CAR_Public/100325.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 25, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 59

                            Headlines

CLEARWIRE CORP: Suit on Unlawful Phone Calls Pending in Wash.
CLEARWIRE CORP: Amended Complaint Dismissed in February
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Suits Over Fraudulent Merger Remain Stayed
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Suit Over RCG Acquisition Pending in Tenn.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Securities Suits v. Bear Stearns Pending in N.Y.

JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Junk ERISA Suit v. Bear Stearns Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bear Stearns Defends Suit Over Securities Breach
JPMORGAN CHASE: Ruling in Bear Stearns Litigation on Appeal
JPMORGAN CHASE: Merged Municipal Derivatives Action Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Sewer Ratepayers Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: Expert Discovery in Interchange Suit Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Mortgage Underwriting Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Defending Suits Over 3rd Party MBS Offerings
JPMORGAN CHASE: Auction-Rate Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.

JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Two Antitrust Suits in N.Y.
JPMORGAN CHASE: 4 Securities Lending Suits v. JPMorgan Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Defends Suits by 401(k) Plan Participants
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal to Approved IPO Suit Deal Pending
KEYSPAN CORP: Accused in N.Y. of Deceptive Business Practices

LOS ANGELES: Calif. Suit Complains About Wrongful Incarceration
NCL CORP: Defending Crew Members' Suit Over Wage Deductions
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Accused in Nevada of Misleading Shareholders
PERSHING ELEMENTARY: Principal Potentially Liable for Sex Abuse
ROTO-ROOTER: Accused of Discriminating Against Women Employees

SUPPLEMENTS TOGO: Sued for Deceptive Advertising Practices
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Consolidated "Hot Fuel" Suit Pending
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Defends Truck Stop Owners' Suit
U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Suit Over Products Ongoing in Illinois

                            *********

CLEARWIRE CORP: Suit on Unlawful Phone Calls Pending in Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corp. continues to face a purported class action
lawsuit alleging it placed unlawful telephone calls using
automatic dialing and announcing devices, according to the
company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

On Sept. 1, 2009, the company served with a purported class
action lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court.  The
complaint alleges the company placed unlawful telephone calls
using automatic dialing and announcing devices.

The complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable
relief and statutory damages under federal and state law.

On Oct. 1, 2009, the company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the court issued a stipulated order granting
plaintiff until Oct. 29, 2009 to file an Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 29, 2009, dropping
the pre-existing state law claims and adding a new state law
claim.

The parties further stipulated to allow a Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on Dec. 23, 2009.

The company filed a motion to dismiss, which was fully briefed on
Jan. 15, 2010.  Prior to the Court ruling on the motion to
dismiss, plaintiff moved the Court for leave to file a further
amended complaint.  On Feb. 22, 2010, the Court granted the
company's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims
with prejudice and granting plaintiff 20 days to amend the
complaint.  The Court dismissed plaintiff's motion for leave to
amend as moot.

Clearwire Corporation -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- builds and  
operates wireless broadband networks that enable Internet
communications.  Its wireless broadband networks cover entire
communities and deliver a high-speed Internet connection that not
only creates a new communications path into the home or office,
but also provides a broadband connection anytime and anywhere
within its coverage area. It offers services in both domestic and
international markets.  The company's services consist primarily
of providing wireless broadband connectivity, but in some of its
domestic markets, it also offers voice-over Internet protocol
(VoIP) telephony services.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company
operated its networks in 51 markets in the United States and
Europe covering approximately 18.2 million people, and as of Dec.
31, 2008, it had approximately 475,000 wireless broadband
subscribers.  The company's networks in the United States were
deployed in 47 markets and covered an estimated 15.3 million
people.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Amended Complaint Dismissed in February
-------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Clearwire Corp. in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington was
dismissed in February 2010, according to the company's Feb. 24,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 22, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in Superior Court in King County, Washington
by a group of five plaintiffs from Hawaii, Minnesota, North
Carolina and Washington.

The lawsuit generally alleges that:

     -- the company disseminated false advertising about the
        quality and reliability of its services;

     -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and

     -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of
        Service to the detriment of customers.

Among other things, the lawsuit seeks:

     -- a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted
        on a class-wide basis;

     -- an order declaring certain provisions of the company's
        Terms of Service, including the early termination fee
        provision, void and unenforceable;

     -- an injunction prohibiting the company from collecting
        early termination fees and further false advertising;

     -- restitution of any early termination fees paid by the
        company's subscribers;

     -- equitable relief; and

     -- an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On May 27, 2009 an Amended Complaint was filed and served, adding
seven additional plaintiffs, including individuals from New
Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin.

On June 2, 2009, plaintiffs served the Amended Complaint.

The company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

On July 23, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Briefing was complete Sept. 18, 2009; the company awaits a ruling
from the court.

The Court has stayed discovery pending its ruling on the motion.

The Court granted the company's motion to dismiss in its entirety
on Feb. 2, 2010.  Plaintiffs have 30 days to move the Court for
leave to amend the complaint.

Clearwire Corporation -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- builds and  
operates wireless broadband networks that enable Internet
communications.  Its wireless broadband networks cover entire
communities and deliver a high-speed Internet connection that not
only creates a new communications path into the home or office,
but also provides a broadband connection anytime and anywhere
within its coverage area. It offers services in both domestic and
international markets.  The company's services consist primarily
of providing wireless broadband connectivity, but in some of its
domestic markets, it also offers voice-over Internet protocol
(VoIP) telephony services.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company
operated its networks in 51 markets in the United States and
Europe covering approximately 18.2 million people, and as of Dec.
31, 2008, it had approximately 475,000 wireless broadband
subscribers.  The company's networks in the United States were
deployed in 47 markets and covered an estimated 15.3 million
people.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Suits Over Fraudulent Merger Remain Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action suits against Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.,
the holding company for Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA's
North American operations, remain stayed.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against W.R.
Grace & Co. and FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees
on behalf of the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate in the Grace
Chapter 11 Proceedings, alleging among other things that the
Merger was a fraudulent conveyance, violated the uniform
fraudulent transfer act and constituted a conspiracy.

All such cases have been stayed and transferred to or are pending
before the U.S. District Court as part of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings.

No further updates regarding the cases were disclosed in the
company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 20-F Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA -- http://www.fmc-ag.com/--  
provides dialysis services and manufacturing and distributing
products and equipment for the treatment of end-stage renal
disease (ESRD).  In the United States, the company also performs
clinical laboratory testing.  The company is based in Bad
Homburg, Germany.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Suit Over RCG Acquisition Pending in Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint, Indiana State District Council of Laborers
and Hod Carriers Pension Fund v. Gary Brukardt et al., remains
pending, according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 20-F
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Renal Care Group, Inc. was named as a nominal defendant in a
second amended complaint filed Sept. 13, 2006, in the Chancery
Court for the State of Tennessee Twentieth Judicial District at
Nashville against former officers and directors of RCG.

The complaint purports to constitute a class action and
derivative action relating to alleged unlawful actions and
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the company's
acquisition of RCG (the "RCG Acquisition") and in connection with
alleged improper backdating and/or timing of stock option grants
by RCG.

The complaint sought damages against defendant and its former
officers and directors but did not state a claim for money
damages directly against RCG.

As of Aug. 24, 2009, appellate proceedings that reversed the
trial court's dismissal of the complaint had concluded. The
litigation is accordingly proceeding toward trial in the Chancery
Court.

Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA -- http://www.fmc-ag.com/--  
provides dialysis services and manufacturing and distributing
products and equipment for the treatment of end-stage renal
disease (ESRD).  In the United States, the company also performs
clinical laboratory testing.  The company is based in Bad
Homburg, Germany.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Securities Suits v. Bear Stearns Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class actions against The Bear Stearns Companies Inc.
remain pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Feb.
24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2008, JPMorgan Chase merged with Bear Stearns.

Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced purported
class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former
officers and/or directors on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between Dec.
14, 2006 and March 14, 2008 (the "Class Period").

The actions, originally commenced in several federal courts,
allege that the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding Bear Stearns' business and financial results
and that, as a result of those false statements, Bear Stearns'
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

In connection with these allegations, the complaints assert
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Separately, several individual shareholders of Bear Stearns have
commenced or threatened to commence arbitration proceedings and
lawsuits asserting claims similar to those in the putative class
actions.

The actions were transferred and joined for pre-trial purposes
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

A motion to dismiss has been filed in the purported securities
class action.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Junk ERISA Suit v. Bear Stearns Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") action against The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. is
pending, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Feb. 24, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2008, JPMorgan Chase merged with Bear Stearns.

Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or directors
have also been named as defendants in a number of purported class
actions commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York seeking to represent the interests of
participants in the Bear Stearns Employee Stock Ownership Plan
("ESOP") during the time period of December 2006 to March 2008.

These actions allege that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to plaintiffs and to the other participants and
beneficiaries of the ESOP by:

   (a) failing to manage prudently the ESOP's
       investment in Bear Stearns securities;

   (b) failing to communicate fully and accurately
       about the risks of the ESOP's investment in
       Bear Stearns stock;

   (c) failing to avoid or address alleged conflicts
       of interest; and

   (d) failing to monitor those who managed and
       administered the ESOP.

In connection with these allegations, each plaintiff asserts
claims for violations under various sections of the ERISA and
seeks reimbursement to the ESOP for all losses, an unspecified
amount of monetary damages and imposition of a constructive
trust.

The actions were transferred and joined for pre-trial purposes
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bear Stearns Defends Suit Over Securities Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. defends an amended complaint
asserting purported class action claims for violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to
JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2008, JPMorgan Chase merged with Bear Stearns.

Bear Stearns, former members of Bear Stearns' Board of Directors
and certain of Bear Stearns' former executive officers have been
named as defendants in two purported shareholder derivative
suits, subsequently consolidated into one action, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs are asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of federal securities laws, waste of corporate assets
and gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and
indemnification and contribution in connection with the losses
sustained by Bear Stearns as a result of its purchases of
subprime loans and certain repurchases of its own common stock.
Certain individual defendants are also alleged to have sold their
holdings of Bear Stearns common stock while in possession of
material nonpublic information.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and
an order directing Bear Stearns to improve its corporate
governance procedures.

Plaintiffs later filed a second amended complaint asserting, for
the first time, purported class action claims for violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as
new allegations concerning events that took place in March 2008.

The actions were transferred and joined for pre-trial purposes
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

A motion to dismiss has been filed in the shareholders'
derivative action and the ERISA action.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Ruling in Bear Stearns Litigation on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The summary judgment ruling in a consolidated putative class
action lawsuit, In re Bear Stearns Litigation, is on appeal,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2008, JPMorgan Chase merged with The Bear Stearns Companies
Inc.

Seven putative class actions (five that were commenced in New
York and two that were commenced in Delaware) were consolidated
in New York State Court in Manhattan under the caption In re Bear
Stearns Litigation.  Bear Stearns, as well as its former
directors and certain of its former executive officers, were
named as defendants.  JPMorgan Chase was also named as a
defendant.

The actions allege, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and obligations to
Bear Stearns' shareholders by agreeing to the proposed merger.

JPMorgan Chase was alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty; breached its fiduciary duty as
controlling shareholder/controlling entity; tortiously interfered
with the Bear Stearns shareholders' voting rights; and to have
been unjustly enriched.

Plaintiffs initially sought to enjoin the proposed merger and
enjoin JPMorgan Chase from voting certain shares acquired by the
Firm in connection with the proposed merger.

The plaintiffs subsequently informed the Court that they were
withdrawing that motion, but amended the consolidated complaint
to pursue claims, which included a claim for an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages.

In December 2008, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
all the defendants. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Merged Municipal Derivatives Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. continue
to face a consolidated lawsuit alleging antitrust violations in
the markets for financial instruments related to municipal bond
offerings ("municipal derivatives").

Purported class action lawsuits and individual actions have been
filed against JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, as well as
numerous other providers and brokers.

The Municipal Derivatives Actions have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint.

The court has stayed discovery pending disposition of the motion
to dismiss Certain plaintiffs asserting class and individual
claims under federal and California state law declined to join in
the consolidated class action complaints and have filed separate
complaints, which defendants have also moved to dismiss,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Sewer Ratepayers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and numerous other defendants continue to
face a putative class action was filed on behalf of sewer
ratepayers (the "Wilson Action").

JPMorgan Chase moved to dismiss the claims for lack of standing.

The plaintiff in the Wilson Action recently filed a fifth amended
complaint, which JPMorgan Chase also moved to dismiss for lack of
standing.

Both motions remain pending, according to the company's Feb. 24,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Expert Discovery in Interchange Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery in a second amended consolidated class action
complaint against JPMorgan Chase & Co. is ongoing.

A group of merchants have filed a series of putative class action
complaints in several federal courts.

The complaints allege that VISA and MasterCard, as well as
certain other banks and their respective bank holding companies,
including Chase Bank USA, N.A., and JPMorgan Chase, conspired to
set the price of credit card interchange fees and enacted
respective association rules in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.

All cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings.

The amended consolidated class action complaint extended the
claims beyond credit to debit cards.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims that predated
Jan. 1, 2004.  The Court granted the motion to dismiss these
claims.

Plaintiffs then filed a second amended consolidated class action
complaint.  The basic theories of the complaint remain the same,
and defendants again filed motions to dismiss.  The Court has not
yet ruled on the motions.

Fact discovery has closed, and expert discovery in the case is
ongoing.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking class
certification, and the defendants have opposed that motion.  The
Court has not yet ruled on the class certification motion,
according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action suits relating to mortgage-backed
securities ("MBS") offerings are pending, according to JPMorgan
Chase & Co.'s Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

JPMC and affiliates, heritage-Bear and affiliates and heritage
WaMu affiliates have been named as defendants in a number of
cases relating to various roles they played in MBS offerings.

These cases are generally purported class action suits, actions
by individual purchasers of securities, or actions by insurance
companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for
particular branches.

Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally
allege that the offering documents for the securitization trusts
contained material misrepresentations and omissions, including
statements regarding the underwriting standards pursuant to which
the underlying mortgage loans were issued, the ratings given to
the tranches by rating agencies, and the appraisal standards that
were used.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Mortgage Underwriting Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
heritage Bear Stearns, and certain of their current and former
employees in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and
Southern Districts of New York.

Heritage Washington Mutual affiliates, WaMu Asset Acceptance
Corp. and WaMu Capital Corp.; are defendants in two purported
class action cases, pending in the Western District of
Washington.

In addition to allegations as to mortgage underwriting standards
and ratings, plaintiffs in these cases also allege that
defendants failed to disclose Washington Mutual Bank's alleged
coercion of or collusion with appraisal vendors to inflate
appraisal valuations of the loans in the pools.

Motions to dismiss have been filed in one of the cases, according
to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defending Suits Over 3rd Party MBS Offerings
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and certain other heritage entities continue
to defend other purported class actions for their roles an
underwriter or depositor of third party mortgage-backed
securities ("MBS") offerings.

JPMorgan Chase is indemnified in these other litigations,
according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Auction-Rate Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. remains subject to a putative securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York and a number of individual arbitrations and lawsuits
in various forums, brought by institutional and individual
investors, relating to the company's sales of auction-rate
securities.

One action is brought by an issuer of auction-rate securities.

The actions generally allege that JPMorgan Chase and other firms
manipulated the market for auction-rate securities by placing
bids at auctions that affected these securities' clearing rates
or otherwise supported the auctions without properly disclosing
these activities.

Some actions also allege that the company misrepresented that
auction-rate securities were short-term instruments.

Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, and
defendants' responses to the complaint are due on March 3, 2010,
according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Two Antitrust Suits in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. remains named in two putative antitrust
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The actions allege that the company, in collusion with numerous
other financial institution defendants, entered into an unlawful
conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: 4 Securities Lending Suits v. JPMorgan Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. continues to defend putative class
actions related to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s securities lending
business.

JPMorgan has been named as a defendant in four putative class
actions asserting Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") and non-ERISA claims pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York related to JPMorgan Chase's
securities lending business.

Three of the pending actions relate to losses of plaintiffs'
money (i.e., cash collateral for securities loan transactions) in
medium-term notes of a structured investment vehicle known as
Sigma Finance Inc.

The fourth action concerns losses of money invested in Lehman
Brothers medium-term notes, as well as asset-backed securities
offered by nine other issuers, according to the company's Feb.
24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defends Suits by 401(k) Plan Participants
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend a putative class action
on behalf of its employees who participated in the company's
401(k) plan.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and
negligence by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named officers.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings are both fully briefed,
according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal to Approved IPO Suit Deal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the approved settlement of putative class action
lawsuits related to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s initial public
offerings is pending, according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

JPMorgan Chase and certain of its securities subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other firms in the securities
industry, as defendants in a large number of putative class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging improprieties in connection with
the allocation of securities in various public offerings,
including some offerings for which a JPMorgan Chase entity served
as an underwriter.  They also claim violations of securities laws
arising from alleged material misstatements and omissions in
registration statements and prospectuses for the initial public
offerings ("IPOs") and alleged market manipulation with respect
to aftermarket transactions in the offered securities.

Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. is named as a defendant in a little
less than a third of the pending IPO securities cases.

Antitrust lawsuits based on similar allegations have been
dismissed with prejudice.

A settlement was reached in the securities cases, which the
District Court approved; the company's share of the settlement is
approximately $62 million.  Appeals and a petition for leave to
appeal have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit seeking reversal of the decision approving the
settlement.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a  
financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with United States branches in 23
states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national
banking association that is the Firm's credit card-issuing bank.
JPMorgan Chase's principal nonbank subsidiary is J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm.  Its
activities are organized into six business segments: Investment
Bank, Retail Financial Services, Card Services, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management.  
Its wholesale businesses comprise the Investment Bank, Commercial
Banking, Treasury & Securities Services and Asset Management
segments.  Its consumer businesses comprise the Retail Financial
Services and Card Services segments.


KEYSPAN CORP: Accused in N.Y. of Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that Morgan
Stanley and KeySpan Corp. conspired to inflate Consolidated
Edison customers' electric bills by $160 million, a class action
claims in Bronx County Court.  The class claims Keyspan and
Morgan Stanley used "a complex financial derivative 'swap'
transaction" to do so, and that the Department of Justice fined
Keyspan $12 million for it.  Con Ed is not named as a defendant.

Named plaintiff Liszeida Perez claims that on Jan. 18, 2006,
"Keyspan and Morgan executed a complex financial derivative
'swap' transaction, which ensured that KeySpan could continue to
big the highest permissible price for its electrical capacity,
notwithstanding the fact that additional market capacity being
supplied by KeySpan's competitors should have resulted in greater
competition and lower prices. ...

"The KeySpan/Morgan Stanley swap increased prices for retail
electrical suppliers that purchase electrical generation
capacity, which, in turn, led to ConEd customers paying
artificially high prices for electricity during the period May
2006 through February 2008," according to the complaint.

Ms. Perez says that the Department of Justice's $12 million fine
is "only a de minimis amount of the artificially inflated charges
and fees that ConEd customers paid for electricity as a result of
KeySpan and Morgan Stanley's unfair and deceptive business
practices."

The class seeks damages for unjust enrichment, fraud, conspiracy,
and business law violations.  

Copies of the Summons and the Complaint in Perez v. KeySpan
Corporation, et al., Index No. 302208-2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx
Cty.), are available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/22/Keyspan.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          David J. Meiselman, Esq.
          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Ave.
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: 914-517-5000


LOS ANGELES: Calif. Suit Complains About Wrongful Incarceration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that Los
Angeles and San Bernardino County Sheriff's Departments arrest,
re-arrest and incarcerate the wrong people because they refuse to
use "readily available information and existing identification
systems to accurately identify the subjects of warrants," a class
action claims in Federal Court.  The class also sued the
presiding judge and executive officer of the L.A. Superior Court.

Named plaintiff Santiago Ibarra Rivera says he was wrongfully
arrested twice on a warrant issued for someone else, and jailed
for more than a month.

After his second arrest he spent a month in jail because L.A.
County and its Superior Court "refused to record ... that fact
that plaintiff Ibarra had been exonerated as not being the
warrant's subject," according to the complaint.

Mr. Ibarra says the identification numbers in state and federal
databases showed that he was not the subject of the warrant, but
L.A. County refused to, or was too incompetent or indifferent to
use them.

The ID numbers include "CII numbers" based on fingerprints, from
the California Department of Justice; the "rap sheet" based on
the CII number; FBI numbers; LA Main numbers; and Livescan
numbers.

After his first arrest, the Superior Court acknowledged that
Ibarra's fingerprints and identification numbers did not match
those of the warrant's real subject, but the warrant database
information was never undated to exonerate him, Mr. Ibarra says.

After his second arrest he was jailed for a month and hauled into
court three times in before the court determined that he was the
wrong man.

Mr. Ibarra says that if authorities had simply merely checked the
identification numbers it would have been clear that he was not
the suspect.

"Had L.A. County personnel, including the public defender
assigned to represent plaintiff's interest, bothered to utilize
the readily available information available from California
Department of Justice, plaintiff would have been released much
sooner," according to the complaint.

He seeks an injunction and damages for false imprisonment and
wrongful arrest.

A copy of the Complaint in Ibarra v. County of Los Angeles, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01861 (C.D. Calif.) (Gutierrez, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/22/LAWarrants.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Mann, Esq.
          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          MANN & COOK LAW OFFICES
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: 213-252-9444


NCL CORP: Defending Crew Members' Suit Over Wage Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corp. Ltd. Continues to defend a purported class action
complaint alleging inappropriate wage deductions, according to
the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 20-F Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Florida on behalf of a purported class of crew members alleging
inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant to the Seaman's
Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a loss of
retirement benefits.

Miami-based NCL Corp. Ltd. -- http://www.ncl.com-- operates  
cruise ship with a variety of itineraries focused on North
America, Hawaii, Alaska, Caribbean, Europe and South America and
has the largest cruise operation in Antarctica. It operates under
three brands: Norwegian Cruise Line, NCL America, and Orient
Lines.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Accused in Nevada of Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ormat Technologies, a
geothermal power company, inflated its share price through false
and misleading statements, a class action claims in Reno Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Stebelton v. Ormat Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-00156 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/22/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Curtis B. Coulter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS B. COULTER, P.C.
          403 Hill St.
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: 775-324-3380

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Steven D. Resnick, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd.
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-667-7706

               - and -

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          580 California St., Suite 1750
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-400-3000


PERSHING ELEMENTARY: Principal Potentially Liable for Sex Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that an
elementary school principal must stand trial for allegedly
telling parents that a band teacher who later admitted to
molesting students had only been touching the girls to help them
keep time in music class, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit ruled.

Karen Grindle, the principal at Pershing Elementary School when
the abuse came to light, claimed she couldn't be sued for due
process and equal protection violations because the alleged
victims and their parents failed to show that a clearly
established right had been violated.

But Judge Joel Flaum of the Chicago-based court said Ms.
Grindle's "deliberate indifference" to the evidence of abuse
makes her potentially liable for constitutional violations.

The abuse first came to light in 2001, after the school hosted a
presentation for students on inappropriate touching.  Three girls
wrote a letter to the presenter confessing that their band
teacher, Robert Sperlik, rubbed their legs and backs.

"Grindle told the parents about the girls' letter, but refused to
let them see it, instead telling them that their daughter had
attended a 'good touch, bad touch' seminar that had led her to
overreact and write the letter," Judge Flaum wrote.

"Grindle also told the parents that [the band teacher] had
innocently touched their daughter on her shoulder and legs to
help her keep time with the music."

The principal received two more complaints in 2002, including one
from a parent whose daughter said she felt uncomfortable when
Mr. Sperlik put his fingers over hers while demonstrating proper
technique.

Ms. Grindle reported this incident to the district
superintendent, but characterized the first complaint -- the
girls' letter -- as a "pedagogical issue" over teaching methods,
rather than possible sexual harassment.

In 2005, one of the girls who wrote the letter told her mother
that Mr. Sperlik used to bind her with duct tape in class.  Her
mother called police, who launched an investigation.  Other
victims came forward, claiming Mr. Sperlik bound them with duct
tape, presenting it as a "game," and rubbed their thighs or
touched their breasts.

"Sperlik has since pleaded guilty to multiple counts of
aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sexual abuse,
admitting that he abused his students for sexual gratification
based on his interest in bondage pornography," the ruling states.

The alleged victims and their parents said Ms. Grindle knew about
the abuse and was deliberately trying to cover it up by
misleading parents, the superintendent and other administrators.

The district court rejected Ms. Grindle's bid for qualified
immunity, and the federal appeals court agreed that Ms. Grindle
is not shielded from liability.

"[A] jury could conclude that by attempting to convert claims
about sexual abuse by Sperlik into complaints about teaching
methods, Grindle treated the girls' complaints differently
because of their sex," Judge Flaum wrote, allowing the equal
protection claims to proceed.

Ms. Grindle also argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove that
she had "reasonable notice" that her actions violated the
students' "due process right to bodily integrity."

"[A] reasonable school principal would have concluded that she
could be held liable for turning a blind eye to and affirmatively
covering up evidence of child sexual abuse by one of her
teachers," Judge Flaum concluded.

A copy of the decision in Sandra T.E., et al. v. Grindle, No.
09-2920 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?5b90


ROTO-ROOTER: Accused of Discriminating Against Women Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Roto-Rooter discriminates
against women, a class action claims in Cincinnati Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ring v. Roto-Rooter Services Company,
Case No. 10-cv-00179 (S.D. Ohio) (Dlott, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/22/EmployRoto.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Kitrick, Esq.
          KITRICK, LEWIS & HARRIS CO., L.P.A.
          515 East Main St., Suite 515
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614-224-7711

               - and -

          John Campbell, Esq.
          Erich Vieth, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          701 Market St., Suite 1450
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-2929

               - and -

          Michael J. Fagras, Esq.
          LAMPIN, KELL, FAGRAS, LINSON, CUSTER & BUEHLER
          5770 Mexico Rd.
          St. Peters, MO 63376
          Telephone: 636-498-4000


SUPPLEMENTS TOGO: Sued for Deceptive Advertising Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Supplements Togo
Management's and World Class Nutrition's "Erection MD" drug (60
pills for $66.98) doesn't measure up to its ads, a class action
claims in Bergen County Court, N.J.

A copy of the Complaint in Hoffman v. Supplements Togo
Management, LLC, et al., Docket No. BER-L-2428-10 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Bergen Cty.), is available at:

     
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/22/Erection%20Fraud.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Ave.
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: 201-569-0086


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Consolidated "Hot Fuel" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed by retail purchasers
who purchased motor fuel that was greater than 60 degrees
Fahrenheit at the time of sale against TravelCenters of America,
LLC remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.

Beginning in mid December 2006, and continuing to the present, a
series of class action complaints have been filed against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry, including
TravelCenters of America, Inc., or its subsidiaries, in U.S.
District Courts in at least 23 states.

Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the
industry have been named as defendants in one or more of these
lawsuits.

The company has been named in at least seven cases to date,
including cases in California, Alabama, New Mexico, Nevada and
Missouri.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who purchased motor fuel that was greater than
60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.

There are two primary theories upon which the plaintiffs seek
recovery in these cases. The first theory alleges that the
plaintiffs purchased smaller quantities of motor fuel than the
amount for which defendants charged them because the defendants
measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-standard
gallons, which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.

The "temperature" cases seek, among other relief, an order
requiring the defendants to install temperature-correcting
equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices, damages,
and attorneys' fees.

The second theory alleges that fuel taxes are calculated in
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons and are collected by the
government from suppliers and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in
the amount of the tax by the defendant retailers before the fuel
is sold to consumers.

The "tax" cases allege that when the fuel is subsequently sold to
consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell a
greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax,
and therefore reap a windfall because the customers pay more tax
than the retailer paid.

The plaintiffs in theses cases seek, among other relief, recovery
of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.

These cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to
multidistrict litigation procedures.

Plaintiffs have moved for certification of their respective
classes, which motions are pending. Discovery is not yet
completed, according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com-
- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system. The Company was formed as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust. Its customers
include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers, independent
truck drivers and motorists. As of Dec. 31, 2007, TravelCenters
of America's business included 236 travel centers located in 41
states in the United States and the province of Ontario, Canada.
Its travel centers include 167 that are operated under the
TravelCenters of America (TA) brand names, including 144 that it
operates and 23 that franchisees operate. Sixty-nine are operated
under the Petro brand name, 45 of which are operated by the
Company and 24 by the franchisees. On Jan. 31, 2007, the Company
added one TA franchised location.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Defends Truck Stop Owners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America, LLC, opposes efforts to amend to add
the company as a defendant in a proposed amended purported class
action lawsuit filed by truck stop owners.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their complaint to add
us as a defendant. The proposed amended complaint also seeks to
add as defendants Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC,
and Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.

Comdata markets fuel cards which are used as a form of payment by
trucking companies at truck stops.

The proposed amended complaint alleges antitrust violations
arising out of Comdata's contractual relationships with truck
stops in connection with its fuel cards.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and injunctive
relief.

According to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, it believes that the plaintiffs' claims are
similar to claims asserted, and subsequently dismissed
voluntarily, by proposed classes of independent truck stop owners
against TravelCenters' predecessor in 2007.

On April 23, 2009, the company filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' efforts to amend their complaint to add TravelCenters
as a defendant in this ongoing action.

In response to that opposition, on May 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed
a second action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against us and the other companies that
the plaintiffs sought to add as defendants with their previously
pending action seeking the same relief they sought from us and
the other defendants in the preexisting case.

The complaint in this second action contains the same allegations
and claims as the proposed amended complaint in the first action.
The company has moved to dismiss the second action and continue
to oppose the plaintiffs' efforts to add it as a defendant in the
first action. Despite the pendency of the company's motions, the
Court has ordered the parties, including TravelCenters, to begin
discovery.

TravelCenters says there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against the company.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com-
- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system. The Company was formed as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust. Its customers
include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers, independent
truck drivers and motorists. As of Dec. 31, 2007, TravelCenters
of America's business included 236 travel centers located in 41
states in the United States and the province of Ontario, Canada.
Its travel centers include 167 that are operated under the
TravelCenters of America (TA) brand names, including 144 that it
operates and 23 that franchisees operate. Sixty-nine are operated
under the Petro brand name, 45 of which are operated by the
Company and 24 by the franchisees. On Jan. 31, 2007, the Company
added one TA franchised location.


U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Suit Over Products Ongoing in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel Corp. continues to face several purported antitrust
class-action lawsuits in Illinois over steel products, according
to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

In a series of lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois beginning Sept. 12, 2008,
individual direct or indirect buyers of steel products have
asserted that eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel,
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic
production of raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the price of steel products in the United States.

The cases are filed as class-action lawsuits and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.

U.S. Steel Corp. -- http://www.ussteel.com-- is an integrated  
steel producer with production operations in North America and
Central Europe. The company has an annual raw steel production
capability of 24.3 million net tons (tons) in the North America
and 7.4 million tons in Central Europe. U. S. Steel is also
engaged in several other business activities, most of which are
related to steel manufacturing. These include the production of
coke in both in North America and Central Europe, and the
production of iron ore pellets from taconite, transportation
services (railroad and barge operations), real estate operations
and engineering and consulting services in North America. During
the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the company had three operating
segments: Flat-rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S. Steel Europe
(USSE) and Tubular Products (Tubular).

                            *********

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, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy 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  * * *