CAR_Public/090429.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 29, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 83

                           Headlines

ATLANTIC RECORDING: Ore. Court Seals Papers in "Andersen" Case
CAMTEK LTD: June 5 Hearing Set for Bid to Junk "Lapiner" Suit
CENTERLINE HOMES: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Faulty Chinese Drywall
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Litigation
FAMILY DOLLAR: Defending Suit Over Discriminatory Pay Practices

FAMILY DOLLAR: N.C. Overtime Compensation Cases in Discovery
FAMILY DOLLAR: To Seek Supreme Court Review of FLSA Suit Ruling
FORD MOTOR: Okla. Supreme Court Reinstates "Cuesta" Litigation
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: June 11 Hearing Set for E&Y's $109M Settlement
KB HOME: Nov. 10 Trial Set for "Bagley" ERISA Violations Suit

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Tele-Aid" Case
MERCK & CO: Faces Vioxx-Related Litigation in Australian Court
MERIX CORP: Remanded Securities Fraud Lawsuit Ongoing in Oregon
NATIONAL MONEY: Comments on Litigation Trial in Toronto, Ontario
NITROMED INC: Settlement of Merger Suit Pending Court Approval

NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
OIL COMPANIES: Mass. Town Receives $17,870 From MTBE Settlement
QUARRY HILLS: Faces Lawsuit in N.C. Over Covenant Violations
ROCKIES REGION: Final Settlement of Suit v. PDC Okayed in April
SYMANTEC CORP: Aug. 28 Hearing Set for "Heverly" Suit Settlement

WRT ENERGY: June 8 Hearing Set for $1.8M Securities Suit Deal
ZUMIEZ INC: Announces Dismissal of Wash. Securities Litigation
ZYNEX INC: CEO Responds to Allegations in Securities Fraud Suits
ZYNEX INC: To Defend Mishkins' Suit Over Restatement of Finances


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit
THEMA FUND: Johnson Bottini Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                           *********

ATLANTIC RECORDING: Ore. Court Seals Papers in "Andersen" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ordered the
sealing of the entire record of the motion for class-action
certification in the matter, "Andersen v. Atlantic Recording
Corporation et al., Case No. 3:2007-cv-00934," according to a
posting at Slashdot.

The suit was filed by Tanya Andersen on June 22, 2007 against
Atlantic Recording Corp., Priority Records, LLC, Capitol
Records, Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., BMG Music, Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA), Safenet, Inc., and
Settlement Support Center, LLC.

Ms. Andersen, a disabled single mother, filed the lawsuit
against RIAA and other defendants over its tactics to fight
piracy.  Ms. Andersen originally sued the RIAA after its
representatives threatened to interrogate her young daughter if
she did not pay thousands of dollars for music she downloaded
from somebody else (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2008).

Ms. Andersen had defended herself against copyright infringement
allegations by the RIAA for almost two years, until the RIAA
finally dropped its case against her "with prejudice."

Ms. Andersen's countersuit is for malicious prosecution.  In it,
she alleges that RIAA used illegal and flawed methods when
investigating people for downloading or swapping copyrighted
songs without paying.  Furthermore, Ms. Andersen claims that
RIAA knew of the faulty methods but continued to pursue its
lawsuits, even against innocent people such as herself.

On Feb. 28, 2008, the Class Action Reporter reported that Judge
Anna J. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon tossed out the purported class-action lawsuit against
RIAA.

However, CBS News reported that Ms. Andersen filed a new
complaint accusing record companies and RIAA of racketeering,
fraud, and illegal spying.

According to CBS News, Ms. Andersen's amended complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court in Portland seeks national class-
action status for other people allegedly victimized by the
recording industry's anti-piracy campaign and the company it
hired, MediaSentry.

The new lawsuit accuses the industry and MediaSentry of spying
"by unlicensed, unregistered and uncertified private
investigators" who "have illegally entered the hard drives of
tens of thousands of private American citizens" in violation of
laws "in virtually every state in the country."

The information was used to file "sham" lawsuits intended only
as intimidation to further the anti-piracy campaign, the lawsuit
said.

Lory Lybeck, Esq., Ms. Andersen's attorney said that the lawsuit
is partly aimed at forcing the industry to reveal how extensive
the spying had become.

"We're very pleased that we'll finally be able to force the RIAA
and MediaSentry to give up secret records they have steadfastly
refused to disclose in tens of thousands of cases that they've
filed," Ms. Lybeck said.

The suit is "Andersen v. Atlantic Recording Corporation et al.,
Case No. 3:2007-cv-00934," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lory Ray Lybeck, Esq. (lrl@lybeckmurphy.com)
          Lybeck Murphy, LLP
          7525 SE 24th Street
          Suite 500
          Mercer Island, WA 98040-2336
          Phone: (206) 230-4255
          Fax: (206) 230-7791

               - and -

          Richard A. Adams, Esq. (radams@pattonroberts.com)
          Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP
          Century Bank Plaza, Suite 400
          2900 St. Michael Drive
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Phone: (903) 334-7000
          Fax: (903) 334-7007

Representing the defendant are:

          Amy Bauer, Esq. (amy.bauer@hro.com)
          Holme Robert & Owen, LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street
          Suite 4100
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (303) 866-0417
          Fax: (303) 866-0200

               - and -

          Kenneth R. Davis, II, Esq. (davisk@lanepowell.com)
          Lane Powell P.C.
          601 S.W. Second Avenue
          Suite 2100
          Portland, OR 97204-3158
          Phone: (503) 778-2121
          Fax: (503) 778-2200


CAMTEK LTD: June 5 Hearing Set for Bid to Junk "Lapiner" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 5, 2009 hearing has been set for the motion to dismiss a
purported class-action complaint entitled "Yuval Lapiner v.
Camtek, Ltd. et al."

On March 7, 2008, the purported class-action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the company's ordinary
shares between Nov. 22, 2005 and Dec. 20, 2006.

The Class Action Complaint names the Company and certain of the
company's directors and officers as defendants.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and breached fiduciary duties by making false and
misleading statements in the company's SEC filings and press
releases.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages against the
defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the CAC, as amended, on
Feb. 17, 2009.  The hearing on this motion is currently set for
June 5, 2009, according to the company's April 8, 2009 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Camtek Limited -- http://www.camtek.co.il-- designs, develops,
manufactures and markets automated optical inspection (AOI),
systems and related products.  AOI systems are computerized
systems that optically inspect various types of electronic
product components for defects caused during the manufacturing
process.  The AOI systems are used for production processes and
yields for manufacturers in three industries: the printed
circuit board (PCB), industry; the high density substrates for
interconnection of integrated circuit devices (IC) substrate,
industry and the semiconductor manufacturing and packaging
industry.  The systems provide the customers with defect
detection ability.


CENTERLINE HOMES: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Faulty Chinese Drywall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Homes is facing a purported class-action lawsuit by
owners of a town house in the Tradition neighborhood of Port St.
Lucie for allegedly using defective Chinese-made drywall, Tyler
Treadway of The Fort Pierce Tribune reports.

The suit was filed on April 24, 2009 in St. Lucie County Circuit
Court in Florida by Frank and Mark Gitto who claim that the
Chinese drywall built into their home at 10360 Stephanie Way in
2005 is the type that "emits various sulfide gases and/or other
chemicals" creating "noxious, 'rotten-egg-like' odors."  The
couple also claim that the "off-gassing" also can corrode air-
conditioner and refrigerator coils and other wiring as well as
household utensils and jewelry, according to The Fort Pierce
Tribune report.

"The compounds emitted by the drywall ... at issue are also
capable of ... harming the health of individuals subjected to
prolonged exposure," according to the lawsuit.

The Gittos lawsuit alleges, even if the Chinese drywall in their
home isn't defective, just the fact that it's there has
diminished the value of their home, and they "are entitled to
recover damages for that diminution," reports The Fort Pierce
Tribune.

The Fort Pierce Tribune reported that the lawsuit, doesn’t seek
a monetary amount, but Jeremy W. Alters, Esq., whose Miami law
firm filed the suit and five others like it in other Florida
courts, said he's asking that Centerline and any other builders
who used Chinese dry wall be required to:

       -- Replace all Chinese drywall, as well as all wiring,
          pipes, building materials, furniture, appliances and
          household items "affected by sulfur emissions."

       -- Have houses tested to make sure they're "sulfur-free."

       -- Pay homeowners for the loss in the value of their
          homes.

       -- Give homeowners a lifetime, transferable warrantee on
          the homes.

       -- Compensate residents for all current and future health
          problems resulting from the emissions.


FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investors who filed a negligence suit against Fairfield
Greenwich Group, the hedge fund that channeled $7 billion to
fraudster Bernard L. Madoff, have added claims of fraud and
named a co-founder's daughter as a defendant in the proposed
class-action case, Law360 reports.

The fresh allegations are contained in a 128-page amended
complaint lodged on April 24, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to the Law360
report.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Defending Suit Over Discriminatory Pay Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. continues to defend the allegations
in the "Scott" case pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division,
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 Oct. 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned, "Scott, et al v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc.," alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the company's female store managers.

This case was pleaded as a putative class-action or collective
action under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar
female store managers.

The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and punitive money
damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief.

The case has been transferred to the N.C. Federal Court.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a
selection of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  The company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: N.C. Overtime Compensation Cases in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in several overtime compensation cases
proceeding as collective or class actions against Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., among others, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

Since 2004, numerous cases have been filed by other plaintiffs
making various allegations against the company, among others,
that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act or
similar state laws by classifying the named plaintiffs and other
current and former Store Managers as "exempt" employees who are
not entitled to overtime compensation.

The complaints in each action request that the cases proceed as
collective actions under the FLSA or as class actions under
state law and request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and court costs.

Several of these cases have been dismissed or voluntarily
withdrawn.

The first two of those remaining cases are "Grace v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc.," and "Ward v. Family Dollar, Inc.," both
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

In those cases, the court has returned orders finding that the
plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, that
neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the
FLSA is appropriate.  Hence, the Grace and Ward cases are
proceeding as approximately 80 individual plaintiff cases.

In addition to Grace and Ward, a total of 12 other same or
similar class or collective cases are now pending, all of which
are before the N.C. Federal Court.

All of these cases have been either transferred by U.S. District
Courts in various states to the N.C. Federal Court or were the
subject of an order entered by the U.S. Judicial Panel on
MultiDistrict Litigation transferring the cases, which were
originally filed in the U.S. District Courts in various states,
to the N.C. Federal Court for coordination of discovery with the
other pending cases.

Discovery in the Grace and Ward cases is moving forward on the
merits of the individuals' exemption claims and discovery in the
remaining cases is being conducted regarding a determination
whether the plaintiffs are "similarly situated" such that the
cases should proceed as collective actions, or, in the case of
the actions brought under state law, as class actions, according
to the company's April 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a
selection of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: To Seek Supreme Court Review of FLSA Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. still intends to petition the U.S.
Supreme Court to grant certiorari for review of the ruling in a
complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
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 Jan. 30, 2001, Janice Morgan and Barbara Richardson, two
individuals who have held the position of Store Manager for
subsidiaries of the company, filed a Complaint against Family
Dollar in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.

The Complaint alleged that the company violated the FLSA by
classifying the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated
current and former Store Managers as "exempt" employees who are
not entitled to overtime compensation.

The court allowed the case to proceed as a "collective action"
and notice of the pendency of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 13,000 current and former Store Managers holding
the position on or after July 1, 1999.

Approximately 2,550 of those receiving such notice filed consent
forms and joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs, including
approximately 2,300 former Store Managers and approximately 250
then current employees.

After rulings by the Court on motions to dismiss certain
plaintiffs filed by the company, 1,424 plaintiffs remained in
the case at the commencement of trial.

A jury trial was held in June 2005, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and
ended with the judge declaring a mistrial after the jury was
unable to reach a unanimous decision in the matter.

The case was subsequently retried before another Tuscaloosa
jury, which found that the company should have classified the
Store Manager plaintiffs as hourly employees entitled to
overtime pay, rather than as salaried exempt managers, and
awarded damages.

Subsequently, the Court ruled that the company did not act in
good faith in classifying the plaintiffs as exempt, and after
making adjustments to the damages award based upon the filing of
personal bankruptcy by certain plaintiffs, the Court entered a
final modified judgment for approximately $35.6 million.

The District Court advised that it would consider the
plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
at the conclusion of the appellate process.

The company appealed this final judgment to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  On Dec. 16, 2008, the Court of
Appeals issued a ruling affirming the judgment of the District
Court.  The company plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to
grant certiorari for review of this ruling.

As of Feb. 28, 2009, the company had accrued liabilities of
approximately $51.1 million with respect to this litigation,
including $45.0 million recognized as a litigation charge in the
second quarter of fiscal 2006 and $6.1 million related to
previous charges and ongoing interest.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a
selection of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  the company's
merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products,
apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The
company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper
products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet
products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and
electronics.


FORD MOTOR: Okla. Supreme Court Reinstates "Cuesta" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reinstated reinstated a nationwide
class-action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. and auto parts maker
Williams Controls, Inc. that had been tossed by an intermediate
appellate court, Andrew Longstreth of Am Law Litigation Daily
reports.

The suit is captioned, "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co.,
CJ-04-0511."  It contends that certain models of Ford Super Duty
pickup trucks and Expedition sport utility vehicles contain
faulty accelerator pedals, causing the trucks to idle rather
than accelerate when drivers step on the gas.

The case, which was first filed in 2004, alleges breach of
warranty, negligence, and product liability, according to the Am
Law Litigation Daily report.

Williams Control was named as co-defendant in the matter on Oct.
1, 2004.  The suit sought class-action status, and an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the class (Class
Action Reporter, March 20, 2009).

During the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the Oklahoma district
court granted the suit class-action status.

The company and Ford appealed the District Court's class
certification ruling to the Court of Civil Appeals of the State
of Oklahoma, and during the second quarter of fiscal 2008, the
Appeals Court, in a 3-to-0 decision, reversed the District
Court's ruling and decertified the nationwide class.

As permitted under Oklahoma law, the plaintiffs filed for a re-
hearing by the Appeals Court and during the third quarter of
fiscal 2008, this rehearing request was denied.

The plaintiffs have since appealed the Court of Civil Appeals'
decertification ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, according
to the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The Am Law Litigation Daily reported that in reinstating the
case, which includes an estimated 300,000-500,000 class members,
the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in certifying a class on the breach of
warranty claims.  It declined to affirm class certification on
negligence or product liability claims.

The suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-0511,"
filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.

For more details, contact:

         The Burrage Law Firm
         First United Center
         Suite 100, 115 N. Washington
         Durant, OK 74702-1727
         Phone: 580-920-0700
         e-mail: dburrage@burragelaw.com
         Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: June 11 Hearing Set for E&Y's $109M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
will hold a fairness hearing on June 11, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $109,000,000 settlement by Ernst & Young LLP in the
matter, "In re HealthSouth Stockholder Litigation, No. CV-03-BE-
1501-S."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Karon Owen Bowdre,
at the United States Courthouse, Hugo L. Black United States
Courthouse, 1729 Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama.

On March 25, 2009, the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP, along
with Co-Counsel Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,
announced that they have reached a settlement of $109 million
with Ernst & Young LLP in a securities class action against
HealthSouth Corp. (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2009).

The action, entitled, "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities
Litigation," is being prosecuted for the benefit of a class of
investors led by, among others, Lead Plaintiffs the New Mexico
State Investment Council and the Educational Retirement Board of
New Mexico.  The action is pending before the Honorable Karon O.
Bowdre in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, and the proposed settlement requires
Court approval.

Lead Plaintiffs alleged that, during a period of several years,
the defendants manipulated their accounting in various ways,
which caused HealthSouth's financial statements to be materially
false and misleading causing investors to overpay for
HealthSouth's securities and suffer hundreds of millions of
dollars of damages.

Lead Plaintiffs alleged the following accounting errors and
irregularities against Ernst & Young LLP (E&Y):

       -- E&Y knew that HealthSouth's financial statements were
          materially overstated.

       -- E&Y failed to conduct audits of HealthSouth that were
          in compliance with Generally Accepted Auditing
          Standards.

       -- E&Y did not test a single nonstandard journal entry or
          test the general ledger of HealthSouth.

       -- E&Y permitted HealthSouth to impose scope limitations
          on its audit of the Company.

Thomas A. Dubbs, Senior Partner at Labaton Sucharow LLP, stated
that "We are pleased with this settlement, which is one of the
largest settlements ever obtained against an outside auditor in
a class action securities fraud case."

Lead Plaintiffs previously settled with former defendant
HealthSouth Corp. in January 2007 for $445 million.

For more details, contact:

          Jennifer Bankston (jbankston@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 212-907-0659


KB HOME: Nov. 10 Trial Set for "Bagley" ERISA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit "Bagley et al., v. KB Home,
et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, is set for a Nov. 9, 2010 trial.

On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed
an action against against the company, its directors, and
certain of its current and former officers under Section 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
1132.

On April 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding Tolan Beck and Rod Hughes as additional plaintiffs and
dismissing certain individuals as defendants.

All four plaintiffs claim to be former employees of KB Home who
participated in the KB Home 401(k) Savings Plan.  They allege on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated that all defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to
plaintiffs and purported class members under ERISA by failing to
disclose information to and providing misleading information to
participants in the Plan about alleged prior stock option
backdating practices of the Company and by failing to remove the
Company's stock as an investment option under the Plan.

The plaintiffs allege that this breach of fiduciary duties
caused them to earn less on their Plan accounts than they would
have earned but for defendants' alleged breach.

They seek unspecified money damages and injunctive and other
equitable relief.

On May 16, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit
on the basis that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a
claim against the company.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the dismissal motion on
June 20, 2008.  The company filed its reply in support of the
motion in July and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for Aug.
4, 2008.

The hearing on the motion was held on Sept. 8, 2008.  On Oct. 6,
2008, the court issued its order.  The court denied the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of the duty to monitor and granted the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
the fiduciary duty of disclosure.  The court also denied a
separate motion to dismiss filed by the individual defendants
based on the standing of plaintiffs to sue.

The company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on
Nov. 5, 2008.

On Nov. 24, 2008, the court approved a stipulation to stay all
discovery and other proceedings through Feb. 6, 2009, in order
to allow the parties time to attempt to settle the plaintiffs'
claims through mediation.

A mediation session was held on Jan. 27, 2009, but a settlement
has not been reached.  The court has tentatively scheduled the
trial to begin on Nov. 9, 2010.  Plaintiffs have served
discovery requests on the company, the other defendants and
several third parties.  The company has also served the
plaintiffs with discovery requests, according to its April 9,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2009.

The suit is "Bagley et al., v. KB Home, et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-01754-GPS-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge George P. Schiavelli,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen J Fearon, Jr., Esq. (stephen@sfclasslaw.com)
         Squitieri & Fearon LLP
         32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-421-6492

              - and -

         Stephen M. Fishback, Esq. (sfishback@kfjlegal.com)
         Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP
         18425 Burbank Boulevard Suite 610
         Tarzana, CA 91356-6918
         Phone: 818-342-7442
         Fax: 818-342-7616

Representing the defendants are:

         Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq. (marc.dworsky@mto.com)
         Munger Tolles & Olson
         355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
         Phone: 213-683-9100

              - and -

         Michael M. Farhang, Esq. (mfarhang@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7005


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Tele-Aid" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dickinson Debevoise of the I.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey certified a class-action case alleging
that Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC sold cars equipped with an
emergency-response system that the company knew would soon
become obsolete, Charles Toutant of The New Jersey Law Journal
reports.

In granting class-action status to the case, Judge ruled
Debevoise that the plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable loss
because they bought vehicles designed to last 20 or more years,
while the emergency system became useless after 2007.

"A class action will be the most efficient method for
adjudicating plaintiffs' claims," Judge Debevoise ruled on April
24, 2009, finding the claims met the class-action criteria of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequacy of representation, according to The New
Jersey Law Journal report.

The case, "In Re: Mercedes-Benz Tele-Aid Contract Litigation,
MDL 1914," consolidates 10 suits filed in six states against
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC of Montvale, N.J.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported that the plaintiffs assert
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and a cause of
action for unjust enrichment.  They claim that Mercedes made
statements or omissions of material facts that it knew or should
have known were false or misleading when promoting vehicles
equipped with "Tele Aid," an emergency response system that
linked subscribers to roadside assistance operators through
global positioning and cellular technology through AT&T Wireless
Services Inc., for a subscription fee.

The system ran on analog signals, not digital, and Mercedes-Benz
continued to sell vehicles so equipped from 2002 to 2007 even
though it knew as early as August 2002 that a change in Federal
Communications Commission regulations would allow AT&T to
discontinue its analog cellular service in 2008, rendering the
system inoperative, the plaintiffs allege.

Mercedes-Benz placed a notice about discontinuation of the
analog Tele Aid service on its Web site in November 2006.  But
many car owners did not learn about the change until AT&T sent
them letters upon the expiration of their subscriptions in 2007,
reports The New Jersey Law Journal.

The class certified by Judge Debevoise -- who estimated the
class at more than 100,000 members -- consists of two groups of
owners who bought a Mercedes-Benz after Aug. 8, 2002: consumers
who paid to have their car retrofitted to accommodate a digital
version of Tele Aid and those who paid subscription fees for the
analog service until it ended in 2007.

Compensatory damages for consumers whose cars were retrofitted
would come to about $1,000 per vehicle, lead plaintiffs counsel
Jonathan Selbin of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in New
York tells The New Jersey Law Journal.

Mr. Selbin furhter told The New Jersey Law Journal that
compensatory damages would be somewhat more for consumers who
paid subscription fees until 2007; they would receive $1,000 for
retrofitting as well as compensation for the period they went
without Tele Aid service.


MERCK & CO: Faces Vioxx-Related Litigation in Australian Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
Australian in connection to Vioxx, Kate Hagan of The Age
reports.

The lawsuit, which is pending in the Federal Court of Australia,
was brought on behalf of every Australian who had cardiovascular
conditions after completing at least one prescription of Vioxx
between June 30, 1999, and its worldwide recall in 2004, reports
The Age.

The class action, which includes more than 1000 people, alleges
Merck covered up a higher risk of cardiovascular conditions,
according to The Age report.


MERIX CORP: Remanded Securities Fraud Lawsuit Ongoing in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------
The remanded consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
entitled, "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et al,
Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," is ongoing in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon.

On June 17, 2004, the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors were named as defendants in the first of
four purported class action suits alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

These four cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, have been consolidated in a single
action entitled, "In re Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case
No. CV 04-826-MO."

The court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated
and amended class action complaint on Nov. 15, 2004.  On March
3, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended and
consolidated complaint for failure to identify with sufficient
specificity the statements that plaintiffs allege to have been
false and why the statements were either false when made or
material.

On Sept. 15, 2005, the court dismissed the case, without
prejudice, and gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.  In November 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate
and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection
with the January 2004 public offering of approximately $103.4
million of the company's common stock.

In September 2006, the court dismissed that complaint with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
Second Amended Complaint.  The company sought rehearing and a
rehearing en banc, both of which were denied.

The company obtained a stay of the mandate from the Ninth
Circuit and will file a certiorari petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court by Sept. 22, 2008.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the Supreme Court denied the certiorari
petition.  The case has been remanded to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, according to the company's April 8, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2009.

The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et
al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, Judge Michael W. Mosman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. (gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com)
         Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbclasslaw.com)
         Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbclasslaw.com)
         Sean M. Handler, Esq. (shandler@sbclasslaw.com)
         Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. (azivitz@sbclasslaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056

              - and -

         Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550
         Seattle, WA 98154
         Phone: 206-839-0730
         Fax: 206-839-0728

Representing the defendants are:

         Richard L. Baum, Esq. (baumr@perkinscoie.com)
         Perkins Coie, LLP
         1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor
         Portland, OR 97209-4128
         Phone: 503-727-2021
         Fax: 503-727-2222

              - and -

         Joseph E. Bringman, Esq. (jbringman@perkinscoie.com)
         Ronald L. Berenstain, Esq.
         (RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com)
         Douglas W. Greene, III, Esq. (DGreene@perkinscoie.com)
         Perkins Coie, LLP
         1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800
         Seattle, WA 98101-3099
         Phone: 206-359-8501
                206-359-8477
                206-359-8613
         Fax: 206-359-9000
              206-359-9477
              206-359-9613


NATIONAL MONEY: Comments on Litigation Trial in Toronto, Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
     National Money Mart Company, a convenience financial
service provider in Canada, issued the following statement on
the first day of a class action trial in Toronto, Ontario:

     Money Mart says that it is a founding member of the
Canadian Payday Loan Association (CPLA) that has spent years
working with governments to implement important regulation that
balances consumer protection with a viable industry.

     In October 2006, the Government of Canada determined that
section 347 of the Criminal Code should be amended to exempt
payday lenders who operate in provinces having legislation in
place to regulate the industry.  When former Justice Minister
Victor Toews introduced Bill C-26 in Parliament to amend the
section, the Department of Justice issued a press release
acknowledging that section 347 was never designed to apply to
short term loans and explained that section 347, "...is NOT a
consumer protection tool."  In March 2009, the Ontario
Government set the maximum rate for payday loan in Ontario at
$21 per $100.

     Money Mart employs more than 2,500 people.  It just
celebrated its 26th anniversary in Canada and has more than 461
store fronts.

     Money Mart asserts that its customers are educated, middle-
income Canadians who borrow an average of $300 for approximately
10 days to cover unexpected expenses and that customers know the
cost of borrowing and deliberately and knowingly choose a payday
loan over other options such as overdraft, credit cards or lines
of credit.  This is clearly demonstrated in the largest-ever
study of payday loan customers in Ontario (500 respondents)
conducted in 2007 by Pollara and available at: http://www.cpla-
acps.ca/english/mediastudies.php."

For further information: Joanne Kearney, Mobile: (416) 804-5949,
joanne.kearney@fleishman.ca


NITROMED INC: Settlement of Merger Suit Pending Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
A stipulation of settlement of a purported class-action lawsuit
relating to the proposed merger by and among Deerfield Private
Design Fund, L.P., Deerfield Private Design International, L.P.,
Deerfield Special Situations Fund, L.P., Deerfield Special
Situations Fund International Limited, NTMD Parent Acquisition
Corp., NTMD Acquisition Corp. and NitroMed, Inc., remains
subject to court approval.

On Feb. 12, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit relating to
the merger was filed against NitroMed, each of its directors,
its executive officer and Deerfield Management Company, L.P. and
certain of its affiliates in Suffolk County Superior Court in
Massachusetts.

The lawsuit, "Mieczyslaw Stachnik et al. v. Kenneth Bate et al.,
Civil Action No. 09-0622-BLS-2," as amended, alleges, among
other things, that the merger consideration to be paid to
NitroMed stockholders in the merger is unfair and undervalues
NitroMed.

In addition, the complaint alleges that NitroMed's directors and
its executive officer violated their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, failing to maximize stockholder value, failing to
engage in a fair sale process and failing to provide NitroMed
stockholders with a proxy statement adequate to enable them to
cast an informed vote on the proposed merger.

NitroMed, its directors and its executive officer denied the
allegations in the complaint.

NitroMed, the other defendants and the plaintiffs entered into a
memorandum of understanding dated as of March 31, 2009,
regarding the settlement of the suit.  In connection with the
settlement, the parties agreed that NitroMed would make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders.  Following the
completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiffs, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement.  The stipulation of settlement is subject to
customary conditions, including court approval.  In addition, in
connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will petition the court for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $250,000.

The settlement costs, comprised of the attorneys' fees awarded
to the plaintiffs' counsel and the costs incurred by NitroMed to
defend the lawsuit, will be paid by NitroMed.  NitroMed and
Deerfield Management have agreed that NitroMed's net cash
balance at closing will be reduced by $125,000 to account for
the settlement costs and hence reduce the amount received by
NitroMed stockholders in the merger.  The settlement will not
change any of the other terms of the merger or the merger
agreement, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
April 8, 2009.

Nitromed, Inc. -- http://www.nitromed.com/-- is a maker of
BiDil, which is indicated for the treatment of heart failure in
self-identified black patients as an adjunct to standard
therapies.  BiDil is an orally administered fixed-dose
combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine
hydrochloride.  BiDil is an orally administered medicine that is
dosed three times daily.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed
against Northfield Laboratories, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois is still at an early
stage, 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.

Between March 17, 2006 and May 15, 2006, ten separate complaints
were filed, each purporting to be on behalf of a class of
company's stockholders, against Northfield and Dr. Steven A.
Gould, its chief executive officer, and Richard DeWoskin, its
former chief executive officer.

Those putative class-action suits have been consolidated in a
case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on
Sept. 8, 2006, and alleges, among other things, that during the
period March 19, 2001 through March 20, 2006, the named
defendants made or caused to be made a series of materially
false or misleading statements and omissions about Northfield's
elective surgery clinical trial and business prospects in
violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs allege that those allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions caused the purported class to purchase
shares of the company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices.

As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the action be certified as a proper class
action, unspecified compensatory damages (including interest)
and payment of costs and expenses (including fees for legal
counsel and experts).

The putative class-action case is at an early stage and it is
not possible at this time to predict the outcome of any of the
matters or their potential effect, if any, on Northfield or the
clinical development or future commercialization of PolyHeme.

The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, and on Sept. 25, 2007, the court granted
that motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim.

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and the
plaintiffs have until Nov. 20, 2007 to file an amended
complaint.

On Jan. 22, 2008, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, and the briefing of that motion was
completed on June 26, 2008.  On Sept. 23, 2008, the Court denied
the motion to dismiss, and on Dec. 5, 2008, the company and the
individual defendants answered the Consolidated Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.

The plaintiffs have advised that they intend to file a motion
seeking certification of a class.

The case has proceeded into discovery and briefing of class
certification issues.

The suit is "Topaz Realty Corp., et al. v. Northfield
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-1493," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge George M. Marovich.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602-3908
         Phone: (312) 377-1181
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

              - and -

         Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
         Cafferty Faucher LLP
         30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
         Chicago, IL 60602
         E-mail: afata@caffertyfaucher.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Ronald L. Marmer, Esq.
         Jenner & Block LLP
         330 North Wabash
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Phone: (312) 222-9350
         E-mail: rmarmer@jenner.com


OIL COMPANIES: Mass. Town Receives $17,870 From MTBE Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Town of North Attleborough, Massachusetts received some
settlement money from a statewide class-action suit related to
contamination caused by a gasoline additive, Amy DeMelia of The
Attleboro Sun Chronicle reports.

New oil companies involved in the case recently reached a
settlement for the case, which would mean that the town will
receive nearly $17,870 in funding, according to The Attleboro
Sun Chronicle report.

The Attleboro Sun Chronicle reported that North Attleboro is
among 80 communities that joined a class-action suit that
alleged a gasoline additive has caused issues after seeping into
municipal drinking water supplies.  The chemical is methyl
tertiary butyl ether - known as MTBE- an additive first put in
gasoline during the 1980s in response to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's program to reduce air pollution.

North Attleboro's wells tested for small amounts of the gasoline
additive in 2001, but the amount detected was below the levels
listed for concern in water safety guidelines, reports The
Attleboro Sun Chronicle.

In January 2009, the town received nearly $559,500 in settlement
money from the litigation.  The latest $17,870 in proceeds comes
as new settlements are reached with additional oil companies,
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle reported.


QUARRY HILLS: Faces Lawsuit in N.C. Over Covenant Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of the Quarry Hills Golf Club, an Alamance County
golf course is facing a purported class-action lawsuit for
allegedly violating covenants meant to keep the property as an
18-hole golf course, Keren Rivas of The Burlington Times-News
reports.

The golf course began operating in Alamance County, North
Carolina in 1970, when George Bason opened it as the Piedmont
Crescent Country Club, according to The Burlington Times-News
report.

The Burlington Times-News reported that William and Virginia
Mann bought it in April 1985 and renamed it the Quarry Hills
Golf Club.  At the time of the purchase, there were covenant
restrictions placed on the property to ensure the property
remained an 18-hole golf course.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the 1985 deed and a
subsequent 1995 declaration prohibited the land from being used
for residential, manufacturing, agricultural or commercial
purposes, reports The Burlington Times-News.


ROCKIES REGION: Final Settlement of Suit v. PDC Okayed in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final settlement of the consolidated class action lawsuits
against Petroleum Development Corp. (PDC), the managing general
partner of Rockies Region Private Limited Partnership, for
underpayment of royalties, was approved on April 7, 2009.

On May 29, 2007, a complaint was filed against PDC in Weld
County, Colorado.  The complaint represents a class action
against PDC seeking compensation for alleged underpayment of
royalties on leases in Colorado, resulting from the alleged
miscalculation of costs to produce marketable gas.  The case was
moved to Federal Court in June 2007.

A second similar Colorado class-action suit was filed against
PDC on Dec. 3, 2007.

On Jan. 28, 2008, the Court granted a motion to consolidate the
two cases, and on Feb. 29, 2008, the Court approved a 90-day
stay in the proceedings while the parties pursued mediation of
the matter.

Although the company was not named as a party in the suit, the
lawsuit states that it relates to all wells operated by the
Managing General Partner, which includes a majority of the
Partnership's 38 wells in the Wattenberg field subject to the
settlement.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the court issued preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement.  The portion of the proposed settlement
related to the company's wells for all periods through Dec. 31,
2007 is $74,412.

In November 2008, the Managing General Partner paid into an
escrow account, on behalf of the company, amounts due under the
settlement.  These amounts will be deducted from future company
distributions.

Notice of the settlement was mailed to members of the class
action suit in the fourth quarter of 2008, and the final
settlement was approved by the court at a hearing on April 7,
2009, according to the company's April 8, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Rockies Region Private Limited Partnership owns natural gas and
oil wells located in Colorado and from the wells, it produces
and sells gas and oil.  The company is headquartered in Denver,
Colo.


SYMANTEC CORP: Aug. 28 Hearing Set for "Heverly" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Santa Clara County in California will hold
a fairness hearing on Aug. 28, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. For the
proposed settlement in the matter, "Bruce Heverly et al. v.
Symantec Corp., Case No. 1-05-CV-053711."

The court will hold the hearing Judge Jack Komar, Dept. 17 of
the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara
County, 191 N. First St., San Jose, CA 95113.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the Class Action Reporter reported that
Symantec Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County in California alleging it
sells Norton computer security products, has an unlawful policy
of terminating subscription time of certain customers who
purchased upgrades without providing a credit or refund for
unused subscription time, and fails to disclose this policy.

Examples of this software include:

     -- Norton AntiSpam,
     -- Norton Personal Firewall,
     -- Norton AntiVirus,
     -- Norton Internet Security,
     -- Norton SystemWorks,
     -- Norton Confidential and
     -- Norton 360.

The plaintiffs claim that each class member purchased Norton
computer security software which came with a subscription for
regular "content updates," which keep the security software up
to date.  These updates are delivered by Symantec via online
downloads through the LiveUpdate feature of the Norton software.

As the subscription expiration date approaches, the Norton
security software prompts the user to consider renewing their
subscription for another term and also presents an opportunity
to upgrade to a new product by making an online purchase.  If
the user then chooses to purchase an upgrade, the new
subscription begins when the upgrade is installed, not when the
existing subscription expires.  Plaintiffs allege that the new
subscription should begin when the existing subscription
expires, and that Symantec unlawfully terminated subscription
time without providing a credit or refund and without disclosing
this policy.

In February 2008, the representative plaintiffs have filed a
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint which alleges:

     -- violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
        Code Section 1750 et seq.,

     -- violation of the Unfair Competition Act, Cal. Bus. &
        Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.,

     -- violation of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. &
        Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.,

     -- breach of contract, and

     -- breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
        money had and received, unjust enrichment and
        declaratory relief.

On May 7, 2008, the Honorable Jack Komar of the Superior Court
of Santa Clara County, California certified this case as a class
action on behalf of persons and entities who purchased online
upgrades of certain Norton antivirus and Internet security-type
software products, the installation of which resulted in the
uninstallation of another Norton subscription product prior to
the expiration of that product's subscription.

The Class consists of persons and entities who installed their
upgrade product between Dec. 5, 2001 and April 11, 2008, but
does not include those who purchased upgrades through Symantec's
online store.

The Court also certified a subclass consisting of: All members
of the class who purchased online, primarily for personal,
household or family purposes, a Symantec Subscription Product
with a Stock Keeping Unit that designates the product as an
upgrade, the installation of which resulted in the
uninstallation of another Symantec Subscription Product prior to
the expiration of that Product's subscription.

Symantec denies these allegations and asserts that, at all
times, its actions and business practices have been lawful and
appropriate.

The suit is "Bruce Heverly et al. v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 1-
05-CV-053711," filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara
County.

For more details, contact:

          Heverly-Norton Settlement Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 1181
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-1181
          Web site: http://www.heverly-nortoncase.com/

          Michael Scott Green, Esq.
          Green & Pagano LLP
          522 Route 18 North
          P.O. Box 428
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com

          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          Chavez & Gertler LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com

          Michael H. Landis, Esq.
          Smolow & Landis
          204 Two Neshaminy Interplex
          Trevose, PA 19053
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com

          C. Benjamin Nutley, Esq.
          Kendrick & Nutley
          1055 E. Colorado Blvd., 5th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, PC
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: 800-270-8695
          e-mail: nortoncase@heverlylawyers.com


WRT ENERGY: June 8 Hearing Set for $1.8M Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on June 8, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed $1,800,000 settlement in the matter, "In re WRT
Energy Securities Litigation, Case Nos. 96-3610 and 96-3611."

Filed on May 15, 1996, the lawsuit generally alleges that the
WRT Energy Corp. and the individual defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Named as plaintiffs in the
suit are Evelyn Lee, Ira Lee, Berniece B. Wright, Frank Amato,
IRA Jeremiah Attard, Michael Attard, and Michael R. Nadler
(Class Action Reporter, July 21, 2006).

Listed as Class Members in the matter are all persons who
purchased WRT's Senior Notes, commencing with the initial
offering of the Senior Notes to the public in February 1995
through and including Oct. 27, 1995, and who suffered damages
thereby.

For more details, contact:

          In re WRT Energy Securities Litigation
          c/o Analytics Incorporated, Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 2003
          Chanhassen, MN 55317-2003
          Phone: 1-866-233-0120
          Web site: http://wrtenergysecuritieslitigation.com/

          Richard H. Weiss, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (212) 594-5300

               - and -

          David B. Kahn, Esq.
          David B. Kahn & Associates, Ltd.
          One Northfield Plaza
          Northfield, Illinois 60093
          Phone: (847) 501-5083


ZUMIEZ INC: Announces Dismissal of Wash. Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Zumiez, Inc., a specialty retailer of action sports related
apparel, footwear, equipment and accessories, announced that the
shareholder litigation involving Zumiez and its officers and
directors has been dismissed.

     On March 30, 2009, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington dismissed a securities class
action brought against Zumiez and three of its officers and
directors.  The action was purportedly commenced on behalf of
all individuals who purchased Zumiez stock from March 14, 2007
to January 4, 2008, and alleged that Zumiez and certain
individuals made materially false or misleading statements
during the proposed class period and engaged in insider trading.
The defendants moved to dismiss all claims in October 2008.  The
Court issued its ruling on March 30, 2009 without oral argument,
dismissing the case with prejudice.  Following this ruling, a
related shareholder derivative action, which was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of Washington, Snohomish County,
was voluntarily dismissed.  Zumiez and its officers and
directors were represented in the cases by Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, PC.

     Rick Brooks, Chief Executive Officer of Zumiez, stated: "We
are pleased to have these lawsuits behind us, and agree with the
district court's decision to dismiss the securities case at the
earliest possible stage, which was based on its finding that the
claims in that case were 'flawed on every level.'"

Zumiez, Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com-- is a specialty retailer
of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and
accessories. Its stores cater to young men and women between
ages 12-24, focusing on skateboarding, surfing, snowboarding,
motocross and BMX.  As of April 4, 2009, it operates 350 stores,
which are primarily located in shopping malls.


ZYNEX INC: CEO Responds to Allegations in Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Zynex, Inc. (OTCBB:ZYXI), a provider of pain management
systems and electrotherapy products for medical patients with
functional disability, stated on April 27, 2009 its CEO views
about pending class action lawsuits recently filed against Zynex
and its two executive officers.  As previously announced, the
lawsuits allege, among other things, violations of the
securities laws regarding its unaudited financial statements for
the first three quarters of 2008, which were restated.

     Thomas Sandgaard, President and CEO of Zynex, commented:
"Zynex believes that it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the lawsuits, which it intends to pursue vigorously.
We believe that the restated financial statements for the
quarters were the right thing to do.  Zynex will continue to
focus on maintaining and developing our business of supplying
high quality electrotherapy products for patients."

Zynex, Inc. -- http://www.zynexmed.com-- (founded in 1996)
engineers, manufactures, markets and sells its own design of
electrotherapy medical devices in two distinct markets: standard
digital electrotherapy products for pain relief and pain
management; and the NeuroMove(TM) for stroke and spinal cord
injury (SCI) rehabilitation.  Zynex's product lines are fully
developed, FDA-cleared, commercially sold, and have been
developed to uphold the Company's mission of improving the
quality of life for patients suffering from impaired mobility
due to stroke, spinal cord injury, or debilitating and chronic
pain.


ZYNEX INC: To Defend Mishkins' Suit Over Restatement of Finances
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zynex Inc. intends to defend a purported class-action lawsuit
styled, "Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et al."

The lawsuit was filed against Zynex, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer on April 6,
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement of Zynex
that it will restate its unaudited financial statements for the
first three quarters of 2008.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of Zynex securities between May 21, 2008 and March
31, 2009.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making intentionally or recklessly untrue
statements of material fact and/or failing to disclose material
facts regarding the financial results and operating conditions
for the first three quarters of 2008.

The plaintiff asks for a determination of class action status,
unspecified damages and costs of the legal action.

Zynex has notified its directors and officers liability insurer
of the claim, according to the company's Current Report on Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated April 8, 2009.

Zynex Inc. -- http://www.zynexmed.com-- formerly Zynex Medical
Holdings, Inc., engineers, manufactures, markets and sells its
own design of United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-
cleared medical devices into two distinct markets: standard
electrotherapy products for pain relief/pain management, and the
NeuroMove for stroke and spinal cord injury (SCI)
rehabilitation.  The FDA has cleared all of the company's
products for sale in the United States and its products require
a physician's prescription, authorization or order before they
can be dispensed in the United States. Its Zynex-produced
electrotherapy products, the IF8000, IF8100, TruWave and E-Wave,
are marketed through physicians and therapists primarily by its
independent contractor sales representatives.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of certain investors of Oppenheimer Rochester National
Municipals (NASDAQ: ORNAX) (NASDAQ: ORNBX) (NASDAQ: ORNCX)
offered by OppenheimerFunds, Inc. who purchased or held shares
of the Fund in connection with its November 28, 2005, September
27, 2006, March 9, 2007 and November 28, 2007 offerings.

     The complaint charges OppenheimerFunds, the Rochester Fund
and certain of its officers, directors and trustees with
violations of federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that defendants marketed the Fund as
being safer than disclosed in the Offerings while significantly
increasing the Fund's leverage exposure and concealing risky
investments in inverse floaters, revenue-type municipal
securities including tobacco bonds, land secured or "dirt bonds"
and airport bonds in hopes of higher returns.  Beginning in
February 2008, the Fund's shares declined when the auction-rate
securities market, which had provided important debt financing
for municipal bonds, froze. Defendants continued to conceal the
Fund's exposure to these excessively risky investments until the
time period between September 2008 and March 2009, when they
began to disclose the serious deterioration of the Fund's
portfolio.  As a result, the Rochester Fund was one of the worst
performers in the municipal bond fund market for 2008, losing
49% of its value for the year.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statements/Prospectuses issued in
connection with the Offerings were as follows:

       -- the Fund was no longer adhering to its objective of
          seeking high current income exempt from federal
          taxation, but in an effort to achieve greater yields
          was pursuing riskier instruments;

       -- the extent of the Fund's liquidity risk due to the
          illiquid nature of a large portion of the Fund's
          portfolios, including the Fund's investment in tobacco
          bonds;

       -- the extent to which the Fund's portfolio contained
          unrated securities;

       -- the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent defendants from taking on excessive risk or to
          prevent them from improperly evaluating the credit
          quality of unrated securities;

       -- the extent of the Fund's risk exposure to derivatives
          and other high-risk instruments such as inverse
          floaters was concealed; and

       -- the extent of the Fund's leverage exposure was
          misstated.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Rochester
Fund investors.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 12, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


THEMA FUND: Johnson Bottini Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Johnson Bottini, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of their clients and a Class of investors
consisting of all persons and entities anywhere in the world who
invested in the Thema Fund (a sub fund of Thema International
Fund plc), Primeo Select Fund, Primeo Executive Fund (sub funds
of the Primeo Fund), Herald USA Fund, and Herald Luxemburg Fund
("collectively, the "Funds") between March 1, 2001 and December
10, 2008.

     The U.S. federal securities laws impose a deadline for the
appointment of lead plaintiffs in class actions such as this
case.

     The Complaint alleges violations of the U.S. federal
securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934) and also asserts claims under state law
(negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty).  The defendants in the case include the Funds,
Bank Medici, Bank Austria, HSBC, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
Ernst & Young LLP, and the managers of the Funds.  The Complaint
alleges that the defendants caused harm to the Class by
improperly funneling money to Bernard L. Madoff instead of
properly investing money in the securities market -- as the
Funds' prospectuses stated that defendants would do.  Investors
were never told their money was being invested with Madoff.

     Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 4, 2009.


For more information, contact:

          Frank A. Bottini, Esq. (frankb@johnsonbottini.com)
          Johnson Bottini, LLP
          Phone: 619-230-0063


                            *********

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  * * *