/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090827.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, August 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 169

BEAR LAKE: Siskinds LLP Files Lawsuit Over Larder Lake Project
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Del. Judge Approves BofA Suit Settlement
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Breach of Privacy Litigation in California
GOOGLE INC: ULC Calls for Revisions to Book Search Settlement
KAISER FOUNDATION: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Reimbursement Suit

MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Sept. 8 Deadline is Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 2 Hearing Set for Estratest Deal
PROVIDE-COMMERCE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Phony "Rewards Program"
STREAM ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Pyramid Scheme Litigation

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DWS RREEF: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
PROSHARES TRUST: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
TRONOX INC: Bruce G. Murphy Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


BEAR LAKE: Siskinds LLP Files Lawsuit Over Larder Lake Project
     The law firm of Siskinds LLP commenced a proposed class-
action suit against Bear Lake Gold, Ltd., and certain of its
officers and directors.

     The class action seeks damages for investors as a result of
the recent disclosure that Bear Lake Gold had become aware of
serious material inconsistencies in its exploration data
relating to its flagship Larder Lake gold mining project.

     Any investors who purchased securities of Bear Lake Gold
Ltd. from July 18, 2006, to July 28, 2009, are encouraged to
contact Scott Selig, Esq., of Siskinds at (800) 461-6166
extension 7824 by telephone, or scott.selig@siskinds.com by e-
mail, for further information.

     Siskinds is particularly interested in speaking to
investors who purchased securities of Bear Lake Gold Ltd. in the
June 2009 or October 2008 private placements of Bear Lake Gold
securities, which were underwritten by PI Financial, Primary
Capital and Dundee Securities.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Selig, Esq.
          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          P.O. Box 2520
          London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3V8
          Phone: (519) 672-2121
          Fax: (519) 672-6065
          E-mail: scott.selig@siskinds.com

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Del. Judge Approves BofA Suit Settlement
The Delaware Chancery Court approved a settlement between
Countrywide Financial Corp. and its shareholders, who alleged
executives at the nation's former largest residential mortgage
underwriter breached their fiduciary duty in connection with
Bank of America Corp.'s $4 billion takeover of the company,
Law360 reports.

On Aug. 24, 2009, Vice Chancellor John Noble held that it was
not unfair for the shareholders to settle the class action
without monetary compensation and dismissed an objection by SRM
Global, according to Law360.

In April 2008, Countrywide Financial, its directors, and BofA,
faced various class action suits relating to Countrywide's
proposed merger with BofA.  The suits were filed in the state
courts of California and Delaware on behalf of a proposed class
of Countrywide shareholders (Class Action Reporter, July 8,
2008).  These lawsuits allege that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by
entering into the merger agreement with BofA and that BofA
allegedly aided and abetted those alleged breaches.  The
lawsuits said BofA paid too little for Countrywide and
shortchanged Countrywide shareholders.  

The terms of the settlement say Countrywide cure the problems
with the deal by making additional disclosures to shareholders.
The settlement also stipulates that the class-action lawsuit
will be dropped.

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Breach of Privacy Litigation in California
Facebook, Inc., faces a purported class-action suit in the
Orange County Superior Court for allegedly breaching the state's
privacy laws, Rhett Pardon at XBIZ.com reports.

The suit alleges that Facebook has violated California's privacy
laws by spreading information to others in order to make money.  
It also alleges the company harvests data about its members
without making it absolutely clear it indulges in those
activities (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 20, 2009).

According to the class-action complaint, Facebook invades the
privacy of its customers and misappropriates people's images and
personal information for marketing and commercial purposes,
reports Mr. Pardon.

The suit said Facebook knows its users don't want their personal
information circulated around the web, yet its terms of use
allow Facebook to retain user-posted data long after it has been
taken off of the site.

"Data collected from Facebook users is the key commercial asset
that Facebook uses for market valuation, internal marketing
purposes, and for licensing and direct sale of data to third
parties," according to the complaint.

The suit was filed by photographer Elisha Melkonian, who says
Facebook permitted her photos to be downloaded, copied and
distributed without her permission, despite numerous attempts to
stop it, writes Mr. Pardon.

In addition, according to the suit, Facebook users are
"unwitting participant of Facebook tracking technologies and
have had their purchase and/or other activities published to
other Facebook users without their consent."

The suit also said that Facebook now has commenced direct
advertisements that include sexually oriented material to users
through "social ads," which are paired up to persons designated
as a user's friend, XBIZ.com reports.

"The statement that Facebook does not sell your information is
misleading and false," the suit said.  "Facebook has misled
users with policies that imply that users are in control of
their personal data."

Ms. Melkonian wants Facebook restrained from collecting or
selling user data and from permitting downloading of copyrighted
photos without permission.  She also seeks class damages of $750
for every unauthorized use of names or photos, XBIZ.com reports.

GOOGLE INC: ULC Calls for Revisions to Book Search Settlement
     The Urban Libraries Council, the membership organization
representing 140 major North American public library systems, is
calling for revisions to the Google Book Search settlement that
is now before the United States District Court in the Southern
District of New York.  In a statement submitted to the court
this week, ULC says that it applauds the intent of the
settlement, making millions of books available to the users of
public libraries.  The statement raises concerns, however, about
the inadequacy of the proposed free public access service, the
lack of protection for reader privacy, the failure to provide
for no-fee fair use of copyright-protected material and the
unrestrained possibility of monopolistic pricing.

     "The Google Book Search database is a major undertaking
that will shape the future of books, libraries, research,
publishing and learning.  It is essential that the interests of
the public be represented as this new model for the organization
and distribution of intellectual content comes into use," said
Susan Benton, ULC President and CEO.  "As it stands, the
proposed settlement's provisions for general public access and
use fall far short.  Public libraries have long pursued a major
goal: the broadest possible access, at the lowest possible cost,
to opportunities for learning and growth for all Americans.  By
storing and disseminating seven million books from the
collections of our great research libraries, Google Book Search
can help democratize our intellectual and cultural heritage.  
But without attending to these serious public needs, the
settlement will only widen the gap between haves and have-nots."

     The proposed settlement is the result of a class action
lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild and the Association of
American Publishers against Google in 2005, claiming that the
Google Book Scan project is a massive violation of the
plaintiffs' copyrights.  The settlement builds a comprehensive
licensing agreement between Google and the plaintiffs,
establishing new practices and standards that would be
controlled by Google and a new private entity, the Book Rights

     ULC's statement to the court addresses four public issues:
public access, reader privacy, fair use and monopoly.

     The settlement provides for free public access to the
database through one designated computer terminal in each public
library building in the United States.  ULC believes that this
provision is inadequate and unworkable, and that a system that
allows free public access throughout library computer networks
is needed.

     Reader privacy and confidentiality, a strong legal
requirement in most states and a cherished public library value,
have not been addressed by the settlement, according to ULC.  A
system that allows anonymous access to the database through
library computers should be developed.

     Fair use of copyright-protected material, for non-
commercial research and educational purposes, is a well-
established feature of the American intellectual property system
that ULC supports.  The proposed settlement allows Google to
impose per-page licensing charges for all printing from the
database.  ULC believes that limited free printing should be
built into the settlement.

     Unregulated monopolistic pricing practices are a distinct
possibility under the system created by the settlement, with
Google and a new, privately controlled Book Rights Registry in
charge.  The public interest should be protected, ULC's
statement maintains, by a public library presence in the
membership of the Book Rights Registry.

     "This is a pivotal moment in the history of access to
recorded information, not unlike the introduction of moveable
type or the birth of the Internet," said Ms. Benton.  "It's
essential that we get it right by making the needed changes
before the settlement is approved.  The principles of the
broadest possible access to knowledge must guide the next era in
the information age."

The Urban Libraries Council -- http://www.urbanlibraries.org/--  
has worked since 1971 to strengthen the public library as an
essential part of urban life.  A membership organization of
North America's leading public library systems and the
corporations that serve them, ULC serves as a forum for its
members, a thought-leader and a voice for the library community.  
ULC's programs are acclaimed for invigorating urban libraries
and enriching the cities they serve.  ULC is headquartered in

KAISER FOUNDATION: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Reimbursement Suit
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan filed a motion seeking dismissal
of a purported class-action lawsuit accusing the plan of not
reimbursing policyholders for their co-payments after getting
third-party settlements, and thus pocketing more money than it
is actually owed, Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit, Glaus v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Case No.
09-02232 (N.D. Calif.), was filed on May 20, 2009, by Nicole
Glaus (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2009).  Ms. Glaus claims
that Kaiser refused to credit her for the co-payment she made
when she was treated for injuries from a car accident. She says
Kaiser demanded reimbursement from the settlement from her
personal injury action against the driver who rear-ended her.  
According to Ms. Glaus, Kaiser was required to reimburse her for
her co-payment under terms of its own policy handbook,
Courthouse News Service relates.

"Kaiser is breaking its own rules by taking money they're not
entitled to," the plaintiff's lead attorney, Daniel Feinberg,
Esq., of Oakland.

The proposed class, which Mr. Feinberg estimates in the
thousands, asks that Kaiser be ordered to repay them for co-
payments, and be enjoined from violating its own policies.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:


The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          Margaret Hasselman, Esq.
          Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, PC
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1800
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-839-6824
          Fax: 510-839-7839
          E-mail: dfeinberg@lewisfeinberg.com

             - and -

          Aaron Kaufman, Esq.
          Scott Sumner, Esq.
          Hinton, Alfert & Sumner
          1646 N. California Blvd., Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: 925-932-6006
          Fax: 925-932-3412
          E-mail: kaufman@hinton-law.com

MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Sept. 8 Deadline is Lead Plaintiff Deadline
     Roy Jacobs & Associates reminds purchasers of Manulife
Financial Corp. securities between March 28, 2008, and June 22,
2009 have only until Sept. 8, 2009, to file for Lead Plaintiff.  
The class action for violation of the securities laws is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

     The complaint alleges that Manulife made false and
misleading statements regarding its ability to manage and
control risk in its Segregated Fund Contracts business.  In
fact, contrary to the Company's own purported risk management
strategy, Manulife applied no material hedging techniques to
limit this risk during an economic downturn.  Indeed, at the
very time the risk management strategy was disclosed to the
investing public, the world economic system was suffering huge
negative shocks and the equity markets were highly volatile and
risky.  The complaint further alleges that contrary to its
purported risk management strategy, Manulife built up a massive
stock portfolio, which it chose to leave unhedged.  This
resulted in a huge decline in the funds available to guaranty
the Segregated Fund Contracts obligations, forcing the Company
to raise billions in capital.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-867-1156
          Fax: 212-504-8343
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com/

SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 2 Hearing Set for Estratest Deal
The Honorable Anthony J. Mohr of the Los Angeles County Superior
Court will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 2, 2009, at 10:00
a.m., to review the proposed settlement in a consolidated class-
action lawsuits against Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., regarding
the marketing of the hormone replacement therapy drugs Estratest
and Estratest H.S. in the State of California.

Two lawsuits, Alexander v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case
No. BC 300364, and Howard v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case
No. BC 325120, were filed against the drug company.  

The proposed settlement provides that Solvay will pay $30
million into a Settlement Fund which will be used to pay:

       -- claims for any person or Third Party Payor who paid
          any part of the cost of Estratest, purchased in
          California at any time since August 7, 1999,

       -- costs of administration, notice, reasonable
          attorneys' fees and costs and

       -- any incentive awards to Class representatives approved
          by the court.

Gilardi & Co. LLC, has established a claims processing Web site
at http://www.estratestlitigation.com/

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Henry H. Rossbacher, Esq.
          The Rossbacher Firm
          811 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1650
          Los Angeles, California 90017-2666
          Phone: (213) 895-6500
          Fax: (213) 895-6161
          Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com/

PROVIDE-COMMERCE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Phony "Rewards Program"
Provide-Commerce, Inc., the owner of Pro Flowers, Red Envelope
and other Web sites, faces a purported class-action suit that
accuses it of creating a phony "rewards program" to steal
monthly payments from customers, Tim Hull at Courthouse News
Service reports.

The suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court by Josue Romero,
and is docketed as Case No. 37-2009-00096492-CU-BT-CTL.  It
alleges that a "third party marketing partner," Regent Group,
Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International, "fraudulently bills
the credit and debit cards under the guise that Provide-
Commerce's customers authorized the billings."

Provide-Commerce sells high-end perishables through ProFlowers,
Red Envelope, Cherry Moon Farms, Secret Spoon, and Sharri's
Berries, according to the complaint.  Provide allegedly has
Encore charge customers' credit cards $14.95 a month for a
rewards program that offers no rewards, Mr. Hull reports.

The class claims the defendants enroll customers in the
"EasySaver Rewards" program without their knowledge when they go
to a Web site to redeem a coupon.  Later, the alleged victims
find that a $1.95 "activation fee" and a $14.95 monthly
"membership fee" have been charged to their debit or credit
card.  But the class says the deceptive program "does not
provide any savings benefits, products or services."

Mr. Romero claims he bought flowers from ProFlowers on his debit
card.  He says Provide-Commerce routinely and fraudulently
transmits its customers' credit and debit card information to a
third part marketing partner, defendant Regent Group, who then
fraudulently bills the credit and debit cards under the guise
that Provide-Commerce's customers authorized the billings.

The plaintiff seeks class damages for fraud, breach of contract,
and false advertising, according to Mr. Hull.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Patterson, Esq.
          Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead LLP
          402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-756-6990
          Fax: 619-756-6991
          Web site: http://www.hpolaw.com/

STREAM ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Pyramid Scheme Litigation
Stream Energy filed a motion on Aug. 24, 2009, to dismiss a
lawsuit that accuses the company of running a pyramid scheme,
Elizabeth Souder at The Dallas Morning News reports.

Last month, Scott Clearman, Esq., sued the company in federal
court in Houston.  Mr. Clearman said he was seeking class-action
status for the suit against Stream, a multilevel marketing
electricity retailer that requires sales associates to pay $329
to sell the product, according to Mr. Souder.

The company filed the motion to dismiss with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas and said in a news
release that the lawsuit is "carelessly drafted" and "replete
with dozens of misstatements of material fact," Mr. Souder

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott Monroe Clearman
          The Clearman Law Firm PLLC
          815 Walker, Suite 1040
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-223-7070
          Fax: 713-223-7071
          E-mail: scott@clearmanlaw.com

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DWS RREEF: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common shares of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund,
Inc. (DWS RREEF I) or DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. (DWS
RREEF II) between March 8, 2007 and November 7, 2008.

     The complaint charges DWS RREEF I and DWS RREEF II and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  DWS RREEF I and DWS RREEF II
are closed-end, non-diversified, management investment

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Funds issued reports that misrepresented the Funds' investments,
leverage and exposure to the auction rate preferred securities
market.  Due to defendants' false and misleading statements,
investors purchased the common stock of the Funds during the
Class Period at artificially inflated prices and were damaged

     Subsequently, as a result of disclosures which caused
investors to realize that distributions would cease, the Funds'
prices dropped.  The price per share of DWS RREEF I dropped from
$3.45 per share on November 14, 2008 to $2.65 on November 18,
2008, and the price per share of DWS RREEF II dropped from $1.90
per share on November 14, 2008 to $1.42 per share on November
18, 2008.

     The Funds have never recovered and DWS RREEF I trades at
less than $2 per share and DWS RREEF II trades at less than
$0.60 per share.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of common shares of either of the Funds during the
Class Period.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/dwsrreef/

PROSHARES TRUST: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the
UltraShort Financials ProShares fund (NYSE: SKF), an exchange-
traded fund offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to
ProShares' false and misleading Registration Statement,
Prospectuses, and Statements of Additional Information issued in
connection with the SKF Fund's shares.  The class is seeking to
pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

     The complaint names ProShares, ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M.
Mayberg, Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D.
Collier as defendants.  ProShares sells its Ultra and UltraShort
ETFs as "simple" directional plays.  As marketed by ProShares,
Ultra ETFs are designed to go up when markets go up; UltraShort
ETFs are designed to go up when markets go down. The SKF Fund is
one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The SKF Fund seeks investment
results that correspond to twice the inverse (-200%) daily
performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Financials Index (DJFIX),
which measures the performance of the financial services
industry of the U.S. equity market.  Accordingly, the SKF Fund
is supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the DJFIX,
which fell approximately 51.03 percent from January 2, 2008
through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a sizeable profit
for investors who anticipated a decline in the U.S. financial
services industry.  In other words, the SKF Fund should have
appreciated by 102.6 percent during this period.  However, the
SKF Fund actually fell approximately 1.06 percent during this
period -- the antithesis of a directional play.

     The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the
Securities Act by failing to disclose that the SKF Fund is
altogether defective as a directional investment play, failing
to perform anywhere near investors' reasonable expectations.  
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose the following risks
in the Registration Statement:

       -- inverse correlation between the SKF Fund and the DJFIX
          over time would only happen in the rarest of
          circumstances, and inadvertently if at all;

       -- the extent to which performance of the SKF Fund would
          inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJFIX
          -- i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of
          spectacular tracking error;

       -- the severe consequences of high market volatility on
          the SKF Fund's investment objective and performance;

       -- the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in
          periods of high market volatility on the SKF Fund's

       -- the role the SKF Fund plays in increasing market
          volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading;

       -- the consequences of the SKF Fund's daily hedge
          adjustment always going in the same direction as the
          movement of the underlying index, notwithstanding that
          it is an inverse leveraged ETF;

       -- the SKF Fund causes dislocations in the stock market;
       -- the SKF Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to
          obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not
          attainable through the SKF Fund.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 13, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/

TRONOX INC: Bruce G. Murphy Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
     The Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy announces that a class
action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Tronox, Inc.

     The action is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company, and
certain of its officers.  According to the complaint, defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC [17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5].

     The Complaint alleges that the Defendants fraudulently
concealed Tronox's massive environmental liabilities and
resulting financial problems causing massive losses to innocent
investors while unjustly enriching themselves.

     Kerr-McGee spun-off Tronox into an independent entity in a
two-step process.  First, in November of 2005, Kerr-McGee
generated $225 million in proceeds following the initial public
offering of Tronox at the price of $14.00 per share and retained
control of 56.7% of Tronox's outstanding common stock.  Next, in
March of 2006, Kerr-McGee distributed its remaining 56.7% stake
in Tronox to shareholders as Class B shares by way of a

     The Complaint further alleges that defendants, at the time
of the IPO, knowingly mislead and misrepresented investors by
materially understating the scope of Tronox's environmental and
tort liabilities.  The Registration Statement, and the
prospectus therein, contained information that was materially
false, misleading and ignored the adverse conditions facing
Tronox.  As is explained in further detail in the Complaint,
Tronox has put forth allegations in its bankruptcy action
(Tronox, Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., et al.) that the
Registration Statement was materially misleading and greatly
understated the liabilities that Tronox was burdened with.  The
Defendants continually misled investors throughout the Class
Period by making materially false statements and concealing the
true nature of Tronox's liabilities in numerous press releases
and SEC filings.

     On June 22, 2006, Anadarko made an offer seeking to acquire
Kerr-McGee for $18 billion, which included $16.4 billion in
cash.  On August 10, 2006, the Kerr-McGee shareholders voted to
approve the offer and Kerr-McGee became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Anadarko, and as a result, Anadarko became the
successor-in-interest to Kerr-McGee.

     Eventually, the market was able to uncover what the
Defendants were attempting to conceal, Tronox's environmental
and tort liabilities were in far excess of what had been
represented, and, as a result, Tronox was in financial ruin and
would need to seek the protection of bankruptcy laws therefore
rendering the stockholders' investments virtually worthless.

     As a result of the dissemination of the false and
misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market
price of Tronox common stock was artificially inflated during
the Class Period.  In ignorance of the false and misleading
nature of the statements described above, and the deceptive and
manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said
defendants, plaintiffs and the other members of the Class
relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price
of Tronox common stock.  Had plaintiffs and the other members of
the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
common stock, or would not have purchased them at the inflated
prices that were paid.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Bruce G. Murphy, Esq.
          265 Llwyds Lane
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Phone: (828) 737-0500
          E-mail: bgm@brucemurphy.biz


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related


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.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *