials, is in Phase 2 development for chronic hepatitis
C non-responders. Both compounds have been partnered with Lee's
Pharm in China.


OFFICE DEPOT: Lead Plaintiff Appeal Dismissal of Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, lead plaintiff in a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Office Depot, Inc.,
has filed a notice to appeal the decision of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissing the suit,
according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 26, 2009.

Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers,
alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in
November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor
program funds.

Each of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, and are captioned as:

       * Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia
         McKay, Case Number, 07-14348), filed on Nov. 6, 2007;
         and

       * Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve
         Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-81038),
         filed on Nov. 5, 2007.

On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in the Nichols case moved to
consolidate the two class action lawsuits.  On March 21, 2008,
the court entered an order consolidating the cases.  The lead
plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New Mexico Educational
Retirement Board, filed a consolidated amended complaint on July
2, 2008.

On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to
state a claim.

On March 31, 2009, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, but allowed the lead plaintiff leave to amend.  

On April 20, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On May 21, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court dismissed the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On Feb. 9, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to appeal this
decision

The suit is Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-
14348, (S.D. Fla.) (Hurley, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David J. George, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364
          E-mail: dgeorge@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Alleghney Building
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-338-2266

Representing the defendants is:

          Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq.
          Hogan & Hartson
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-459-6500
          Fax: 305-459-6550
          E-mail: aflindsay@hhlaw.com


SYNGENTA CROP: Calls Latest Atrazine Suit Frivolous & Harmful
-------------------------------------------------------------
After plaintiffs' attorneys:

          Christie R. Deaton, Esq.
          Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
          Christine J. Moody, Esq.
          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-4844
          E-mail: cdeaton@koreintillery.com
                  mklenov@koreintillery.com
                  cmoody@koreintillery.com
                  stillery@koreintillery.com

filed Miami County Rural Water District No. 2, et al v. Syngenta
Crop Protection, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00188 (S.D. Ill.)
(Gilbert, J.), last week, counsel for defendant Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc.:

          Kurtis B. Reeg, Esq.
          REEG LAWYERS, LLC
          One North Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 950
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: 314-446-3350

said another frivolous atrazine lawsuit only harms U.S. farmers.
"In these tough economic times, one may wonder why anyone --
other than class action lawyers -- would seek to destroy what EPA
estimates is a $2 billion annual economic benefit to the nation,
and all of the jobs that go with it," Reeg said.  "This lawsuit
has no merit because we know from EPA-mandated testing that no
water systems since 2005 have exceeded the annual average
guidance for atrazine.  We intend to defend ourselves
vigorously."

Atrazine is a widely-used herbicide in the U.S. and 60 countries
around the world to help grow safe, affordable and abundant
crops, including corn, sorghum, and sugar cane.  EPA re-
registered atrazine in 2006, stating it would cause no harm to
the general population.  

"This suit is no surprise, as the same plaintiffs' attorneys who
have been trying a wasteful case in Madison County, Ill., have
been shopping this around for years," said Reeg.  "Just last
month, plaintiffs in Illinois voluntarily dismissed numerous
damage and liability claims they had made in their case.  With
that disarray, it appears attorneys are scrambling to another
venue in which to waste scarce taxpayer resources with junk
science and false allegations for personal gain at the expense of
U.S. agriculture.

"Filing in federal court appears to be a mis-step, given the
Iberville Parish, La., case which was dismissed by Chief Judge
Butler in Mobile, Ala., in 1999.  Judge Butler ruled that
removing safe and approved levels of atrazine from drinking water
was unnecessary and that shifting the costs of such unnecessary
removal was wrong.  This decision was also upheld on appeal, and
we hope the court will rely on this past verdict to guide future
decisions.

"Everyone should bear in mind that if a 150-pound adult drank
literally thousands of gallons of water with atrazine at three
parts-per-billion every day for 70 years, she still would not
reach the exposure level at which no adverse impact has been
detected in the laboratory.  

"We know these communities are strapped for cash, and suing
companies to upgrade their decades-old water systems may seem
like an easy way to raise money, but it only harms local farmers
who rely on these safely-regulated crop protection tools for
their livelihood and to help cost-effectively feed a quickly
growing consumer public," Mr. Reeg said.

"The many statements by farmers and their associations attest to
their support for atrazine and its safety in use.  They have for
half a century.  EPA's atrazine regulation is a model of sound
science carefully applied in its mission of protecting all
Americans and our environment.
  
"As a hallmark of good stewardship, my client worked voluntarily
with stakeholders for years and since then also with EPA to
monitor the water systems where minute detections of atrazine may
occasionally occur," said Mr. Reeg.  "Since 2005, no water system
has had an annual average atrazine level in its drinking water
greater than the EPA standard, which itself carries a 1000-fold
safety factor.

"The mere filing of this new lawsuit suggests additional forum
shopping by out-of-town attorneys who turn neighbor against
neighbor to seek profit for themselves."


TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the denial of class certification
in class action lawsuits against Tenet Healthcare Corporation
remains pending.

In September 2004, the court granted the company's petition to
coordinate two pending proposed class action lawsuits, McDonough,
et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation and Tien, et al. v. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation, in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The McDonough case was originally filed in June 2003 in San Diego
Superior Court, and the Tien case was originally filed in May
2004 in Los Angeles Superior Court.  Plaintiffs in both cases
allege that the company's hospitals violated certain provisions
of the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders with respect to meal breaks, rest
periods and the payment of one hour's compensation for meal
breaks or rest periods not taken.  The complaint in the Tien case
also alleges that we have improperly "rounded off" time entries
on timekeeping records and that our pay stubs do not include all
information required by California law. Plaintiffs in both cases
are seeking back pay, statutory penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs in the McDonough and Tien cases filed motions,
which the company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of
virtually all nonexempt employees of the company's California
subsidiaries, as separated into four classes (and one subclass)
based on the specific claims at issue.

The court issued an initial ruling on the plaintiffs' motions in
June 2008.

In that ruling, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
class certification on the claim that employees missed rest
periods.  However, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for
class certification on the claims that employees' pay stubs did
not contain all information required by California law and hourly
employees did not receive appropriate wages due at the time of
their termination.  The court also certified a subclass of 12-
hour shift employees who received missed meal penalties at a
reduced rate, but stated that this subclass should be handled in
connection with the Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley Regional Medical
Center action that was pending in the same court, which case we
subsequently settled in May 2009.

Lastly, the court conditionally certified a class of all current
or former hourly employees who were allegedly not provided meal
periods, for the purpose of determining certain limited
preliminary factual issues.

The company filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
class certification ruling and, in November 2008, the court
issued a reconsidered ruling denying class certification with
respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims, except the subclass
involving 12-hour shift employees.  In December 2008, the
plaintiffs dismissed the claims of that subclass, which left only
the claims of the individual plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the
court's decision in February 2009.  The company continues to
believe the court's November 2008 ruling was correct and are
defending that ruling on appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is  
an investor-owned health care services company, which principally
operates general hospitals and related ancillary health care
businesses.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, Tenet's subsidiaries operated
50 general hospitals and a critical access hospital, with a
combined total of 13,601 beds, serving urban and rural
communities in 12 states.  Of those general hospitals, 45 were
owned by Tenet's subsidiaries and five were owned by third
parties and leased by Tenet's subsidiaries.  Its subsidiaries
also operated various related health care facilities, including a
long-term acute care hospital, outpatient surgery centers,
diagnostic imaging centers, occupational and rural health care
clinics, and a number of medical office buildings.  In January
2009, it closed Irvine Regional Hospital and Medical Center.  On
March 31, 2009, Tenet completed the sale of USC University
Hospital and USC Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation continues to defend class action
suits over alleged injuries in company-owned hospitals during and
after Hurricane Katrina, according to the company's Feb. 23,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast region in August 2005,
the company-owned five hospitals and a number of imaging centers
in the New Orleans area.

Three lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in late 2005
by and on behalf of patients, their family members and others who
were present and allegedly injured at two of those hospitals -
Memorial Medical Center and Lindy Boggs Medical Center (each of
which the company has since divested) - during the storm and its
aftermath.

The plaintiffs allege that the hospitals were negligent in
failing to properly prepare for the storm, failing to evacuate
patients ahead of the storm, and failing to have a properly
configured emergency generator system, among other allegations of
general negligence.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages in
various and unspecified amounts for the alleged wrongful death of
some patients, aggravation of pre-existing illnesses or injuries
to patients who survived and were successfully evacuated, and the
inability of patients and others to evacuate the hospitals for
several days under conditions of extreme heat.

In September 2008, class certification was granted in two of the
suits:

     (1) Preston, et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical
         Center, Inc., et al. and

     (2) Husband et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical
         Center, Inc., et al.

In her order, the judge certified a class of all persons at
Memorial between Aug. 29 and Sept. 2, 2005, excluding employees,
who sustained injuries or died, as well as family members who
themselves sustained injury as a result of such injuries or
deaths to any person at Memorial, excluding employees, during
that time.

The company's appeals of the class certification ruling were
exhausted in December 2009 when the Supreme Court of Louisiana
denied the company's writ of certiorari.

The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans will
administer the class proceedings.  The class certification
hearing in the remaining case - Dunn, et al. v. Tenet Mid-City
Medical, L.L.C. (formerly d/b/a Lindy Boggs Medical Center), et
al., which was also filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans - has been scheduled for late October 2010.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is  
an investor-owned health care services company, which principally
operates general hospitals and related ancillary health care
businesses.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, Tenet's subsidiaries operated
50 general hospitals and a critical access hospital, with a
combined total of 13,601 beds, serving urban and rural
communities in 12 states.  Of those general hospitals, 45 were
owned by Tenet's subsidiaries and five were owned by third
parties and leased by Tenet's subsidiaries.  Its subsidiaries
also operated various related health care facilities, including a
long-term acute care hospital, outpatient surgery centers,
diagnostic imaging centers, occupational and rural health care
clinics, and a number of medical office buildings.  In January
2009, it closed Irvine Regional Hospital and Medical Center.  On
March 31, 2009, Tenet completed the sale of USC University
Hospital and USC Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital.


UNIT CORP: Appealing Court's Class Certification Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation is appealing the ruling of the District Court of
Latimer County, Oklahoma, certifying the class in the matter
Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit
Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, according to the company's Feb.
23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick,
Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita
Golightly, Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the
Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas
drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration
segment distributes royalty.

The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's
exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by
deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees.  
Plaintiffs also seek to pursue the case as a class action on
behalf of persons who receive royalty from the company for its
Oklahoma production.

The company has asserted several defenses including that the
deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law.  The company has
also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action
due to the materially different circumstances that determine
what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease.

On Dec. 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class.

Unit Corporation -- http://www.unitcorp.com/-- is a contract  
drilling company.  Its operations are conducted through its
subsidiaries, Unit Drilling Company, Unit Petroleum Company and
Superior Pipeline Company, L.L.C (Superior).  Unit Drilling
Company is engaged in drilling onshore oil and natural gas wells
for others and for the Company's own account.  Unit Petroleum
Company is engaged in the exploration, development, acquisition
and production of oil and natural gas properties for the
Company's own account (oil and natural gas), and Superior
Pipeline Company, L.L.C. buys, sells, gathers, processes and
treats natural gas for third parties and for its own account
(mid-stream).  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Unit acquired
interests in approximately 60,000 net undeveloped acres in the
Marcellus Shale Play.


VIRGINIA HARBOR: Port of Palm Beach Gets Unexpected Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Abramson at the Palm Beach Post reports that the Port of
Palm Beach received an unexpected gift on Wednesday: a $113,000
check from a class action suit.

The check, presented by Florida Attorney General and
gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum, came courtesy of a
settlement obtained on behalf of ports around the state.  The
state had sued Marine products manufacturer Virginia Harbor
Services, alleging the firm fixed prices of foam-filled marine
fenders and buoys, causing ports to pay excessive prices,
McCollum said.

"Anti-competitive practices are harmful to our state's economic
climate and business development," Mr. McCollum said. "My office
will continue working to ensure that businesses are engaging in
fair practices and that competition is allowed to thrive,
ultimately benefiting consumers."

Port director Manny Almira said he had no idea that the port was
overcharged for fenders purchased during the hurricane seasons in
2004 and 2005.

He learned of it little more than a month ago, when the port
received a phone call from the attorney general's office.

Mr. Almira said the money comes at an ideal time, as the port
just spent close to $300,000 renovating its terminal and
preparing for the Bahamas Celebration cruise ship, which makes
its debut at the port on Monday.

                            *********

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 2010.  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  * * *