CAR_Public/090415.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 73

                           Headlines

AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Carl Icahn Joins Shareholder Litigation
AUSTIN CAPITAL: Faces Several N.Y. Lawsuits Over Madoff Losses
AVX Corp: Appeals S.C. Judge's Decision in TCE-Related Lawsuits
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Amended Consolidated ARS Suit Pending in N.Y.
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Analyst Suit Settlement Gets Prelim OK in Nov.

CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Appeal to Dismissed Enron-related Suit Pending
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Appeal to Junked Revenue Sharing Suit Pending
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: CGM Still Faces Suits Over Subprime Mortgages
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Complaint in Bond Lawsuit
DIRECTECH HOLDING: Faces Mass. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

EHARMONY.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Lack of Date-Matching System
MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Refuses to Restore Status to "Kelley" Case
MIVA INC: Discovery in Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit Ongoing
PFSWEB INC: Suit by Sales Representatives Settled in Dec. 2008
RADIAN GROUP: Pa. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit

SATYAM COMPUTER: Says Mississippi Pension Fund Cannot Join Suits
ST. JOHN HEALTH: May 13 Hearing Set for $13.6M Nurses' Suit Deal
THERMO FISHER: Faces Md. Litigation Over Iraqi Chemical Weapons
U.S. FIDELIS: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Extended Vehicle Protection
U.S. UNWIRED: Fifth Circuit Revives Louisiana Shareholder Suit

VODAFONE GROUP: N.Y. Judge Reopens Securities Fraud Litigation
WHITNEY INFORMATION: Canadian Unit Still Faces Investments Suit
WHITNEY INFORMATION: Motion to Dismiss "Friedman" Suit Pending

* Credit Counseling Judgment Spurs Industry Compliance Program
* Groups Urge For U.S. President Involvement in Drywall Disaster


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Brower Piven Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ZYNEX INC: Holzer Holzer Files Colo. Securities Fraud Litigation


                           *********

AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Carl Icahn Joins Shareholder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Billionaire investor Carl Icahn joined a lawsuit against Amylin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. seeking to invalidate debt acceleration
provisions that would be triggered in the event of a change in
control of the company's board, Reuters reports.

In filing issued on April 9, 2009, Icahn and affiliates stated
that they had joined a class-action lawsuit filed in March by
the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund, according to the
Reuters report.

The shareholder suit seeks to disable a "poison put," structured
to protect bondholders in the event of a takeover by a company
with a lower credit rating, Reuters reported.


AUSTIN CAPITAL: Faces Several N.Y. Lawsuits Over Madoff Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Capital Management Ltd. is facing several purported
class-actions lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in connection with losses from the
firm's investment in a hedge fund that was involved in the
Madoff Ponzi scheme, Christine Williamson of Pensions &
Investments reports.

                          April Lawsuit

The most recent lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2009 on behalf of
two Las Vegas Taft-Hartley retirement plans: the $335 million
Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust/Laborers
Union Local 872, and the $138 million Plumbers and Pipefitters
Union Local 525, according to the Pensions & Investments report.

The complaint alleges that Austin Capital committed fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), negligence, unjust enrichment and
negligent misrepresentation through its investment in the Austin
Safe Harbor Offshore Fund, which invested in the Rye Select
Board Market Prime Fund.

The Rye fund invested with Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities; the fund and its manager, Rye Investments, now are
closed.  Rye was a subsidiary of Tremont Group Holdings, reports
Pensions & Investments.

Also named as defendants in the suit are individual executives
of Austin Capital and Victory Capital Management, the money
management unit of KeyCorp, which owns Austin Capital, reports
Pensions & Investments.

According to court documents, the laborers' fund lost $15
million from Austin's Madoff investment and the plumbers' fund
lost $9 million.

Pensions & Investments reported that the suit seeks damages,
restitution of losses and legal costs.

                          March Lawsuit

The second most recent suit was filed March 18, 2009 on behalf
of Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 17,
Newburgh, N.Y., and Daniel Jackson Jr., administrator of the
Taft-Hartley fund, according to the Pensions & Investments
report.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and violation of ERISA, and seeks damages,
restitution of losses and legal costs.

Defendants include Austin Capital, Tremont Group Holdings, and
Tremont's parent company OppenheimerFunds.

The suit seeks damages, restitution of losses and legal costs,
Pensions & Investments reported.

                        February Lawsuit

Another class-action suit against Austin Capital was filed Feb.
12, 2009 by the $295 million Pension Fund for Hospital and
Health Care Employees, District 1199C, Philadelphia, alleging
similar charges and seeking restitution of $700,000, reports
Pensions & Investments.


AVX Corp: Appeals S.C. Judge's Decision in TCE-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corp. has filed an appeal of a federal judge's decision to
send back to state court a pair of lawsuits that allege the
manufacturer polluted groundwater in a Myrtle Beach
neighborhood, David Wren of The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News reports.

The company wants those cases to be combined with a third
lawsuit that will stay in federal court because it involves
federal Superfund laws.  Superfund is a federal program to clean
up hazardous waste sites, according to The (Myrtle Beach) Sun
News report.

Judge Thomas E. Rogers III of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina ruled in March 2009 that the two
lawsuits -- a class-action case filed on behalf of residents and
another filed by JDS Development of Myrtle Beach Inc. -- should
be tried in an S.C. court because they focus solely on state
laws governing financial compensation for negligence, The
(Myrtle Beach) Sun News reported.

Judge Rogers, in his ruling, said the property owners' claims
"would not alter the terms of the [cleanup] work plan" and that
they "only seek the payment of money damages based on AVX's
alleged liability" under S.C. Law, reports The (Myrtle Beach)
Sun News.

David Wren of The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News previously reported
that the class-action case involves about 200 people and seeks
unspecified financial compensation for property that owners say
is worthless because of the contamination from a degreaser
called trichloroethylene, also known as TCE (Class Action
Reporter, March 31, 2009).

The class-action suit was filed on Nov. 27, 2007 over the
alleged migration of certain pollutants from AVX Corp.'s South
Carolina factory to neighboring properties was filed in the
South Carolina State Court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12,
2009).

In essence, the class-action suit claims that property value had
been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain
pollutants from the company's property (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 9, 2009).

The JDS Development case essentially makes similar claims as the
class-action suit.

AVX, in appealing the decision, argued that the cases should be
combined because trying them in separate venues could result in
inconsistent rulings over similar legal issues.  The company
also says it would be more efficient for one court to handle the
cases together than to have as many as three courts trying them
separately.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Amended Consolidated ARS Suit Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated class action complaint in "In Re
Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation" is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Aug. 25, 2008, lead plaintiffs in In Re Citigroup Auction
Rate Securities Litigation filed an amended consolidated class-
action complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 24,
2008, which was fully briefed on Jan. 23, 2009.

No further details were reported in the company's latest
regulatory filing.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Analyst Suit Settlement Gets Prelim OK in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the class-action suit tagged, "In Re Salomon
Analyst Metromedia Litigation," was preliminarily approved on
Nov. 19, 2008, according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures
Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Since May 2002, Citigroup Global Markets and certain executive
officers and current and former employees have been named as
defendants in numerous alleged class action complaints,
individual actions, and arbitration demands by purchasers of
various securities alleging that they violated federal
securities law, including Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain state laws for
allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in
fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest
with companies in connection with published investment research,
including Global Crossing, Ltd., AT&T Corp., Level 3
Communications, Inc., Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., XO
Communications, Inc., Williams Communications Group Inc., and
Focal Communications, Inc.

The alleged class actions relating to research of these
companies are pending before a single judge in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated
proceedings.  The court has consolidated these actions into
separate proceedings corresponding to the named companies.

On Dec. 2, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Citigroup-related defendants' motions to dismiss the claims
against it in the AT&T, Level 3, XO and Williams actions.

On Jan. 6, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part
Citigroup's motion to dismiss the claims against it in the
Metromedia action.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated the district court's order granting class certification
in the matter In Re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation.

On Oct. 1, 2008, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to
which Citigroup will pay $35 million to members of the
settlement class that purchased or otherwise acquired Metromedia
Fiber Network, Inc. securities during the class period.  The
settlement was preliminarily approved on Nov. 19, 2008.  The
proposed settlement amount is covered by existing litigation
reserves.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Appeal to Dismissed Enron-related Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the dismissal of a consolidated amended Enron-
related class-action complaint against Citigroup Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., and certain officers, remains pending,
according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In July 2002, Citigroup, Citigroup Global Markets and certain
officers were named as defendants in an alleged class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, brought on behalf of purchasers of Citigroup common
stock between July 24, 1999 and July 23, 2002.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and for common
law fraud.

Fourteen virtually identical complaints have been filed and
consolidated.

The complaints allege that Citigroup misstated the extent of its
Enron-related exposure, and that Citigroup's stock price fell
once the true extent of Citigroup's Enron involvements became
known.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2003, which
incorporated the allegations in the 15 separate actions and
added new material as well.  The amended complaint focuses on
certain transactions between Citigroup and Enron and alleged
analyst conflicts of interest.  The class period for the
consolidated amended complaint is July 24, 1999 to Dec. 11,
2002.

On June 2, 2003, Citigroup filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs' response was filed
on July 30, 2003 and Citigroup's reply was filed on Oct. 3,
2003.  On Aug. 10, 2004, Judge Swain granted Citigroup's motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal in October 2004.

No further developments regarding the case were reported in the
Citigroup Global's latest Annual Report with the SEC.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Appeal to Junked Revenue Sharing Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint
concerning revenue sharing, incentive payment and other issues
against Citigroup Inc. and certain of its affiliates is pending,
according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Citigroup and certain of its affiliates have been named in
several class action litigations pending in various federal
district courts arising out of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended,
and the common law (including breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment).

The claims concern practices in connection with the sale of
mutual funds, including allegations involving market timing,
revenue sharing, incentive payments for the sale of proprietary
funds, undisclosed breakpoint discounts for the sale of certain
classes of funds, inappropriate share class recommendations and
inappropriate fund investments.

The litigations involving market timing have been consolidated
under the Multidistrict Litigation rules in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, and the litigations
involving revenue sharing, incentive payment and other issues
have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these litigations generally seek unspecified
compensatory damages, rescissionary damages, injunctive relief,
costs and fees.

In the principal market timing cases that name Citigroup, a lead
plaintiff has been appointed but that plaintiff has not yet
filed an amended complaint.

In the cases concerning revenue sharing, incentive payment and
other issues, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and
amended complaint on Dec. 15, 2004.  Citigroup moved to dismiss
the claims and the motion was granted.  An appeal is pending.
Several derivative actions and class actions were also dismissed
against Citigroup defendants in this action (and Citigroup
expects that additional actions will be dismissed on similar
grounds).

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: CGM Still Faces Suits Over Subprime Mortgages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. continues to face class-action
lawsuits by shareholders of entities that originated subprime
mortgages, and for which it underwrote securities offerings,
according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Citigroup Global Markets has been named as a defendant in:

   (i) two alleged class action lawsuits brought by shareholders
       of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., pending in
       the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
       York; and

  (ii) three alleged class action lawsuits brought by
       shareholders of Countrywide Financial Corp. and its
       affiliates, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
       Central District of California.

On Sept. 12, 2008, defendants, including Citigroup and Citigroup
Global Markets, moved to dismiss the complaint in "In Re
American Home Mortgage Securities Litigation."

A motion to remand to California state court has been filed in
one of the Countrywide-related actions.

The plaintiffs in each of the class actions have sought
unspecified damages relating to the alleged losses sustained by
the class.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Complaint in Bond Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. faces a consolidated class-action complaint in
the matter captioned In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation,
according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Sept. 30 and Oct. 28, 2008, Citigroup, certain Citigroup
entities, certain current and former directors and officers of
Citigroup and Citigroup Funding, Inc., and certain underwriters
of Citigroup notes, including Citigroup Global Markets, were
named as defendants in two putative class actions filed in New
York state court but since removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

These actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, arising out of various offerings of
Citigroup notes during 2006, 2007, and 2008.

On Dec. 10, 2008, these two actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation, and lead plaintiff
and counsel were appointed.

On Jan. 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-action
complaint.

New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.,
formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund
L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and
indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forwards.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership.  The
Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
an affiliate of the General Partner.  The General Partner is
wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI),
which is the sole owner of CGM.  CGMHI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.


DIRECTECH HOLDING: Faces Mass. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTECH Holding Co., Inc. faces a purported class-action suit
in Massachusetts that accuses the company of failing to pay
overtime wages, Livia Gershon of The Worcester Business Journal
reports.

The suit was filed by four workers in May 2008.  Robert W.
Harnais, Esq. a partner in the Law Offices of Mahoney, Diamond &
Harnais in Quincy, is representing the workers in the suit,
according to The Worcester Business Journal report.

For more details, contact:

          Robert W. Harnais, Esq. (robert@harnaislaw.com)
          Law Offices of Mahoney, Diamond & Harnais
          15 Foster Street
          Quincy MA 02169
          Phone: (617) 770-0000 Ext. 108 or (781) 910-9408
                 (Cell)
          Fax: (617)770-0026


EHARMONY.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Lack of Date-Matching System
--------------------------------------------------------------
eHarmony.com, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
California alleging that the company's claim of having a
"scientifically proven system" to match its customers with
appropriate partners is false, Rhett Pardon of XBIZ.com reports.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 10, 2009, seeks class-action
status and alleges that because eHarmony has no matchmaking
system, consumers are oftentimes hooked up with scam artists,
according to the XBIZ.com report.

XBIZ.com reported that the plaintiffs, Lynda Kelly of Northern
California and Miranda Soegi of Los Angeles said they both were
duped by the online-matchmaking company because "rather than
using a rigorous matching system and other procedures that 'make
sure only sincere singles seeking long-term relationships are
matched,' eHarmony did not employ any meaningful measures."

Ms. Kelly, according to the suit, was hooked up with a scam
artist from somewhere in the African continent whose only intent
was to steal money.

The lawsuit, which seeks $5 million in damages, claims Pasadena,
Calif.-based eHarmony's advertising is misleading and the
company is in violation of California's Unfair Business Act,
reports XBIZ.com.

It claims, "eHarmony has marketed itself, and has been able to
charge premium prices for its services in the marketplace by
claiming that its patented matching technology is based on more
than 35 years of empirical and clinical research on what goes
into successful relationships [bringing] together singles using
a scientifically proven set of compatibility principles,"
XBIZ.com reported.

However, "eHarmony has known about the deficiencies in its
matching system as it always has known that it could not ensure
its members that their matches were safe and compatible," the
suit said.


MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Refuses to Restore Status to "Kelley" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington refused to restore class-action status to
the lawsuit, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," Gregg Keizer of Computerworld reports.

In a ruling issued on April 10, 2009, Judge Pechman denied a
motion by the plaintiffs to recertify a smaller group of
consumers in the suit, according to the Computerworld report.

                         Case Background

Previously, Joseph Tartakoff of seattlepi.com reported that
Microsoft Corp. sought for the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims
in the class-action lawsuit, which revolves around the company's
marketing before the debut of its Windows Vista operating system
in early 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008).

The suit, captioned, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-
cv-00475-MJP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8,
2008).

In early 2006, Microsoft executives approved a plan allowing PC
makers to designate computers as "Vista Capable" even if they
would only be able to run the most basic version of Vista,
called "Vista Home Basic," according to seattlepi.com.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that through the "Vista
Capable" program Microsoft violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and unjustly enriched itself because the false
designation drove up demand for personal computers and,
therefore, prices, reports seattlepi.com.

                   Initial Class Certification

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit filed
against Microsoft over allegations that the company unjustly
enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even
if they are not.  The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the
2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft
to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of
Windows Vista was delayed, according to the CAR report.

However, according to seattlepi.com, Judge Pechman dismissed
plaintiffs' claim that Microsoft had deceived consumers into
buying PCs they would not otherwise have bought.  She instead
allowed them to argue that Microsoft had illegally driven up
prices.

A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft
appealed against the court's decision affording class-action
status to the Vista lawsuit.  However, in a brief order dated
April 21, 2008, the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's
decision.

In motions that the company filed with court on Nov. 20, 2008,
the company rebuts the claims and asks the judge to decertify
the class.  "Because it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot prove
any element of their 'price inflation' theory, Microsoft moves
for summary judgment," the company's filing reads.

In the filing, which was obtained by seattlepi.com, Microsoft
dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying argument that the most
basic version of Vista was not Vista because it lacked certain
features, including the Aero interface.

Microsoft's attorneys wrote, "The fact that Windows Vista Home
Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of
Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that
Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a
distinct budget edition."  They re-iterated, "Windows Vista Home
Basic falls well within the Windows Vista family as a technical
matter."

In addition, Microsoft lawyers said that plaintiffs -- who have
calculated how much money Microsoft generated from the sales of
its operating systems on Vista Capable PCs -- had not shown that
that revenue was attributable to increased sales of the PCs
because of the program, reports seattlepi.com.

                         Decertification

In February 2009, John Letzing of MarketWatch reported that the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
decertified the class-action lawsuit filed against Microsoft
Corp. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009).

In an order filed on Feb. 17, 2009, Judge Marsha Pechman wrote
that, "At this juncture, the Court believes the most appropriate
remedy for Plaintiffs' failure to present evidence suggesting
class-wide causation is decertification."  Judge Pechman
specifically cited a lack of evidence for a "class-wide price
inflation theory" put forward by the plaintiffs, according to
the MarketWatch report.

Judge Pechman allowed the lawsuit to proceed, because Microsoft
has not "demonstrated that no material issue of fact exists for
Plaintiffs' individual claims."  In essence, the ruling forces
plaintiffs to pursue their cases individually, reports
MarketWatch.

          Seeking Reinstatement of Class-Action Status

In early March 2009, Joseph Tartakoff of the Seattle Post
Intelligencer reported that the plaintiffs in the recently
decertified class-action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. for the
alleged deceptive promotion of its flagship software, Windows
Vista, have asked Judge Pechman to reinstate the class-action
status of the case, under a narrower scope (Class Action
Reporter, March 3, 2009).

In a recent filing, plaintiffs asked Judge Pechman of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington to certify
a class action under two more narrowed criteria.

Initially, the class included anyone who bought Windows Vista
Capable PCs.  Now plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify the
class based on two subgroups: Those who participated in a Vista
upgrade program and those who purchased Vista Capable PCs that
could not support a specific driver, which plaintiffs say is
essential to run Vista.

The motion for narrowed class certification is under seal, but
it is described in another filing.  A copy of the motion is
available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3a00.

          Opposing Reinstatement of Class-Action Status

In March 2009, Elizabeth Montalbano of IDG News Service reported
that Microsoft Corp. opposed an attempt to reinstate class-
action status to the case (Class Action Reporter, March 17,
2009).

In court papers filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Microsoft asked the court not to
reconsider applying class-action status to the suit because
people knew exactly which version of Vista they would receive
through a coupon program called Express Upgrade Guarantee.  The
program allowed customers to buy PCs with Windows XP installed
on them but then had to upgrade to Vista when the OS was
released, according to the IDG News Service report.

Microsoft also said that the plaintiffs took too long to ask for
a narrowing of the class, even based on "theories known to them
for more than a year," according to court papers obtained by IDG
News Service.

                       Trial Postponement

In early April 2009, Gregg Keizer of Computerworld reported that
Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington postponed the upcoming trial of the
"Vista Capable" lawsuit, which was set to start April 13, 2009.

According to court documents, Judge Pechman said in her ruling,
"Plaintiffs' motion presents novel arguments that require
thorough analysis.  Without taking any position on the motion
for narrowed class certification, the court believes a
continuance is appropriate," reports Computerworld.

Judge Pechman had promised attorneys for both parties that she
would rule on the plaintiffs' motion to restore class-action
status to the case by March 31, 2009, however, she acknowledged
that she could not meet that deadline.  Judge Pechman gave no
indication when she would issue her ruling, according to the
Computerworld report.

"The trial date and all remaining pretrial dates are stricken,"
Judge Pechman said.  "The court will contact the parties to
schedule a trial date after it rules on plaintiffs' motion,"
Computerworld reported.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/
          e-mail: office@gordontilden.com


MIVA INC: Discovery in Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit filed against Miva, Inc. -- formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.
-- and certain of its officers and directors before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class-
action complaints were filed, alleging that the company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual
defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control
persons" of MIVA.

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of the company's investors who purchased company stock
between Jan. 5, 2004, and May 4, 2005.  They allege generally
that, during the putative class period, the company made
misleading statements and omitted material information regarding
the goodwill associated with a recent acquisition and certain
material weaknesses in its internal controls.

The plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual
defendants made these misstatements and omissions in order to
keep its stock price high to allow certain individual defendants
to sell stock at an artificially inflated price.  They seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the company and the other
defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure
to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform
Act and also served answers to the complaints.

On July 27, 2005, the court consolidated all of the outstanding
lawsuits as "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation," selected
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated cases, and
granted plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated amended
complaint.

The company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Sept. 8, 2005.  The dismissal motion
was granted by the court in December 2005.  The plaintiffs,
however, were granted leave to submit a further amended
complaint, which they filed on Jan. 17, 2006.

The defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case.  On
March 15, 2007, the court granted in large part the defendants'
dismissal request.

However, the court denied their motion to dismiss as to certain
claims relating to:

       -- removal of traffic sources,

       -- spyware,

       -- implementation of screening policies and procedures,
          and

       -- amounts of traffic purchased from distribution
          partners.

The defendants then filed a motion for amendment to the March
15, 2007 order to include certification for interlocutory appeal
or, in the alternative, for reconsideration.

In July 2007, the court denied the motion for amendment to the
March 15, 2007 order to include certification for interlocutory
appeal, but granted the motion for reconsideration as to the
issue of whether the plaintiffs pleaded a strong inference of
scienter in light of intervening precedent.

The court requested additional briefing on the scienter issue,
and on Feb. 15, 2008, entered an order dismissing one of the
individual defendants from the lawsuit and limiting the claims
that could be brought against another individual defendant.

The plaintiffs moved the court to certify a putative class of
investors, and the defendants had filed briefs in opposition to
this request.  On March 12, 2008, the court entered an order
certifying a class of those investors who purchased the
company's common stock from Feb. 23, 2005, to May 4, 2005.  The
court also dismissed two of the proposed class representatives
for lack of standing.

The plaintiffs have served discovery requests on the defendants,
and the discovery phase of the lawsuit is presently underway.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Judge John E. Steele presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          (cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com)
          Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
          300 W. Platt St., Suite 150
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: 813-489-1001
          Fax: 813-489-1008

               - and -

          Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
          (cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP
          5200 Town Center Circle, Ste. 600, Tower One
          Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018
          Phone: 561-361-5000
          Fax: 561-367-8400

Representing the defendant is:

          Joseph G. Foster, Esq. (jfoster@porterwright.com)
          Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, P.A.
          5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300
          Naples, FL 34108
          Phone: 239-593-2900
          Fax: 239-593-2990


PFSWEB INC: Suit by Sales Representatives Settled in Dec. 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Darral Frank and
Joseph F. Keeley, Jr. v. PC Mall, Inc. dba eCOST.com and
eCOST.com, Inc.," was settled for $100,000 in December 2008,
according to PFSweb, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On July 25, 2007, the purported class-action lawsuit was filed
in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.

The purported class consists of all of current and former sales
representatives who worked for the defendants in California from
July 24, 2003 through July 24, 2007.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to pay overtime
compensation and interest thereon, failed to timely pay
compensation to terminated employees and failed to provide meal
and rest periods, all in violation of the California Labor Code
and Business and Professions Code.

PFSweb, Inc. -- http://www.pfsweb.com/-- is an international
provider of integrated business process outsourcing solutions to
companies seeking to maximize their supply chain efficiencies
and to extend their traditional business and e-commerce
initiatives, as well as a multi-category online discount
retailer of new, close-out and recertified brand-name
merchandise.  The company derives its revenues from three
business segments: business process outsourcing, a master
distributor and an online discount retailer.  PFSweb operates
call centers from its United States facilities located in Plano,
Texas, and Memphis, Tennessee, and from international facilities
located in Markham, Canada, Liege, Belgium and Manila,
Philippines.


RADIAN GROUP: Pa. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Radian
Group, Inc. and three current and former officers of the
company, Andrew Longstreth of the Am Law Litigation Daily
reports.

Previously, Radian Group, Inc., sought for the dismissal of an
amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class-
action suit against the company that is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Class-
Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2008).

In August and September 2007, two purported stockholder class-
action complaints were filed against Radian Group and certain
individuals.  The suits are:

       * "Cortese v. Radian Group Inc.," and

       * "Maslar v. Radian Group Inc."

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that
Radian Group was aware of and failed to disclose the actual
financial condition of C-BASS prior to Radian Group's
declaration of a material impairment to its investment in C-
BASS.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the Court ordered that the cases be
consolidated into "In re Radian Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:2007-cv-03375," and appointed the Institutional Investors Iron
Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the City of Ann Arbor
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case.

On April 16, 2008, a consolidated and amended complaint was
filed, adding one additional defendant.  On June 6, 2008, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which request the
plaintiffs have opposed through a memorandum of law filed with
the court on July 25, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

A copy of the dismissal order is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3b74

The suit is "John Cortese, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-03375," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert P. Frutkin, Esq. (rpf@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
          450 John Wanamaker Bldg.
          Juniper & Market Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (DRosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          David Seamus Kaskela, Esq. (skaskela@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants is:

          Leslie J. Abrams, Esq. (labrams@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
          1440 New York Avenue
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-371-7977


SATYAM COMPUTER: Says Mississippi Pension Fund Cannot Join Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Satyam Computer Services Ltd. has stated in a court filing that
the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS),
which claimed it lost $12.7 million, was not qualified to join
in a dozen U.S. Securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed by
other investors, because it bought Satyam's common shares rather
than its American depositary receipts (ADRs), the focus of the
litigation, Bloomberg reports.

In a March 26, 2009 court filing, the company said, "Mississippi
PERS does not belong to any purported class in this action,"
according to the Bloomberg report.

The Class Action Reporter previously reported that between Jan.
9, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2009, that several law firms have filed
purported class-action lawsuits against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

One of these lawsuits was filed by law firm of Vianale & Vianale
LLP.  That suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
American Depository Shares of Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
during the period Jan. 6, 2004 through Jan. 6, 2009 (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2009).

The complaint alleges that the Company and its top executives
violated the Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading financial
statements.


ST. JOHN HEALTH: May 13 Hearing Set for $13.6M Nurses' Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan set
a May 13, 2009 hearing to consider a proposed $13.6 million
settlement in the matter, "Cason-Merendo et al. v. Detroit
Medical Center et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-15601-GER-MKM," The
Associated Press reports.

Jay Greene of Crain's Detroit Business previously reported that
St. John Health System, a seven-hospital system based in Warren,
Mich., agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit for $13.6
million, which alleged hospitals in Detroit conspired to keep
wages for nurses artificially low (Class Action Reporter, April
1, 2009).

The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the Crain's
Detroit Business report.

"St. John Health believes it acted appropriately and lawfully,
and strongly denies the allegations in the lawsuit, including
the allegation that nurse wages have been adversely affected,"
said St. John in a statement issued on March 30, 2009, Crain's
Detroit Business reported.

The St. John statement added that the settlement is intended "to
avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction of
burdensome and protracted litigation," according to Crain's
Detroit Business.

Crain's Detroit Business reported that other local hospital
systems that are part of the lawsuit and have not settled
include Detroit Medical Center, Henry Ford Health System,
Oakwood Healthcare System, Trinity Health and William Beaumont
Hospitals.

                        Case Background

In 2006, the law firms of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll and
James & Hoffman have filed a federal class action on behalf of
nurses against six Detroit, Mich.-area hospitals for alleged
conspiracy to suppress wages (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21,
2006).

The hospital systems are:

      -- Bon Secours/Cottage Health Services,
      -- Detroit Medical Center,
      -- Henry Ford Health System,
      -- McLaren Health Care Corp,
      -- Oakwood Healthcare, and
      -- Saint John Health Partners.

The defendants are accused of deliberately, secretly and
systematically exchanging information about the wages they pay
their nurses, in violation of federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs named in the suit are Pat Cason-Merendo, who
works at the Detroit Medical Center's Rehabilitation Institute
of Michigan in Detroit, and Jeffrey Suhre of the St. John
system's Providence Hospital and Medical Center in Southfield.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

They seek compensation for lost wages and damages.  An estimated
$340 million is allegedly owed for 16,800 registered nurses
working full-time since 2002 at the six hospitals.

The suit is "Cason-Merendo et al. v. Detroit Medical Center et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-15601-GER-MKM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E.
Rosen with referral to Judge Mona K. Majzoub.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen F. Wasinger, Esq. (sfw@sfwlaw.com)
          Stephen F. Wasinger (Royal Oak)
          26862 Woodward Avenue, Suite 100
          Royal Oak, MI 48067-0958
          Phone: 248-414-9942


THERMO FISHER: Faces Md. Litigation Over Iraqi Chemical Weapons
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., VWR International, and Alcolac,
Inc. are being sued for selling material to the former Iraqi
government of Saddam Hussein used in his chemical weapon attacks
against Iraqi Kurds, VOA News reports.

Five Iraqi expatriates filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
state of Maryland, accusing the companies of violating the
Geneva Conventions in connection with the attacks.  The Republic
of Iraq is also named in the suit, according to VOA News report.

VOA News reported that Saddam's government used various chemical
weapons in the anti-Kurd Anfal campaign in the late 1980's.  At
a ceremony last month honoring victims in Halabja, one of the
most infamous attacks, Iraq's environment minister Narim Osman
told VOA Kurdish Service foreign companies should be put on
trial for their role in the killings.


U.S. FIDELIS: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Extended Vehicle Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Fidelis, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
Missouri over the company's offer of extended vehicle protection
for consumers whose original warranties have expired, Jon Hood
of ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

Many consumers who pay for the extra coverage assume that it
will cover most if not all repairs, as dealer-provided
warranties generally do.  The problem, according to the suit, is
that the company includes so many exceptions in its fine print
that consumers are usually left out in the cold when their cars
break down, reports ConsumerAffairs.com.

The suit also alleges that the company misrepresented the level
of coverage consumers would receive, and pressured them to sign
up quickly or risk losing special benefits.  Many consumers were
told that they were eligible to receive special rates, which
never materialized.  On top of everything else, customers who
asked to see the conditions of the contract were ignored,
according to the ConsumerAffairs.com report.


U.S. UNWIRED: Fifth Circuit Revives Louisiana Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partly reversed
a lower court's dismissal of a putative class-action lawsuit
alleging that material misrepresentations by U.S. Unwired, Inc.
and its directors wrongfully inflated, then contributed to a
drop in the company's stock price, saying the plaintiffs
successfully pleaded loss causation on some claims, Law360
reports.

In a ruling issued on April 9, 2009, the court remanded the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, according to the Law360 report.


VODAFONE GROUP: N.Y. Judge Reopens Securities Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York agreed to reopen a putative securities
class-action lawsuit lodged by a U.K.-based pension fund against
Vodafone Group PLC alleging that the company inflated financial
results, Law360 reports.

Conceding that he did not consider the claims of an additional
plaintiff in previously dismissing the case, Judge Castel on
April 9, 2009, filed an order in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granting the plaintiffs' request
to reconsider dropping the case, according to the Law360 report.


WHITNEY INFORMATION: Canadian Unit Still Faces Investments Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Information Network, Inc. and wholly owned subsidiary,
Whitney Canada, Inc., continue to face a class-action suit on
behalf of all persons who have made various real estate
investments in Quebec, Canada.

On Jan. 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc. and Whitney Information
Network, Inc. received notice of an Amended Motion for
Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of
Quebec, Canada.

A class-action suit was requested for all persons who have made
various real estate investments, at the alleged inducement, or
through, Marc Jemus, Francois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or their
companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or
Whitney Information Network, Inc. and/or Jean Lafreniere.

According to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the complaint seeks repayment of $39,235 to
the Petitioner, unspecified payment to each member of the class
of an amount corresponding to their lost investments, payment of
$10,000 to each member of the class as general damages, recovery
of costs and other litigation expenses, and unspecified
equitable relief.

Whitney Information Network, Inc. provides post-secondary
educational and training courses for students throughout the
United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, interested in
learning about real estate and financial markets.  The company's
courses provide instruction in real estate investing, business
strategies, stock market investment techniques, cash management,
asset protection and other financially oriented subjects.  WIN
also develops and sells educational resource materials, which it
prepares, to support its course offerings and for sale to the
general public.


WHITNEY INFORMATION: Motion to Dismiss "Friedman" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Information Network, Inc. awaits a ruling by the U.S.
District Court in the Middle District of Florida as to the
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint filed by Arnold Friedman individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.

By an order dated Nov. 17, 2008, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice the initial
complaint styled, "Durham v. Whitney Information Network, Inc.
et al.," filed by the plaintiffs on Dec. 28, 2006.

On Dec. 8, 2008, the company was served a consolidated amended
class action complaint filed by Arnold Friedman individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.

Mr. Friedman seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorney costs
and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Middle
District Court.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, according to the
company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Whitney Information Network, Inc. provides post-secondary
educational and training courses for students throughout the
United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, interested in
learning about real estate and financial markets.  The company's
courses provide instruction in real estate investing, business
strategies, stock market investment techniques, cash management,
asset protection and other financially oriented subjects.  WIN
also develops and sells educational resource materials, which it
prepares, to support its course offerings and for sale to the
general public.


* Credit Counseling Judgment Spurs Industry Compliance Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The American Association of Debt Management Organizations
(AADMO), the largest association for the credit counseling
industry, will hold a special educational session that offers
critical credit counseling agency legal compliance information
at its Spring Conference in San Francisco, Calif., on May 12 and
13, 2009.

     According to Mark Guimond, Executive Director of the AADMO,
"The fact that a $256 million class action judgment was just
ordered in credit counseling should be of grave concern to every
organization that is under audit by the IRS, had a change in its
tax-exempt status, operates as a taxable entity or is a non-
profit."

     "The legal landscape has been rough for years and a
judgment of this nature and size is sure to create a new
plaintiffs' bar that specializes in going after credit
counseling agencies", said Mr. Guimond.

     "Those that understand the facts and the challenges will be
better prepared to protect their agencies. Those who are
ignorant of the law or wrongfully believe that it doesn't apply
to their agencies will face substantial risk," added Guimond.

The AADMO Spring Conference will feature the following sessions:

       -- Two of the Most Important IRS Documents Ever for
          Credit Counseling Agencies

       -- Foreclosure Consulting: Dangers, Pitfalls and the
          Potential Nightmares

       -- Charitable Solicitations - The Achilles Heel of 501(c)
          (3) Status?

       -- The Industry & AADMO: Taking Your Industry's Only
          Trade Association to the Next Level

       -- The Uniform Credit Counseling Industry Consumer
          Contract

       -- Yes, You are a Money Transmitter! The Law You Need to
          Know

       -- CROA Part Deux - Implications and Realities for Credit
          Counseling

       -- Credit Counseling Compliance Software

       -- Legislative Update & Review

       -- Review of State Laws with Regulators

       -- And More to Come...


The AADMO Spring Conference program and registration information
may be found at http://www.AADMO.org.

AADMO is the largest trade association for the credit counseling
and debt management industry. Nationwide, the majority of
licensed and legally operating credit counseling agencies are
members of AADMO.  AADMO is an industry education and advocacy
organization the mission of which is to promote and ensure the
continued operation and viability of credit counseling and debt
management organizations.  AADMO members are consumer credit
counseling agencies, debt management organizations, credit
counselors, personal finance educators, credit and debt
information educators, bankruptcy pre-filing counselors,
bankruptcy pre-discharge educators, consumer lawyers and many
others.  AADMO is the only trade association to have held state
law compliance workshops with the New York State Banking
Department and the California Department of Corporations upon
enactment of their respective laws governing credit counseling.
AADMO is also the only trade association for the industry to
publish a formal summary of state laws that has been reviewed by
state regulators.

For more information visit www.AADMO.org or call 281-361-2325.


* Groups Urge For U.S. President Involvement in Drywall Disaster
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Americas Watchdog, and its Homeowners Consumer Center are
calling on President Obama to get personally involved with what
is about to become the worst homeowner environmental disaster in
US history.  According to the group, "we are certain this
imported toxic Chinese drywall affects 100,000's of new, or
remodeled US homes, we know the drywall is emitting toxic gases,
that are strong enough to degrade copper, silver, and other
metals, and most importantly homeowners, their children, or
family members are getting really sick, and a federal response
is long overdue."  The group says, "we need real science on the
imported toxic Chinese drywall, we need to know why it is making
people sick, and we need to know it now.  We also need a US
president, US Congress, and federal agencies to respond to this
dire situation now."  According to Americas Watchdog, "for good
reason the news media mocked the federal response to Hurricane
Katrina.  We believe the imported Chinese drywall issue has the
potential of being much worse than Katrina, and time is of the
essence, because people exposed to the Chinese drywall are
getting sick."

     Americas Watchdog and its Homeowners Consumer Center said
that they believe that imported Chinese drywall will be
discovered in significant quantities throughout the US.  It has
already been found in Florida, where the number of new or
remodeled homes could reach 150,000+, in Louisiana and
Mississippi, the numbers could reach 30,000+, in Texas,
Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Maryland, California, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Alabama, Georgia, Connecticut, Arizona, and other states
the toxic building material has been discovered in significant
quantities. There are numerous class action lawsuits and/or
lawsuits that have been filed over the toxic drywall issue.
According to Americas Watchdog, "here's the problem, we do not
think the class actions alone will provide the homeowners
nationwide with enough money to turn a toxic house into a clean
house that can then be re-sold, or deal with the health issues.
We are not even sure what the testing protocols are, because of
lack of good science, we don't know if people should move out of
their home, if it contains the toxic Chinese drywall, given the
possible severe health implications.  We need an immediate
federal response to this disaster.  We believe a Congressional
disaster relief bill will be needed to fix these toxic houses.
The people who purchased these homes or remodeled these homes
are innocent bystanders, no different than victims of a natural
disaster. They need help now."

     "President Obama, if you could take a day this week, we
would like to introduce you to several hundred people in a
housing sub-division in Fort Myers, Florida.  Their 400+ unit
subdivision is infested with toxic Chinese drywall; these people
are sick, and they fear their homes are now worth zero.  Bring
the EPA with you, and order them to get working on this national
disaster immediately."  The group says, "we need science on how
to test these houses, we need medical experts to determine what
exposure to toxic Chinese drywall will do to a homeowner or
their family's health, and we need real solutions on how we can
fix these houses--now."

     "We are also super worried about New Orleans, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Texas, the Florida panhandle and other areas
affected by hurricanes like Katrina.  To mention nothing of the
US homes remodeled since 2001.  Many repair crews with no
licenses, or insurance bonds, installed imported Chinese drywall
in homes affected by these storms, or remodeling jobs.

     Congress needs to allocate emergency funds to help the tens
of thousands of innocent homeowners, who now have toxic Chinese
drywall in their homes."  The group thinks there could be
100,000's of new, or remodeled homes with the toxic Chinese
drywall in all U.S States.  "These people cannot wait for four
years for a class action to settle.  They need a federal
disaster bill right now. We bail out banks that defrauded
consumers & their investors on their mortgage loans with
hundreds of billions, we bail out auto makers for making cars
Americans do not want to buy, with billions, if Congress really
wants a US stimulus program, help these hundreds of thousands of
US homeowners rebuild their homes, so they are safe, for the
families & children, who live in them."


     "We have faith that the President and Congress will take us
up on our offer to meet these victims, we have faith they will
instantly see the gravity of the issues facing these innocent
homeowners."  Most of these homes were built by undocumented
workers, who in a 1099 tax fraud scheme and in collusion with
the homebuilders, paid no federal taxes.  As this federal
funding starts to clean up these toxic homes, Americas Watchdog
will insist that, only actual US citizens do the toxic clean up
work and rebuilding, with full adherence to a Federal Labor
laws, and tax rules.  "We think we will need organized labor to
assist in training the workers, so the job gets done right."

For more information contact:

          Homeowners Consumer Center
          Phone: 866-714-6466
          Web site: http://HomeownersConsumerCenter.Com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Brower Piven Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven commenced a class action lawsuit in the US
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common shares of certain mutual funds offered by Allianz
Global Investors Fund Management.

     The law firm commenced a class action lawsuit on certain
mutual funds offered by Allianz Global Investors Fund
Management, including the common shares of the PIMCO California
Municipal Income Fund II (PCK), PIMCO Municipal Income Fund II
(PML), PIMCO Municipal Income Fund III (PMX), PIMCO New York
Municipal Income Fund III (PYN) and PIMCO California Municipal
Income Fund III (PZC) (collectively, the funds) between May 22,
2007 and December 1, 2008 for the PCK and PML funds, inclusive
(the PIMCO II class period) and between June 6, 2007 and
December 1, 2008 for the PMX, PYN and PZC funds, inclusive (the
PIMCO III class period).

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of those who purchased
PCK and/or PML during the PIMCO II class period and for those
who purchased PMX, PYN, and/or PZC during the PIMCO III class
period by virtue of the company's failure to disclose during the
two class periods that the funds lacked effective controls and
hedges to minimize the risk of loss and risk of liquidity from a
large exposure to auction rate securities (ARS).

     The complaint also accuses that the funds lacked effective
internal controls to ensure that the funds would remain in
compliance with restrictions and limitations related to their
investment portfolios and strategies; the extent of the funds'
liquidity risk and loss exposure from the illiquid nature of a
large portion of the funds' portfolios, including ARS, was
omitted or misstated.  According to the complaint, as the full
extent of the funds' liquidity risk and loss exposure from high
risk instruments became known, the value of the funds' shares
declined significantly.

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


CITIGROUP INC: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Citigroup, Inc. 8.50% Non-
Cumulative Preferred Stock (NYSE: C-M) issued pursuant and/or
traceable to the May 2008 public offering of approximately 81.6
million Series F depositary shares.  It charges global banking
corporation Citigroup and certain of its affiliates, officers
and directors, and the underwriters of the offering with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     The class action, entitled, "Pellegrini v. Citigroup Inc.
et al, 09-cv-3669," is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The complaint alleges that Citigroup consummated the
offering pursuant to a false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus.  Specifically, Citigroup sold
approximately 81.6 million Series F depositary shares at $25 per
share for proceeds of approximately $2 billion.  After Citigroup
completed the offering, the company ultimately announced multi-
billion dollar write-downs associated with its exposure to
subprime mortgages, related collateralized debt obligations,
commercial real estate loans and investments, as well as loans
to companies with low credit ratings, causing the price of the
Securities to decline dramatically.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 2, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          711 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/citi.asp


ZYNEX INC: Holzer Holzer Files Colo. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased shares of Zynex, Inc.
(OTCBB: ZYXI) (BERLIN: YU5) which was formerly known as Zynex
Medical Holdings, Inc., between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009.

     The complaint alleges that Zynex and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company made false and misleading statements to the
public regarding its financial statements for the first three
quarters of 2008.  On April 1, 2009, the Company announced its
unaudited financial statements could not be relied upon and that
Zynex would have to issue restatements.

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

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.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  * * *