/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091104.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 4, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 218


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Investors Appeal Dismissal of IP Lawsuit
CLEAR CHANNEL: Judge Rejects Class Action in Flooding Case
CSL LTD: Class Action Suits Against Blood Plasma Company Expand
CVS PHARMACY: Gets More Time to Respond to Class Certification
DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Lawyer Paul Ledroit Says Settlement is Bad

DUPONT: Class Action Against Teflon Plant Sticks
FACEBOOK INC: Beacon Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval
FARMERS INSURANCE: Okla. App. Court Upholds Class Certification
INTELIUS: Second Class Action Lawsuit Filed in Seattle
KALEIDA HEALTH: Employee Class Certified

MDL 1409: Court Approves $336 Mil. Currency Conversion Settlement
MDL 2034: RodaNast Appointed Lead Counsel in Comcast Litigation
MIDWAY GAMES: N.D. Ill. Shareholder Fraud Suit Dismissed
NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Disputes Claims in Not-Yet-Filed Class Action
TISHMAN SPEYER: Wolf Haldenstein Comments on N.Y. App. Ct. Ruling

WALT DISNEY: Baby Einstein Refund Decision Applauded

                   New Securities Fraud Suits

PROSHARES TRUST: Stull Stull Files Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Investors Appeal Dismissal of IP Lawsuit
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that a group of Blackstone
Group LP (BX.N) investors has appealed the dismissal of Landmen
Partners Inc v. Blackstone Group LP, Case No. 08-cv-3601
(S.D.N.Y.) -- their class-action lawsuit seeking to hold the
private equity firm responsible for their losses on its stock.

The appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
came after Judge Harold Baer of Manhattan federal court last
month said the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim on which
they could recover.

The plaintiffs had alleged that prior to its initial public
offering, Blackstone failed to disclose that investments in bond
insurer FGIC, Freescale Semiconductor Inc [FSLSM.UL] and real
estate were losing value.

Blackstone went public in June 2007 at $31 per common unit. The
price of the units had fallen to about $7 by the time the
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in October 2008.

Judge Baer concluded that Blackstone's exposure to FGIC and to
Freescale fell short of being "material." He also said the
plaintiffs failed to show a link between known problems in
residential housing in late 2006 and early 2007 and Blackstone's
investments in commercial and hotel properties.

CLEAR CHANNEL: Judge Rejects Class Action in Flooding Case
The Grand Rapids Press reports that a judge rejected class-action
status for a lawsuit against the owner of B-93 radio after a June
flood damaged hundreds of cars at the B-93 Birthday Bash at the
Ionia County Fairgrounds.

The Class Action Reporter covered facts underlying this matter on
Sept. 24, 2009.

CSL LTD: Class Action Suits Against Blood Plasma Company Expand
Eli Greenblat, writing for Fairfax Digital, reports that a
multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit against CSL has
dramatically expanded after 11 US hospitals signed up as
plaintiffs against the blood plasma company and its chief rival
Baxter, claiming Australia's biggest health-care company engaged
in cartel behavior.

Documents lodged with the Illinois Northern and Pennsylvania
Eastern federal courts reveal an acceleration of litigants
stepping forward since September to accuse CSL of involvement in
a conspiracy to fix the prices of plasma products.

The burgeoning case has led to some Australian institutional
investors participating in a phone hook-up recently with a lead
lawyer handling the suit, where they questioned him about the
veracity and extent of the class action. One leading US
investment bank invited a lawyer and anti-trust expert to present
on the issue.

The US hospitals, which include Northwest Iowa, St Luke's
Methodist, Detroit Medical Centre and Trinity Regional Medical
Centre, are asking for more than $A100 million in damages and
demanding a trial by jury.

Their case against CSL, its key plasma business CSL Behring, and
Baxter will rely heavily on untested allegations made by the US
Federal Trade Commission in June when the powerful regulator
blocked CSL's $US3.1 billion takeover bid for Talecris

At the time the FTC made a string of accusations against CSL and
players in the plasma industry, revolving around the operation of
a "tight oligopoly" that was engaged in market rigging and
limiting the supply of life-saving therapies to push up prices.
These allegations were never tested in court.

Hospital plaintiffs in a civil action are represented by Jeffrey
Kodroff of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, which specializes in
class action suits.

The firm represented four of the lead plaintiffs -- all big
European institutional investors -- in the Parmalat class action
and was nominated by pension funds in 2007 and 2008 for the
"class action law firm of the year" award, given by Global
Pensions magazine.

Mr. Kodroff did not return phone calls to businessday, Mr.
Greenblat reports.

Pemiscot Memorial Hospital, which services several counties in
south-east Missouri, became the first client for the class action
in July and was quickly followed by Solaris Health System,
operator of the JFK Medical Centre.

In the last month the number of plaintiffs pushed over 10 and
mainly includes hospitals in the US Midwest states of Iowa and
Michigan. There is also a handful of hospitals in the American
territory of Puerto Rico.

A spokeswoman for CSL said: "Essentially our position on the
civil action remains unaltered . . . It is unsurprising that a
number of additional plaintiffs have joined the case as this is a
feature of the American legal system. We will continue to defend
the action vigorously."

The Class Action Reporter provided coverage of Pemiscot Memorial
Hospital v. CSL Limited, et al., Case No. 09-cv-03143 (E.D. Pa.),
on July 21 and 30, 2009.

CVS PHARMACY: Gets More Time to Respond to Class Certification
Amelia Flood at The Madison Record reports that the defendant in
a class action over a generic form of cold medicine "Airborne"
has more time to prepare its stance on class certification.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto granted a motion to
extend the suit's briefing schedule Monday.  CVS Pharmacy Inc.
filed its move to extend the schedule due to a deposition
scheduled in Washington D.C. earlier this month.

CVS is being sued for allegedly selling an immune system
supplement that does not work. Similar suits were filed in the
same year against Target and other retailers over their Airborne

Those suits are also pending in St. Clair County.

Judge Cueto's Oct. 26 order stipulates that CVS must file its
response to plaintiff Iean Finley's motion for class
certification Nov. 20.  Mr. Finley and the class must then
respond to that filing by 10 days later.

A class certification hearing in the suit is set for Dec. 7 at
9:00 a.m.  Mr. Finley's suit seeks damages for CVS's alleged
unjust enrichment and violation of Illinois's consumer fraud
laws.  The class seeks damages not to exceed $75,000 per
individual member, according to the complaint. The class also
seeks costs and attorneys' fees.

The same team of attorneys that represent Mr. Finley also filed
the nearly identical suits against Target, Kmart and others. The
attorneys are Paul Weiss, Kevin Hoerner, Richard Burke and Brian

CVS is represented by Robert Bassett and others.

The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-616.

DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Lawyer Paul Ledroit Says Settlement is Bad
A piece by Paul Ledroit appearing in The Chronicle Herald says
that the class-action settlement of abuse cases in the Diocese of
Antigonish is wrong because it allows the Diocese to continue
keeping secrets.  "There is extremely limited disclosure," Mr.
Ledroit writes. "There is no opportunity to examine the church
officials, to investigate who knew what and when.  With hearings
conducted in private, there is no way the public can learn who
was responsible, besides the priest.  Who failed to alert the
police or welfare agencies?  Who covered for the abuser?  Who
neglected to care for the victim or the victim's family?  And how
many priests abused how many children?"

Mr. Ledroit's complete column is available at:


Paul Ledroit is a litigation lawyer based in Halifax and London,
Ont. He has helped hundreds of victims of sexual abuse since
winning the precedent-setting J.R.S. v. Glendinning case in 2004.
He is a founding partner of Ledroit Beckett.

Details of the settlement, covered in the Sept. 25, 2009, edition
of the Class Action Reporter, can be found at http://is.gd/4FVDJ

DUPONT: Class Action Against Teflon Plant Sticks
Brenda Craig at LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that a well-
known environmental law attorney is leading a class action aimed
at forcing DuPont to pay for the cleanup of the local water
supply for the residents of Penns Grove, N.J.  "We are seeking to
have safe drinking water for these people," says attorney Stuart
Lieberman, Esq., of Lieberman & Blecher.  "The primary relief
being sought is remediation of the drinking water."

The suit alleges the town's water supply is contaminated with
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) also known as C8. PFOA is a
chemical used in the production of Teflon, a non-stick and stain
resistant material used to make cookware, at the nearby DuPont
Chambers Works Plant.

Although there is no evidence to suggest cooking with Teflon
causes cancer, PFOA used to make Teflon has been linked to cancer
in a number of studies over the last decade or more, as well as
birth defects in animals.

Mr. Lieberman represents a potential class of 15,000 Penns Grove,
Salem County residents, who live near DuPont's Chambers Works

"There are obvious health risks associated with PFOA -- the
government has been studying this for a long time," says
Lieberman. "These people didn't sign up to drink this in their
water and they didn't volunteer to drink this in their water."

"And our view is that DuPont put PFOA in their water," Mr.
Lieberman adds.

In the mid 1990's DuPont, along with several other companies,
agreed voluntarily to find processes that would prevent PFOA from
being released into local water supplies during the manufacturing

The class action filed by Mr. Lieberman asks that DuPont be
required to supply a water filtration system for the towns of
Penns Grove and Pennsville in southern NJ where local drinking
water has allegedly been contaminated by the DuPont plant.  The
suit also asks that residents be provided with a medical testing

A veteran of more than his share of environmental lawsuits and a
former government lawyer for the Department of Environmental
Protection in the 1980's, Mr. Lieberman sees this as a very
strong case against DuPont.

"It is true, I am a former DEP lawyer gone 'good'," says Mr.
Lieberman in his affable and engaging manner.  "I am now
representing the right side."

"Somewhere in this world, I don't know how it occurred," says Mr.
Lieberman.  "We started to get used to the idea that it is okay
to have extra things in your water as long as they are below
certain standards."

"We don't agree with that," Mr. Lieberman goes on to say.  "You
shouldn't be drinking this stuff."

DuPont is currently reviewing the judge's decision to allow the
class action to proceed.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., is a founding member of the Lieberman &
Blecher.  He is a former Deputy Attorney General for the State of
New Jersey who was assigned to the Environmental Protection
Section.  He is also a co-author of New Jersey Brownfields
Practice, a book that describes legal aspects relating to the
sale of contaminated properties in New Jersey.  A frequent
lecturer on environmental subjects and a weekly syndicated
columnist, Lieberman has represented many municipalities,
businesses and individuals in regulatory and land use matters as
well as litigation in these areas.

FACEBOOK INC: Beacon Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval
Sam Diaz at ZDNet reports that the class action suit over
Facebook's controversial Beacon program received preliminary
approval on Oct. 23, 2009, in U.S. District Court, allowing the
company to clear the matter without long -- and expensive --
court proceedings.

The settlement proposal in Lane, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., et
al., Case No. 08cv-03845 (N.D. Calif.) (Seeborg, J.), which was
made public in September and covered in the Class Action Reporter
on Sept. 22, 2009, calls for Facebook to discontinue Beacon and
cough up $9.5 million to set up a nonprofit foundation to "fund
projects and initiatives that promote the cause of online
privacy, safety and security."

Beacon was launched in November 2007 to let users share
information with their Facebook friends about the things they
were doing on third-party, affiliated sites.

At issue was the way Facebook launched the service to
automatically include everyone, instead of as an opt-in.
Eventually, the service was switched to opt-in.

FARMERS INSURANCE: Okla. App. Court Upholds Class Certification
Marie Price at The Journal Record reports that the Oklahoma Court
of Civil Appeals has upheld certification of a class-action
lawsuit against Farmers Insurance Company Inc. and related
companies over the way Farmers processed, reviewed and denied
medical-pay claims for some policyholders.

According to the court's opinion, Ms. Price relates, in late 2000
Farmers started having such claims reviewed by Zurich Services
Corp., a claims management company owned by Farmers that
maintains a large database of charges billed by medical

"ZSC compares each incoming Farmers' policyholder's medical bill
against the database, and 'flags' a charge as potentially
unreasonable whenever it exceeds the 80th percentile of all
charges in the database for the relevant PSRO (Professional
Standards Review Organization) service," the court said.
Farmers contended that Zurich individually reviews flagged
charges, finding some unreasonable and notifying the provider or
policyholder it is reducing or denying payment.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that Farmers systemically
uses the 80th percentile audit/review process to wrongfully deny
payment or reimbursement of policyholders' medical expenses in a
predetermined way, regardless of whether a particular expense is
unreasonable, mainly to reduce Farmers' costs.
The plaintiffs sought class certification only on a breach of
contract claim, although they have alleged causes of action for
bad faith, unjust enrichment, fraud, deceit and conspiracy to
commit a tortuous act.

The trial court's order, which granted class certification,
stated that Farmers writes the policy in 14 states, including
Oklahoma. The trial judge found that, in Oklahoma alone,
thousands of claims were adjusted annually using the 80th-
percentile method.

That court also found that each claim was small and costly to
litigate individually and that such litigation would be
burdensome to the courts.

Writing for the court, Presiding Judge Doug Gabbard said the
record supports that finding.

"Having considered all the facts and circumstances, we find that
the core issues of the case present common factual and legal
questions, and also find that a class action is superior to other
forms of adjudication," the appeals court concluded.

A Farmers attorney declined to discuss the court's opinion.
Farmers could seek a rehearing before the civil appeals court or
ask the Oklahoma Supreme Court to hear the case.  The
certification order could also be modified by the district court.
A plaintiff's attorney did not return a phone call seeking

INTELIUS: Second Class Action Lawsuit Filed in Seattle
Given the sleazy marketing practices of Bellevue-based Intelius
over the past couple years, Nina Shapiro at Seattle Weekly
reports, and the hundreds of complaints lodged with state
Attorney General Rob McKenna and the Better Business Bureau, the
lack of consumer lawsuits against the company has been
surprising. Well, she says, that's changing -- and fast.

As TechFlash's John Cook reported, two class action lawsuits have
now been filed against the company, best known for online people
searches and background checks.  Both concern the company's use
of confusing ads that trick consumers into buying services from
Connecticut partner company Adaptive Marketing -- services they
never wanted or, in many cases, didn't know about until the fees
showed up on their credit card bills.

The first suit was filed in late August in a California federal
court.  The suit currently represents California consumers only,
but plaintiff's attorney William Restis says "we're seeking to
take the case nationwide."

The second suit was filed on October 19, 2009, in federal court
in Seattle.  That suit already claims to represent consumers
nationwide, naming as plaintiffs Washington state resident Bruce
Keithly as well as a couple from Ohio.  That suit quotes
liberally from a Seattle Weekly cover story on Intelius last
March, which detailed the way the ads work (consumers think
they're clicking on a button that will merely give them the
information they paid for when it fact it is committing them to
ongoing monthly charges from Adaptive).

The suits aren't the only threats facing Intelius.  The company,
which is seeking to go public, revealed in its latest SEC filing
that it is under investigation by State Attorney McKenna
regarding these "third-party" ads as well as similar ads for its
own services that carry monthly fees.  That's apart from an
already-disclosed Federal Trade Commission investigation related
to laws that regulate how credit information is disseminated.

Mr. Cook at TechFlash points out that, facing all this pressure,
the company is backing away from what it calls "post-transaction
marketing."  Presumably as a result, the once booming company
experienced an unprecedented loss of $2.6 million for the first
six months of this year, according to its SEC filing.  Compare
that to the $10.9 million Intelius earned during the same period
last year, Ms. Shapiro comments.

KALEIDA HEALTH: Employee Class Certified
Matthew Chandler at Buffalo Business First reports that a federal
judge certified class-action lawsuits against Kaleida Health and
Catholic Health Systems, paving the way for potentially millions
of dollars in judgments against Buffalo's largest health care

The suits, filed by Rochester-based Thomas & Solomon LLP on
behalf of thousands of current and former employees, allege that
both health-care systems failed to pay workers for time they
worked assisting patients during what was scheduled meal periods.
The suit alleges this practice was repeated in multiple
facilities and impacted thousands of nurses, aide's and

J. Nelson Thomas, Esq., a partner in the firm, said because of
the scope of who is eligible to participate in the suit, exact
numbers won't be known until current and former employees respond
to notices being sent out, but he expects the number of
plaintiff's to reach "tens of thousands."

Mr. Thomas said his firm specializes in these types of cases and
recently won a $9 million settlement against Strong Hospital in
Rochester for similar infractions.

"It's a huge victory that is has been certified as a class
(action suit)," Mr. Thomas said.  "If it had not been certified
and a lot of cases aren't, then the problem is, everyone would
have to file their own lawsuits."

He said the suit was born from employees within both companies
notifying his firm that these "wage theft" practices were
occurring, prompting the lawsuit.

"What's interesting, is ECMC is totally compliant and follows the
law," Mr. Thomas said of the other major health-care provider in

From here, current and former employees who may be eligible have
60 days to respond to court-approved notices regarding the class-
action suit in order to be included.  Mr. Thomas said he is
confident both Kaleida and Catholic Health Systems violated the
law and though he said cases like this can take several years to
resolve, he predicted a multi-million dollar result for those
employees impacted.

Reached for comment on the lawsuit, representatives for both
Kaleida and Catholic Health Systems released written statements.

CHS Vice President Dennis McCarthy said they believe all
employees were properly paid for time worked.

"With respect to the judge's ruling, Catholic Health intends to
steadfastly defend its position and attempt to win dismissal of
what we still believe to be a dubious lawsuit," he said.

Speaking on behalf of Kaleida Health, Michael Hughes accused the
law firm handling the case of "exploiting our employees."

"They (Thomas & Solomon LLP) have a track record of this type of
behavior, most recently in Rochester.  We most certainly will not
let an opportunistic law firm interrupt our unquestionable
commitment to patient care."

Apprised of Mr. Hughes comments, Mr. Thomas said, "I think their
personal attacks, particularly in the face of the judges very
strong ruling in our favor shows they really don't have a lot
substantively to say about what they've been doing to their
employees.  To call our law firm opportunistic when they are the
ones who have cheated their employees out of millions of dollars
of wages every year, and have done it for years, I think
opportunistic probably better describes how they treat their
employees in terms of these lunch breaks."

Mr. Thomas added he expects to file a second round of lawsuits to
cover additional categories of employees affected by the alleged

MDL 1409: Court Approves $336 Mil. Currency Conversion Settlement
LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that a federal judge has
granted final approval to a $336 million settlement favoring
credit card holders who allege they were being unfairly charged
for foreign currency transactions.  To be precise, the 8-year old
class action alleged that Visa, MasterCard, Bank of America Corp,
Citigroup Inc, HSBC Holdings, and JPMorgan Chase & Co., conspired
to overcharge consumers on foreign currency transactions.

Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted in 2006, and
covered holders of US-issued Visa and MasterCard credit cards, as
well as Diners Club and debit card holders who made foreign
currency transactions between 1996 and 2006.

In a Reuters report -- see http://is.gd/4G4Fp-- the Honorable
William H. Pauley, III, of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan
called the settlement in In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1409; Master Docket No. 01-md-1409; Case No.
M 21-95 (S.D.N.Y.), "fair and reasonable."  He noted that had the
cardholders actually gone to court there was a good chance that
they would not have recovered much of the $1.1 billion in fees at
issue in the case.  Of note, an amazing 10,075,834 claims were

In addition to the money, the settlement required that card
issuers improve their fee disclosures.

A copy of Judge Pauley's 44-page Memorandum & Order dated
Oct. 22, 2009, is available at:


The Class Action Reporter published its latest report about this
MDL proceeding on May 18, 2009.

MDL 2034: RodaNast Appointed Lead Counsel in Comcast Litigation
In a national antitrust class action pending against Comcast in
federal court in Philadelphia, Judge Anita B. Brody has appointed
Pennsylvania's RodaNast, PC as Lead Counsel.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation recently
transferred the cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
and assigned them to Judge Brody. (In re Comcast Corp. Set-Top
Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2034).

The case is brought on behalf of people who purchased premium or
digital cable services from Comcast. The Comcast Complaints
collectively allege that Comcast has a monopoly in areas where it
provides cable television services. In many locations, Comcast
cable television subscribers have no choice but to contract with
Comcast for cable television services, the plaintiffs allege.
The complaints allege that Comcast's premium or digital cable
customers have to pay a separate fee to rent a cable box or set-
top box to enable customers to view cable TV.

Comcast's actions constitute an unlawful tying arrangement
resulting in an impermissible restraint of trade, in violation of
both state and federal law, according to the allegations of the

Judge Brody also appointed Mellon, Webster & Shelly as Liaison
Counsel. Appointed Steering Committee members include Bailey &
Glasser LLP, Becnel Law Firm, The Bell Law Firm, PLLC, Devereux
Murphy LLC, Edgar Law Firm LLC, Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers,
LLC, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Silverman & Fodera, Sweetnam LLC,
Wexler Wallace LLP, Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC, and Wiggins,
Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC.

MIDWAY GAMES: N.D. Ill. Shareholder Fraud Suit Dismissed
Andrew Longstreth at Law.com reports that the Honorable David H.
Coar dismissed Zerger, et al. v. Midway Games, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-cv-03797 (N.D. Ill.), on Oct. 19, 2009.

Midway, the maker of such fine entertainment as Mortal Kombat,
filed for bankruptcy in February.  Its assets were later sold to
Warner Brothers, but not before the company's former shareholders
sued its former executives for securities fraud.  Now, however,
it looks like their claims are in mortal distress: Last week
Judge Coar granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs, represented by Coughlin Soia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, alleged that the former Midway executives artificially
pumped up the company's stock price through a variety of
misrepresentations and omissions about Midway's financial
condition. They complained, for example, that Midway belatedly
announced $13 million in restructuring charges as a result of
closing down a gaming company it acquired. To show scienter, the
plaintiffs also threw in allegations of insider trading.

"They thought that was their money shot," defense counsel David
Kistenbroker of Katten Muchin Rosenman told Mr. Longstrewth.

Judge Coar ruled that he didn't even need to address scienter,
finding that the alleged omissions and misrepresentations were
not material. But he also noted that if he had reached the
question of the defendants' intent, the plaintiffs' insider
trading allegations would not have passed muster.

A copy of Judge Coar's 21-page Memorandum Opinion and Order is
available at http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/midwayorder.pdf

NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Disputes Claims in Not-Yet-Filed Class Action
The Canadian Press reports that NovaGold Resources Inc. (TSX:NG)
says a proposed Ontario class action lawsuit against the company
and certain directors and officers has not yet been filed, and
that it disputes all claims.

The Vancouver-based mining company was responding Thursday to
shareholder litigation announced last week against the company
seeking more than $100 million in damages.

The suit alleges misrepresentation of the true cost of NovaGold's
now-stalled Galore Creek copper-gold project in British Columbia.

NovaGold said a statement of claim regarding the "purported class
action lawsuit" has not yet been filed.

"NovaGold disputes all of these claims and believes that it has
substantial and meritorious legal and factual defenses, which the
company intends to pursue vigorously," the company stated.

Law firm Sutts, Strosberg LLP announced the notice of action last
week on behalf of all Canadian investors who acquired NovaGold
shares from Oct. 25, 2006 to Jan. 16, 2008.

Besides NovaGold, the defendants include the consulting firm that
provided a 2006 feasibility study that said the mine could be
built for about US$1.8 billion, and several individuals including
NovaGold's CEO and directors at the time.

Galore Creek is now a 50-50 joint venture with Teck Resources Ltd
(TSX:TCK.B), which became a partner in 2007 when it agreed to
share the cost of developing the copper-gold deposit. Teck is not
listed as a defendant.

NovaGold said on Oct. 17, 2007, that it expected a "significant"
increase to the estimated capital cost of Galore Creek and the
following month the project was halted when a review found the
project could cost up to $5 billion.

On Jan. 16, 2008, Novagold and Teck announced the appointment of
a new management team for Galore Creek.

The allegations are similar to those contained in a prior U.S.
shareholder action.

Some of those claims were dismissed in June and NovaGold said it
disputes the claims that remain and intends to "contest the
action vigorously."

If recognized by the Ontario Superior Court as a class action,
The Canadian Press says, any settlement would be made on behalf
of investors across Canada who bought NovaGold shares.  They
don't need to be involved in the litigation process.

TISHMAN SPEYER: Wolf Haldenstein Comments on N.Y. App. Ct. Ruling
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz achieved a major victory
for its clients on October 22, 2009, when the New York State
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of tenants of Stuyvesant Town --
Peter Cooper Village who brought a class action to block the
landlord of the residential complex from de-regulating rents for
apartments in buildings that had received certain tax incentives.

Coverage of New York's highest court's ruling appeared in the
Tues., Oct. 27, 2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter.

A four judge majority of the Court held that Tishman Speyer
Properties and MetLife, the former landlord, had illegally
deregulated and raised rents at approximately 4,000 apartments in
buildings where New York City J-51 tax benefits had been granted.
The opinion affirmed a March 2009 ruling by the Appellate

"The Court of Appeals decision is a tremendous victory for the
nine tenants who courageously stepped forward when their landlord
attempted to deny them and their neighbors of their right to live
in a rent stabilized apartment at Stuyvesant Town or Peter Cooper
Village," said Wolf Haldenstein partner Alexander H. Schmidt,
Esq., who represented the tenants.  "The opinion clearly and
strongly states that a landlord who receives certain tax benefits
from New York City for improving a building cannot then remove
apartments in that building from rent stabilization protection."

Mr. Schmidt noted that the Court of Appeals has remanded to the
trial court the question of awarding damages. "In our view, the
tenants are entitled to have their past years of rent
overpayments refunded.  We fully expect to return shortly to the
trial court to begin that process, which may be prolonged," he

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is a full-service law
firm that has provided legal services to its clients since 1888.
It has practice groups in the following areas: Class Action
Litigation, Real Estate, Corporate and Business, Health Care,
Not-for-Profit Organizations, Employee Benefits, Tax, REITs and
Limited Partnerships, Trusts and Estates, Accounts Receivable
Management and Commercial Collections and General Litigation.
The Firm's Web site is at http://www.whafh.com/

WALT DISNEY: Baby Einstein Refund Decision Applauded
L. Vincent Poupard at Associated Content applauds The Walt Disney
Co.'s decision to offer refunds for their popular Baby Einstein
DVDs since some studies are showing that they may not have the
educational benefits that Disney originally marketed them under.
"As a political advisor," Mr. Poupard says, "I have to say that
this is a great move by Disney."

What prompted this move you ask? Disney was being threatened with
a class action false advertising lawsuit.  By offering the
refunds to parents that are unhappy with the Baby Einstein DVDs,
the groups that were pressing for the lawsuit have come to the
conclusion that they will not continue with the suit and that
they are happy with the outcome.

Now, you might wonder why it is that I believe that offering
refunds to parents for their Baby Einstein DVDs is a great move
by Disney. That is very simple. By offering refunds for the
Little Einstein DVDs, Disney saves itself from a long, drawn-out
court battle that could cause it to loose a lot of face, and more
money than it would spend on the refunds.

Let us take a look for a moment about what could have happened if
this class action lawsuit over the Baby Einstein DVDs went to
court. Disney would have had the negative opportunity to spend
tens of millions of dollars a year for legal representation.  Who
knows how long this battle could go on, it could be something
that would drag on for years.

During the many months that a class action lawsuit against Disney
over the Baby Einstein DVDs went on, Disney would have to prove
that their research showed that the Baby Einstein DVDs were
beneficial to children. They could be forced to relinquish
information about proprietary research methods that could give
other companies a jump in narrowing the gap between themselves
and Disney in the fight for market share.

A class action lawsuit against Disney over Baby Einstein DVDs
would gather international attention since it is one of the
largest corporations the world has ever seen. Information could
slip out during a class action law suit that could damage the
reputation of Disney.  This could add even more losses than
anything else.

By offering the refunds on the Baby Einstein DVDs, Disney is
throwing up a white flag and stating that it does not want a
long, drawn-out battle. It is also inferring that their research
might have been wrong, but it will make it up to parents. On Wall
Street, sometimes a showing of weakness is a sign of strength.

Aside from the possibility of a class action law suit, Disney
knows that there will be a lot of factors that will deter parents
from returning their child's Baby Einstein DVDs. Any parent knows
that it is a bad mistake to take away a DVD tat a child really
enjoys watching. This simple fact will cause many parents to not
even consider the refund, and save Disney a lot of money.

There will also be a high number of parents that will not hear
about the refunds offered by Disney for the Baby Einstein DVDs.
There are others that will push off sending the DVDs in for a
refund, and miss the due date. Others may just decide that they
are not willing to go through the steps to acquire the refund.
All of these scenarios will save Disney from the possible money
spent of a class action law suit. Remember, Disney is not only of
the largest companies in the world, it is also one of the

                    New Securities Fraud Suits

PROSHARES TRUST: Stull Stull Files Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y.
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody announced that it has filed
a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the UltraShort Oil and
Gas Fund (NYSE: DUG), 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 shares of the
UYG Fund.  The action seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

In addition to the action concerning the ProShares DUG Fund,
Stull, Stull & Brody is currently investigating potential claims
on behalf of investors in other ProShares leveraged funds:

     Fund                                        Ticker Symbol
     ----                                        -------------
     UltraShort QQQ                              (NYSE: QID)
     UltraShort Dow30                            (NYSE: DXD)
     UltraShort S&P500                           (NYSE: SDS)
     UltraShort Russell3000                      (NYSE: TWQ)
     UltraShort MidCap400                        (NYSE: MZZ)
     UltraShort SmallCap600                      (NYSE: SDD)
     UltraShort Russell2000                      (NYSE: TWM)
     UltraPro Short S&P500                       (NYSE: SPXU)
     UltraShort Russell1000 Value                (NYSE: SJF)
     UltraShort Russell1000 Growth               (NYSE: SFK)
     UltraShort Russell MidCap Value             (NYSE: SJL)
     UltraShort Russell MidCap Growth            (NYSE: SDK)
     UltraShort Russell2000 Value                (NYSE: SJH)
     UltraShort Russell2000 Growth               (NYSE: SKK)
     UltraShort Basic Materials                  (NYSE: SMN)
     UltraShort Consumer Goods                   (NYSE: SZK)
     UltraShort Consumer Services                (NYSE: SCC)
     UltraShort Health Care                      (NYSE: RXD)
     UltraShort Industrials                      (NYSE: SIJ)
     Ultra Financials Fund                       (NYSE: UYG)
     UltraShort Semiconductors                   (NYSE: SSG)
     UltraShort Technology                       (NYSE: REW)
     UltraShort Telecommunications               (NYSE: TLL)
     UltraShort Utilities                        (NYSE: SDP)
     UltraShort MSCI EAFE                        (NYSE: EFU)
     UltraShort MSCI Emerging Markets            (NYSE: EEV)
     UltraShort MSCI Europe                      (NYSE: EPV)
     UltraShort MSCI Pacific ex-Japan            (NYSE: JPX)
     UltraShort MSCI Brazil                      (NYSE: BZQ)
     UltraShort FTSE/Xinhua China 25             (NYSE: FXP)
     UltraShort MSCI Japan                       (NYSE: EWV)
     UltraShort MSCI Mexico Investable Market    (NYSE: SMK)
     UltraShort 7-10 Year Treasury               (NYSE: PST)
     UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury                (NYSE: TBT)
     UltraShort DJ-UBS Commodity                 (NYSE: CMD)
     UltraShort DJ-UBS Crude Oil                 (NYSE: SCO)
     UltraShort Gold                             (NYSE: GLL)
     UltraShort Silver                           (NYSE: ZSL)
     UltraShort Euro                             (NYSE: EUO)
     UltraShort Yen                              (NYSE: YCS)
     Ultra QQQ                                   (NYSE: QLD)
     Ultra Dow30                                 (NYSE: DDM)
     Ultra S&P500                                (NYSE: SSO)
     Ultra Russell3000                           (NYSE: UWC)
     Ultra MidCap400                             (NYSE: MVV)
     Ultra SmallCap600                           (NYSE: SAA)
     Ultra Russell2000                           (NYSE: UWM)
     UltraPro S&P500                             (NYSE: UPRO)
     Ultra Russell1000 Value                     (NYSE: UVG)
     Ultra Russell1000 Growth                    (NYSE: UKF)
     Ultra Russell MidCap Value                  (NYSE: UVU)
     Ultra Russell MidCap Growth                 (NYSE: UKW)
     Ultra Russell2000 Value                     (NYSE: UVT)
     Ultra Russell2000 Growth                    (NYSE: UKK)
     Ultra Basic Materials                       (NYSE: UYM)
     Ultra Consumer Goods                        (NYSE: UGE)
     Ultra Consumer Services                     (NYSE: UCC)
     Ultra Health Care                           (NYSE: RXL)
     Ultra Industrials                           (NYSE: UXI)
     Ultra Oil & Gas                             (NYSE: DIG)
     Ultra Real Estate                           (NYSE: URE)
     Ultra Semiconductors                        (NYSE: USD)
     Ultra Technology                            (NYSE: ROM)
     Ultra Telecommunications                    (NYSE: LTL)
     Ultra Utilities                             (NYSE: UPW)
     Ultra DJ-UBS Commodity                      (NYSE: UCD)
     Ultra DJ-UBS Crude Oil                      (NYSE: UCO)
     Ultra Gold                                  (NYSE: UGL)
     Ultra Silver                                (NYSE: AGQ)
     Ultra Euro                                  (NYSE: ULE)
     Ultra Yen                                   (NYSE: YCL)
     Ultra MSCI EAFE                             (NYSE: EFO)
     Ultra MSCI Emerging Markets                 (NYSE: EET)
     Ultra FTSE/Xinhua China 25                  (NYSE: XPP)
     Ultra MSCI Japan                            (NYSE: EZJ)

such as whether ProShares failed to disclose in its registration
statements: (i) that if shares of the Funds were held for a time
period longer than one day, the likelihood of massive losses was
huge; and (ii) the extent to which performance of the Funds would
invariably diverge from the performance of the benchmark.

The complaint in the ProShares DUG Fund action 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 DUG Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The
DUG Fund seeks investment results that correspond to twice the
inverse (-200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Oil and
Gas Index ("DJOGI"). Accordingly, the DUG Fund is supposed to
deliver double the inverse return of the DJOGI, which fell
approximately 37 percent from January 2, 2008 through December
31, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for investors who
anticipated a decline in the U.S. Oil and Gas market. In other
words, the DUG Fund should have appreciated by over 74 percent
during this period. However, the DUG Fund fell approximately 30
percent during this period.

The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Act
by failing to disclose the following risks, inter alia, in the
Registration Statement:

     (1) if DUG Fund shares were held for a time period longer
         than one day, the likelihood of catastrophic losses was
         huge; and

     (2) the extent to which performance of the DUG Fund would
         inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJOGI --
         i.e., the overwhelming probability, if not certainty, of
         spectacular divergence.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ProShares DUG shares, and
either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares,
you may apply to the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in the
action. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may
retain Stull, Stull & Brody, or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action. Stull, Stull & Brody has
litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws in
federal courts over the past 40 years and has obtained court
approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull,
Stull & Brody maintains offices in New York and Los Angeles.

If you wish to discuss this action or the investigation regarding
any of the Funds listed above, or if you have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect
to these matters, please contact Aaron Brody, Esq., at Stull,
Stull & Brody by e-mail at ssbny@aol.com, or by calling toll-free
1-800-337-4983, or by fax to 1-212-490-2022, or by writing to
Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,

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  * * *