---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, April 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 72

                           Headlines

AK STEEL: Sixth Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Bailey" Litigation
ARKANSAS BEST: Shippers Drop Fuel Surcharges Litigation in Ga.
BP PLC: Wash. Judge Gives Preliminary Approval to $43.25M Deal
CASH STORE: Proceeds With Implementation of Ontario Settlement
CHOCOLATE MAKERS: Pa. Court Puts Price Fixing Litigation on Hold

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces $350M Suit in Calif. Over Defective Brakes
INTERSTATE HOTELS: Expects Settlement Payments Fulfilled in 2009
LJ INT'L: Final Hearing for Suit Settlement Set for Summer 2009
MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Appeal to Dismissed Securities Suit
MEXICAN SPECIALTY: Appeals Court Overturns Rulings in Ala. Suits

SERVICEMASTER CO: Consolidated CD&R Deal Suit Pending in Tenn.
SERVICEMASTER CO: July 14 Hearing Set for Squires Certification
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeal to Ruling in "Galura" Action Pending
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Opposes Class Certification Bid in Arbitration
SONY BMG: N.Y. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in "Allman" Lawsuit

SUNRISE SENIOR: D.C. Securities Fraud Suit Deal Pending Approval
SUNTRUST BANKS: Webb Klase Files Suit Regarding Overdraft Fees
TJX COS: AmeriFirstBank's Lawsuit Pending in Massachusetts Court
TJX COS: Settlement of Consumer Track Claims Approved in Dec.
TRAILER BRIDGE: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Pricing Practice

TROPHY CLUB: Faces Nev. Litigation Alleging Construction Defects
TWEEN BRANDS: Pursuing Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit in Ohio
TXU CORP: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Tex. Litigation
VISTAPRINT LTD: Faces Suits Over Membership Discounts in Texas


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARCLAYS BANK: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
CORUS BANKSHARES: Glancy Binkow Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
CORUS BANKSHARES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Ill. Securities Lawsuit
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Pomerantz Haudek Files N.J. Securities Suit
MECHEL OAO: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing

MECHEL OAO: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
MECHEL OAO: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ROCHESTER FUND: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation
ZYNEX INC: Dyer & Berens Files Colo. Securities Fraud Litigation
ZYNEX INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colorado

ZYNEX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Litigation in Colo.


                           *********

AK STEEL: Sixth Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Bailey" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a ruling
in favor of a $663 million settlement agreement between AK Steel
Corp. and Middletown Works retirees, Jessica Heffner of The
Middletown reports.

Judges Eugene Siler, Deborah Cook and David McKeague affirmed a
February 2008 ruling by the U.S. Southern District Court in
Cincinnati, effectively ending a class-action lawsuit filed in
July 2006 over health care by the Concerned Armco/AK Steel
Retired Employees, according to The Middletown report.

According to the Aug. 21, 2008 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, certain class members in the matter "Bailey et al. v.
AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv-00468-MRB," are appealing to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a decision by
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that
granted final approval to a $663-million settlement in the case.

                        Case Background

On June 1, 2006, AK Steel notified approximately 4,600 of its
current retirees (or their surviving spouses) who formerly were
hourly and salaried members of the Armco Employees Independent
Federation that the company was terminating their existing
healthcare insurance benefits plan and implementing a new plan
more consistent with current steel industry practices (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2008).

However, this new plan would require the retirees to contribute
to the cost of their healthcare benefits, effective Oct. 1,
2006.

On July 18, 2006, a group of nine former hourly and salaried
members of the AEIF filed a purported class action lawsuit
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make
changes to their healthcare benefits.

The named plaintiffs in the action seek injunctive relief
(including an order retroactively rescinding the changes) and
unspecified monetary relief for themselves and the other members
of the putative class.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to prevent AK Steel from implementing the
previously announced changes to healthcare benefits with respect
to the AEIF-represented hourly employees.

AK Steel opposed that motion, but on Sept. 22, 2006, the trial
court issued an order granting the motion.  Almost immediately,
AK Steel filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal of the decision to
grant the preliminary injunction.

                           Settlement

However, while the appeal was pending, AK Steel announced on
Oct. 8, 2007, that it had reached a tentative settlement of the
claims asserted by the retirees.

Accordingly, on Oct. 18, 2007, the pending appeal from the
preliminary injunction was dismissed at the request of the
parties.

Under the terms of the settlement, AK Steel will transfer to a
Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association trust all post
employment benefit obligations owed to the plaintiffs under the
company's applicable health and welfare plans.

The VEBA will be utilized to fund the future OPEB Obligations to
the Class Members.  AK Steel will initially fund the VEBA with a
contribution of $468 million in cash, with three subsequent
annual cash contributions of $65 million each, for a total of
$663 million.  The settlement will relieve AK Steel of any
further liability for any OPEB Obligations to the plaintiffs.

                       Recent Developments

On Oct. 25, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion asking the
Court to approve the settlement.

On Nov. 1, 2007, an order was issued by the Court granting the
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.  On Nov. 2,
2007, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval to
the Settlement and scheduled a Feb. 12, 2008 fairness hearing to
consider final approval of the deal.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the Court issued a written decision approving
the settlement.  The final judgment formally approving the
Settlement was entered on Feb. 29, 2008, and the settlement
became effective on that date.

Certain class members who opposed the settlement have filed
appeals from the approval order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, Case Nos. 08-3166 and 08-3354.  No briefs
have yet been filed and no hearing date has been set in those
appeals, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Bailey, et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00468-MRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Judge Michael R. Barrett, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Marvin Cook, Esq. (dcook@dmcllc.com)
         Stephen A. Simon, Esq. (ssimon@dmcllc.com)
         22 West Ninth Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-721-6500
                513-721-7500

Representing the company is:

         Gregory Parker Rogers, Esq. (Rogers@Taftlaw.com)
         Taft, Stettinius & Hollister
         1800 First Star Tower
         425 Walnut Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-357-9349

Representing the objectors is:

         Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Esq. (gvwhitaker@vssp.com)
         Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease
         Atrium Two, 221 E Fourth Street, Suite 2000
         Cincinnati, OH 45201-0236
         Phone: 513-723-4000


ARKANSAS BEST: Shippers Drop Fuel Surcharges Litigation in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of 11 shippers dropped their consolidated class-action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia that accuses Arkansas Best Corp. and other less-than-
truckload carriers of conspiring throughout four years or more
to fix fuel surcharges on LTL shipments remains pending, John
Gallagher of The Journal of Commerce Online reports.

The federal court dismissed the case for lack of evidence in
January.  The plaintiffs had until March 16, 2009 to amend their
complaint, which they dropped, according to The Journal of
Commerce Online report.

"They gave up," said an attorney representing one of the
carriers.  "The judge's order made it clear that to file a
complaint that would justify the case moving forward, the
plaintiffs needed actual facts that would lead a reasonable
person to conclude some conspiracy existed.  Clearly the
plaintiffs had no such facts,"  The Journal of Commerce Online
reported.

In his decision, Judge William S. Duffey of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia concluded the
plaintiffs' allegations "do not show enough facts for the Court
to find that agreement (among the carriers) was plausible.  What
the allegations show instead is that all LTL service providers
had the same incentives to charge the same shipping rates, and
that over time they eventually each did so," reports The Journal
of Commerce Online.

                         Case Background

On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. (doing
business as Water Tech) and C.B.J.T. (doing business as
Agricultural Supply), on behalf of themselves and other
plaintiffs, filed the putative class-action lawsuit against
Arkansas Best and other companies engaged in the LTL trucking
business in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009).

The other named defendants in the complaint are:

       -- Arkansas Best Corp.,
       -- Averitt Express,
       -- Con-Way, Inc.,
       -- Fedex Corp.,
       -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.,
       -- Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC,
       -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.,
       -- R+L Carriers, Inc.,
       -- Saia, Inc.,
       -- United Parcel Service, Inc.,
       -- YRC Worldwide Inc., and
       -- Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc.

Farm Water and its subsidiary, C.B.J.T. contend that the
practice dates back to 2003.  They assert that the carriers
agreed to impose identical or nearly identical surcharges by
linking them to diesel fuel prices published by the U.S.
Department of Energy and by listing surcharges on their websites
to communicate pricing.

The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or
their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003, through the
conclusion of the trial in this matter.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed
         for LTL services sold in the United States;

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this
         complaint and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business and property plaintiffs and
         other members of the classes;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         LTL services sold in the United States during the class
         period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the damages class.

The plaintiffs pray that:

     -- the court determines that this action may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure;

     -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts
        done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co-
        conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of
        Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the
        damages class against defendants for three times the
        amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the
        damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs
        of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- defendants and their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner:

         (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
             combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging
             in any other contract, combination or conspiracy
             having a similar purpose or effect, and from
             adopting or following any practice, plan, program
             or device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
             other person engaged in the manufacture,
             distribution or sale of any product except to the
             extent necessary in connection with a bona fide
             sales transaction between the parties to such
             communications; and

     -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other,
        further and different relief as the case may require and
        the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is "Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. et al. v.
Arkansas Best Corporation et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00660-WSD,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Judge William S. Duffey, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq. (chrisb@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

          Jacqueline Bos, Esq. (jbos@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-6240

          W. Perry Brandt, Esq. (perry.brandt@bryancave.com)
          Bryan Cave, LLP
          Suite 3500, One Kansas City Place
          1200 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-374-3206
          Fax: 816-374-3300

          Thomas F. Cullen, Jr., Esq. (tfcullen@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Phone: 202-879-3939

               - and -

          Joel S. Sanders, Esq. (jsanders@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
          One Montgomery Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-393-8268


BP PLC: Wash. Judge Gives Preliminary Approval to $43.25M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington gave preliminary approval to a
$43.25 million settlement in a securities class-action lawsuit
accusing BP PLC and BP Exploration Alaska Inc. of misleading
investors about the integrity of its pipelines prior to a major
2006 oil spill that caused the oil giant's stock to drop, Law360
reports.

Judge Pechman signed off on the deal on April 8, 2009, according
to the Law360 report.


CASH STORE: Proceeds With Implementation of Ontario Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. (TSX:CSF), formerly
Rentcash Inc., announced that it has publicized the notice of
settlement of the Ontario Class Action lawsuit commenced in 2004
concerning brokerage fees and interest charged to customers of
The Cash Store and Instaloans.

     The notice details claim and opt-out procedures for loan
and brokerage transactions to which the settlement applies.  The
Ontario settlement applies to loans brokered by The Cash Store
and Instaloans locations throughout Canada, with the exception
of British Columbia and Alberta.

     The notice of settlement can be found at the following
websites: http://www.cashstore.caand http://www.instaloans.ca.

     In addition, the notice of settlement and associated claim
forms are being mailed to the last known addresses of all
eligible class members and the notice of settlement will be
posted at all The Cash Store and Instaloans locations in Canada
until June 30, 2009, save and except locations in British
Columbia and Alberta.


CHOCOLATE MAKERS: Pa. Court Puts Price Fixing Litigation on Hold
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit accusing the U.S. chocolate industry of price fixing
will be put on hold until the defendants can appeal a federal
judge's decision not to throw the suit out, Pete Shellem of The
Patriot-News reports

In a memorandum issued on April 8, 2009, Judge Christopher C.
Conner of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania allowed defendants, which include The Hershey Co.,
to appeal his decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.  However, Judge Conner ruled that the parties can
continue discovery while the appeal is pending, according to The
Patriot-News report.

Pete Shellem of The Patriot-News previously reported that Judge
Conner refused to throw out a lawsuit accusing the U.S.
Chocolate industry of price fixing and gave the plaintiffs
additional time to prove their claims (Class Action Reporter,
March 9, 2009).

In his 83-page opinion issued on March 4, 2009, Judge Conner
denied most of the motions to dismiss filed by the chocolate
companies, including The Hershey Co., except for some claims
under state consumer laws, reports The Patriot-News.

He said the plaintiffs have provided enough evidence to allow
claims of antitrust violations to proceed and granted them
additional time to tie in the actions of the companies' foreign
subsidiaries to the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts, according to
The Patriot-News report.

The 87 class-action lawsuits filed across the country were
consolidated and assigned to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania by an administrative order
citing Hershey's headquarters in the area.

The Patriot-News reported that the lawsuits against Hershey,
Mars, Cadbury and Nestle, which collectively control 75 percent
of the chocolate market in the U.S., allege the companies
conspired to raise chocolate candy prices by about 10 percent in
December 2002, 6 percent in December 2004, and 5 percent in
April 2007.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces $350M Suit in Calif. Over Defective Brakes
----------------------------------------------------------------
     General Motors Corporation (GM) faces a $350 million class
action lawsuit for defective emergency brakes.  National
automobile defect law firm Bisnar Chase will be assisting the
legal team pursuing GM, at the request of the two law firms
representing the plaintiffs.  The case was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, Case
#324622.

     The Houston, Texas, class action law firm of Heard, Robins,
Cloud and Lubel and the Los Angeles, Calif., class action law
firm of Arbogast and Berns requested Bisnar Chase to head the
litigation of the defective emergency brake portion of the class
action lawsuit.  Bisnar Chase was selected due to the firm's
national expertise in successfully litigating automobile defect
cases.

     "It is an honor to have two prestigious law firms invite us
to assist them in this very important automobile defect case,"
said John Bisnar, partner of Bisnar Chase. "It's one thing to
get good and sometimes great results in our auto defect cases;
it is another when your work is recognized and appreciated by
your peers."

     Court documents show that LaRonda Hunter and Robin Gonzales
are suing GM on behalf of themselves and all other owners of
several makes of GM trucks and SUVs, alleging defective
emergency brakes.

     According to the class action lawsuit, from 1999 through
2005, GM manufactured, advertised and sold several makes of
trucks and SUVs with defective emergency brake systems, in which
the design would cause them to wear out prematurely.  GM
recalled the vehicles, but only the ones with manual
transmissions, a very small percentage of the vehicles with
these brake systems.

     In their class action lawsuit, the women are asking that GM
replace the emergency brakes.  They are also asking for damages
and monetary restitution; for themselves and the estimated 4
million owners and lessees of these GM vehicles.

     "For a small amount per vehicle, General Motors could have
solved this problem nearly a decade ago, when they first learned
of the defective emergency brakes," said Brian Chase, partner at
Bisnar Chase.  "But it wasn't until six years later, after
knowingly selling millions of defective vehicles, that GM
finally corrected the defective emergency brakes in the manual
transmission vehicles.  However, to this day GM has not
corrected emergency brakes on the trucks and SUVs with automatic
transmissions, nor has GM warned its customers about the
emergency brakes on these vehicles.  By its behavior, GMC has
demonstrated that it puts profits over people."

     The General Motors vehicles covered by the class action are
the: 2000-2003 GMC Yukon (1500 Series); 2000-2003 Chevrolet
Suburban Tahoe (1500 Series); 1999- 2003 Chevrolet Silverado
(1500 Series, trucks); 2002-2003 Cadillac Escalade XT; 2003
Cadillac Escalade ESV; 1998-2003 Chevrolet Blazer; 2002-2003
Chevrolet TrailBlazer ET; 1998-2003 GMC Jimmy; 1999-2003 GMC
Sierra (1500 Series); 2002-2003 GMC Envoy XL; 2002-2003
Chevrolet Avalanche (1500 Series) and 1998-2003 Oldsmobile
Bravada, according to court documents.

For more details, contact:

          Brian Chase
          Bisnar Chase
          One Newport Place
          1301 Dove St., Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA  92660
          Phone: 949-752-2999
          e-mail: bchase@bestattorney.com
          Web site: http://www.bestattorney.com


INTERSTATE HOTELS: Expects Settlement Payments Fulfilled in 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. expects payments for
settlement of a labor-related class action lawsuit and related
legal and administrative fees to be made by Dec. 31, 2009.

During the third quarter of 2008, the company reached a
settlement with plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed
against numerous defendants including, Sunstone Hotel
Properties, Inc., its subsidiary management company.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants did not compensate
hourly employees for break time in accordance with California
state labor requirements.

The company's portion of the gross settlement agreed upon was
$1.7 million, which includes approximately $0.5 million to be
paid for the plaintiffs' legal costs and other various
administrative costs to oversee payment to the individuals who
will participate in the settlement.  The remaining $1.2 million
of the gross settlement is the maximum amount that the company's
subsidiary has agreed to pay out to participating plaintiffs in
the aggregate.

According to its March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, as part of this settlement, the company has
guaranteed that it will make a minimum payment to all
participating plaintiffs of at least 50 percent of the proposed
settlement, or approximately $0.6 million.

Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. -- http://www.ihrco.com-- is
a hotel real estate investor and an independent operator.  The
company operates in two segments: hotel ownership (through
whole-ownership and joint ventures) and hotel management.


LJ INT'L: Final Hearing for Suit Settlement Set for Summer 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing on the settlement of the consolidated
shareholder class-action lawsuit against LJ International Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California has been set for the summer of 2009.

In September 2007, several shareholder class-action suits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the company and certain of its officers and
directors entitled, "Apple v. LJ International Inc., et al. (No.
07-06076)," "Cooper v. LJ International, Inc., et al. (No.
07/06213)," and "Lieben v. LJ International Inc., et. al. (No.
07-06216)."

On Feb. 8, 2008, the judge to whom the cases were referred
consolidated the cases and appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  On April 8, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
and consolidated complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  It seeks an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of all persons who purchased LJ common stock
during the period from Feb. 15, 2007, to Sept. 6, 2007.  The
complaint alleges that LJ's Feb. 15, 2007 press release, which
provided financial guidance for the company's fourth quarter and
year-end 2006 net income and earnings, contained materially
false and misleading statements.  It alleges that the defendants
overstated the company's fiscal 2006 financial results, and thus
artificially inflated the market price of LJ's common stock
throughout the Class Period.

On May 27, 2008, the company (the only defendant served with the
Complaint) moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On Jan. 14, 2009, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the lead plaintiff pursuant to which it will
create a settlement fund of $2,000,000 in cash, to be funded
entirely by its insurer.  As part of the settlement agreement,
all claims alleged in the lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice.  The settlement agreement is subject to preliminary
approval and final approval by the Court.

On Feb. 23, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the parties'
request for preliminary approval of the settlement.  Subject to
minor changes in the settlement documents, the Court indicated
that it would preliminarily approve the settlement, and set a
final approval hearing for the summer of 2009.

The parties have lodged an Amended Stipulation of Settlement
with the court for its preliminary approval, according to the
company's March 31, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

LJ International Inc. -- http://www.ljintl.com-- is a
vertically integrated company that designs, brands, markets,
distributes and retails a range of fine jewelry.  While the
company specializes in the colored jewelry segment, it also
offers high-end pieces set in yellow gold, white gold, platinum
or sterling silver and adorned with colored stones, diamonds,
pearls and precious stones.  LJ International Inc. distributes
to fine jewelers, department stores, national jewelry chains and
electronic and specialty retailers throughout North America and
Western Europe, and the company conducts its jewelry retail
business through the ENZO brand in the Asia Pacific region, with
the primary focus in the People's Republic of China market.


MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Appeal to Dismissed Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medis Technologies, Ltd. is defending the plaintiffs' appeal to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's
dismissal of a securities fraud class-action lawsuit against the
company, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit was filed on April 23, 2007, against the company and,
among others, the company's chief executive officer.  It alleged
that the company issued a false and misleading press release on
April 13, 2007, regarding sales of the company's "24/7" fuel
cell power packs to a major international company by overstating
the importance of those sales, which resulted in the company's
common stock being artificially inflated.

The litigation sought relief under Rule 10b-5 against all the
defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the company's chief executive
officer.

Thereafter, on Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed the first
amended class action complaint, which essentially alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and
misleading press release on April 13, 2007, stating that the
company had begun "commercial sales" of "Microsoft-Branded"
Power Packs to Microsoft.  The announcement is alleged to have
caused a temporary fluctuation in the stock price, causing the
stock to trade from $18.29 to as high as $24.10 per share before
closing at $20.32 per share.

The plaintiffs contend that the April 13 Press Release was
misleading because it failed to specifically state that the sale
to Microsoft was for a small quantity and that Microsoft
intended to use the Power Packs as give-aways.  Moreover, the
plaintiffs state, the units were not Microsoft branded.

However, the April 13 Press Release explicitly conveyed the
landmark importance of the sale to the company and the fuel cell
industry, and the company has vigorously denied any allegations
of wrongdoing, standing by the truth of the April 13 Press
Release.

The plaintiffs' putative class includes those who "purchased the
common stock, call options, and/or sold put options of Medis for
the time period April 13, 2007 through April 17, 2007."

On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, arguing that the first amended complaint
failed as a matter of law because it did not allege "scienter,"
i.e., that the defendants acted with a culpable intent.  They
argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs could not allege
any reason why the defendants would seek to temporarily inflate
the company's stock price.

On Aug. 19, 2008, the company issued a press release announcing
that Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, has granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the putative class-action lawsui, and ordered the case
to be closed.

On Sept. 10, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's order to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs-Appellants' filed their moving
brief on Nov. 20, 2008.  Defendants-Appellee's filed their
opposition brief on Jan. 15, 2009 and Plaintiffs-Appellants'
filed their reply brief on Feb. 13, 2009.

The suit is "Kou v. Medis Technologies, Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-03230-PAC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Paul A. Crotty, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Phillip C. Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Fax: 212-202-3827

Representing the defendant is:

         Deborah Hilarie Renner (drenner@sonnenschein.com)
         Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
         1221 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         Phone: 212-768-6896
         Fax: 212-768-6800


MEXICAN SPECIALTY: Appeals Court Overturns Rulings in Ala. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned a
judge's ruling which dismissed class-action lawsuits in Alabama
accusing two businesses of failing to safeguard consumers'
credit information, The Associated Press reports.

The plaintiffs claimed Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc. and Rave
Motion Pictures of Birmingham violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act by printing more than the last five digits of a customer's
credit card number on electronically generated receipts,
according to the AP report.

The Birmingham News previously reported that Judge William
Acker, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama ruled unconstitutional a federal law that assessed
punitive damages against retailers that printed too much credit
card information on customers' receipts (Class Action Reporter,
June 3, 2008).

U.S. District Judge William M. Acker Jr. ruled that the law's
provision for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each
"willful violation" is unconstitutionally vague and excessive,
reports The Associated Press.

However, a three-judge panel found on April 9, 2009 that it
isn't, and sent the case back for a jury to decide if necessary,
The Associated Press reported.


SERVICEMASTER CO: Consolidated CD&R Deal Suit Pending in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ServiceMaster Co. expects the dismissal of the consolidated
class-action suits of Kaiman, Golombuski and Sokol pending in
Tennessee over the company's acquisition by New York-based
Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc., according to its March 31, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

According to Eric Smith of The Memphis Daily News, ServiceMaster
shareholders approved the merger agreement, thus allowing the
acquisition of ServiceMaster by a corporation called
ServiceMaster Global Holdings Inc., formerly CDRSVM Topco Inc.
(Class Action Reporter, July 5, 2007).

About 67% of the outstanding shares entitled to vote at a
special meeting approved the merger, which now is subject to
regulatory approval.  The transaction is expected to close in
the third quarter.

Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of
ServiceMaster by CD&R, five complaints were filed against
ServiceMaster concerning the proposed deal:

      1. Kaiman v. Spainhour, et al. (filed with the Chancery
         Court in Memphis, Tennessee);

      2. Golombuski v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed with
         the Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee);

      3. Sokol and Bowen v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al.
         (filed with the Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee);

      4. Palmer v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed with the
         Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois); and

      5. Smith v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed with the
         Chancery Court for Newcastle County, Delaware).

All of the complaints name ServiceMaster, its CEO and its Board
of Directors as defendants.  The Kaiman, Golombuski and Smith
complaints additionally name CD&R as a defendant and the Smith
complaint also names the investors in CDRSVM Topco, Inc.

All of the complaints allege breach of fiduciary duties and seek
injunctive relief.

The Kaiman complaint also contains a specific count seeking
indemnification of costs.

The Golombuski and Smith complaints also allege that CD&R aided
and abetted the individual defendants' breach of fiduciary
duties, while the Kaiman complaint generally alleges that
"defendants" breached their fiduciary duties or aided and
abetted a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Smith complaint also alleges that there are material
omissions in the preliminary proxy statement relating to the
proposed acquisition that the Company filed with the SEC on
April 16, 2007.

All five of the complaints challenged and indicated an intent to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of ServiceMaster.

After the plaintiff in the Smith case filed a motion for
expedited discovery and for the scheduling of a preliminary
injunction hearing, the parties to the Smith case reached an
agreement in principle to settle that case on a class wide basis
and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting that
agreement.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides, among other things,
for ServiceMaster to include certain additional disclosures in
the final Proxy Statement with respect to the proposed merger
(subsequently made on June 19, 2007) and for a reduction of the
Company termination fee from $100 million to $90.8 million
(subsequently made).

The Memorandum of Understanding stated that if the settlement
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding is approved,
plaintiff and his counsel intend to petition the court for an
award of fees and expenses.

It further stated that the parties reached no agreement with
regard to an appropriate award of fees to plaintiff's counsel,
and defendants reserved all rights to oppose any fee
application.

Notwithstanding the settlement agreement reached in the Smith
case, the plaintiffs in the other four pending actions
nonetheless attempted to pursue those actions.

The Kaiman, Golombuski and Sokol complaints were consolidated,
and the Tennessee court handling those cases entered an order
denying the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
granting a stay of these actions pending the resolution of the
Smith case in Delaware.

The Illinois court handling the Palmer case denied the
plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and dismissed the
complaint on the basis of the pending settlement in Delaware.

The plaintiffs in Palmer appealed to the Illinois Appellate
Court.  The Palmer appeal was voluntarily dismissed on Oct. 25,
2007.

Confirmatory discovery has been completed and, on July 21, 2008,
the Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the Court.  On
Sept. 29, 2008, the Court approved the settlement, and awarded
plaintiffs $500,000 in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  The
judgment is now final and non-appealable, and the company
satisfied the payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in
November 2008.

The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com/-- is a
national company serving both residential and commercial
customers.  The Company's services include lawn care, landscape
maintenance, termite and pest control, home warranty, disaster
response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster restoration,
house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.


SERVICEMASTER CO: July 14 Hearing Set for Squires Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion for class certification has been set for
July 14, 2009, in the lawsuit styled, "Squires v. The
ServiceMaster Company and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc."

On March 11, 2008, a lawsuit was filed by Vernon Squires, the
company's former General Counsel, on behalf of himself and a
putative class, against Servicemaster and CD&R, in the Chancery
Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.

The Complaint alleges that, in connection with the acquisition
of the company by CD&R, the defendants improperly canceled out-
of-the-money stock options that had been previously granted to
individuals in connection with certain stock option plans.

The Complaint asserts causes of action against the company for
breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, conversion, and for a declaratory judgment, and asserts
additional claims against CD&R.

The Complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
against the company.

No specific monetary demand has been asserted.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the Squires
litigation.  A hearing on that motion was held on Dec. 12, 2008,
and the motion was denied, according to the company's March 31,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com/-- is a
national company serving both residential and commercial
customers.  The Company's services include lawn care, landscape
maintenance, termite and pest control, home warranty, disaster
response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster restoration,
house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeal to Ruling in "Galura" Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. continues to appeal and defend the matter
"Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc."

In this action, originally filed on Dec. 30, 2002, in the
Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, the plaintiffs
allege that the company and its Florida dealerships sold an
anti-theft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of
any customer of any of the company's Florida dealerships who
purchased the anti-theft protection product since Dec. 30, 1998.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in the
lawsuit.

Sonic subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's class
certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals.

In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals partially affirmed
the trial court's class certification, and overruled a portion
of the trial court's class certification.

The company intends to continue its defense of this lawsuit,
including the appeal of the trial court's class certification
order, and to assert available defenses, according to the
company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  As of Feb. 22,
2008, the company operated 169 dealership franchises at 144
dealership locations, representing 33 different brands of cars
and light trucks, and 34 collision repair centers in 15 states.
Each of Sonic's dealerships provides services, including sales
of both new and used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement
parts and performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint
and repair services, and arrangement of extended service
contracts, financing and insurance and other aftermarket
products for its automotive customers.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Opposes Class Certification Bid in Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. is opposing claimants' Motion for Class
Certification as a national class action including all of the
states in which the company operates dealerships, excluding
California and Florida.

Several private civil actions have been filed against the
company and several of its dealership subsidiaries that purport
to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and
make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.

One of these private civil actions has been filed in South
Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of
its South Carolina subsidiaries.

This group of plaintiffs' attorneys has filed another private
civil class-action lawsuit in state court in North Carolina
seeking certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs.

The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina
state court action have since been consolidated into a single
proceeding in private arbitration.

Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of this class of customers.

On Nov. 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class-
action lawsuit including all of the states in which Sonic
operates dealerships, excluding California and Florida,
according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  As of Feb. 22,
2008, the company operated 169 dealership franchises at 144
dealership locations, representing 33 different brands of cars
and light trucks, and 34 collision repair centers in 15 states.
Each of Sonic's dealerships provides services, including sales
of both new and used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement
parts and performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint
and repair services, and arrangement of extended service
contracts, financing and insurance and other aftermarket
products for its automotive customers.


SONY BMG: N.Y. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in "Allman" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
reinstated the purported class-action lawsuit, "Allman et al v.
Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-03252-GBD,"
by denying a dismissal motion by Sony BMG Music Entertainment,
Inc., Windsor Genova of AHN reports.

The ruling paves the way for the resumption of the proceedings
of the case on its merits, according to attorneys for the Allman
Brothers Band, who filed the case back in 2006, according to the
AHN report.

In a press release, Brian Caplan, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow &
Rudoff LLP, "We are pleased with Judge Daniels' decision to move
forward and are looking forward to this case going before a jury
on the merits of our claim," AHN reported.

In April 2006, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP and Probstein &
Weiner sued Sony Music, alleging the company is not paying its
recording artists 50% of the net licensing revenue it received
in connection with the master recordings licensed to Apple, Inc.
and other third-party providers of digital downloads as it is
contractually obligated to do (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1,
2006).

Instead of paying its recording artists the approximate 30 cents
of the 70 cents it receives for digital downloads, after
deducting payments to music publishers, the suit alleges that
Sony Music:

     -- wrongfully treats each download as a sale of a physical
        phonorecord (i.e. a CD or cassette tape);

     -- only pays on 85% of such "sales" (allegedly because of
        product breakage);

     -- deducts a 20% fee for container/packaging charges
        associated with the digital downloads although there are
        none; and

     -- reduces its payments by a further 50% "audiofile"
        deduction, yielding a payment to the Sony Music
        recording artist of approximately 4 1/2 cents per
        digital download.

According to the complaint, The Allman Brothers Band, Cheap
Trick and other members of the class-action were damaged in the
amount of millions of dollars through the loss of royalty
payments, which Sony Music retained for its own benefit in
breach of the applicable contractual record royalty provisions.

The suit is "Allman et al v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-03252-GBD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge George B.
Daniels.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brian D. Caplan, Esq. (bcaplan@labaton.com)
          Conor R. Crowley, Esq. (ccrowley@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 907-0700 or (212) 907-0883,
          Fax: (212) 818-0477 or (212) 883-7083

Representing the defendant is:

          Jonathan M. Sperling, Esq. (jsperling@cov.com)
          Covington & Burling LLP
          1330 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212.841.1153


SUNRISE SENIOR: D.C. Securities Fraud Suit Deal Pending Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement to settle a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
pending against Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia remains subject to court
approval.

Initially, two putative securities class-action complaints,
styled, "United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 880-Retail
Food Employers Joint Pension Fund, et al. v. Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07CV00102," and "First New York
Securities, L.L.C. v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:07CV000294," were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia on Jan. 16, 2007, and Feb. 8, 2007,
respectively.

Both complaints alleged securities law violations by Sunrise and
certain of its current or former officers and directors based on
allegedly improper accounting practices and stock option
backdating, violations of generally accepted accounting
principles, false and misleading corporate disclosures, and
insider trading of Sunrise stock.

Both sought to certify a class for the period Aug. 4, 2005
through June 15, 2006, and both requested damages and equitable
relief, including an accounting and disgorgement.

Pursuant to procedures provided by statute, two other parties --
the Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System -- appeared and jointly moved for the consolidation of
the two securities cases and for appointment as lead plaintiffs,
which requests the Court ultimately approved.

The cases were consolidated on July 31, 2007, under the caption,
"In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 07-CV-00102-RBW."

Thereafter, a stipulation was submitted pursuant to which the
new putative class plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2008.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and names as defendants the company,
Paul J. Klaassen, Teresa M. Klaassen, Thomas B. Newell, Tiffany
L. Tomasso, Larry E. Hulse, Carl G. Adams, Barron Anschutz, and
Kenneth J. Abod.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on
Aug. 11, 2008.

Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition brief to the motion to
dismiss on Oct. 10, 2008.  The parties subsequently submitted
stipulations to the court noting that they had met with a
mediator and were pursuing settlement discussions, and, as a
result, requested and obtained from the court extensions of the
date for the defendants to file their reply brief in support of
their motion to dismiss.

On Feb. 27, 2009, Sunrise and its current or former directors or
officers who were named individually as defendants entered into
an agreement, subject to court approval, to settle the putative
class action.  The settlement calls for the certification by the
court of a class consisting of persons (with exceptions) who
purchased Sunrise common stock between Feb. 26, 2004 and July
28, 2006, and payment of $13.5 million in cash into an interest-
bearing escrow account by March 6, 2009.  Upon final approval of
the settlement by the court, the funds, less any costs of
administration and any attorneys' fees and expenses that the
court might award to plaintiffs' counsel, would be disbursed to
participating class members according to a distribution plan to
be submitted to and approved by the court, according to the
company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-00102-RBW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Reggie B.
Walton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-789-3960
          Fax: 202-789-1813

               - and -

          Elizabeth Shattuck Finberg, Esq. (efinberg@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

          Nathaniel Thomas Connally, III (ntconnally@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson, LLP
          8300 Greensboro Drive, Ste. 1100
          McLean, VA 22102-3609
          Phone: 703-610-6100
          Fax: 703-610-6200

               - and -

          Laurie Beth Smilan, Esq. (laurie.smilan@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          11955 Freedom Drive, Suite 500
          Reston, VA 20190
          Phone: 703-456-5220


SUNTRUST BANKS: Webb Klase Files Suit Regarding Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Atlanta-based law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC has filed
a class action lawsuit against SunTrust Banks, Inc. alleging
that SunTrust engages in fraudulent, deceptive, unfair, and bad
faith business practices with respect to its assessment of
overdraft fees on consumer checking accounts.

     The suit also claims that SunTrust, which is headquartered
in Atlanta, Georgia, has engaged in improper and unfair
practices in order to increase the number and amount of
overdraft and/or service fees imposed upon consumers' accounts.

     The case, styled, "Peterson v. SunTrust Banks, Inc.," was
filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia on April
8, 2009 and has been assigned Case No. 2009CV167326.

     According to the suit, Webb, Klase & Lemond's client had
overdraft fees deducted from her consumer checking account even
though there were sufficient funds in her account to cover the
transactions in question.

     In addition, the suit alleges that SunTrust routinely
enforces a policy whereby charges incurred are posted to
consumer accounts in order of largest to smallest amounts, even
when larger charges occur days after smaller charges in an
effort to maximize the number and amount of overdraft and/or
service fees imposed upon consumer accounts.  SunTrust's policy
allows it to post items to an account in an order that is not
chronologically based and is not based on any other proper
rationale.

     Plaintiff asserts that SunTrust could easily program its
software systems to minimize insufficient funds fees without any
increased costs to SunTrust.  Instead, SunTrust has programmed
its systems to order charges in such a way as to maximize fee
income.  The Complaint alleges that at the very least, these
practices violate SunTrust's obligation to act in good faith and
to deal fairly with customers; at worst, they amount to
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices.

For more details, contact:

          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
          Phone: (770) 444-9325
          e-mail: contact@webbllc.com
          Web site: http://www.webbllc.com


TJX COS: AmeriFirstBank's Lawsuit Pending in Massachusetts Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action lawsuit styled, "AmeriFirstBank et al.
v. The TJX Companies, Inc. et al.," Massachusetts Superior Court
08-0229, remains pending.

On Jan. 16, 2008, AmeriFirstBank and an additional plaintiff
filed the action in Massachusetts state court raising
allegations and claims nearly identical to those asserted in the
Financial Institutions Track of the purported federal class
action.

The Financial Institutions Track were lawsuits putatively filed
on behalf of financial institutions that received alerts from
MasterCard or Visa related to the Computer Intrusion identifying
payment cards issued by such financial institutions and that
thereafter suffered damages from actual reissuance costs,
monitoring expenses or fraud loss.

The complaint stated plaintiffs' intention to bring class
allegations depending on pre-trial rulings by the state court.

The state court stayed the state action pending adjudication by
the federal court of the appeals in the Financial Institutions
Track.

On March 30, 2009, the First Circuit issued the opinion on the
appeals, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

The TJX Companies, Inc. -- http://www.tjx.com/-- is an off-
price retailer of apparel and home fashions in the United States
and worldwide.  TJX operates five business segments, three in
the United States and one each in Canada and Europe.  All of the
company's stores, except HomeGoods and HomeSense, sell apparel
for the entire family, including footwear, jewelry and
accessories, and a limited offering of giftware and home
fashions.  The HomeGoods and HomeSense stores offer home
fashions and home furnishings.


TJX COS: Settlement of Consumer Track Claims Approved in Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement by The TJX Cos., Inc., and Fifth Third Bancorp of
the claims putatively on behalf of customers whose transaction
data were allegedly compromised by the Computer Intrusion in the
matter, "In Re: TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation,
Case No. 1:07-cv-10162-WGY, MDL No. 1838," has been approved in
December 2008.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit challenges TJX's practices regarding the prior
retention of customers' personal information on its computer
system. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to adequately
safeguard that system and, as a result, unauthorized people
gained access to customers' personal and financial information.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that TJX failed to maintain
adequate security for credit and debit card information, check
transaction information, and driver's license or government
identification information.

According to the Plaintiffs, TJX's inadequate security measures
and Fifth Third's inadequate monitoring of TJX allowed
unauthorized people to access and steal this information to
commit fraud and identity theft.

The case asserted claims for negligence and related common-law
and statutory causes of action stemming from the Computer
Intrusion, and seek various forms of relief including damages,
related injunctive or equitable remedies, multiple or punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9,
2008).

                          Settlement

The settlement provides vouchers, cash benefits (checks-in-
lieu), credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, and
reimbursements to those affected by the computer system
intrusion(s).

The claimants include:

       -- people who returned merchandise without a receipt and
          were previously sent letters by TJX notifying them
          that their driver's license or other identification
          information was compromised; and

       -- those who used a credit card, debit card, or check at
          any of the TJX stores in the U.S., Canada or Puerto
          Rico during Dec. 31, 2002 through Sept. 2, 2003 or May
          15, 2006 through Dec. 18, 2006, and incurred certain
          costs related to the intrusion.

Under the settlement, TJX will also hold a future, one-time,
special event reducing prices 15% at T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, T. J.
Maxx 'n More, Marshalls MegaStore, HomeGoods, A.J. Wright,
Winners and HomeSense stores for one day.  Additionally, TJX has
taken steps to enhance the security of its computer system
(Class Action Reporter, April 8, 2008).

On Dec. 30, 2008, the District Court judgment in the Customer
Track approving the Amended Settlement Agreement, dated as of
Nov. 14, 2007, among TJX, its acquiring bank and the named
plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the settlement class,
became final.

On March 30, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for
negligence and breach of contract, affirmed the denial of the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a
count for conversion, and vacated the order transferring the
case to state court in Massachusetts.  The First Circuit further
upheld the decision not to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for
negligent misrepresentation and for violation of Chapter 93A
based on negligent misrepresentation (but in so doing noted that
the plaintiffs had not appealed from the lower court's denial of
class certification of such claims) and reversed the dismissal
of the plaintiffs' claim for breach of Chapter 93A based on an
unfairness theory.  Finally, the First Circuit remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings on those claims that the
First Circuit ruled were not subject to dismissal, noting that
during such further proceedings TJX will have an opportunity to
move for summary judgment on all such claims and to challenge
class certification of the plaintiffs' claim for breach of
Chapter 93A based on an unfairness theory, according to the
company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          TJX Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 3775
          Portland, OR 97208-3775
          Phone: 1-866-523-6770
          Web site: http://www.tjxsettlement.com/

The suit is "In Re: TJX Companies Retail Security Breach
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-10162-WGY, MDL No. 1838," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
Judge William G. Young presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Janet G. Abaray, Esq. (jabaray@burgsimpson.com)
          Lopez, Hodes, Restaino, Milman & Skikos
          Suite 2090, 312 Walnut Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-852-5600
          Fax: 513-852-5611

               - and -

          William A. Baird, Esq. (tbaird@maklawyers.com)
          Milstein, Adelman & Kreger LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Phone: 310-396-9600
          Fax: 310-396-9635

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard D. Batchelder, Jr., Esq.
          (rbatchelder@ropesgray.com)
          Ropes & Gray LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-951-7515
          Fax: 617-951-7050

               - and -

          Malcome A Heinicke, Esq.
          Munger, Tolles & Olson
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-512-4009


TRAILER BRIDGE: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Pricing Practice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trailer Bridge, Inc. is seeking to dismiss the claim in the
consolidated purported class-action lawsuit over its pricing
practices, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a grand jury investigation
of pricing practices among Puerto Rico ocean carriers.

The company was not served with a search warrant, although press
accounts indicate that other carriers were.  The company
representatives have met with DOJ attorneys and immediately
pledged the company's full and complete cooperation with the DOJ
investigation.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, and through May 10, 2008, customers in the
Puerto Rico trade lane have filed 34 purported class action
complaints against domestic ocean carriers, including Horizon
Lines, Sea Star Lines, and Crowley.  The company has been named
as a co-defendant in these lawsuits.

Specifically, the suits named as defendants:

     -- Horizon Lines, Inc.,
     -- Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.,
     -- Horizon Lines, LLC,
     -- Sea Star Line, LLC,
     -- Crowley Maritime Corp.,
     -- Crowley Liner Services, Inc., and
     -- Trailer Bridge, Inc.

The actions allege that the defendants inflated prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The actions, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, and the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico, have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes into a single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL
1962) in the District Court of Puerto Rico.

On March 10, 2009, the company filed an amended motion to
dismiss the claim with the court.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- is a
trucking and marine transportation company with contract and
common carrier authority.  Highway transportation services are
offered in the continental U.S., while marine transportation is
offered between Jacksonville, Florida, San Juan, Puerto Rico and
Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.


TROPHY CLUB: Faces Nev. Litigation Alleging Construction Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trophy Club at Paradise East is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit over construction defects that was filed by Emerson
Ashley alleging defects in 83 homes in the Summer Gate
development, including in three Trophy Club at Paradise
subdivisions, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The defendants are Trophy Club at Paradise East, Primack Homes
Inc., Carina Corp. and Paradise-Robindale LLC.  Paradise-
Robindale is controlled by Consolidated Mortgage, which financed
development of the project, according to The Las Vegas Sun
report.

The suit alleges defective roofs, leaking windows, dirt coming
through windows, drywall and stucco cracking, stucco staining,
water and insect intrusion through foundation slabs and other
problems.  It claims the defendants were notified of the
problems but have not fixed them.

The Las Vegas Sun reported that the suit was filed by attorneys
Duane Shinnick, Eric Ransavage and Megan Chodzko of the firm
Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage.

For more details, contact:

          Shinnick, Ryan & Ransavage P.C.
          2881 Business Park Court, Suite 210
          Las Vegas, NV 89128
          Phone: (800) 253-9741 or (702) 631-8014
          Fax: (702) 631-8024
          Web site: http://www.ssllplaw.com/


TWEEN BRANDS: Pursuing Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Tween Brands,
Inc., remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

Since Aug. 24, 2007, three purported class-action complaints had
been filed by purported purchasers of the Company's common stock
against the Company and certain of its officers, asserting
claims under the federal securities laws.

To date, all of these actions have been filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

These cases are:

      1. "June Gruhn v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV
         852),"

      2. "Allison Andrews v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV
         894)," and

      3. "John Sefler v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al (07 CV
         925)."

These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock during various periods beginning
as early as Feb. 21, 2007, and ending on Aug. 21, 2007, and
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and, in one action, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business and prospects during the class period.

These actions also allege that the Company's CEO sold stock
while in possession of adverse non-public information.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the Court appointed the Electrical Works
Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W., as lead plaintiff.

On March 20, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint naming the Company and certain current and former
officers as defendants (Class Action Reporter, April 22, 2008).

On May 5, 2008, a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated complaint
was filed on behalf of all defendants.

On June 17, 2008, a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff.  On
Sept. 4, 2008, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File a First Amended Consolidated Complaint and on Oct.
3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint.

On Nov. 17, 2008, a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated
Complaint was filed on behalf of all defendants.

On Jan. 20, 2009, lead plaintiff filed an Opposition to
Defendants Motion to Dismiss.  On March 2, 2009, defendants
filed a Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, according to
the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit is "June Gruhn, et al. v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-00852," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Gregory L. Frost presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Richard Stuart Wayne, Esq. (rswayne@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy - 1
          The Federal Reserve Building
          150 E Fourth Street
          4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants is:

          James A. King, Esq. (jking@porterwright.com)
          Porter Wright Morris & Arthur - 2
          41 S High Street
          Suite 2800
          Columbus, OH 43215-6194
          Phone: 614-227-2000


TXU CORP: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Tex. Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of a purported class-action suit brought by investment
groups accusing energy company TXU Corp. and its former chief
operating officer of misrepresenting details of a securities
buyback program to tempt investors to sell back securities at a
reduced price prior to the announcement of a dividend increase,
Law360 reports.

In a ruling issued on April 8, 2009, the Fifth Circuit affirmed
a lower court's April 2008 dismissal for failure to state a
claim, according to the Law360 report.

According to the Jan. 2, 2009 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, an appeal related to a dismissal of a purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Energy Future
Holdings Corp. (EFH Corp.), formerly TXU Corp., remains pending
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In September 2005, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and
C. John Wilder, EFH Corp.'s former Chief Executive Officer.

The plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, asserts claims on behalf
of the plaintiffs and a putative class of owners of certain EFH
Corp. securities who tendered such securities in connection with
a tender offer conducted by EFH Corp. in 2004.

The amended complaint alleges violations of the provisions of
Sections 14(e), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The allegations relate to a tender offer conducted in September
and October 2004 for certain equity-linked securities in which
it was expressly disclosed that EFH Corp. management was
evaluating whether it should recommend to the board of directors
that the board reevaluate EFH Corp.'s dividend policy.

After the tender offer was closed, and consistent with the
disclosure, management did make a recommendation to the board to
reevaluate the dividend policy, and the board elected to
increase the quarterly dividend.  The plaintiffs contend that
such disclosure in connection with the tender offer was
inadequate.

EFH Corp. maintains that the disclosure provided in connection
with the tender offer regarding the evaluation of the dividend
policy was complete and accurate at the time the tender offer
was initiated as well as when it was closed.

A Motion to Dismiss was filed by the defendants, and the
District Court entered an order granting the Motion to Dismiss
and dismissing this litigation with prejudice in August 2006.

The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal, and on appeal,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the
dismissal to the District Court in light of the decisions in
"Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd." On remand,
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The District Court entered an order
granting the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this litigation
with prejudice in April 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in May 2008 and the
appeal is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. Briefing on the appeal has been completed.

Dallas Texas-Based Energy Future Holdings Corp. --
http://www.energyfutureholdings.com/-- is a non-regulated
retail electric provider in Texas, with more than 2 million
customers, and through its Luminant unit it has a generating
capacity of more than 18,300 MW from its interests in nuclear
and fossil-fueled power plants in the state.  Energy Future
Holdings has regulated power transmission and distribution
operations through Oncor Electric Delivery.  In 2007 the Company
was acquired in a $45 billion leveraged buyout by an investor
group led by Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and Texas
Pacific Group.


VISTAPRINT LTD: Faces Suits Over Membership Discounts in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
VistaPrint, Ltd., and its subsidiaries continue to face a
consolidated litigation over its online practices in connection
with certain membership discount programs, Meghan B. Kelly of
Lexington Minuteman reports.

Initially, several lawsuits were filed in Alabama, Florida,
Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey and Texas.  In general,
customers of VistaPrint allege they were victims of "cramming,"
in which charges or subscription services were added via online
transactions with VistaPrint, according to the Lexington
Minuteman report.

As reported in the Feb. 5, 2009 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, all outstanding purported class-action lawsuits
against VistaPrint, Ltd., and its subsidiaries in connection
with certain membership discount programs cases have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

                        Texas Litigation

On July 29, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against VistaPrint Corp., VistaPrint USA, Inc., Vertrue, Inc.
and Adaptive Marketing, LLC.

Adaptive Marketing, LLC is a Vertrue, Inc. company that provides
subscription-based membership discount programs, including
programs that are offered on the company's VistaPrint.com
website (Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive Marketing, LLC are sometimes
collectively referred to herein as the Vertrue Defendants).

The Texas complaint alleges that the defendants violated, among
other statutes, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices-Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Theft Liability
Act, in connection with certain membership discount programs
offered to VistaPrint customers on the company's VistaPrint.com
website.  It also seeks recovery for unjust enrichment,
conversion, and similar common law claims.

                        Other Litigation

Subsequent to the filing of the Texas complaint, on July 31,
2008, Aug. 25, 2008, Sept. 3, 2008, Sept. 10, 2008 and Sept. 11,
2008, nearly identical purported class-action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S.
District Court for the District of Florida, respectively,
against the same defendants, and in one case VistaPrint Ltd., on
behalf of different plaintiffs.

The complaints in each of these nearly identical lawsuits
include substantially the same purported Federal and common law
claims as the Texas complaint but contain different state law
claims.

                    Massachusetts Litigation

In addition, on Aug. 28, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit
asserting substantially the same Federal and common law claims
as the Texas complaint, but containing a state law claim under
the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, was filed by a
different plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, against VistaPrint Ltd., VistaPrint USA, Inc.
and the Vertrue Defendants.

Among other allegations, the plaintiffs in each action claim
that after ordering products on the company's VistaPrint.com
website they were enrolled in certain membership discount
programs operated by the Vertrue Defendants and that monthly
subscription fees for the programs were subsequently charged
directly to the credit or debit cards they used to make
purchases on VistaPrint.com, in each case purportedly without
their knowledge or authorization.

The plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed to disclose
to them that the credit or debit card information they provided
to make purchases on VistaPrint.com would be disclosed to the
Vertrue Defendants and would be used to pay for monthly
subscriptions for the membership discount programs.

The plaintiffs have requested that the Defendants be enjoined
from engaging in the practices complained of by the plaintiffs.
They also are seeking an unspecified amount of damages,
including statutory and punitive damages, as well as pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs for the purported class.

                      Recent Developments

On Sept. 8, 2008, VistaPrint USA, Inc. filed an Answer to the
Texas Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, and on Sept. 9, 2008, VistaPrint USA,
Incorporated filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Subsequently, on or about September 16, 2008, the plaintiff in
one of the cases pending before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts filed a Motion before the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking the consolidation and
transfer of pretrial proceedings in all of the outstanding cases
to the Massachusetts District Court.

Following that, on or about Sept. 24, 2008 and Sept. 25, 2008,
the Vertrue Defendants and VistaPrint USA, Incorporated and
VistaPrint Limited, respectively, filed motions before the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all of
the outstanding cases, as well as any cases subsequently filed
involving similar facts or claims, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

All of the purported class action lawsuits in which the
Defendants have been served were subsequently stayed pending
resolution of the motions for consolidation and transfer pending
before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

On Dec. 11, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ruled in favor of the motions brought by the Vertrue Defendants,
VistaPrint USA, Incorporated and the company and ordered the
transfer of all of the outstanding cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas for coordinated
pretrial proceedings, according to the company's Jan. 30, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

VistaPrint, Ltd. -- http://www.vistaprint.co.uk-- is an online
provider of coordinated portfolios of customized marketing
products and services to small businesses worldwide.  The
company offers a spectrum of products and services ranging from
business cards, brochures and post cards to apparel, invitations
and announcements, holiday cards, calendars, creative design
services, copywriting services, direct mail services,
promotional gifts, signage and Website design, and hosting
services.  Its Internet-based order processing systems receive
and store individual orders on a daily basis and, organize these
orders for production and delivery to its customers.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARCLAYS BANK: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Barclays Bank Series 5
American Depositary Shares (ADSs) (NYSE:BCS) issued pursuant
and/or traceable to the April 2008 public offering of
approximately 106 million Series 5 non-cumulative dollar
preference shares.  It charges global financial services company
Barclays Bank and certain of its affiliates, officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the offering with violations
of the Securities Act of 1933.

     The class action, entitled, "Pellegrini v. Barclays Bank
PLC et al, 09-cv-3608," is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The complaint alleges that Barclays consummated the
offering pursuant to a false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus.  Specifically, Barclays sold
approximately 106 million Series 5 ADSs at $25 per share for
proceeds of approximately $2.65 billion.  After Barclays
completed the offering, the company announced multi-billion
dollar impairment charges associated with its exposure to
mortgage-related securities, causing the price of the Series 5
ADSs issued in the offering to decline dramatically.

For more information, contact:

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/barclays.asp


CORUS BANKSHARES: Glancy Binkow Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg has filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern of Illinois on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Corus
Bankshares between January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009,
inclusive.

     The complaint charges Corus and certain of the company's
current and former executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that between January 25, 2008 and
January 30, 2009, inclusive defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that their public statements concerning Corus's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate, among other things, the following that Corus and/or an
entity affiliated with the company had been purchasing units in
condominium developments that Corus had financed; that the
company had done so to manipulate sales figures for Corus
financed developments; and that, as such, Corus was artificially
inflating the appraisal values for Corus financed condominium
units and developments.

     The complaint also alleges that that the company had
inflated appraisal values to delay recognizing losses on Corus
financed condominium developments; that, as a result of the
foregoing, Corus was failing to recognize losses and/or
improperly recognizing losses on its condominium loans in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; that
Corus had been negotiating with the Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency regarding
its deteriorating pool of condominium loans; and that the
company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


CORUS BANKSHARES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Ill. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division (1:09-cv-02154), against Corus
Bankshares, Inc. (Nasdaq:CORS) and certain officers of the
company.

     The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company during the period from January 25,
2008 to January 30, 2009, both dates inclusive.  The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under.

     Corus provides consumer and corporate banking products and
services through its wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Corus
Bank, N.A., which focuses on two mail business activities --
commercial real estate lending and deposit gathering. The
complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

     The complaint specifically alleges:

       -- that Corus and/or an entity affiliated with the
          Company had been purchasing units in condominium
          developments that Corus had financed;

       -- that the Company had done so to manipulate sales
          figures for Corus financed developments;

       -- that, as such, Corus was artificially inflating the
          appraisal values for Corus financed condominium units
          and developments;

       -- that the Company had inflated appraisal values to
          delay recognizing losses on Corus financed condominium
          developments;

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, Corus was failing
          to recognize losses and/or improperly recognizing
          losses on its condominium loans in accordance with
          Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP);

       -- that Corus had been negotiating with the Federal
          Reserve Bank of Chicago and the Office of the
          Comptroller of Currency regarding its deteriorating
          pool of condominium loans; and

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls.

     On January 30, 2009, Corus shocked the market when it
reported a widened 2008 fiscal fourth quarter net loss of $261
million, or $4.85 per share, compared to a net loss of $128
million in the 2008 fiscal third quarter and net income of $2
million in the 2007 fiscal fourth quarter, and revealed that the
Company's nonperforming assets, including non-accrual loans and
repossessed real estate, had increased to $2 billion at the end
of 2008, more than double the level from the previous quarter.
On this news, shares of Corus declined $0.52 per share, or
46.85%, to close on February 2, 2009 at $0.59.

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Pomerantz Haudek Files N.J. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP reminds
investors of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. that May 5, 2009 is
the deadline to submit a request to be appointed as lead
plaintiff for the class.  Pomerantz filed a class action lawsuit
(3:09-cv-01264-AET-JJH) in the United District Court, District
of New Jersey, against the Company and certain officers of the
company for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

     The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company during the period of August 5, 2008 -
February 23, 2009.

     Heartland provides bank card payment processing services to
more than 250,000 merchants and businesses nationwide.

     The investigation centers on the disclosure that the
Company's payment processing network had been breached by
malicious software, exposing cardholders to fraud.  As consumers
used their debit cards, a software program had been capturing,
among other things, card numbers, expiration dates, and
cardholder names.

     On February 24, 2009, the Company posted a lower than
expected quarterly profit.  At the same time Heartland told
investors that it might incur losses from the recent security
breach of its system and that the Company could not estimate the
amount of losses that might be incurred in connection with the
security breach.  As a result of these disclosures, Heartland's
common stock declined $21.84 per share, or approximately 80%,
from a class period high of $27.19 per share on September 19,
2008.

     The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations and prospects.

Specifically:

       -- the Company's safety and security measures designed to
          protect consumers' financial records and data from
          security breaches were inadequate and ineffective;

       -- the Company's payment processing system had been
          infected as early as May 2008 with malware;

       -- Defendants were made aware of a potential breach of
          its payment processing network;

       -- that, as a result of the above, the Company faced
          liabilities associated with the breach and increasing
          costs associated with implementing appropriate
          security measures;

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at
          risk of losing customers; and

       -- that the Company lacked inadequate internal controls.

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529


MECHEL OAO: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
announces that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of securities of Mechel OAO (NYSE: MTL)
between October 3, 2007 and July 25, 2008 inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Mechel and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Mechel is a vertically integrated mining and metals
company.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

       -- that the Company had engaged in anticompetitive
          conduct by employing a discriminatory pricing policy
          for raw material sales between domestic and foreign
          steel firms;

       -- that the Company had engaged in monopolistic conduct
          by fixing and maintaining coking coal prices at
          artificially high levels and unreasonably refusing
          contracts;

       -- that as the Company's anticompetitive and monopolistic
          practices were discovered, the Company would incur a
          significant level of fines, and would be forced to
          enter into long term coking coal supply contracts
          below market prices;

       -- that a portion of the Company's revenue was derived
          from anticompetitive and monopolistic conduct, and
          when such behavior was discovered, the Company's
          revenue would significantly decline in future periods;

       -- that the Company had used a sophisticated sales and
          distribution scheme involving wholly owned offshore
          trading companies to evade paying taxes on a portion
          of its revenue;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls;

       -- that the Company's financial statements were not
          prepared in accordance with United States Generally
          Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP); and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          financial statements were materially false and
          misleading at all relevant times.

     On July 24, 2008, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
called for antitrust authorities to investigate Mechel's raw
material pricing policy, and in particular its coking coal
sales, as the Company had sold raw materials to customers in
Russia at twice that it had sold raw materials to non-Russian
customers.  Prime Minister Putin also recommended that Mechel's
profit margins needed to be examined by the antitrust
authorities, and "if need be," by the special committee of the
General Prosecutor.  On this news, the Company's shares fell
$13.77 per share, or over 37.6 percent, to close on July 24,
2008 at $22.84 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The following day, Mechel announced that it was "ready for
cooperation with federal authorities."  Significantly, Mechel
did not protest Prime Minister Putin's allegations about the
Company's pricing policies when it announced its intention to
cooperate in the investigation.

     Then on July 28, 2008, Prime Minister Putin revealed that
Mechel had also used offshore traders to minimize tax payments.
According to the Prime Minister, Mechel sold coal to a Swiss
trading unit at a quarter of domestic prices, contributing to a
coal shortage and higher steel prices in Russia.  The Associated
Press quoted Prime Minister Putin as stating that "it's a
reduction of the tax base within the country, it's tax evasion.
It's creating a shortage on the domestic market and leads to an
increase in the price of metallurgical products."  The head of
the Federal Antimonopoly Service ("FAS") also stated that "the
Company must be punished," as the FAS had opened a case
following an investigation into whether Mechel had fixed coking
coal prices, and "had enough evidence" to fine Mechel for its
violations.  On this news, the Company's shares fell $6.70 per
share, or over 25.5 percent, to close on July 28, 2008 at $19.50
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     On August 14, 2008, Mechel was found guilty by the FAS of
breaking competition laws and faced a stiff fine from regulators
as a result of its conduct.  The FAS stated that Mechel
discriminated against Russian consumers, "unreasonably refused
contracts," and maintained a monopoly in the coal market.

     Significantly, Bloomberg reported that the FAS started its
investigation into Mechel after receiving complaints from
numerous steelmakers about the Company.  On August 19, 2008, the
Associated Press reported that the FAS had ordered Mechel to cut
tariffs on its coking coal by 15 percent, to pay a fine of $32
million for price-fixing, and to cut prices on coking coal by 15
percent.  Finally, on September 1, 2008, Reuters reported that
Mechel was ordered by regulators to cut prices and sign long-
term supply deals for coking coal with its main local clients.

     As a result of Mechel's conduct, the FAS required the
Company to sign long-term deals with three major steel companies
for 2009 - 2013, and to provide prices under those long term
deals "at a discount to global coking coal prices."

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com


MECHEL OAO: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Mechel OAO (NYSE: MTL) during
the period between October 3, 2007 and July 25, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company had
engaged in anticompetitive conduct by employing a discriminatory
pricing policy for raw material sales between domestic and
foreign steel firms and in monopolistic conduct by fixing and
maintaining coking coal prices at artificially high levels and
unreasonably refusing contracts, discovery of which by the
authorities would cause such conduct to cease and cause a
significant decline in future revenue; that the Company had used
a sophisticated sales and distribution scheme involving wholly
owned offshore trading companies to evade paying taxes on a
portion of its revenue; and that the Company's financials were
not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

     According to the complaint, after Vladimir Putin called for
an investigation into the Company's pricing policies on July 24,
2008, and, again, after Prime Minister Putin revealed, on July
28, 2008, the Company's evasion of taxes, the value of Mechel's
stock declined significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


MECHEL OAO: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that
a class action was commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Mechel OAO between October 3, 2007 and July
25, 2008, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     The complaint charges Mechel and certain of its officers
with violations of the Exchange Act.

     Mechel is a vertically integrated mining and metals
company.  The Company consists of several business segments,
including coal and steel production.  Mechel's mining business
consists of coal, iron ore and nickel mines in Russia.  The
Company's steel business includes the production and sale of
semi-finished steel products, carbon and specialty long
products, carbon and stainless flat products and downstream
metal products.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
failed to disclose or indicate the following:

       -- That the Company had engaged in anticompetitive
          conduct by employing a discriminatory pricing policy
          for raw material sales between domestic and foreign
          steel firms.

       -- That the Company had engaged in monopolistic conduct
          by fixing and maintaining coking coal prices at
          artificially high levels and unreasonably refusing
          contracts.

       -- That as the Company's anticompetitive and monopolistic
          practices were discovered, the Company would incur a
          significant level of fines, and would be forced to
          enter into long term coking coal supply contracts
          below market prices.

       -- That a portion of the Company's revenue was derived
          from anticompetitive and monopolistic conduct, and
          when such behavior was discovered, the Company's
          revenue would significantly decline in future periods.

       -- That the Company had used a sophisticated sales and
          distribution scheme involving wholly owned offshore
          trading companies to evade paying taxes on a portion
          of its revenue.

       -- That the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls.

       -- That the Company's financial statements were not
          prepared in accordance with United States Generally
          Accepted Accounting Principles.

       -- That as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          financial statements were materially false and
          misleading at all relevant times.

     According to the complaint, on July 24, 2008, Russian Prime
Minister Mr. Vladimir Putin called for antitrust authorities to
investigate Mechel's raw material pricing policy, and in
particular its coking coal sales, as the Company had sold raw
materials to customers in Russia at twice that it had sold raw
materials to non-Russian customers.  Prime Minister Putin also
recommended that Mechel's profit margins needed to be examined
by the antitrust authorities, and if need be by the special
committee of the General Prosecutor.  On this news, the
Company's shares fell USD 13.77 per share, or over 37.6% to
close on July 24th 2008 at USD 22.84 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

     Then on July 28, 2008, Prime Minister Mr. Putin also
revealed that Mechel had also used offshore traders to minimize
tax payments. According to the Prime Minister, Mechel sold coal
to a Swiss trading unit at a quarter of domestic prices,
contributing to a coal shortage and higher steel prices in
Russia.  On this news, the Company's shares fell USD 6.70 per
share, or over 25.5% to close on July 28th 2008 at USD 19.50 per
share on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Mechel securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
         Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/


ROCHESTER FUND: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all purchasers of A, B and C shares of Rochester Fund
Municipals ("Rochester Fund" or the "Fund") (RMUNX), (RMUBX),
(RMUCX) between February 26, 2006 and October 21, 2008,
inclusive.

     The complaint alleges that Rochester Fund, its manager
Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. and certain officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by misleading investors
about the risks of investing in the Fund.

     The Complaint asserts that the prospectuses through which
shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose substantial
risks concerning Inverse Floaters that the Fund invested in
during the Class Period.

     The Complaint asserts that on October 21, 2008, the Fund
filed a Prospectus Supplement that finally disclosed the
material and relevant risks concerning the Fund's trading in
Inverse Floaters.

     The Complaint asserts that this adverse disclosure caused
the Fund's shares to fall, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of
Rochester Fund shareholders.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


ZYNEX INC: Dyer & Berens Files Colo. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of certain investors of Zynex, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: ZYXI)
f/k/a Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: ZYNX) who
purchased the Company's securities between May 21, 2008 and
March 31, 2009.

     The Complaint asserts that Zynex, its chief executive
officer, Thomas Sandgaard, and chief financial officer, Fritz
Allison, violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with Zynex's issuance of
materially false financial statements to the investing public
during the Class Period.

     On April 1, 2009, Zynex announced that its unaudited
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2008 could
no longer be relied upon and would be restated to reflect
adjustments to allowance for provider discounts, accounts
receivable and net revenue.  The Company's stock price plummeted
more than 50% on this unexpected disclosure.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Zynex
investors.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


ZYNEX INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Zynex, Inc.
(OTCBB:ZYXI)(formerly Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc.)(OTCBB:ZYNX)
between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Zynex and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     Zynex engineers, manufactures, markets and sells medical
devices for the electrotherapy, and stroke and spinal cord
injury rehabilitation markets primarily in the United States.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Zynex's financial performance were
materially false and misleading.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts concerning the Company's financial
performance, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles and the Company's own revenue recognition policies,
which caused the Company to overstate its net accounts
receivable and net income for the first three quarters of the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.

     On April 1, 2009, Zynex issued a press release disclosing
that the Company's financial results and earnings press releases
for the first three quarters of 2008 can no longer be relied
upon.  The April 1, 2009, press release further disclosed that
"adjustments identified in connection with the year-end closing
and 2008 year end audit result in a decrease in net accounts
receivable and related net revenues of approximately $5.1
million as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008...based
on a re-evaluation of the estimated allowance for provider
discounts that management believes should have been utilized in
2008."

     This news shocked the market, causing Zynex shares to
decline $0.65 per share, or approximately 56% from the previous
day's closing price of $1.15, to close on April 1, 2009 at $0.50
per share.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


ZYNEX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Litigation in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Rosen Law Firm filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Zynex, Inc. (OTCBB: ZYXI)
formerly known as Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB: ZYNX)
securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009 inclusive.

     The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado as case no. 09-CV-780.

     The Complaint charges Zynex, its chief executive officer,
Thomas Sandgaard, and chief financial officer, Fritz Allison,
with violations of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with Zynex's
issuance of materially false financial statements to the
investing public during the Class Period.  According to the
Complaint, the Defendants, in violation of the Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and Zynex's own internal polices,
misstated the Company's reported net revenues and accounts
receivable for the first three quarters of fiscal 2008.

     On April 1, 2009, Zynex announced that its unaudited
financial statements and press releases issued on results for
the first three quarters of 2008 can no longer be relied upon
and would have to issue restated financial results to reflect
adjustments to accounts receivable and net revenue for such
periods.  The Company announced that it believed the cumulative
impact of these adjustments would be $5.1 million.  This adverse
news caused Zynex's stock price to fall dramatically, injuring
Zynex shareholders.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


                            *********

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
liabilities.

                            *********

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, Stephanie T. Umacob, 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  * * *