CAR_Public/090120.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 13

                           Headlines

APPLIED SIGNAL: Still Defends Remanded Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BOLD FOOD: Outten & Golden Files FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y.
CALAMP CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Misrepresentation Claims
GOLDEN OVAL: Voluntarily Dismissed From Pa. Antitrust Litigation
KINDER MORGAN: No New Trial Date Yet for Royalty Interests Case

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada

NVIDIA CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
NVIDIA CORP: Faces "Cormier" Consumer Fraud Litigation in Calif.
NVIDIA CORP: Faces "Feinstein: Consumer Fraud Suit in California
NVIDIA CORP: Faces "Inicom Networks" Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Faces NBOA Consumer Fraud Litigation in California

NVIDIA CORP: Faces "West" Consumer Fraud Litigation in Calif.
NVIDIA CORP: Parties Agree to Transfer "Olivos" Case to Calif.
NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiff Agrees to Transfer "Sielicki" to Calif.
NVIDIA CORP: "Poirier" Litigation in Pa. Voluntarily Dismissed
NVIDIA CORP: Still Faces "Nakash" Litigation Over Defective GPUs

TREX CO: Hagens Berman Files Suit Over Wood-Alternative Decking


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
PFF BANCORP: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ROYAL BANK: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
ROYAL BANK: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
SATYAM COMPUTER: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
SATYAM COMPUTER: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing


                           *********

APPLIED SIGNAL: Still Defends Remanded Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Signal Technology, Inc. continues to contest a remanded
consolidated securities class-action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, according to its
Jan. 13, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2008.

On March 11 and July 19, 2005, purported securities class-action
complaints were filed against the company.  Later, these suits
were consolidated as, "In re Applied Signal Technology Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:05-cv-1027 (SBA)."

The amended consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the company's securities
from Aug. 24, 2004, to Feb. 22, 2005.  The shareholders sued
Applied Signal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, claiming the company's work reports were
deceptive.

The complaints name the company, its chief executive officer,
and its chief financial officer as defendants, and allege that
false and misleading statements regarding the company were
issued during the class period.

On Feb. 8, 2006, the court dismissed the case with prejudice and
entered judgment in defendants' favor.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal on March 23, 2006, and the
appeal was heard on Dec. 6, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
24, 2008).

In the June 5, 2008 opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal
and remanded to the District Court. Judge Kozinski said four
former Applied Signal employees were willing to testify in
support of the plaintiffs' claims, and disputes about the
veracity of some evidence were a matter for discovery.

In its defense, Applied Signal said the plaintiffs had not
sufficiently established that the company had even received
three of the four stopwork orders or that these orders put a
stop to work accounted for in the backlog.

However, the appeals court rejected the argument, noting that
the suit identified four employee witnesses who would testify to
the existence of the disputed stopwork orders.

"Defendants quibble that these witnesses weren't in a position
to see the stopwork orders firsthand because they were
'engineers or technical editors' rather than managers.  But any
number of company employees would be in a position to infer the
issuance of stopwork orders, which would have had the very
obvious effect of putting numerous employees out of work," the
appeals court said.  "It's entirely plausible that 'engineers or
technical editors' would know or could reasonably deduce that
the company had suffered setbacks," it added.

The court also ruled that the shareholders had claimed with the
proper particularity that these stopwork orders were counted as
backlog, and that the company's insistence that work may have
resumed before the announcement of the backlog was a matter for
a jury.  So, too, was the company's argument that reasonable
investors could well understand that stopped work was included
in the backlog.

The plaintiffs had also sufficiently alleged an economic loss
resulting from the company's misleading statements, Judge
Kozinski said (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2008).

The suit is "In Re: Applied Signal Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01027," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@classcounsel.com)
         Green Welling, LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2750
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710

Representing the defendants is:

         David A. Priebe, Esq. (david.priebe@dlapiper.com)
         DLA Piper US, LLP
         2000 University Avenue
         East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248
         Phone: 650-833-2000
         Fax: 650-833-2001


BOLD FOOD: Outten & Golden Files FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- A new lawsuit alleges
that restaurants opened by celebrity chef Bobby Flay violated
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law by misappropriating employee tips, withholding proper
overtime pay, and engaging in other unlawful compensation
practices, according to Outten & Golden LLP.

     Filed late Thursday in federal court in New York, the
nationwide suit names as the defendant Bold Food, LLC - the
company that owns and/or operates Bar Americain in New York,
Mesa Grill NYC in New York, Mesa Grill Las Vegas in Las Vegas,
Nev., and Bobby Flay Steak at the Borgata Hotel in Atlantic
City, N.J., and formerly owned and/or operated Bolo in New York.

     The named plaintiffs are current and former employees
Patrick deMunecas, of Manhattan, N.Y., Kevin McIntyre, of
Sunnyside, N.Y., and Carmen Costanzo, of Sunnyside, N.Y. In
addition to the named plaintiffs, two other individuals have
joined the case, which seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and misappropriated tips and gratuities, for Mr.
DeMunecas, Mr. McIntyre, Ms. Costanzo and other eligible
employees.

     According to the Complaint, Mr. Flay's company violated the
wage and hour laws by engaging in improper tip-pooling
practices; failing to properly distribute the "mandatory
gratuities" it charged its private party customers;
redistributing portions of employees' tips to non-tip eligible
employees; failing to pay proper overtime compensation to
employees who worked more than 40 hours in a work week; failing
to reimburse workers for the cost of purchasing and laundering
required uniforms, and failing to pay workers "spread of hour
pay" for days on which they worked more than ten hours.

     The suit also alleges that Bar Americain engaged in
unlawful retaliation when it suspended one of the plaintiffs
after he questioned the restaurant's tip pooling practices.

     Justin M. Swartz, Linda A. Neilan, and Rachel Bien, of
Outten & Golden LLP's New York office, represent the plaintiffs,
and will seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action
that covers current and former employees who have worked at the
Flay's restaurants between January 15, 2003 and the date of
final judgment in the matter.

     Mr. Flay stars in several television programs, including
Boy Meets Grill, Throwdown!, and Iron Chef America, all on the
Food Network. He also frequently appears on other television
programs, including as a contributor and "resident chef" on the
CBS Early Show. Flay sells a line of "sauces and rubs" and eight
cookbooks. He also serves as a celebrity spokesperson for retail
giant Kohl's.

     Attorney Justin M. Swartz stated, "Our clients have worked
for Mr. Flay's company for years, helping him achieve tremendous
fame and success. Their claims in this case suggest that, along
the way, his restaurants have disregarded the most basic of
their workplace rights.

     Attorney Rachel Bien added, "In the future, we hope that
Mr. Flay will use his star status to set a good example for
other restaurant owners in honoring wage and hour protections.
This lawsuit alleges that his company has not done so in the
past. Hourly food service workers deserve to be paid properly -
there is no exemption for high-profile TV celebrities."

     The case is "Patrick deMunecas, Kevin McIntyre, Carmen
Costanzo, et al. v. Bold Food, LLC," (Southern District of New
York, Case No. 09 CIV 00440).

Attorney Contacts:

For more details, contact:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP
          New York, NY
          Phone: 212.245.1000
          Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com


CALAMP CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Misrepresentation Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CalAmp Corp. is seeking dismissal of the class action lawsuit
filed against the company, the former owner of the company's
Aercept business unit and one of Aercept's distributors.

The class has not been certified in the lawsuit filed in
November 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that Aercept made misrepresentations when
the plaintiff purchased analog vehicle tracking devices in 2005,
which was prior to CalAmp's acquisition of Aercept in an asset
purchase.

The tracking devices ceased functioning in early 2008 due to
termination of analog service by the wireless network operators.

The Company is seeking dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis
that the assertion of successor liability is not supported by
the law or the facts, according to the company's Jan. 13, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 29, 2008.

CalAmp Corp. -- http://www.calamp.com/-- is a provider of
wireless communications solutions that enable anytime/anywhere
access.  The company has two segments: Wireless DataCom Division
and Satellite Division.  CalAmp's Wireless DataCom Division
services the public safety, industrial monitoring and controls,
and mobile resource management market segments with wireless
solutions built on communications technology platforms that
include licensed narrowband, unlicensed broadband and cellular
networks.  CalAmp's Satellite Division supplies outdoor customer
premise equipment to the United States Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS) market.


GOLDEN OVAL: Voluntarily Dismissed From Pa. Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Oval Eggs, LLC has been voluntarily dismissed as a
defendant in a consolidated class-action lawsuit, "T.K. Ribbings
Family Restaurant v. United Egg Producers, Inc. et al., 08-cv-
465-GP (E.D. Pa.)."

In late September 2008, after media reports publicized the
existence of the investigation by the U.S. Department of
Justice, several groups of plaintiffs' lawyers filed class-
action civil antitrust suits against the Company and other
companies in the egg products industry.

The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota and the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The company informed the plaintiffs' lawyers in each case that
the Company was not a target of the government's investigation,
and the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims
against the Company without prejudice in exchange for a tolling
agreement that would allow the plaintiffs to re-assert their
claims if it was determined that the Company had any liability.
The Company has not been renamed as a defendant in any of the
complaints.

On Dec. 2, 2008, because complaints had been filed in both
Minnesota and Pennsylvania, the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the complaints be
consolidated before the Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter, U.S.
District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The cases have been consolidated under a master file in the
matter of "T.K. Ribbings Family Restaurant v. United Egg
Producers, Inc. et al., 08-cv-465-GP (E.D. Pa.)."   The Company
was voluntarily dismissed from this action on Oct. 8, 2008,
according to the company's Dec. 23, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Aug. 31, 2008.

Golden Oval Eggs, LLC -- http://www.goldenovaleggs.com/-- is an
egg production and processing company.  Its production output
consists of liquid whole egg, liquid egg white and liquid egg
yolk, and further processed, value-added egg products.  Its
unpasteurized liquid egg products are sold on a direct basis to
companies, who further process the unpasteurized liquid egg into
various finished egg products, such as dried eggs, frozen,
extended shelf-life liquid, pre-cooked egg patties and specialty
egg products.  Institutional, food service, restaurants and food
manufacturers in turn purchase these further processed products.
It has acquired certain egg processing assets of MoArk, LLC and
its subsidiaries, Cutler at Abbeville, L.L.C., Hi Point
Industries, LLC, L&W Egg Products, Inc., Norco Ranch, Inc. and
MoArk Egg Corporation. As a result of the acquisition, the
Company was able to further process the raw liquid egg into
various finished egg products, and it sells products to retail,
foodservice and institutional markets.


KINDER MORGAN: No New Trial Date Yet for Royalty Interests Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
No new trial date has been set for the case captioned "J. Casper
Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD,
individually and on behalf of all other private royalty and
overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit,
New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2 Company,
L.P., No. 04-26-CL (8th Judicial District Court, Union County
New Mexico)."

This case involves a purported class-action suit against Kinder
Morgan CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty
and overriding royalty ("royalty interests") on the true and
proper settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide produced
from the Bravo Dome Unit during the period beginning Jan. 1,
2000.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

The purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the United States of America, and those private royalty
interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class
previously certified as a class action by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter, "Doris
Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC N.M.
Civ. No. 95-0012."

The plaintiffs allege that Kinder Morgan CO2's method of paying
royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer
Class Action.

Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel arbitration of this
matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the
Feerer Class Action settlement agreement, which motion was
denied.  Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New
Mexico Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the
trial court.  The New Mexico Supreme Court granted further
review in October 2006, and after hearing oral argument, the New
Mexico Supreme Court quashed its prior order granting review.

In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking further review.
The petition was denied in December 2007.

The case was tried in the trial court in September 2008.

The plaintiffs sought $6.8 million in actual damages as well as
punitive damages.

The jury returned a verdict finding that Kinder Morgan did not
breach the settlement agreement and did not breach the claimed
duty to market carbon dioxide.  The jury also found that Kinder
Morgan breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing and found
compensatory damages of $0.3 million and punitive damages of
$1.2 million.

On Oct. 16, 2008, the trial court entered judgment on the
verdict.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
a new trial.  No new trial date has been set, according to the
company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated Jan. 13, 2009.

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


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported
antitrust class-action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over the
sale of SRAM.

                        U.S. Litigation

Subsequent to the issuance of subpoenas to the SRAM industry, a
number of purported class action lawsuits have been filed
against the company and other SRAM suppliers.

Six cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that purchased SRAM
directly from various SRAM suppliers during the period from Nov.
1, 1996 through Dec. 31, 2005.

Additionally, at least seventy-four cases have been filed in
various U.S. District Courts asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly
purchased SRAM and/or products containing SRAM from various SRAM
suppliers during the time period from Nov. 1, 1996 through Dec.
31, 2006.

In September 2008, a class of direct purchasers was certified,
and plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint to
cover Pseudo-Static RAM or "PSRAM" products as well.

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and state antitrust and unfair competition laws
and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest
and attorneys' fees.

                      Canadian Litigation

Three purported class action SRAM lawsuits also have been filed
in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging
violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the SRAM cases filed in the U.S. cases (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 30, 2008).

No further developments in the matter were reported in the
company's Jan. 13, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 4,
2008.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random
access memories (DRAM) continue to face several purported class-
action lawsuits in Canada that allege violations of antitrust
statutes, according to the company's Jan. 13, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 4, 2008.

Three purported class-action lawsuits over DRAM have also been
filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers,
alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

The three cases have been filed in these Canadian courts:
Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec;
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British Columbia.

The suits allege violations of the various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek
treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees.

In May and June 2008 respectively, the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was denied in the British Columbia and
Quebec cases (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2008).

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of those decisions.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal in connection to several
purported antitrust class-action lawsuits against Micron
Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access
memories (DRAM) that were transferred to California for
consolidated proceedings remains pending.

The purported class-action lawsuits generally allege violations
of antitrust statutes.

At least 68 purported class action complaints have been filed
against the company and other DRAM suppliers in various federal
and state courts in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico on behalf of
indirect purchasers alleging price-fixing in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws, violations of state unfair
competition law, and unjust enrichment relating to the sale and
pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999
through at least June 2002.

Cases have been filed in these states: Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, and also in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The complaints purport to be on behalf of a class of individuals
and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and products
containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various
time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002.

They allege violations of the various jurisdictions' antitrust,
consumer protection and unfair competition laws relating to the
sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary
damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees.

A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California for consolidated proceedings.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss a second amended consolidated
complaint in the matter.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking certification
for interlocutory appeal of the decision.   On Feb. 27, 2008,
the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit accepted the plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2008).

The company reported no development in the matter in its  Jan.
13, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 4, 2008.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class action against Micron
Technology, Inc. remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Idaho.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same court.

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001, to Feb.
13, 2003.

The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct.  It
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class
but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's
stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2008).

The company reported no further developments in the matter in
its Jan. 13, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 4, 2008.

The suit is "City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00085-BLW," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, Judge Judge B. Lynn
Winmill, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
         (bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com)
         Gordon Law Offices
         623 W. Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512
         Phone: (208) 345-7100
         Fax: 1-208-345-0050

              - and -

         Mary Blasy, Esq. (maryb@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendants are:

         Douglas W. Greene, Esq. (dgreene@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-883-2529
         Fax: 208-883-2699

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener Esq. (rgreener@greenerlaw.com)
         Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A.
         950 W. Bannock St. 900
         Boise, ID 83702
         Phone: (208) 319-2600


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face three purported class-
action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of Flash products, which
have been filed in Canada.

The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly
and indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers.

No further details regarding these lawsuits were reported by the
company in its Jan. 13, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 4,
2008.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. faces a consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's Dec. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 1, 2008.

In September 2008, three putative securities class-action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California arising out of its announcements on July 2, 2008,
that it would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover
anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging
material set in certain versions of the company's previous
generation media and communications processors or MCPs and
graphics processing units or GPUs and that the company was
revising financial guidance for its second quarter of fiscal
2009.

The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On
October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the
caption "In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL)."

Pursuant to the order consolidating the lawsuits , NVIDIA is not
obligated to respond to any of the underlying complaints.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, motions for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were due by Nov. 10, 2008.  A hearing on these
motions is currently scheduled for Dec. 22, 2008.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces "Cormier" Consumer Fraud Litigation in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of its previous generation media and
communications processors or MCPs and graphics processing units
or GPUs used in notebook systems.

On Nov. 6, 2008, a putative consumer class-action suit titled,
"Cormier v. NVIDIA Corp." was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Californi.  This complaint has not
yet been served on NVIDIA.

The Cormier complaint is substantially the same as the Feinstein
complaint and asserts claims against the company for, among
other things, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Business & Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500, unjust
enrichment and strict liability, according to the company's Dec.
1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 1, 2008.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces "Feinstein: Consumer Fraud Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
California federal court, asserting various claims arising from
a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of its
previous generation media and communications processors or MCPs
and graphics processing units or GPUs used in notebook systems.

On Sept. 12, 2008, a putative consumer class-action lawsuit,
entitled, "Feinstein v. NVIDIA Corp.," was filed in California
Superior Court in Santa Clara.

The Feinstein complaint asserts claims against us for, among
other things, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Business & Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500, and strict
liability.

The company removed the Feinstein action to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 2, 2008,
according to the company's Dec. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 1, 2008.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces "Inicom Networks" Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of its previous generation media and
communications processors or MCPs and graphics processing units
or GPUs used in notebook systems.

On Sept. 15, 2008, a putative consumer class-action lawsuit
titled, "Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and
Hewlett-Packard," was filed.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on Oct. 27, 2008, which no
longer asserted claims against Dell, Inc.  The First Amended
Complaint asserts claims against the company for, among other
things, unfair and fraudulent business practices, breach of
warranties, and declaratory relief, according to the company's
Dec. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 1, 2008.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces NBOA Consumer Fraud Litigation in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of its previous generation media and
communications processors or MCPs and graphics processing units
or GPUs used in notebook systems.

On Nov. 14, 2008, a putative consumer class-action suit titled,
"National Business Officers Association, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp.,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  This complaint has not yet been served on
NVIDIA.

The National Business complaint is substantially the same as the
Inicom complaint and asserts claims against the company for,
among other things, violations of Business & Professions Code
sections 17200, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust
enrichment and declaratory relief, according to the company's
Dec. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 1, 2008.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces "West" Consumer Fraud Litigation in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of its previous generation media and
communications processors or MCPs and graphics processing units
or GPUs used in notebook systems.

On Nov. 18, 2008, a putative consumer class-action suit titled,
"West v. NVIDIA Corp.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

This complaint has not yet been served on NVIDIA.  The West
complaint is substantially similar to the Nakash complaint and
asserts claims against the company for, among other things,
breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment, according to the
company's Dec. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 1, 2008.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Parties Agree to Transfer "Olivos" Case to Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter, "Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc.
and Hewlett-Packard," which names NVIDIA Corp. as a defendant
and is asserting various claims arising from a weak
die/packaging material set in certain versions of its previous
generation media and communications processors or MCPs and
graphics processing units or GPUs used in notebook systems, have
agreed to transfer the case to a California federal court.

On Sept. 23, 2008, a putative consumer class-action suit titled,
"Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett-Packard," was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

The Olivos complaint is substantially the same as the Inicom
complaint in California, and asserts claims against us for,
among other things, breach of warranty and violation of New
York's Deceptive Acts and Practices statute.

On Oct. 27, 2008, the company filed a request with the court
seeking leave under the local court rules to file a motion to
transfer the Olivos action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On that same day, the plaintiff filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, requesting that the
Feinstein, Nakash and Inicom actions in California be
transferred to New York and consolidated there.

The parties have agreed that the Olivos case will be transferred
to California to be consolidated with the actions presently
pending in the Northern District of California, and have advised
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of this fact,
according to the company's Dec. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 1, 2008.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiff Agrees to Transfer "Sielicki" to Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter, "Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell,
Inc.," which names NVIDIA Corp. as a defendant and is asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of its previous generation media and
communications processors or MCPs and graphics processing units
or GPUs used in notebook systems, has agreed to transfer the
case to a California federal court.

On Oct. 29, 2008, a putative consumer class-action suit titled,
"Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, and served on
NVIDIA on Nov. 5, 2008.

The Sielicki complaint is substantially the same as the Inicom
and Olivos complaints, and asserts claims against the company
for, among other things, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment.

The plaintiff in the Sielicki action has agreed to transfer that
case to California to be consolidated with the actions currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's Dec. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 1, 2008.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.

  
NVIDIA CORP: "Poirier" Litigation in Pa. Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter, "Cindy Poirier et al. v. Dell Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:05-mc-02025," has voluntarily dismissed the
litigation, which names NVIDIA Corp. as a defendant.

The CourtHouse News Service reported that the suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, alleging Dell sells notebook computers with
defective NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series graphics processing units
that ruin the computers (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2008).

The GPU allegedly causes video functions to fail, multiple
images on the screen, random images to appear on the screen, and
horizontal or vertical lines on the screen.

The plaintiff, Cindy Poirier brings this class-action lawsuit
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of all others who purchased a notebook PC manufactured by
Dell that was equipped with a NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series graphics
processing unit.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (i) whether the defendants have breached the implied
         warranty of merchantability to the Class;

    (ii) whether the Notebooks are merchantable as a result of
         the design defect;

   (iii) whether Defendant Dell was unjustly enriched by the
         retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by
         Plaintiff and members of the Class;

    (iv) whether the Notebooks are defective because they are
         equipped with NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series GPUs composed
         from a weak material set of die/package combination;

     (v) whether the defendants knew, or was reckless in not
         knowing, that the Notebooks are defective; and

    (vi) whether, as a result of the defendants' misconduct,
         the plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages,
         restitution, equitable relief or other relief, and the
         amount and nature of such relief.

The plaintiff requests that the Court:

     a. certify this action as a class action under Rule 23;

     b. order the defendants to pay the plaintiff and the class
        an amount of actual damages to be determined at trial;

     c. order a recall of the Notebooks in the Class States;

     d. issue an injunction preventing the defendants from
        manufacturing and selling the Notebooks equipped with
        the NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series GPUs;

     e. issue an order granting the plaintiff reasonable costs
        and attorney's fees; and

     f. grant such other relief as may be just and proper.

The Poirier action was voluntarily dismissed on Sept. 24, 2008,
according to the company's Dec. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 1, 2008.

The suit is "Cindy Poirier et al. v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No.
2:05-mc-02025," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr. Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr., PC
          519 Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-391-5164
          Fax: 412-471-1033
          e-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
          The Weiser Law Firm, PC
          121 N. Wayne Ave.,Suite100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-225-2677
          Fax: 610-225-2678

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Michael A. Schwartz, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis
          Attorneys at Law
          28 West 44th Street - 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-404-2200
          Fax: 212-404-2226

          James V. Bashian, Esq.
          Law Offices of James V. Bashian, PC
          271 Route 46 West, Suite F207
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Phone: 973-227-6330
          Fax: 973-808-8665

               - and -

          Brant C. Martin Esq.
          Wick Phillips, LLP
          2100 Ross Ave., Suite 950
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-692-6200
          Fax: 214-692-6255


NVIDIA CORP: Still Faces "Nakash" Litigation Over Defective GPUs
----------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. continues to faces a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging it sells defective GeForce 8M Series
graphics processing units or GPUs in laptops, according to the
company's Dec. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 1, 2008.

The CourtHouse News Service reported that the suit, captioned,
"Steven Nakash, et al. v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. C 08
4312," alleges that NVIDIA, which controls 31.4% of the GPU
market, concealed the defect it has known about since 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 18, 2008).

Lead plaintiff Steven Nakash says "the NVIDIA GPUs are
defectively designed because they are not capable of
withstanding normal operations and prematurely cease to function
properly."

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all others who
purchased a laptop computer equipped with an NVIDIA GeForce 8m
Series graphics processing unit.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant has breached the implied warranty of
         merchantability to the class;

     (b) whether the computers are merchantable as a result of
         the design defect in the NVIDIA GPU;

     (c) whether defendant was unjustly enriched by the
         retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by
         plaintiff and members of the class;

     (d) whether defendant violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud
         Act codified under NJ Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-1 et
         seq.;

     (e) whether the computers are defective because they are
         equipped with NVIDIA GPUs composed from a weak material
         set of die/package combination;

     (f) whether defendant knew, or was reckless in not knowing,
         that the computers are defective; and

     (g) whether, as a result of defendant's misconduct,
         plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages,
         restitution, equitable relief or other relief, and the
         amount and nature of such relief.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

      -- certify this action as a class action under Rule 23;

      -- order defendant to pay plaintiff and members of the
         class an amount of actual damages to be determined at
         trial;

      -- issue an injunction preventing defendant from
         manufacturing and selling the NVIDIA GPUs;

      -- issue an order granting plaintiff reasonable costs and
         attorney's fees; and

      -- grant such other relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "Steven Nakash, et al. v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case
No. C 08 4312," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Kiesel Boucher Larson
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812


TREX CO: Hagens Berman Files Suit Over Wood-Alternative Decking
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Jan. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- A Washington homeowner
filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Trex Company, Inc.
(NYSE: TWP) this week, claiming the nation's largest
manufacturer of wood-alternative decking is selling flawed
products, and fails to live up to its guarantee when its
products fail.

     Mark Okano, a Gig Harbor resident, claims his two-year old
deck made entirely from Trex product began degrading, cracking
and rotting in July 2008, but the company refuses to reimburse
him for the costs associated with repairing the deck --
specifically the cost of labor to remove the bad boards and
install new ones.

     Okano claims in his lawsuit that the company touts its
product as superior to alternatives and charges high prices for
the premium product, but fails customers in honoring warranties
when problems arise. He claims his deck is unsafe and unusable
as result of the product's faulty performance.

     "Home maintenance and repairs are an expensive reality of
homeownership, but when a company fails to meet its product's
promises and refuses to pay for repairs, customers have a right
to fight back," said Steve Berman lead attorney and managing
partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

     Okano's case is not the first time Trex attempted to evade
responsibilities to customers, the suit contends.  In 2000, Trex
faced a similar lawsuit that settled with a provision stating
Trex would pay for replacement labor costs in addition to new
product.

     After the first suit, Trex acknowledged the widespread
defects in the product and set aside $45 million in reserve to
deal with future losses stemming from the claims of customers
for replacement materials.

     "This is familiar territory to Trex and we intend to
recover damages for our client and other frustrated customers
nationwide," said Berman.  "Trex has a legal obligation to honor
warranties and by not doing so is showing its true colors and
failed commitment to customers."

     Okano claims he received no warranty information when he
purchased the product.  Once he contacted the company to report
his problems, Trex sent a limited warranty document claiming
'Trex shall not be responsible for costs and expenses incurred
with respect to the removal of defective Trex products or the
installation of replacement materials, including but not limited
to labor and freight.'

     After submitting his claim to Trex, Okano received a letter
more than six weeks later telling him Trex is committed to
resolving the identified conditions.  Trex promised to ship 113
boards to his home without any offer to help with labor costs.

     In return for the new product, Trex asked Okano to sign a
release freeing the company from further liabilities, losses or
claims relating to the affected Trex materials or its
replacement. It also asked that he keep the settlement
confidential and refrain from making any negative or disparaging
remarks to third parties.

     According to court documents, Okano refused to sign the
agreement and rejected the offer for replacement materials.

     The lawsuit claims Trex's warranty documents violate the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

     The lawsuit seeks to represent consumers nationwide who
either purchased or obtained Trex decking material that exhibits
defects including peeling, rot, splintering, checks, cracks,
decomposition, flaking, bowing, expanding, swelling and more.
The proposed class period ranges from Aug. 1, 2004 until
present.

     The lawsuit names several counts against Trex in addition
to the violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, including
violations of state sales and consumer protection statutes. The
suit seeks reform of Trex's warranty documents, awards for
damages under state sales, warranty, consumer protection laws,
trebling of damages where permitted, and punitive damages.

For more information, contact:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          Web site: http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATRICURE INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Notice is hereby given that Saxena White P.A. has filed
suit on behalf of shareholders of AtriCure Inc. ("AtriCure" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATRC) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

     The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased
AtriCure stock between May 10, 2007 and October 31, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     AtriCure is a medical device company engaged in the
development, manufacture and sale of cardiac surgical ablation
systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in cardiac
tissue.

     During the Class Period, the complaint alleges that
defendants fraudulently inflated AtriCure's securities prices by
improperly promoting its products to physicians and improperly
causing the filing of false claims for reimbursement.

     On October 31, 2008, AtriCure shocked investors when the
Company revealed that it had received a letter from the U.S.
Department of Justice - Civil Division (the "DOJ") informing the
Company that the DOJ was conducting an investigation for
potential False Claims Act and common law violations relating to
the Company's surgical ablation devices.

     As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined
$2.53 per share, or 39.41 percent, to close on November 3, 2008,
at $3.89 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway
          Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


PFF BANCORP: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD -- 01/16/09 -- Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of PFF Bancorp, Inc. ("PFF" or the "Company") (OTCBB:
PFFBQ) during the period between October 23, 2006 and November
21, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     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 PFF's assets
contained hundreds of millions of dollars worth of impaired and
risky securities, many of which were backed by real estate that
was rapidly dropping in value and that the Company's accounting
failed to properly reflect impairment in PFF's real estate-
related loans.

     According to the complaint, after the Company was closed by
regulators on November 21, 2008, the value of PFF's stock became
virtually worthless.

     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


RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Jan. 16, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Notice is
hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of Rackable Systems, Inc. ("Rackable" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:RACK), between October 30, 2006 and April 4,
2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     Rackable engages in the design, manufacture, and
implementation of highly scalable computer servers and high-
capacity storage systems.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Rackable'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 the following:

       -- that the Company was experiencing competitive
          pressure;

       -- that competition was increasing;

       -- that, due to increasing competition, the Company was
          able to maintain and expand its customer base only by
          aggressively lowering its contract prices;

       -- that, as such, the Company was experiencing dramatic
          erosion of gross margin attainment in the Company's
          largest accounts as focused competitors aggressively
          dropped prices;

       -- that price increases for DDR (double data rate) memory
          were accelerating faster than the Company represented
          to investors;

       -- that, as a result of the above, the Company was
          unlikely to meet its quarterly gross margin targets;

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

       -- as a result of the foregoing, that statements made by
          the Company and management during the Class Period
          concerning the Company's business, operations and
          prospects were lacking any reasonable basis.

     On January 16, 2007 Rackable shocked the market when it
reported preliminary financial results for fourth quarter 2006
and that the Company had achieved a gross margin of between only
19.2% and 19.7%.

     On this news, shares of Rackable declined $12.44 per share,
more than 38%, to close on January 17, 2007, at $19.98 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Approximately two weeks later, on February 1, 2007,
Rackable shares continued their downward slide when the Company
announced its fourth quarter financial results and reported a
non-GAAP gross margin of 19.8%, a significant reduction from
24.9% for the same period in the prior year.

     On this news, shares of Rackable declined an additional
$3.65 per share, nearly 18%, to close on February 2, 2007, at
$16.69 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

     On April 4, 2007 Rackable further shocked the market when
the Company revealed that its GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins
for first quarter 2007 would be approximately 30% lower than the
Company's previously communicated expectations and that the
primary factor impacting gross margins in the first quarter was
the intensity of competition in the Company's three largest
accounts.

     On this news, shares of Rackable declined $2.64 per share,
more than 15%, to close on April 5, 2007, at $14.24 per share,
on unusually heavy volume.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


ROYAL BANK: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Jan. 16, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law
Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group
plc ("RBS" or the "Company") (NYSE:RBS) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to a false and
misleading registration statement and prospectus (collectively,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the
Company's June 2007 initial public offering of 38 million Non-
cumulative Dollar Preference Shares, Series S (the "Offering").

     The complaint charges RBS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     RBS is a holding company of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
and National Westminster Bank plc, which are United Kingdom-
based clearing banks.

     The complaint alleges that defendants consummated RBS's
Offering pursuant to the false and misleading Registration
Statement, selling 38 million Non-cumulative Dollar Preference
Shares, Series S ("Series S ADSs") at $25 per share, for
proceeds of approximately $950 million.

     The Registration Statement incorporated RBS's financial
results for 2004, 2005 and 2006.  RBS ultimately announced huge
multi-billion pound impairment charges associated with its
exposure to debt securities, including mortgage-related
securities tied to the U.S. real estate markets, causing the
price of RBS's Series S ADSs issued in the Offering to decline.
The ADSs now trade at approximately $10 per share.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


ROYAL BANK: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK - (Business Wire) Roy Jacobs & Associates
announces that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
shareholders who acquired The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc
("RBS" or the "Company") American Depositary Shares ("ADS")
pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2007
initial public offering of 38 million Non-cumulative Dollar
Preference Shares, Series S (the "Offering").

     The Complaint alleges that RBS consummated RBS's Offering
pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement,
selling 38 million Non-cumulative Dollar Preference Shares,
Series S ("Series S ADS") at $25 per share, for proceeds of
approximately $950 million.

     The Registration Statement incorporated RBS's financial
results for 2004, 2005 and 2006. RBS thereafter announced huge
multi-billion pound impairment charges associated with its
exposure to debt securities, including mortgage-related
securities tied to the U.S. real estate markets, causing the
price of RBS's Series S ADSs issued in the Offering to decline.
The ADSs now trade at approximately $11 per share.

For more details, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          e-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


SATYAM COMPUTER: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD -- 01/16/09 -- 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 American
Depository Shares of Satyam Computer Services Ltd. ("Satyam" or
the "Company") (NYSE: SAY) during the period between January 6,
2004 through January 6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     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
inflated the amount of cash on the Company's balance sheet by
nearly $1 billion, incurring liability of $253 million on funds
arranged by the Company's CEO personally, and overstating
Satyam's September 2008 quarterly revenues by 76% and profits by
97%.

     According to the complaint, after the Company's CEO, B.
Ramalinga Raju, sent to Satyam's board of directors on January
7, 2009 admitting to the foregoing misrepresentations, the value
of Satyam's ADRs declined by approximately 90%.

     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


SATYAM COMPUTER: Charles H. Johnson Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     MINNEAPOLIS, Jan. 16, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Charles H.
Johnson & Associates announces that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
("Satyam" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAY) publicly traded
securities during the period January 6, 2004 through January 6,
2009 (the "Class Period").

     On January 7, 2009, the Company's Chairman, B. Ramalinga
Raju, sent a letter to the Satyam Board of Directors and the
Securities & Exchange Board of India acknowledging a multi-year
fraud in which Satyam's financial accounts and disclosures were
systematically falsified, its profits were overstated for the
past several years, the debt owed to the Company was overstated
and its liability understated.

     Further, B. Ramalinga Raju admitted to having inflated the
amount of cash on the Company's balance sheet by nearly $1
billion and overstating Satyam's September 2008 quarterly
revenues by 76% and profits by 97 percent, and that 50.4 billion
rupees, or $1.04 billion, of the 53.6 billion rupees in cash and
bank loans the Company listed in assets for its second quarter,
which ended in September 2008, were nonexistent.

     The Chairman's letter described the scheme as a small
discrepancy that grew beyond his control: "What started as a
marginal gap between actual operating profit and the one
reflected in the books of accounts continued to grow over the
years.  It has attained unmanageable proportions as the size of
company operations grew," he wrote. "It was like riding a tiger,
not knowing how to get off without being eaten."

     On January 7, 2009, the Company announced that Ram
Myanpati, President and whole-time director of Satyam, is acting
as interim CEO pending ratification by the Board.  Also on
January 7, DSP Merrill Lynch Limited, which had been previously
retained by Satyam to assist a review of the Company's strategic
options, terminated its engagement with Satyam, prompted by the
disclosure of "material accounting irregularities."

For more details, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685


                            *********

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  * * *