CAR_Public/090428.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 28, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 82

                           Headlines


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Approves $250M TriCor Antitrust Deal
AEROSMITH: Settles Lawsuit Over Canceled 2007 Sold-Out Concert
AVANEX CORP: Settlement of Bookham Merger Suit Pending Approval
CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement
FCSTONE GROUP: Stockholders' Suit in Mo. Still in Early Stages

INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Investor's Litigation in Arizona
KNIGHTS MARINE: Denies Allegations in Foreign Workers' Lawsuit
MOSAIC CO: Defending Potash Indirect Buyers' Consolidated Suit
MOSAIC CO: Still Faces Consolidated Suit by Direct Potash Buyers
NEW YORK: Firm Rejected as Lead Plaintiff in Pension Funds' Suit

PEPSI BOTTLING: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty
QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Court Says Franchise Agreement Bars Lawsuit
RAM ENERGY: Settlement of Royalty Owners' Suit Approved in April
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Fla. Judge Certifies Class in FLSA Litigation
SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sewer Ratepayers' Case Pending

SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Pursuing Dismissal of Merged Securities Suit
TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Set for May 4 Conference
U.S. FIDELIS: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Extended Vehicle Protection
USANA HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Pyramid Scheme-Like Operation
WD-40 CO: Appeal to Denial of "Drimmer" Class Remains Pending

WEST PUBLISHING: Appeals Court Upholds $49M BAR/BRI Settlement


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CORUS BANKSHARES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
OPPENHEIMER CORE: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Stock Lawsuit


                           *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Approves $250M TriCor Antitrust Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has approved a $250 million settlement in the
long-running antitrust class-action lawsuit that accused Abbott
Laboratories and its French partner Fournier Industrie et Sante
of conspiring to block generics makers from breaking into the
lucrative market for the high-cholesterol drug TriCor, Law360
reports.

The approval was granted on April 23, 2009 by Judge Sue Robinson
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
according to the Law360 report.

RTT News previously reported that the litigation, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, involved
direct purchaser class action claims and claims brought by
certain individual plaintiffs, who reportedly alleged that
Abbott created a monopoly and prevented generic competition with
its anticholesterol drug TriCor (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24,
2008).


AEROSMITH: Settles Lawsuit Over Canceled 2007 Sold-Out Concert
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosmith has agreed to perform on Maui to settle a class-action
lawsuit fans filed against the band after it canceled a sold-out
concert on the Valley Isle in 2007, The Associated Press
reports.

Brandee Faria, Esq. is one of three attorneys representing the
jilted concert goers.  She tells The Associated Press that
everyone who bought a ticket to the original concert will
receive a free ticket, and all out-of-pocket expenses will be
reimbursed regardless of the amount.

The new concert date hasn't been determined but will probably be
sometime in the fall, reports The Associated Press.

The Associated Press reported that the settlement was reached on
April 27, 2009 after two days of talks.

The suit was filed by fans who bought tickets and incurred other
costs while making plans to attend the concert.  They alleged
Aerosmith opted to play at more lucrative venues in Chicago and
on Oahu, according to The Associated Press report.


AVANEX CORP: Settlement of Bookham Merger Suit Pending Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of the amended purported class-action
complaint filed by two individuals who purport to be
shareholders of Avanex Corp. is pending approval by the Superior
Court of California, Alameda County Avanex.

On Feb. 3, 2009, the purported class-action complaint was filed
against Avanex and its directors, Bookham, Inc., and Ultraviolet
Acquisition Sub, Inc.

The plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of all
shareholders of Avanex.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in
connection with the contemplated merger of Avanex and Bookham.

The complaint also alleges that Avanex, Bookham, and Ultraviolet
Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the individual defendants'
alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin the merger with
Bookham, monetary damages in an unspecified amount attributable
to the alleged breach of duties, and legal fees and expenses.

On March 3, 2009, these individuals filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value in connection with the contemplated merger of
Avanex and Bookham, and that a preliminary version of the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus included in the Registration on Form
S-4 filed by Bookham with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2009 fails to
provide stockholders with material information or contains
materially misleading information thereby rendering the
stockholders unable to cast an informed vote on the proposed
merger.  The complaint also alleges that Avanex, Bookham, and
Ultraviolet Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the individual
defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin the merger with Bookham,
monetary damages in an unspecified amount attributable to the
alleged breach of duties, and legal fees and expenses.

On April 8, 2009, Avanex and the other named defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiff's counsel
regarding the proposed settlement of the Action.  In connection
with the proposed settlement, Avanex agreed to make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders.  The memorandum of
understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will
be subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Avanex's stockholders.  The stipulation of
settlement will provide for a hearing at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement which, if finally approved by the court, will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
Action, including all claims relating to the merger, the merger
agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith.

In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided
in the memorandum of understanding, the parties contemplate that
plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of up to $230,000 as part of the
settlement, which will be paid by Avanex (or its successor(s)-
in-interest), according to the company's Form 8-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 9, 2009.

Avanex Corp. -- http://www.avanex.com/-- is a global provider
of intelligent, photonic products, including optical components,
modules and subsystems.  The company designs, manufactures and
markets fiber optic-based products, known as photonic
processors.  Avanex Corp. sells products to telecommunications
system integrators and their network carrier customers.  Its
products enable optical communication networks to regenerate,
transmit and manage voice, video and data optical signals
efficiently.  Avanex Corp. primarily markets its products to
telecommunications system integrators.  The Company sells and
markets its products through a combination of direct sales,
distributors and representatives.  As of June 30, 2008, its
direct sales organization consisted of directly employed account
managers in the United States, Europe and Asia, supported by
application engineers and product line managers.


CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem Inc. continues to face a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
alleging it pushes its "Garlique" garlic supplement with the
bogus claim that it lowers cholesterol, according to the
company's April 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb.
28, 2009.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
other consumers who purchased, used and ingested the Product.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

    (a) whether the defendant's practices in connection with the
        marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
        the Product were deceptive or unfair in any respect,
        thereby violating California's Unfair Competition Law
        (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.;

    (b) whether the defendant's practices in connection with the
        marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
        the Product were deceptive or false in any respect,
        thereby violating California's False Advertising Law
        (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.;

    (c) whether the defendant breached implied warranties in its
        sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff
        and class members;

    (d) whether the defendant breached express warranties in its
        sale of the product, thereby causing harm to the
        plaintiff and class members;

    (e) whether defendant's practices in connection with the
        marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
        the Product unjustly enriched defendant at the expense
        of, and to the detriment of, plaintiff and class
        members;

    (f) whether the defendant fraudulently marketed, promoted,
        advertised, labeled and sold the Product;

    (g) whether the defendant breached California's Consumer
        Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civil Code Section 1750 et
        seq., in its sale of the Product, thereby causing harm
        to Plaintiff and Class members;

    (h) whether the defendant's conduct as set forth above
        injured consumers and if so, the extent of the injury.

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and for members of the general public, requests for
relief, jointly and severally, pursuant to each cause of action
set forth in this Complaint as follows:

     1. for an order certifying that the action may be
        maintained as a class action.

     2. for an award of equitable relief as follows:

        (a) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the
            unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices
            and deceptive marketing, promotion labeling and
            advertising described in this Complaint;

        (b) requiring Defendant to make full restitution of all
            monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the
            conduct described in this Complaint;

        (c) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains
            flowing from the conduct described in the
            complaint; and

        (d) requiring Defendant to provide public notice of the
            true nature of the Product.

      3. for actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an
         amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as
         may be provided for by statute upon the filing of a
         Second Amended Complaint should the demanded
         corrections not take place within the thirty-day notice
         period.

      4. for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter
         alia, Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil
         Procedure Section 1021.5.

      5. for actual damages in an amount to be determined at
         trial for the Third, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Causes
         of Action.

      6. for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at
         trial for the Seventh Cause of Action.

      7. for an award of costs and any other relief the Court
         might deem appropriate.

      8. for pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
         awarded.

The company was served with this lawsuit on Dec. 18, 2008.

The suit is "Goodell v Chattem, Inc., Case No. 2:2008-01206,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

For more information, contact:

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq. (hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com)
          Hewell Law Firm
          105 West "F" Street, Suite 213
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-235-6854
          Fax: 888-298-0177


FCSTONE GROUP: Stockholders' Suit in Mo. Still in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed against FCStone Group,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri is still in its early stages, according to the
company's April 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb.
28, 2009.

The company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.

The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between Nov. 15,
2007 and July 9, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under
Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for alleged false statements and failure to disclose adverse
facts relating to an interest rate hedge and the company's bad
debt reserve.

FCStone Group, Inc. -- http://www.fcstone.com/-- is an
integrated commodity risk management company providing risk
management consulting and transaction execution services to
commercial commodity intermediaries, end users and producers.
It assists primarily middle market customers.  In addition, to
its risk management consulting services, the Company operates an
independent clearing and execution platforms for exchange-traded
futures and options contracts.


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Investor's Litigation in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
An investor of Insight Enterprises, Inc. filed a putative class-
action lawsuit against technology provider and its officers and
directors accusing them of misleading shareholders about
accounting errors, which led to financial restatements and a
dramatic drop in the company's stock price, Law360 reports.

The plaintiff, Dimitriy Karpov, filed the suit against the
Tempe, Ariz.-based company and a dozen directors and officers on
on April 23, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, according to the Law360 report.


KNIGHTS MARINE: Denies Allegations in Foreign Workers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knights Marine & Industrial Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Five
Star Contractors LLC, has denied allegations in a purported
class-action lawsuit that alleges foreign workers on temporary
visas in Mississippi were forced to live in storage buildings
and were not given the jobs and pay they were promised, Cherie
Ward of The Mississippi Press reports.

Officials with the Moss Point fabrication company told The
Mississippi Press that the federal lawsuit filed by temporary
foreign workers is "frivolous and defamatory."

Brian Knight, president of the company, said The Mississippi
Press that the class-action case, "contains allegations that are
unfounded and false."

The company "will aggressively defend the false allegations in
this frivolous lawsuit and refuse to be bullied by the activist
group who is behind the filing of this action," he tells The
Mississippi Press.

The Associated Press previously reported that ten Brazilians
sued the two companies on April 20, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, accusing the
defendants of racketeering, breach of contract, and fraud (Class
Action Reporter, April 22, 2009).

The workers allege they paid thousands of dollars to come to
Mississippi in hopes of high-paying jobs that didn't
materialize, reports The Associated Press.

The suit seeks class-action status to cover all workers brought
to the United States by the companies in 2006 and 2007, The
Associated Press reported.


MOSAIC CO: Defending Potash Indirect Buyers' Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Co. continues to defend a consolidated class-action
complaint by indirect purchasers of potash in the United States,
according to the company's April 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 28, 2009.

On Sept. 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Gordon
Tillman; Feyh Farm Co. and William H. Coaker Jr.; and Kevin
Gillespie.

The defendants in the Indirect Purchaser Cases are The Mosaic
Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated
defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout
the United States.

On Nov. 13, 2008, the initial plaintiffs in the Indirect
Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an additional named plaintiff,
filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges, among other
matters, that the defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain
and stabilize the price at which potash was sold in the United
States; exchanged information about prices, capacity, sales
volume and demand; allocated market shares, customers and
volumes to be sold; coordinated on output, including the
limitation of production; and fraudulently concealed their
anticompetitive conduct.

The Indirect Purchaser Cases were filed on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who indirectly
purchased potash and/or fertilizer containing potash for their
own use during the Class Period in the United States, any of 26
specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the
consolidated complaint as "Indirect Purchaser States," any of 20
specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the
consolidated complaint as "Consumer Fraud States", and/or 48
states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in
the consolidated complaint as "Unjust Enrichment States."

The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and to recover
unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages where
allowed by law, arising from defendants' alleged continuing
agreement, understanding, contract, combination and conspiracy
in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, the antitrust,
or unfair competition laws of 21 states and the District of
Columbia and the consumer protection and unfair competition laws
of 22 states and the District of Columbia, as well as
restitution or disgorgement of profits in the Unjust Enrichment
States, damages for alleged common law restraint of trade in New
York, and any penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or
full consideration where permitted by applicable state law.

The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit and reasonable attorneys'
fees where allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

The Mosaic Co. -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer of
phosphate and potash combined, as well as nitrogen and animal
feed ingredients.  The Company operates its business through
four business segments: phosphates, potash, offshore and
nitrogen.


MOSAIC CO: Still Faces Consolidated Suit by Direct Potash Buyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Co. continues to face a consolidated class-action
complaint by direct purchasers of potash in the United States,
according to the company's April 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 28, 2009.

In September, October, and November 2008, separate complaints
were filed by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc.,
Kraft Chemical Company, Westside Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a
Signature Lawn Care, and Shannon D. Flinn, against The Mosaic
Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated
defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout
the United States.

The defendants in the one case also included a number of unnamed
alleged co-conspirators.

On Nov. 13, 2008, the plaintiffs' in the cases in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed a
consolidated class action complaint against the defendants, and
on Dec. 2, 2008, the Minn-Chem Case was consolidated with the
Gage's Fertilizer Case.

The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who purchased
potash in the United States directly from the defendants during
the period July 1, 2003 through the date of the consolidated
complaint.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges, among other
matters, that the defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain
and stabilize the price at which potash was sold in the United
States; exchanged information about prices, capacity, sales
volume and demand; allocated market shares, customers and
volumes to be sold; coordinated on output, including the
limitation of production; and fraudulently concealed their
anticompetitive conduct.

The plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally seek
injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages,
including treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged
combination or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and
commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit, reasonable attorneys'
fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The Mosaic Co. -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer of
phosphate and potash combined, as well as nitrogen and animal
feed ingredients.  The Company operates its business through
four business segments: phosphates, potash, offshore and
nitrogen.


NEW YORK: Firm Rejected as Lead Plaintiff in Pension Funds' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York passed over an applicant for lead plaintiff
in a securities class-action lawsuit involving a pension fund
whose counsel he criticized for providing free portfolio
monitoring services, Mark Hamblett of The New York Law Journal
reports.

The judge declined to appoint Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins as lead counsel in two companion cases, "Iron Workers
Local No. 25 Pension v. Credit Based Asset Servicing and
Securitization, 08 CV 10841," and "Public Employees Retirement
System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch, 09 CV 1392," according
to The New York Law Journal report.

The lawsuits claim the pension funds were sold bundled mortgages
without being told some of the loans were bad.

Judge Rakoff told Coughlin Stoia's David Rosenfeld, Esq. at an
April 1, 2009 hearing that the agreement his firm had to monitor
Iron Workers' portfolio for possible securities fraud was "about
as obvious a conflict of interest" as he had ever seen, reports
The New York Law Journal.

Mr. Rosenfeld defended the arrangement as common and assured the
court that the iron workers union remained the decision maker on
whether to sue for fraud and was always at liberty to select the
counsel of its choice.

In an order released on April 24, 2009, Judge Rakoff appointed
as lead plaintiff the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and their lawyers, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman, as lead counsel, The New York Law Journal reported.

The judge reserved the right to appoint the firms co-lead
counsel if circumstances warrant it, including if new cases are
added to the litigation.  The judge said he would issue an
opinion later expanding on his resolution of "several difficult
issues" posed by the case, according to The New York Law Journal
report.


PEPSI BOTTLING: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
current investors, who purchased the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
(NYSE:PBG) stock prior to the announcement of the proposed
takeover by PepsiCo, Inc., against Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
and its board of directors over alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty arising out of their attempt to sell Pepsi Bottling Group,
Inc to PepsiCo, Inc.

     Pepsi Bottling Group Inc. was sued by an investor who
claims PepsiCo Inc.'s $29.50-a-share buyout offer undervalues
the stock.  According to court papers the offer is unfair and
inadequate because the value of Pepsi Bottling Group's common
stock is materially higher than the amount offered, considering
its potential profits.

     PepsiCo Inc. announced on Monday to buy the bottling
operations Pepsi Bottling Group and PepsiAmerica in a $6 billion
takeover bid.  PepsiCo Inc. is offering $29.50 in cash and stock
for each share of Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc (NYSE:PBG), valuing
the company at about $6.4 billion and in a separate offer for
PepsiAmericas, $23.27 per share, that values that bottler at
about $2.9 billion.  According to the complaint the plaintiff
alleges that Pepsi Bottling Group and its board of directors
violated and breaches their fiduciary duty owed to the
shareholders of Pepsi Bottling Gorup, Inc.  The stocks of both
bottlers soared Monday, hitting levels that were above the
implied acquisition price.  Pepsi Bottling Group shares were
recently up 21% to $30.48 and PepsiAmericas shares recently
added 21% to $24.08.  PepsiCo owned 33.1% of PBG stock as of
February 13, according to PBG's proxy filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  Two PepsiCo
executives sit on Pepsi Bottling Group 's board -- John C.
Compton, head of PepsiCo Americas Foods, and Cynthia M. Trudell,
chief personnel officer and a former director of PepsiCo.  Pepsi
already also owns one-third Pepsi Bottling Group and over two-
fifths of Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas.

A decade ago, Pepsi sought to separate itself from its bottlers,
figuring it would help the company focus on soft-drink growth
while keeping bottling assets off its balance sheet.  Pepsi
Chairman and Chief Executive Indra Nooyi reportedly said
business conditions had changed significantly since then.

Owning the two big bottlers would give Pepsi control over how it
distributes its beverages, allowing it to revamp production and
distribution and squeeze out costs.  Combining Pepsi with its
two main bottlers would give Pepsi control of about 80% of its
North America beverage distribution volume.  Late last year
Pepsi Bottling began distribution of Crush sodas, made by rival
Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. and a stronger brand than Pepsi's
fruit-soda offerings.  Pepsi said its efforts at consolidation
would create annual pre-tax synergies of more than $200 million
through cost reductions and efficiencies of scale, and expects
to boost annual earnings by 15 cents a share once those
synergies are fully realized.


QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Court Says Franchise Agreement Bars Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled on
April 21, 2009 that a group of Quiznos franchisees cannot
collectively participate in a class-action lawsuit because their
signed franchise agreement specifically bars them from doing so,
Don Sniegowski of Blue MauMau reports.

Eighteen budding franchise owners banded together in a class-
action lawsuit, alleging that they participated in a quasi-Ponzi
scheme in which they deposited between $20,000 and $25,000 each
for a Quiznos sub shop, but then were not given permission to
open a location, according to the Blue MauMau report.

Blue MauMau reported that the franchise contract declares that
franchisees must open a store within a year or else they lose
both that right and their money.  But franchisees cannot set up
shop until Quiznos approves their site, and Quiznos has been
slow to do so.

In the lawsuit, attorneys claim that their 18 clients are a drop
in the bucket of the 3,200 franchises that have been sold but
not opened, reports Blue MauMau.

The suit, entitled, "Bonanno, et al. v. Quiznos Franchise, LLC,
et al., Case No. 06-CV-02358(WYD)(KLM)," seeks compensatory and
punitive damages.  In the case, the franchisees have alleged
valid claims for, among other things, violations of the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act, breaches of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, fraud, as well as a declaratory judgment that
the franchise agreements signed by the franchisees are
"unconscionable" (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2008).

The suit alleges that Quiznos unlawfully collected over $75
million in franchise fees from more than 3,000 franchisees
across the United States that never opened a store.  Refunds of
those fees were not rendered despite Quiznos' failure to provide
contractually-required site selection services to the
franchisees in a timely manner.

The suit, originally filed in a New Jersey state court on Feb.
16, 2006, is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for
Colorado.


RAM ENERGY: Settlement of Royalty Owners' Suit Approved in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Woods County, Oklahoma, in April 2009,
approved the settlement of a putative class-action suit filed by
royalty owners against RAM Energy Resources, Inc., formerly
Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp.

The lawsuit was filed against RAM Energy, Inc., certain of its
subsidiaries and various other individuals and unrelated
companies, in April 2002, by a lessor of certain oil and gas
leases from which production was sold to a gathering system
owned and operated by Magic Circle Energy Corp. or its wholly-
owned subsidiary, Carmen Field Limited Partnership.  The suit
covers the period from 1977 to a current date.

In 1998, both Magic Circle and CFLP became wholly owned
subsidiaries of RAM Energy, Inc.  The lawsuit was filed as a
class action on behalf of all royalty owners under leases owned
by any of the defendants during the period Magic Circle or CFLP
owned and operated the gathering system.

The petition claims that additional royalties are due because
Magic Circle and CFLP resold oil and gas purchased at the
wellhead for an amount in excess of the price upon which royalty
payments were based and paid no royalties on natural gas liquids
extracted from the gas at plants downstream of the system.

Other allegations include under-measurement of oil and gas at
the wellhead by Magic Circle and CFLP, failure to pay royalties
on take or pay settlement proceeds and failure to properly
report deductions for post-production costs in accordance with
Oklahoma's check stub law.

RAM Energy, Inc. and other defendants have filed answers in the
lawsuit denying all material allegations set out in the
petition.

The lawsuit was certified by the trial court as a class action
in January 2007.  The certification was upheld by the Oklahoma
Court of Civil Appeals in June 2008.

Petitions for certiorari seeking review by the Oklahoma Supreme
Court of the class certification decision were timely filed by
the defendants in the lawsuit.

However, at the parties' request, consideration of the petitions
has been deferred pending final approval of the settlement that
was recently reached in the matter.

On Sept. 18, 2008, certain direct and indirect subsidiaries of
RAM Energy Resources, Inc. entered into an agreement that
tentatively effects a settlement of claims asserted in the
pending class-action lawsuit styled, "Sacket v. Great Plains
Pipeline company, et al., District Court of Woods County,
Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2002-70."

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
court approval, the company and its subsidiaries will pay $16.0
million of the aggregate $25.0 to be paid by all defendants in
full and complete settlement of all claims asserted in the
lawsuit relating to the payment of royalties on production from
class wells during the period July 1983 through July 2008.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the trial court preliminarily approved the
settlement and ordered that a fairness hearing be held on March
5, 2009.  The entire settlement amount has been deposited in
escrow by the defendants pending final disposition of the
settlement following the fairness hearing, expected to occur in
the second quarter of 2009.

On March 5, 2009, following a fairness hearing, the Court
entered judgment approving a negotiated settlement pursuant to
which RAM Energy and the other defendants agreed to pay an
aggregate $25.0 million in settlement of the Lawsuit.  RAM
Energy and its subsidiaries agreed to pay $16.0 million of the
settlement amount, with the unrelated third party defendants
paying the remaining $9.0 million.  The judgment became final on
April 6, 2009.

On April 7, 2009, the company made a claim against the escrow
for all of the escrowed shares.  Also on April 7, 2009, the
former stockholders of RAM Energy notified the escrow agent that
they would substitute cash, at a Fair Market Value of $.74 per
share, for a total of 316,190 shares of their company common
stock held in escrow.  On April 8, 2009, the escrow agent
initiated the transfer to the company, in satisfaction of the
indemnification obligation of the former RAM stockholders, of a
total of 2,883,810 shares of company common stock and $233,980
in cash, less the fees and expenses of the escrow agent.  The
shares of common stock received by the company from the escrow
will be held as treasury shares, according to the company's Form
8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated April 9, 2009.

RAM Energy Resources, Inc. -- http://www.ramenergy.com/--
formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corporation, is an oil and
gas company focused on the acquisition, exploration,
development, exploitation, production and management of oil and
gas properties, primarily in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.  On
May 8, 2006, RAM Energy Resources, Inc. merged with Tremisis
Energy Acquisition Corp.  In accordance with the merger
agreement, Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp. has changed its
name to RAM Energy Resources, Inc.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: Fla. Judge Certifies Class in FLSA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William P. Dimitrouleas of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted conditional class-action
status to the case, "Reed v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Case No.
0:09-cv-60073-WPD," Melissa Allison of The Seattle Times
reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Starbucks store manager Ronald
Reed on Jan. 15, 2009, claims the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying overtime.  It seeks to
represent people who worked as Starbucks store managers from
Jan. 15, 2006, to the present, according to The Seattle Times
report.

The suit is "Reed v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Case No.  0:09-
cv-60073-WPD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq. (drlevine@sbwlawfirm.com)
          Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA
          7777 Glades Road
          Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Phone: 561-477-7800
          Fax: 561-477-7722 (fax)

Representing the defendant is:

          Susan Nadler Eisenberg, Esq.
          (susan.eisenberg@akerman.com)
          Akerman Senterfitt
          1 SE 3rd Avenue
          28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131-1714
          Phone: 305-374-5600
          Fax: 305-374-5095


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sewer Ratepayers' Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the sewer ratepayers' class-action suit
filed against Syncora Guarantee Inc., one of the operating
businesses of Syncora Holdings, Ltd. formerly Security Capital
Assurance, Ltd., and numerous other defendants, remains pending.

On June 17, 2008, Charles Wilson, on behalf of himself and a
class consisting of every Jefferson County, Alabama sewer
ratepayer since January 1, 1993, filed the suit.

The suit alleges that through the wrongful conduct of the
members of the Jefferson County Commission, most notably Larry
Langford, the County incurred a bonded indebtedness of
approximately US$3.2 billion relating to improvements to its
sewer system.

The complaint alleges that the commissioners, in a conspiracy
with several individuals, financial companies, law firms, and
bond insurers, completed several swap transactions whereby the
bonds, which were primarily fixed interest securities, were
swapped to variable rate and auction rate securities.

These swaps, the complaint alleges, were done primarily to
facilitate the inappropriate payment of exorbitant fees to
several bond brokers and financial advisors.

With respect to the bond insurers, including Syncora Guarantee,
the complaint alleges that the insurers negligently insured the
bonds while allowing themselves to become undercapitalized and
downgraded by the rating services, which in turn downgraded the
bonds.

The plaintiffs allege damages on the ground that their sewer
rates are much higher than they otherwise would have been
without the wrongdoing of all parties.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently
pending before the court.

Plaintiffs have also voluntarily dismissed Jefferson County
taxpayers as members of the putative class, leaving only the
sewer system ratepayers.  Several of the defendants have filed
motion seeking recusal of the Judge based on his daughter being
a Jefferson County ratepayer, and thus a member of the putative
class of plaintiffs.

Syncora Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.scafg.com/Holdings/--
formerly Security Capital Assurance Limited, is a holding
company whose operating subsidiaries provide financial guarantee
insurance, reinsurance, and other credit enhancement products to
the public finance and structured finance markets throughout the
U.S. and internationally.  The company's businesses consists of
Syncora Guarantee Inc. (formerly XL Capital Assurance Inc.) and
its wholly owned subsidiary, XL Capital Assurance (U.K.) Limited
(XLCA-UK) and Syncora Guarantee Re Ltd. (formerly XL Financial
Assurance Ltd.).  The segments of the company are financial
guarantee insurance and financial guarantee reinsurance.  The
financial guarantee insurance segment offers financial guarantee
insurance policies and credit-default swaps contracts.  The
financial guarantee reinsurance segment reinsures financial
guarantee policies and CDS contracts issued by other monoline
financial guarantee insurance companies.


SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Pursuing Dismissal of Merged Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syncora Holdings Ltd.'s motion to dismiss on behalf of the
company and the individual defendants in a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit remains pending in New
York, according to the company's April 9, 2009 Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In December 2007 and January 2008, three class-action lawsuits
were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  They are:

       -- "Brickman Investments, Inc. v. Security Capital
          Assurance Ltd et al.,"

       -- "2 West, Inc. v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et
          al.," and

       -- "Clarke v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al."

Two of the lawsuits were filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common shares in the secondary public
offering by XL Insurance Ltd., as selling shareholder, on or
about June 6, 2007.  The third lawsuit was filed on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from April 23, 2007, through Dec. 10, 2007, including
those who purchased shares in the secondary offering.

The complaints name the company, its president and chief
executive officer, its former executive vice president and chief
financial officer, and XL Insurance, as defendants, and they
allege various violations of the U.S. Securities Act and the
U.S. Exchange Act by the defendants.  Two of the complaints also
name the lead underwriters of the secondary offering as
defendants.

The complaints include claims that the defendants' public
statements, including the registration statement and prospectus
related to the secondary offering, contained false and
misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts
necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading.

On April 24, 2008, an order was entered consolidating these
actions under the caption "In re Security Capital Assurance Ltd.
Securities Litigation," and appointing the Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff.

On Aug. 6, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The consolidated amended complaint adds Edward Hubbard,
Executive Vice President, as well as Richard Heberton, former
chief credit officer of XL Capital Assurance, Inc., as
defendants and expands the class period to include all persons
who acquired the company's securities from March 15, 2007, to
March 18, 2008.

Syncora Holdings filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of itself
and the individual defendants.

The suit is "In Re: Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-11086-DAB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Deborah A. Batts, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. (egleston@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          e-mail: 212-779-3218

          Irving Bizar, Esq. (Ibizar@Ballonstoll.com)
          Ballon, Stoll, Bader and Nadler
          729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-575-7900
          Fax: 212-764-5060

               - and -

          Richard A Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969


TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Set for May 4 Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported shareholder class-action suit styled "Huberman v.
Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352," is set for a
status conference on May 4, 2009.

Talon International Inc. was formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the shareholder class-action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934,as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov.
14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
the purported class period.

The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1,
2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification.  The
plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also
sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class
certification.

Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007.  In
addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the
other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007
-- the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and
his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007.  The
company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007.

The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments on Oct. 23, 2008.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished
memorandum, instructing the District Court to certify a class,
reversing the District Court's grant of summary judgment, and
remanding for further  proceedings consistent with its decision.
The District Court has scheduled a status conference for May 4,
2009, according to the company's April 9, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California Judge Manuel L. Real,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         Jules Brody, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com)
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq. (pbinkow@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

              - and -

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
         (pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com)
         Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
         695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-668-6200


U.S. FIDELIS: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Extended Vehicle Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Fidelis faces a purported class-action lawsuit in Missouri
over extended vehicle protection it offers to 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 U.S. Fidelis includes so many exceptions in its fine print
that consumers are usually left out in the cold when their cars
break down, according to the ConsumerAffairs.com report.

The suit also alleges that U.S. Fidelis 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,
reports ConsumerAffairs.com.


USANA HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Pyramid Scheme-Like Operation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Usana Health Sciences Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Nevada alleging it operates as a pyramid scheme in
which independent distributors must focus on signing up more
distributors as opposed to selling products, Steve Green of The
Las Vegas Sun reports.

Joseph Chirco, in his lawsuit filed in Clark County District
Court, seeks to have the suit certified as a class-action case
representing all Nevada Usana distributors.  He is represented
by attorney John Nowakowski, Esq., according to The Las Vegas
Sun report.

Mr. Chirco claims to have lost money by purchasing a Usana
distributorship.  He alleges violations of Nevada's deceptive
trade practices act and accuses the big direct marketer of
nutritional and cosmetic products of consumer fraud of failing
to disclose all required facts about its marketing program, of
unjustly enriching itself at the expense of distributors and of
civil conspiracy, The Las Vegas Sun reported.

"Those already in the pyramid are greedily incentivized to
recruit more and more distributors to grow the base for the
benefit of those higher up on the pyramid," Mr. Chirco's suit
charges.  "It isn't until one is locked into a distributorship
that it becomes clear that merely selling products to consumers
without a pyramid position is not a realistically sustainable
option.  The only way for an associate to economically stay
afloat is to recruit lower ranks for the Usana pyramid,"
according to The Las Vegas Sun report.


WD-40 CO: Appeal to Denial of "Drimmer" Class Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal to an order entered by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California denying class-
action status to a purported class-action lawsuit against WD-40
Co. remains pending, according to the company's April 9, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2009.

James Drimmer filed the suit on April 19, 2006, alleging fraud
in the company's marketing of automatic toilet bowl cleaners.
After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed
by way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
Sept. 20, 2006.

The amended complaint sought class-action status.  It alleged
that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and
2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl cleaners are
safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to advise
consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use of the
ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the company successfully defeated the
plaintiff's attempt to have the case certified as a class-
action.

The plaintiff then petitioned for permission to appeal the
District Court's decision and the company has opposed this move.

The plaintiff has been granted permission to appeal the District
Court's decision.

The suit is "Drimmer v. WD-40 Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00900-W-
AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, Judge Thomas J. Whelan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert L. Kenny, Esq. (rkenny@kennylaw.net)
         The Law Offices of Robert L. Kenny
         401 West A Street, Suite 2300
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-234-1616
         Fax: 619-234-1650

Representing the company is:

         Shannon Sweeney, Esq.
         Baker and McKenzie
         101 West Broadway, Suite 1200
         San Diego, CA 92101-8213
         Phone: 619-236-1441
         Fax: 619-236-0429


WEST PUBLISHING: Appeals Court Upholds $49M BAR/BRI Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court has upheld a $49 million settlement in an
antitrust class-action lawsuit against West Publishing Corp. and
Kaplan, Inc. over test preparation courses for law school
admissions and the bar exam, though the court has reversed and
remanded an order approving attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs'
counsel.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued it
decision on April 23, 2009.

Matthew Hirsch of Law.com previously reported that U.S. District
Judge Manuel Real approved the $49 million settlement of the
BAR/BRI class-action case on July 9, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, July 19, 2007).

The case was filed by former law students in California,
Michigan and Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all
persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar
Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a
BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring
with Kaplan, Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full-
service bar review courses.  Kaplan is an international provider
of educational and career services.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. To
assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or
more bar examinations required by each state and the District of
Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct,
consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than
they should have (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007).

In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of
the litigation.  On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement
agreement with the court together with documents setting forth a
procedure for class notice (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29,
2007).

Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service
bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. Where
BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up
to the present time.  Class members have until Sept. 17, 2007 to
make a claim.  Objections are due May 21, 2007.

As a part of the settlement, defendants have agreed to establish
a $49 million fund.  The settlement also provides for other non-
monetary relief.  Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30%
of the total amount they paid for a bar review course from the
fund.

BAR/BRI Class Action Litigation on the net:

                http://www.barbri-classaction.com

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Eliot G. Disner, Esq.
          Noah E Jussim, Esq.
          McGuireWoods, LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8299
          Fax: 310-315-8298
          e-mail: edisner@mcguirewoods.com

          Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq.
          Tracy Evans Moyer, Esq.
          Colleen M. Regan, Esq.
          Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8200
          e-mail: skanazawa@vsblaw.com or cregan@vsblaw.com

          - and -

          Joanna Shally, Esq.
          Shearman and Sterling
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4700

Representing the defendants are:

          Edward A. Klein, Esq.
          Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif
          1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
          Phone: 310-500-3500

          Stuart N. Senator, Esq.
          Lee Scott Taylor, Esq.
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl.,
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100
          e-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com

          - and -

          Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq.
          Courtney M. Schaberg, Esq.
          Brian A. Sun, Esq.
          Jones Day
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-489-3939
          e-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com or
                  cmschaberg@jonesday.com or basun@jonesday.com

For more details, contact:

          BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator
          P.O. Box 24639
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-888-285-7850
          e-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CORUS BANKSHARES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC commenced a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Corus Bankshares, Inc. (NASDAQ:CORS) during the
period between January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009, inclusive.

     Corus provides consumer and corporate banking products and
services through its wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Corus
Bank, N.A., which focuses on two main business activities -
commercial real estate lending and deposit gathering.  The Bank
is a nationwide lender, specializing in condominium
construction, conversion, and inventory loans.  The Bank also
provides financing for hotel, office, and apartment projects.

     The complaint accuses the Company of violating of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose during
the Class Period the full extent of its exposure to loan losses
and that it engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the
value of the collateral for its loans by buying condominiums in
developments it had financed to create the appearance of
successful sales and to create a sales history for appraisers to
rely upon to inflate appraisal values.

     On January 30, 2009, Corus reported a widened 2008 fiscal
fourth quarter net loss of $261 million, or $4.85 per share,
compared to a net loss of $128 million in the 2008 fiscal third
quarter and net income of $2 million in the 2007 fiscal fourth
quarter, and revealed that the Company's nonperforming assets,
including nonaccrual loans and repossessed real estate, had
increased to $2 billion at the end of 2008, more than double the
level of the previous quarter.  Corus further disclosed that it
had received a "preliminary response" that its November 14,
2008, application to receive a capital infusion through the
Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP") was likely to
be rejected.  Corus was only able to provide investors with
partial financial results for the fourth quarter because it was
awaiting several new appraisals, which would potentially result
in material negative adjustments to its 2008 fourth quarter
results.  Moreover, the same day, the South Florida Business
Journal reported that an affiliate of Corus had paid above-
market prices to purchase condominium units in a project
financed by Corus.  On this news, shares of Corus declined $0.52
per share, or 46.85%, to close on February 2, 2009 at $0.59 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 11, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq GS:NSIT) during
the period from April 22, 2004 through and including February 6,
2009.

     The Complaint charges Insight Enterprises and certain of
the Company's current and former executive officers with
violations of federal securities laws.  On February 9, 2009,
Insight Enterprises shocked the market when it revealed that the
Company's management and Audit Committee had determined that
Insight Enterprises would have to restate previously reported
earnings as a result of its historical accounting treatment of
aged trade credits.  Insight announced that it expected to
restate financial statement included in the Company's most
recently filed form 10-k for the year ended December 31, 2007,
form 10-Q for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2008, and
incur a charge to retained earnings of $50 to $70 million.  On
this news, shares of the Company declined $2.85 per share, more
than 48% to close on February 9, 2009 at $3.05 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 26, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600


OPPENHEIMER CORE: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
investors of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (OPBYX) (OPIGX)
(OIGBX) (OPBCX) OPBNX).

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Federal securities laws, including violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 by virtue of the Fund's failure to disclose in its
prospectus and registrations statements ("Offering Documents")
that the Fund was not adhering to its overall conservative
strategy and investment objectives and was taking risks
inconsistent with such strategy and objectives.  According to
the complaint, as the Fund's deviation from its conservative
investment strategy and objectives became known, the value of
the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund's shares declined significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 22, 2009.

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


OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Oppenheimer New Jersey
Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ: ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX)
on behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B
and/or Class C shares of the Fund from April 24, 2006 through
and including October 21, 2008 pursuant to various Registration
Statements and Prospectuses issued by the Fund during the Class
Period.

     The complaint alleges that the Fund and certain of its
trustees and officers and also Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., violated
sections of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits
materially false and misleading statements in registration
statements and prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in
the Fund.

     In addition, the Fund failed to disclose that its use of
derivative instruments known as "inverse floaters" which, under
certain conditions, could (and did) effectively force the Fund
to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market
conditions.  In or around October 2008, the Fund filed a
prospectus supplement alerting investors of the true risks of
its investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007,
and throughout 2008.  By October 2008, however, those risks had
already manifested themselves dealing substantial losses to
investors causing shares to lose approximately 30% of their net
asset value between January 2008 and October 2008.

     Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf and
on behalf of the Class and are represented by the law firm of
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 23, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: 800-660-7843 or 845-356-2570


                            *********

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  * * *