CAR_Public/090409.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 70

                           Headlines

ARCA BIOPHARMA: Faces Amended Consolidated Suit Over Alfimeprase
CHICO'S FAS: California Suit Over Personal Information Pending
COX COMMS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Nevada Over Cable TV Boxes
DELL INC: S.D. Attorney Says Few Are Responding to $1.5M Deal
ELBIT IMAGING: Announces Developments in Tel Aviv Litigation

FOGO DE CHAO: Faces Minn. Lawsuit For Misappropriating Tips
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Reaches Compromise in Intel Antitrust Lawsuit
HILTI OF AMERICA: Smolen & Smolen Files Okla. Gender Bias Suit
IPO LITIGATION: Investment Banks, Issuing Firms Reach $586M Deal
JOHN HANCOCK: Settles Racial Discrimination Litigation for $24M

MBIA INSURANCE: Faces Delaware Fraud Lawsuit Over Restructuring
MERRILL LYNCH: July 27 Hearing Set for $75M Lawsuit Settlement
NORTHSTAR HOLDINGS: Faces Fla. Litigation Over Chinese Drywalls
NORTHERN TRUST: Faces Amended Suit in Ill. Over ERISA Violations
OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face Consumer Suits on Premium Rates

OLD REPUBLIC: RESPA Violations Suit Still Pending Certification
OLD REPUBLIC: Title Insurance Lawsuits v. ORNTIC Remain Pending
PAMIDA STORES: Faces Suit in Nebraska Alleging WARN Violations
STATE STREET: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duties Lawsuit in Mass.
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Complaints Over Chromium Emission Still Stayed

TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Defends "Shellman" Complaint
TISHMAN SPEYER: N.Y.'s Highest Court to Review "Roberts" Case
U.S. INSURERS: Faces $1B Suit Over Dumped Chinese Food Products
UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces N.J. Antitrust Suit Over Androgel


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ZYNEX INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
ZYNEX INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Colo. Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

ARCA BIOPHARMA: Faces Amended Consolidated Suit Over Alfimeprase
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARCA biopharma, Inc., formerly known as Nuvelo, Inc., faces an
amended consolidated complaint related to the clinical trial
results of alfimeprase.

On Feb. 9, 2007, Nuvelo and certain of its former and current
officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported
securities class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which
Nuvelo announced on Dec. 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf
of purchasers of Nuvelo's common stock during the period between
Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo misled investors
regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood
of success.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of
New York on Feb. 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007.  On
April 10, 2007, three separate motions to consolidate the cases,
appoint lead plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff's counsel
were filed.

On April 18, 2007, Nuvelo filed a motion to transfer the four
cases to the Northern District of California.  The Court granted
Nuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern District
of California in July 2007.

Plaintiffs have filed motions for consolidation, lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel in the Northern District of
California.  Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in
the Northern District of California on Nov. 9, 2007.

Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs consolidated
complaint on Dec. 21, 2007.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
Nuvelo's motion to dismiss on Feb. 4, 2008.  On June 12, 2008,
the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

On Dec. 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing
plaintiff's complaint, and granting leave to amend.

On Jan. 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging similar claims.

Based on the Court's Dec. 4, 2008 order, and plaintiff's amended
complaint, ARCA believes that any attorneys' fees, loss or
settlement payment with respect to this suit will be paid by its
insurance providers, according to the company's March 27, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

ARCA biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.nuvelo.com/-- formerly known
as Nuvelo, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for acute
cardiovascular disease, cancer and other debilitating medical
conditions.


CHICO'S FAS: California Suit Over Personal Information Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. continues to face a putative class-action
suit, entitled, "Michele L. Massey Haefner v. Chico's FAS, Inc."

The complaint was filed in June 2008, in the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of San Diego.  It alleges that
the company, in violation of California law, requested or
required customers to provide personal information in
conjunction with credit card transactions.

The company filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the complaint.

No further updates regarding the class action lawsuit were
provided in the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

Chico's FAS, Inc. -- http://www.chicos.com/-- is a specialty
retailer of private-label, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates,
complementary accessories and other non-clothing gift items.


COX COMMS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Nevada Over Cable TV Boxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cox Communications faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
Nevada that accuses the company of antitrust violations for
allegedly requiring customers to rent Cox's cable TV converter
boxes to receive premium channels and services, Steve Green of
The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The suit, captioned, "Prezgay v. Cox Communications et al., Case
No. 2:2009-cv-00614," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada on April 2, 2009 by Sandra Prezgay.  It
was filed by Las Vegas attorney Glen Lerner, Esq. and New
Orleans attorneys Jonathan Andry, Esq. and Kea Sherman, Esq.

Named as defendants are: Cox Communications, Cox Communications
Las Vegas, Inc., Cox Nevada Telecom, LLC, Cox Communications,
Inc., Cox Enterprises, Inc., Coxcom, Inc., Cox Communications
Holdings, Inc., and Cox Communications EBD Holdings, Inc.

The suit claims that Cox uses an unlawful "tying arrangement"
that forces consumers to pay a rental fee for converter boxes
provided by Cox in addition to the fee subscribers pay for
premium channels such as HBO and premium services such as on-
demand movies, digital video recording and high-definition
programming.

Similar suits were filed in state and federal courts last month
against Cox in Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Florida.

The Nevada case charges the alleged policy tying the purchase of
premium services to the rental of descrambler boxes
"impermissibly restrains trade" in violation of antitrust law.

It charges, "Cox forces plaintiff and members of the class to
rent the boxes instead of offering the option to buy them or
allowing plaintiff and members of the class to purchase the
boxes directly from another source (i.e. directly from the
manufacturer) even though the boxes perform the same function
when bought on the open market."

This, the suit alleges, means consumers must pay "a
significantly higher sum for cable television than would be
required if the two products remained distinct."

According to the suit, "Since plaintiff and the class members
can only rent a cable box directly from Cox, there is little
incentive for other (converter box) manufacturers to enter the
market, and those that do are precluded from renting or selling
their products to plaintiffs ... at lower, market-driven
prices."


DELL INC: S.D. Attorney Says Few Are Responding to $1.5M Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Only 21 people in South Dakota have signed on to a $1.5 million
a class-action settlement between computer maker Dell, Inc. and
34 states, according to the state attorney general's office,
Nestor Ramos of ArgusLeader.com reports.

The settlement dealt with complaints about financing promotions,
rebate offers, technical support and repair policies, according
to ArgusLeader.com report.

How many people have signed on as plaintiffs across the country
-- and how the money will be divided -- won't be known until
later this month, according to Sara Rabern, the state attorney
general's spokeswoman.

But, according to the popular Web site Consumerist.com, only 42
people in the state of Washington had filed with only a week
remaining, reports ArgusLeader.com.

ArgusLeader.com reported that the South Dakota Attorney
General's Office also will receive $46,666 in legal fees.  Dell
agreed to pay a total of $3.35 million in the settlement, with
more than half going to state attorneys general.

It's not yet known how much of the $1.5 million set aside for
consumers will come to South Dakota, ArgusLeader.com reported.


ELBIT IMAGING: Announces Developments in Tel Aviv Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
     Elbit Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: EMITF) announced earlier this
week the following developments in its legal proceedings:

     Following motions filed by the defendants, the District
Court of Tel Aviv has partially dismissed without prejudice
plaintiff's motion to certify a purported claim as a class
action, in the framework of Civil Case #3000/99.  The said claim
was filed in September 1999 by a shareholder in Elscint Ltd.
against Elscint, the Company, Elbit Holdings, Elron Electronic
Industries Ltd. and six former directors of Elscint together
with an application to certify the said claim as a class action.

     The plaintiff claimed that the Company acted, through
Elscint's directors, systemically with the aim of emptying and
diluting Elscint of its business, assets, capital and value,
while enriching other companies in the group at the expense of
Elscint and at the expense of the minority shareholders of
Elscint.  The plaintiff also alleged that several significant
transactions executed by the Company and Elscint in 1998 were
all done while oppressing the minority shareholders of Elscint
and in contravention of Section 235 of the Companies Ordinance.

     In addition, further to the Company's announcement on
January 25, 2009, with regards to Civil Case #1318/99, the
plaintiffs submitted an appeal, arguing that the District Court
of Haifa erred in dismissing their motion to certify their claim
as a class action.  The Company is studying the appeal and
intends to defend the case vigorously.

     Elbit Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.elbitimaging.com/14-
en/Elbit-Imaging.aspx -- is a subsidiary of Europe Israel
(M.M.S.) Ltd.  EI's activities are divided into the following
principal fields: (i) Initiation, construction, operation,
management and sale of shopping and entertainment centers in
Israel, Central and Eastern Europe and India; (ii) Hotels
ownership, primarily in major European cities, as well as
operation, management and sale of same through its subsidiary,
Elscint Ltd.; (iii) Investments in the research and development,
production and marketing of magnetic resonance imaging guided
focused ultrasound treatment equipment, through its subsidiary,
InSightec Ltd.; and (iv) Other activities consisting of the
distribution and marketing of women's fashion and accessories
through wholly-owned Israeli subsidiary, Elbit Trade & Retail
Ltd., and venture-capital investments.


FOGO DE CHAO: Faces Minn. Lawsuit For Misappropriating Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fogo de Chao faces a purported class-action lawsuit by its
Minneapolis waitstaff who are accusing the Hennepin Ave.
churrascaria of misappropriating tips to the restaurant's
management that rightfully belong to the servers (including
bartenders and the restaurant's meat-sword bearing "gauchos")
and bussing staff only, Jessica Chapman of Minneapolis City
Pages reports.

The suit was filed in Hennepin County District Court on April 3,
2009.  It alleges that contrary to the restaurant's written
policy -- which requires gratuities to be shared with busboys --
tips are actually pooled among a much larger group, which
includes hosts and management, according to the Minneapolis City
Pages report.

According to the suit, a copy of which was obtained by
Minneapolis City Pages, the restaurant's unofficial tipping
policy also takes into account an employee's performance reviews
and on occasion, "employees' personal relationships with
management."  It also wrongfully does not tip anyone who is in
training, the suit adds.

Minnesota law, as cited by the lawsuit, allows tip sharing
between servers and "direct service employees," which, according
to the suit, should not include management or any other
"indirect service employees," Minneapolis City Pages reported.


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Reaches Compromise in Intel Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fry's Electronics, Inc., the retail computer chain caught up in
a consolidated antitrust class-action lawsuit against Intel
Corp., has reached a compromise with the consumer plaintiffs to
resolve a long-running discovery dispute that saw Fry's targeted
for sanctions, Law360 reports.

Vincent Poppiti, the court-appointed special master in charge of
the drawn-out discovery phase of the litigation, signed off on
the compromise recently, according to a Law360 report.


HILTI OF AMERICA: Smolen & Smolen Files Okla. Gender Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A former female employee of Hilti of America, Inc. filed a
class action gender discrimination lawsuit earlier this week in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

     The plaintiff claims that Hilti's hiring and promotion
practices create a glass ceiling throughout the United States by
preventing women from advancing beyond entry-level sales
positions.

     According to the Complaint, while women fill a substantial
percentage of the entry-level sales positions, more than 90
percent of the employees in the second-level sales jobs are men.
Very few, if any, women rise above the second-level, with the
result that all (or virtually all) decision-makers are males.

     Plaintiff Ronica Tabor interviewed for a second-level sales
position after exemplary performance in an entry-level position.
She alleges that during the interview, the decision-maker
commented that women had to work harder than men to learn how to
use and sell tools because tools are like guns, which come
natural to men, and inappropriately told her to discuss the
position with her husband because she had a young child.  After
Ms. Tabor complained to Hilti's human resources department, her
application was denied and a man was hired into the position she
sought.

     Hilti is a worldwide leader in the manufacture and sale of
high-end construction tools. Its United States operations are
headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

     "It is shocking that a company as sophisticated as Hilti
would make blatantly stereotypical and discriminatory comments
to our client, and that its HR department would essentially
blame her when she complained," said Daniel Smolen of Smolen &
Smolen, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff.  He added, "It
is shameful that such a small percentage of women are permitted
to advance beyond entry-level positions."


IPO LITIGATION: Investment Banks, Issuing Firms Reach $586M Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in the long-running litigation
over the gaming of initial public offerings by investment banks
and issuing companies, Mark Hamblett of the New York Law Journal
reports.

In papers released on April 6, 2009, lawyers said they have
agreed to settle the lawsuits for $586 million.  The suits
before Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleged that underwriters drove up
the price of new issues by requiring clients to buy blocks of
stock at ever-higher prices -- and failed to disclose this fact
to investors who were later burned by the collapse of the market
in tech stocks, according to the New York Law Journal report.

In all, investors in 309 tech companies were involved in the
litigation.  The ground for the settlement was laid, in part,
because of a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for th
Second Circuit that rejected a settlement for a class that
included institutional investors.  The settlement though is
still subject to final approval by Judge Scheindlin, the New
York Law Journal reported.

Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. of Bernstein Liebhard, chair of the
plaintiffs' executive committee, said that the settlement
affects mostly individual investors who bought shares in the
companies between 1998 and 2000.

He adds that he and other plaintiffs attorneys who have been
working on a contingency fee basis for the last eight years will
be seeking one-third of the settlement proceeds as fees, or
about $195 million, reports the New York Law Journal.

The New York Law Journal reported that Jack C. Auspitz, Esq. of
Morrison & Foerster, who is liaison counsel for the issuing
companies, said, "We are very pleased the matter has been
resolved."  Mr. Auspitz pointed out that the settlement talks
were "a massive undertaking" because of the sheer size of the
case.  Two mediators were employed to help resolve the matter
and some negotiations included as many as 100 lawyers, according
to Mr. Auspitz.

Gandolpho V. DiBlasi, Esq. of Sullivan & Cromwell, who was
liaison counsel for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the other
underwriters sued in the cases, had nothing to comment,
according to the New York Law Journal report.


JOHN HANCOCK: Settles Racial Discrimination Litigation for $24M
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hancock Life Insurance Co. reached a $24.4 million
settlement for a class-action lawsuit that alleged it
discriminated against African Americans in the sale of life
insurance policies before 1959, Donna Goodison of The Boston
Herald reports.

The suit was filed in 2003 by Merle Norflet of Connecticut on
behalf of her mother, alleging that John Hancock had no-
solicitation and no-commission policies prior to 1959 for sales
of insurance to African Americans.  It maintains that when John
Hancock did sell policies to African Americans, it offered them
lower-grade policies as opposed to their full range of products,
according to documents filed in the U.S. District Court  for the
District of Connecticut, reports The Boston Herald.

According to Seth Lesser, Esq., an attorney representing the
class, "There were different grades and classes of life
insurance policies, and John Hancock didn't sell to African
Americans what were the better policies for admittedly more
money."  He adds, "(Norflet's) parents had bought one of these
policies and hadn't had the opportunity to get what was a better
policy."

The Boston Herald reported that estimates have placed the size
of the class in the thousands based on policies dating to the
1930s.  Under the settlement, African Americans who purchased,
owned, were insured by or were beneficiaries of industrial
weekly life insurance policies or monthly debit policies issued
by John Hancock prior to 1959 would be entitled to $1,200 per
policy.

Any money not claimed by class members or used to pay lawyers'
fees will be donated to organizations dealing with issues that
systematically or disproportionately affect African Americans,
reports The Boston Herald.

In a statement, John Hancock said it was pleased with the
proposed settlement, which is subject to final court approval on
Aug. 21, 2009, according to The Boston Herald report.


MBIA INSURANCE: Faces Delaware Fraud Lawsuit Over Restructuring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Third Avenue Trust filed a purported class-action lawsuit in
Delaware against MBIA Insurance Corp., the bond insurer that in
February 2009, spun off $5 billion and its successful public
bond underwriting business from its sagging structured finance
practice, Alison Frankel of The American Lawyer reports.

The suit was filed on April 6, 2009 in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware.  Third Avenue, which operates three
mutual funds, said it bought $400 million in MBIA notes in
February 2008 with MBIA's assurance that it was recapitalizing
its healthy business, only to see MBIA undergo a restructuring
that amounted to what Third Avenue calls an asset-strip,
according to The American Lawyer report.

The spin-off, Third Avenue says, was in fact a fraudulent
transfer: "the wholesale looting of all of the assets capable of
producing business on a going-forward basis, all goodwill of the
company, and $5 billion in cash," The American Lawyer reported.

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?3b29

For more details, contact:

          Scott A. Edelman, Esq. (SEdelman@milbank.com)
          Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
          1 Chase Manhattan Plaza
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: +1-212-530-5149
          Fax: +1-212-530-5219
          Web site: http://www.milbank.com/


MERRILL LYNCH: July 27 Hearing Set for $75M Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
July 27, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. for the $75,000,000 settlement of a
class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc.'s employees who invested in or held company stock in
certain retirement plans during the period Sept. 30, 2006
through Dec. 31, 2008.

Mark Bruno of InvestmentNews previously reported that Merrill
Lynch & Co. Inc. reached a $75 million preliminary settlement
with participants in its 401(k) to cover losses sustained in
their retirement plans over the last several years (April 8,
2009).

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC of Washington, along with
Keller Rohrback LLP of Seattle, announced the proposed
settlement on April 6, 2009, according to InvestmentNews.

Marc Machiz, Esq. an attorney with Cohen Milstein, who is
representing Merrill workers in the class-action lawsuit, added
that a federal court will hold a hearing at the end of July to
determine if the payment will be approved. He told
InvestmentNews that the class notice will be going out later
this week to Merrill workers who participated in the company's
401(k), retirement accumulation plan, or stock ownership plan
between Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2008.  During that time
period, the value of Merrill's stock declined by more than 80%.

InvestmentNews reported that the class-action suit was initiated
by participants in November 2007 to recoup some of the losses
they incurred for investing a portion of their retirement
savings in Merrill stock.  It alleged that the company should
have known that its stock was an imprudent investment option for
its plan participants.

Under the terms of this proposed settlement, which is also
subject to court approval and other customary conditions,
Merrill Lynch will pay $75,000,000 in cash, and the claims will
be dismissed (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2009).

This case has also been filed under the caption, "In re Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation,
Master File No. 07cv9633 (JSR)(DFE)."

The claims focused primarily on Merrill Lynch's subprime-related
losses and related disclosures during the class periods.

The proposed settlement does not cover the shareholder
derivative actions and the claims brought principally by
bondholders in actions filed under the same caption, according
to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated Jan. 16, 2009.


NORTHSTAR HOLDINGS: Faces Fla. Litigation Over Chinese Drywalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northstar Holdings, Inc., Northstar Homes, Inc., Knauf Gips KG,
Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co LTD, Knauf Plasterboard (WUHU)
Co. Ltd., Knauf Plasterboard (Dongguan) Co. Ltd., USG
Corporation, Banner Supply Co., and Rothchilt International,
Ltd. were named as defendants in a purported class-action suit
by a resident in the Cobblestone Creek development west of
Boynton Beach over tainted Chinese drywall.

Certain Chinese-made wallboard installed in thousands of Florida
homes between 2000 and 2008 has been found to emit sulfuric
odors and gases responsible for corroding electrical wiring, air
conditioning components, bathroom fixtures such as toilet
handles and even jewelry.  Some homeowners have complained of
headaches, nosebleeds and respiratory problems, reports The Palm
Beach Post.

The suit was filed by Katherine L. Foster filed on April 3, 2009
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
under the caption, "Foster v. Northstar Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 9:2009-cv-80535."

Ms. Foster's attorney estimates that 40-70 of the 125 homes
Northstar Homes built in Cobblestone Creek contain the
problematic building material.  Northstar Homes is one of the
two builders in the Cobblestone Creek development, The Palm
Beach Post reported.


NORTHERN TRUST: Faces Amended Suit in Ill. Over ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corp. faces an amended purported class-action
lawsuit in Illinois, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to the
Corporation's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

On Oct. 15, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Corporation, the Northern Trust Employee Benefit
Administrative Committee, the Compensation and Benefits
Committee of the Board of Directors and certain officers and
directors, purportedly on behalf of participants in and
beneficiaries of The Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive
Plan whose individual accounts held shares of Corporation common
stock at any time from Oct. 19, 2007 to the present.

The complaint purports to allege breaches of fiduciary duty in
violation of ERISA related to the Corporation's stock being
offered as an investment alternative for participants in the
Plan and seeks monetary damages.

On Jan. 16, 2009 an amended complaint was filed in the putative
class action lawsuit.  The defendants named in the amended
complaint are the Corporation, the Bank, the Northern Trust
Employee Benefits Administrative Committee and its members, the
Northern Trust Employee Benefits Investment Committee and its
members, and certain other officers, including the present Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation and the former Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, purportedly on behalf of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time
from Oct. 19, 2007 to Jan. 14, 2009.

The suit is "Patten v. Northern Trust Corp. et al., Case No.
1:08-cv-05912," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Joan H. Lefkow, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq. (ssbny@aol.com)
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          Suite 500
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212)687-7230

Representing the defendants is:

          James Vincent Hart, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 782-0600
          e-mail: courtnotification@mayerbrown.com


OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face Consumer Suits on Premium Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corp.; its principal title insurance
subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Co.; and its
second subsidiary, American Guaranty Title Insurance Co.,
continue to face several purported class-action lawsuits over
premium rates.

Since early February 2008, more than 80 purported consumer
class-action lawsuits have been filed against the title
industry's principal title insurance companies, their
subsidiaries and affiliates, and title insurance rating bureaus
or associations in at least 10 states.

The suits are substantially identical in alleging that the
defendant title insurers engaged in illegal price-fixing
agreements to set artificially high premium rates and conspired
to create premium rates which the state insurance regulatory
authorities could not evaluate and therefore, could not
adequately regulate.  A number of the suits also allege
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The company and its principal title insurance subsidiary,
ORNTIC, are currently among the named defendants in 36 of these
actions in 6 states, and are likely to be included in others.  A
second subsidiary, American Guaranty Title Insurance Company,
was originally named in some of the same suits but has been
dismissed from all such actions.

No class has yet been certified in any of the cases, according
to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty and Title
Insurance Groups.  The General Insurance Group provides property
and liability insurance primarily to commercial clients. Private
mortgage insurance produced by the Mortgage Guaranty Group
protects mortgage lenders and investors from default-related
losses on residential mortgage loans.  The Mortgage Guaranty
Group insures only first mortgage loans, primarily on
residential properties having one- to four-family dwelling
units.  The Title insurance business consists primarily of the
issuance of policies to real estate purchasers and investors
based upon searches of the public records.


OLD REPUBLIC: RESPA Violations Suit Still Pending Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action suit against Old Republic International Corp.'s
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National
Title Insurance Co., and Old Republic Title, Ltd. In the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington is still
pending certification.

Filed in May 2008, the suit alleges that ORNTIC and its
affiliate deceptively charged fees for reconveyancing services
they did not perform and split the fees with settlement service
providers in violation of the Federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA).

The action seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief.

No class has been certified in the action, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty and Title
Insurance Groups.  The General Insurance Group provides property
and liability insurance primarily to commercial clients. Private
mortgage insurance produced by the Mortgage Guaranty Group
protects mortgage lenders and investors from default-related
losses on residential mortgage loans.  The Mortgage Guaranty
Group insures only first mortgage loans, primarily on
residential properties having one- to four-family dwelling
units.  The Title insurance business consists primarily of the
issuance of policies to real estate purchasers and investors
based upon searches of the public records.


OLD REPUBLIC: Title Insurance Lawsuits v. ORNTIC Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC) still faces
several purported class-action suits over title insurance in
state and federal courts in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Texas, according to Old Republic International
Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

ORNTIC is a principal title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic
International Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules filed by
ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance
regulators, ORNTIC was required, but failed, to give consumers
reissue and refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as
required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating
bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities.

The actions seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty and Title
Insurance Groups.  The General Insurance Group provides property
and liability insurance primarily to commercial clients. Private
mortgage insurance produced by the Mortgage Guaranty Group
protects mortgage lenders and investors from default-related
losses on residential mortgage loans.  The Mortgage Guaranty
Group insures only first mortgage loans, primarily on
residential properties having one- to four-family dwelling
units.  The Title insurance business consists primarily of the
issuance of policies to real estate purchasers and investors
based upon searches of the public records.


PAMIDA STORES: Faces Suit in Nebraska Alleging WARN Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamida Stores Operating Co. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Nebraska alleging that the regional retailer didn't
properly notify workers before laying them off, The Associated
Press reports.

The suit was filed by Cynthia Zych in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nebraska on April 6, 2009, under the
caption, "Zych v. Pamida Stores Operating Co., LLC, Case No.
8:2009-cv-00119"

Ms. Zych alleges that the Omaha-based company violated the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)
Act.  She is seeking unspecified damages and an injunction to
prevent future violations, The Associated Press reported.


STATE STREET: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duties Lawsuit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corp., along with State Street Global Advisors
(SSgA) and two other subsidiaries, faces a purported class-
action lawsuit claiming the firms breached their fiduciary
responsibilities in the management of its securities lending
program for retirement plans, Christine Williamson of Pensions &
Investments reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of the Fishman Haygood Phelps
Walmsley Willis & Swanson LLP 401(k) plan, New Orleans.  It
claims institutional investors suffered losses from imprudent
investment of the cash collateral pools that support the
securities lending program connected with SSgA's collective
trusts, according to the Pensions & Investments report.

According to a news release from the plaintiff's attorneys, "The
collateral (pools are) supposed to be invested in safe, short-
term, liquid instruments.  State Street instead chose
investments that were illiquid, highly leveraged and unduly
risky, including mortgage-backed securities and other
securitized debt instruments that were inappropriate investments
for retirement plans."

The complaint also alleges that State Street and its
subsidiaries made prohibited transactions involving ERISA plan
assets in collecting fees and other compensation from the
securities lending, Pensions & Investments reported.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Complaints Over Chromium Emission Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three purported class-action complaints over hexavalent chromium
emissions against Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Riverside
Cement Co., remain stayed.

The company has been served with three additional lawsuits filed
in Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California in
mid July 2008.

Each purports to be a class action complaint for medical
monitoring for a putative class defined as students who attended
or presently attend a specified school in the vicinity of the
company's Crestmore plant and who were allegedly exposed to
chrome 6 emissions from the plant.

The putative class in each of these cases is a subset of the
putative class in the case styled, "Virginia Shellman, et al. v.
Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.," and the allegations
and request for relief are nearly identical to those in the
Shellman case.  As a consequence, the court has stayed these
three lawsuits until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined,
according to the company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 28, 2009.

Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com-- is a supplier of
heavy construction materials in the United States through its
three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer
products.  The company's cement segment produces gray portland
cement and specialty cements.  Its cement production and
distribution facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and
California.  The company's aggregates segment produces natural
aggregates, including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and
specialty lightweight aggregates.  Its consumer products segment
produces primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent,
packaged products.  The company is a supplier of natural
aggregates and ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern
Louisiana, and to a lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Defends "Shellman" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Riverside Cement Co.,
continues to defend a purported class-action complaint styled,
"Virginia Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company,
et al."

In late April 2008, the "Shellman" lawsuit was filed in
Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action complaint for medical
monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were
allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from the company's
Crestmore cement plant.

The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to
the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.

The suit requests, among other things, punitive and exemplary
damages and establishment and funding of a medical testing and
monitoring program for the class until their exposure to chrome
6 is no longer a threat to their health, according to the
company's March 27, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Feb. 28, 2009.

Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com-- is a supplier of
heavy construction materials in the United States through its
three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer
products.  The company's cement segment produces gray portland
cement and specialty cements.  Its cement production and
distribution facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and
California.  The company's aggregates segment produces natural
aggregates, including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and
specialty lightweight aggregates.  Its consumer products segment
produces primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent,
packaged products.  The company is a supplier of natural
aggregates and ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern
Louisiana, and to a lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas.


TISHMAN SPEYER: N.Y.'s Highest Court to Review "Roberts" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP announced on
April 7, 2009 that the same four-panel judge that unanimously
ruled in the plaintiffs' favor in the New York case of "Roberts
v. Tishman-Speyer" at the beginning of March has allowed the
landlord defendants to appeal directly to the Court of Appeals,
New York's highest court.

     The putative plaintiff class consists of thousands of
present and former tenants at New York's largest residential
apartment complex, Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, and
won what has been hailed by some as a "landmark victory" for
tenants' rights in the Appellate Division - New York's
intermediate appeal court - on March 5, 2009.

     "The decision granting leave to appeal was not entirely
unexpected given the public attention given to this case and the
fact that all the parties have publicly recognized that
obtaining a prompt, final ruling on the question of law
addressed by the March 5, 2009 decision is in the best interests
of both tenants and landlords city-wide," said Alexander H.
Schmidt of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, the lawyer
representing the Plaintiffs.

     "The order granting leave to appeal is not a great victory
for the landlord defendants as some in the press have reported.
Today's order means that the Court of Appeals will review the
March 5 decision promptly.  The plaintiffs are very confident
that the Appellate Division's March 5 ruling was correct and
that the Court of Appeals will agree, benefiting all New Yorkers
seeking more readily available, affordable housing in New York
City."

     The class action asserts that the landlords have for many
years illegally charged market rate rents for apartments that
should have been rent stabilized under New York City's Rent
Stabilization Law, thereby overcharging each affected tenant
hundreds or thousands of dollars per year.  The central legal
issue was whether the landlords could permissibly deregulate and
charge market rents for certain so-called "luxury" apartment
units in the complexes in years in which the landlords were
receiving tax abatements from New York City known as "J-51"
benefits.  The Appellate Division ruled on March 5 that the
statutory scheme prevents landlords of rent stabilized buildings
from charging market rents while receiving J-51 benefits for as
long as they continue to receive those tax breaks.

For more details, contact:

          Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP
          Phone: 212-545-4600
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/


U.S. INSURERS: Faces $1B Suit Over Dumped Chinese Food Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Domestic producers of fresh garlic, crawfish tail meat,
canned mushrooms and honey, represented by the law firm of
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against
major insurance companies to recover close to $1 billion in
damages.  The Washington, D.C. law firm of Adduci, Mastriani &
Schaumberg, LLP is co-counsel with Kelly Drye for many domestic
producers of crawfish tail meat.

     The complaint states that the insurers' negligent issuance
of customs surety bonds, and subsequent refusal to pay under
those bonds, allowed the sale of huge amounts of competing food
imports from China at below-cost, or "dumped" prices.  This
caused severe financial damages to the domestic producers.  The
lawsuit, filed in the federal Court of International Trade, also
claims that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the
Commerce Department failed to enforce the four antidumping
orders issued years ago to protect the domestic producers from
dumped Chinese imports.

     The surety defendants include the Hartford Companies,
Lincoln General, Washington International, American Home
Assurance, Great American Insurance Companies and International
Fidelity.

     The complaint states that for eight years, the insurers
negligently issued hundreds of customs surety bonds that
guaranteed the payment of any dumping duties the government
might determine were owed by U.S. importers for the specified
Chinese goods.

     "Without these customs surety bonds, the importers could
not have brought in and sold the Chinese goods in the U.S.
market at steeply dumped prices.  The dumping of these imports
forced the domestic producers to significantly lower the prices
for their competing products, causing the producers to lose
hundreds of millions of dollars," said Michael Coursey, a
partner in Kelley Drye's international trade practice group.

     John Heintz, chair of Kelley Drye's insurance recovery and
D.C. litigation practice groups explained, "Because these
importers were new, thinly capitalized, and had little or no
credit history or experience in importing, the insurers knew or
should have known that the importers posed an extremely high
risk of defaulting on assessed dumping duties.  The insurers,
nevertheless for years, continuously issued the bonds on behalf
of the importers, and made millions of dollars in premiums."

     Now, the importers have all defaulted on paying the
hundreds of millions of dollars in dumping duties the government
has billed for these imports.  The insurers similarly have
refused to pay the duties as required by their bonds, and
Customs has failed to prosecute any collections lawsuits against
the insurers.  The government is legally obligated to distribute
to the competing domestic producers any dumping duties
ultimately paid by the importers or the insurers.  Thus, the
government's failure to collect these duties from either the
importers or the insurers has resulted in huge losses for the
domestic producers.

     This ground-breaking lawsuit holds insurance companies
accountable for enabling unfair international trade practices
with custom bonds, and for failing to honor the payments
promised, when issuing those bonds.

For more details, contact:

          Michael J. Coursey, Esq. (mcoursey@kelleydrye.com)
          John E. Heintz, Esq. (jheintz@kelleydrye.com)
          Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
          Phone: 202-342-8456 or 202-342-8412
          Cell: 202-487-5226 or 301-466-3161
          Web site: http://www.kelleydrye.com


UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces N.J. Antitrust Suit Over Androgel
---------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action complaint filed last week in New Jersey
federal court claims damages for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by brand-name and generic manufacturers of the
drug, Androgel.

     The case, filed by Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Distributors and Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc., names
as Defendants Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., Solvay
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Paddock Laboratories, Inc.

     Androgel is a testosterone replacement therapy for men who
have a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone.

     The lawsuit is a class action filed on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased Androgel directly from any
defendant from at least January 1, 2006 until a date yet to be
determined.

     The suit alleges that the brand name and generic
manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of Androgel,
by overcharging Plaintiffs and others by millions of dollars and
depriving them of cheaper generic versions of the drug.  The
complaint estimates that hundreds or thousands of people or
companies have been economically injured by the drug
manufacturers' conduct.

     Two law firms have joined forces to litigate the class
action: RodaNast, P.C. in Pennsylvania and the Roberts Law Firm
in Arkansas.

For more details, contact:

          RodaNast, P.C.
          Attorneys at Law
          801 Estelle Drive
          Lancaster, PA 17601
          Phone: 717.892.3000 or 1.888.245.0200
          Fax: 717.892.1200
          Web site: http://www.rodanast.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ZYNEX INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Zynex, Inc. (OTC BB:ZYXI) (formerly Zynex Medical
Holdings, Inc.)(OTC BB:ZYNX) between May 21, 2008 and March 31,
2009, inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Zynex's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Zynex securities.

     No class has been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


ZYNEX INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Colo. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     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 CEO Sandgaard, and CFO
Allison with violations of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. 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  * * *