CAR_Public/090430.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 84

                           Headlines

3M CO: Minn. Appeals Panel Says Court Erred in Age Bias Lawsuit
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: La. Court Issues Ruling in Derailment Suit
CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Defending Former Employees' Lawsuit in Calif.
CHRYSLER MOTORS: Judge Recommends Green Lighting Ohio Litigation
CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Veliz" Suit

CINTAS CORP: Still Faces "Grindle" Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
CORUS BANKSHARES: Faces Ill. Suit for Breach of Securities Laws
GILAT SATELLITE: Defends Suit in Jerusalem Over Planned Merger
JABIL CIRCUIT: Defends Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
JOS. A. BANK: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending

KBR INC: Faces Suits Over Burn Pits at Iraq, Afghanistan Bases
KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Mo. Judge Decides To Oversee ERISA Lawsuits
LIZ CLAIBORNE: Faces Investor's Litigation in New York Court
LOUIS VUITTON: Hearing on Dismissal Motion in "Arthur" Canceled
METAVANTE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Proposed FNIS Takeover

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Approval to Settlement of SRAM Suits Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
NEW YORK & CO: "Johnson" Privacy Lawsuit Settled in Jan. 2009
MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART: Calif. Court Nixes "Arthur" Lawsuit
NEW YORK & CO: "Schakow" Labor Violations Suit Settled in Jan.
U.S. SUGAR: Fla. Judge Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COX RADIO: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing
LIZ CLAIBORNE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MRU HOLDINGS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit


                           *********

3M CO: Minn. Appeals Panel Says Court Erred in Age Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court erred
when it granted class-action status to an age discrimination
lawsuit against 3M Co., The Associated Press reports.

On April 28, 2009, a three-judge appeals panel said that the
lower court did not properly apply the standards for
certification under Minnesota's rules of civil procedure.  It
sent the case back to the Ramsey County District Court for
further proceedings, according to the AP report.

The appeals panel says the trial court should have resolved the
factual disputes among statistical experts hired by both sides
before it granted class action status to more than 4,900 current
and former employees, The Associated Press reports.

Previously, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted 3M Co.'s
petition for interlocutory review of a decision by the District
Court of Ramsey County granting class certification for an age
discrimination class-action lawsuit against 3M Co. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 28, 2008).

On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company
filed a purported class action suit, seeking to represent a
class of all current and certain former salaried employees
employed by 3M Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who
were aged 46 or older at any time during an applicable period to
be determined by the court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21,
2008).

The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and
Michael Mucci, 55.  According to the lawsuit, since at least
2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the
company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45
-- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new
business methodologies adopted by the company."

The suit also alleges that the company disproportionately
selects younger employees for a leadership-training program
called "Six Sigma."

The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs suffered various forms
of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of
the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble
under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive
damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.  This motion was unopposed by the
company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case,
although one claim has been dismissed following an individual
settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007.  On
April 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in
a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any
time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document
on their last day of employment purporting to release claims
arising out of their employment with 3M.

On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the
company's petition for interlocutory review of the District
Court's decision granting class certification in the case.

No trial date or calendar of pretrial proceedings has been set
at this time.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: La. Court Issues Ruling in Derailment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
has ruled that a lawsuit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe
Railroad over last year's train derailment that forced
evacuations in Lafayette will not move forward as a class-action
case, KATC reports.

The decision by Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr., means any legal
claims against the company must be tried as individual lawsuits
rather than one large case, according to the KATC report.

Previously, KATC reported that the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana held a hearing on June 24, 2008,
to sort out how to move forward  with a possible class-action
suit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad, stemming
from a May 17, 2008 train derailment that spilled hydrochloric
acid near Lafayette (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2008).

In that hearing, Judge Haik asked the plaintiffs' lawyers to
submit applications.  According to KATC, the judge also is
requiring the attorneys to distribute a survey to those clients
with claims.

                        Case Background

According to an earlier report by CourtHouse News Service,
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad is facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana over the May 17 morning train derailment
that spilled hydrochloric acid near Lafayette, forcing the
evacuation of 3,000 people (Class Action Reporter, May 23,
2008).

A BNSF train derailed in Lafayette, Lafayette Parish, State of
Louisiana, on May 17, 2008, caused emissions of toxic chemicals
including but not limited to hydrochloric acid.  This resulted
to injuries to plaintiffs and numerous other individuals over a
large area of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana.

The wreck sent a toxic cloud over the city, putting five people
in the hospital, press reports said.

Most of the roughly 3,000 residents who were evacuated after the
2:00 a.m. derailment were able to return home the following
night, but residents within 1,000 feet of the 10,000-gallon
spill -- mostly businesses -- are still prohibited from
returning.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all residents and
domiciliaries of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana who
were present, had businesses or owned property in Lafayette on
May 17, 2008, and who sustained injuries and damages as a result
of the derailment of the BNSF train and the subsequent release
of toxic chemicals.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class under the appropriate
        provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23,
        and appointing complainants and their counsel to
        represent the class;

     -- a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the
        proposed class against BNSF in an amount to compensate
        each class member for all damages to which they are
        entitled to by law, but after due proceedings that
        including a trial by jury;

     -- legal interest on all damages awarded from the date
        of judicial demand until paid; and

     -- the cost of this litigation.

The suit is "Daniel Danenberg, et al. v. Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad Company, Case No. 6:08-cv-00676," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Judge
Richard T. Haik, Sr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Esq. (dbecnel@becnellaw.com)
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. (mmoreland@becnellaw.com)
          Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
          (schristina@becnellaw.com)
          Becnel Law Firm LLC
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Phone: 985-536-1186
          Fax: 985-536-6445

Representing the defendants is:

          John E McElligott, Jr., Esq.
          (jmcelligott@davidsonmeaux.com)
          Davidson Meaux, et al.
          P.O. Drawer 2908
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Phone: 337-237-1660
          Fax: 337-237-3676


CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Defending Former Employees' Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc., is defending a labor-related
lawsuit in California filed by two former employees.

On June 11, 2008, a complaint was filed against the company in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, by two
former store employees (Shannon Palm and Kayla Lovato).

The complaint is styled as a class action and the causes of
action arise out of allegations of failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, requiring
employees to purchase store product and violations relating to
form of payment of wages.  It seeks unspecified damages,
penalties and attorneys' fees.

The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to
preclude the majority of the claims from proceeding as a class
action.  The motion was granted with leave to amend the
complaint.

On Dec. 22, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On March 25, 2009, the company filed a motion in response to the
amended complaint and the parties are currently engaged in
discovery, according to the company's April 17, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 28, 2009.

Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.charlotte-
russe.com/ -- is a mall-based specialty retailer of fashionable,
value-priced apparel and accessories targeting young women in
their teens and twenties.  As of September 27, 2008, it operated
487 Charlotte Russe retail stores in 45 states and Puerto Rico.
The Charlotte Russe stores are located in mall locations in
spaces that average approximately 7,100 square feet.


CHRYSLER MOTORS: Judge Recommends Green Lighting Ohio Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action environmental lawsuit filed by Ohio
residents who live near a former Chrysler Motors plant in Dayton
should proceed despite a pending investigation into the site by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a magistrate judge has
recommended.

     The class action environmental lawsuit claims that Chrysler
and the plant's owner, Behr Dayton Thermal Products,
negligently, recklessly and intentionally contaminated
groundwater. As a result, a plume of underground poisonous
vapors expose nearby residents to volatile organic compounds
(also known as VOCs), including trichloroethane (also known as
TCE) and vinyl chloride.

     TCE can cause headaches, lung irritation, dizziness,
incoordination and difficulty concentrating. Long-term exposure
to TCE can lead to permanent nerve, kidney and liver damage.

     The environmental litigation claims that Chrysler has known
of the groundwater and soil contamination since at least 1999
but has not stopped it nor warned residents of the danger.  In
addition to the health hazards associated with VOCs, the suit
alleges, the residents' property values have fallen.

     The environmental lawsuit, "First Property Group Ltd., et
al. v. Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC, et al., 08-cv-329," is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.

     Chrysler reported the contamination to the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency in 2006, and the federal EPA
began its own probe into the site contamination in November of
that year. Lawyers representing Chrysler and Behr Dayton asked
the federal court to dismiss or stay the environmental
litigation while the EPA investigates.

     On April 17, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
issued a report to the district court in which she concluded
that the environmental lawsuit would not interfere with the
EPA's activities.

     The residents are represented by The Simon Law Firm, a St.
Louis-based firm that represents people who have been hurt by
environmental and landfill hazards; the Dayton, Ohio
environmental litigation firm Brown Law Office; the Law Offices
of Van Kirk McCombs II, an environmental law firm based in
Jacksonville, Fla.; and the National Legal Scholars Law Firm.

For more details, contact:

          Todd Hageman, Esq. (thageman@simonlawpc.com)
          The Simon Law Firm
          Phone: 877-767-3108
          Web site: http://www.simonlawpc.com


CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Veliz" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
or an arbitrator has yet to issue a decision on the class
certification issue in the matter, "Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas
Corp."

The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company
violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable
to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers
exempt employees.  It also asserts related Employee Retirement
Income Security Act claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief or both.

On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging
additional state law wage and hour claims under the laws of
these states: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.

On Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15
states only with respect to the putative class members that may
litigate their claims in court.

No determination has yet been made by the court or an arbitrator
regarding class certification. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7,
2008)

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
April 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009.

The suit is "Veliz et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv-1180
SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Scott A. Kronland, Esq. (skronland@altshulerberzon.com)
         Altshuler, Berzon et al.
         177 Post Street, Suite 300
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Phone: 415-421-7151
         Fax: 415-362-8064

Representing the company is:

         Cheryl A. Hipp, Esq.
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 516-479-8365


CINTAS CORP: Still Faces "Grindle" Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action gender discrimination suit captioned,
"Colleen Grindle, et al. v. Cintas Corporation," remains
pending.

The company faced several purported class-action lawsuits
alleging either racial or sex discrimination towards employees.

                      Serrano Litigation

The company is a defendant in a purported class action suit,
entitled "Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp.," which was
filed on May 10, 2004, and pending with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.

"Serrano" alleges that Cintas discriminated against women in
hiring into various service sales representative positions
across all divisions of Cintas throughout the U.S.

On Nov. 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
intervened in the Serrano lawsuit.

The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.

                       Avalos Litigation

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action suit,
captioned "Nelly Blanca Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation,"
which is currently pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

"Avalos" alleges that Cintas discriminated against women,
African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service
sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only
throughout the U.S.

On April 27, 2005, the EEOC intervened in the claims asserted in
Avalos.

The Avalos plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.

                       Ramirez Litigation

The claims in "Avalos" originally were brought in the previously
disclosed lawsuit captioned, "Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas
Corporation (Ramirez)," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 20, 2004.

On May 11, 2006, however, those claims were severed from
"Ramirez" and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, where the case was re-named
"Avalos."

The non-service sales representative hiring claims in "Ramirez"
that have not been dismissed now remain pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, but were
ordered to arbitration and stayed pending the completion of
arbitration.

The Ramirez purported class action claims currently in
arbitration include allegations that Cintas failed to promote
Hispanics into supervisory positions, discriminated against
African-Americans and Hispanics in service sales representative
route assignments and discriminated against African-Americans in
hourly pay in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the U.S.

The Ramirez plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.

No filings or determinations have been made in "Ramirez" as to
class certification.

                  Avalos & Serrano Consolidation

On July 10, 2006, "Avalos" and "Serrano" were consolidated for
all pretrial purposes, including proceedings on class
certification.

The consolidated case is known as "Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly
Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos)," and
remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

No filings or determinations have been made in Serrano/Avalos as
to class certification.

                       Grindle Litigation

On Feb. 20, 2007, a separate lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Wood County, Ohio, captioned, "Colleen Grindle, et
al. v. Cintas Corporation."

It was brought on behalf of a class of female employees at
Cintas' Perrysburg, Ohio location who allegedly were denied
hire, promotion or transfer to service sales representative
positions on the basis of their gender.

The Grindle plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.

No filings or determinations have been made in "Grindle" as to
class certification.

The Grindle case is stayed pending the class certification
proceedings in the consolidated Serrano case. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 7, 2008)

On March 31, 2009, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division entered an order denying class
certification to all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits

On March 16, 2009, the plaintiffs in Ramirez and Houston agreed
to voluntarily dismiss all class claims in the case with
prejudice and the arbitrator entered an order dismissing all
class claims in the consolidated arbitration.  On April 3, 2009,
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
entered an order affirming the arbitrator's decision to dismiss
the class claims in Ramirez and Houston with prejudice, and
thereby relinquished his jurisdiction over the individual
plaintiffs' class claims, 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.

Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized
products and services to businesses of all types throughout the
U.S. and Canada.  The products and services provided by Cintas
include uniforms and apparel; mats, mops and towels; restroom
and hygiene service; first aid and safety; fire protection;
branded promotional products; document shredding and storage;
cleanroom resources, and flame resistant clothing.


CORUS BANKSHARES: Faces Ill. Suit for Breach of Securities Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corus Bankshares, Inc. faces a purported securities class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

During the first quarter of 2009, Corus and Mr. Robert J.
Glickman, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in Illinois
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
company's common stock between Jan. 25, 2008 and Jan. 30, 2009,
alleges primarily that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the above-mentioned period.

The lawsuits seek unspecified damages.  The lead plaintiff and
class counsel have not been selected.

Corus had until April 7, 2009, unless extended, to respond to
the claims in the first lawsuit, according to the company's
April 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Corus Bankshares, Inc. -- http://www.corusbank.com/-- is a bank
holding company.  Corus through its wholly owned banking
subsidiary, Corus Bank, N.A., is primarily focused on commercial
real estate lending and deposit gathering.  The third, and the
smaller, business is servicing the check cashing industry.
Corus' other activities include investments in the common stocks
of financial industry companies, as well as participations in
certain of the Bank's larger commercial real estate loans.  The
company's lending focuses on condominium projects.  The
company's lending activities are focused in various metropolitan
areas in Florida and California, as well as Atlanta,Las Vegas,
New York City and the District of Columbia. With respect to
retail banking, the Bank has 11 branches in the Chicago
metropolitan area.


GILAT SATELLITE: Defends Suit in Jerusalem Over Planned Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. continues to defend a purported
class-action proceeding filed in the district court of
Jerusalem, according to the company's April 7, 2009 Form 20-F
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In October 2008, a lawsuit and a motion for its approval as a
class action proceeding was filed in the District Court of
Jerusalem by eight individuals and Israeli companies against the
company, all of its directors and the company's 20% shareholder,
York Capital Management.

The plaintiffs claim damages based on the amounts they would
have been paid had the merger with a consortium of buyers
closed.

Gilat and its outside legal counsel said they believe the claims
are outlandish and completely without merit, and that the
lawsuit is without basis. The Company said that it intends to
use all legal means necessary to protect and defend the Company
and its directors.

The plaintiffs did not make any demands of the Company nor did
they provide notice prior to filing their lawsuit.

As has been previously announced, Gilat notified the consortium
of buyers that had signed a definitive agreement to purchase the
Company that it was terminating the Agreement and Plan of Merger
entered into on March 31, 2008, citing the buyer's intentional
breach of the merger agreement and failure to close the merger.

The definitive agreement provides for a termination fee in the
amount of $47.3 million, payable to Gilat, in the event of an
intentional breach of the agreement by the Purchasers.  The
buyers have rejected claims that the payment is due.  As has
been previously announced, Gilat intends to use all legal
remedies available to it to enforce all of its rights under the
definitive agreement and collect this fee.

Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. (TASE:GILT) is a leading provider
of products and services for satellite-based communications
networks. The Company operates three business units:

     (i) Gilat Network Systems ("GNS"), which is a provider of
         network systems and associated professional services to
         service providers and operators worldwide;

    (ii) Spacenet Inc., which provides managed services in North
         America for businesses and governments through its
         Connexstar service brand and for consumers through its
         StarBand service brand;

   (iii) Spacenet Rural Communications, which offers rural
         telephony and Internet access solutions to remote
         areas, primarily in Latin America.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Defends Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jabil Circuit, Inc. defends an appeal on the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida's dismissal of the second
amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class-action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, captioned, "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v.
Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No. 8:06-cv-01716" against the
company and various of its present and former officers and
directors.

The suit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs
comprised of persons who purchased shares of the company between
Sept. 19, 2001, and June 21, 2006.

It asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
as well as under Section 20(a) of that Act.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants had
engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant dates of
options for various senior officers and directors, causing the
company's financial statements to understate management
compensation and overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the
company's stock price.

In addition, the suit alleged that the company's proxy
statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
its shares on the trading date immediately prior to the date of
the grant.

A second putative class-action suit, containing virtually
identical legal claims and allegations of fact, captioned,
"Steven M. Noe v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No., 8:06-cv-
01883," was filed on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and
on Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class-action complaint.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint
is purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Sept.
19, 2001, and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the company and certain
of its current and former officers, including:

     -- Forbes I.J. Alexander,
     -- Scott D. Brown,
     -- Wesley B. Edwards,
     -- Chris A. Lewis,
     -- Mark T. Mondello,
     -- Robert L. Paver, and
     -- Ronald J. Rapp,

as well as certain of the company's directors:

     -- Mel S. Lavitt,
     -- William D. Morean,
     -- Frank A. Newman,
     -- Laurence S. Grafstein,
     -- Steven A. Raymund,
     -- Lawrence J. Murphy,
     -- Kathleen A. Walters, and
     -- Thomas A. Sansone.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.  It contained
allegations of fact and legal claims similar to the original
putative class action and, in addition, alleged that the
defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances
that led the company, on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was
lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third
quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint asserting claims
substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
it replaced but adding allegations relating to the restatement
of earnings previously announced in connection with the
correction of errors in the calculation of compensation expense
for certain stock option grants.

At the company's request, the Court, on April 9, 2008, dismissed
the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint without
prejudice, but with leave to amend the complaint by May 12,
2008.

On May 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.  The Second Amended Class Action Complaint
asserts substantially the same causes of action against the same
defendants, predicated largely on the same allegations of fact
as in the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
except insofar as plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's
independent registered public accounting firm, as a defendant
and added additional allegations with respect to:

       -- pre-class period option grants,

       -- the professional background of certain defendants,

       -- option grants to non-executive employees,

       -- the restatement of the Company's financial results for
          certain periods between 1996 and 2005, and

       -- trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the
          defendants during the class period.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an
additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants
pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the
Exchange Act.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint.

On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed this
dismissal on Feb. 20, 2009, according to its April 8, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009.

The suit is "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01716-SDM-EAJ," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under
Judge Steven D. Merryday.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese (whoese@kohnswift.com)
         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: 215-238-1700

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq. (michael.chapman@hklaw.com)
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813-227-8500
         Fax: 813-229-0134


JOS. A. BANK: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

Initially, a lawsuit was filed by Roy T. Lefkoe on July 24,
2006, against the company and Robert N. Wildrick, the company's
chief executive officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  The case takes the civil action number
1:06-cv-01892-WMN.

On Aug. 3, 2006, another lawsuit substantially similar to the
Lefkoe suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland by Tewas Trust UAD 9/23/86.  This suit
takes civil action number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN.

The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as
those in the class action and purported to assert the same
claims and seek the same relief.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Lefkoe lawsuit and the Tewas Trust Action
were consolidated under case number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN and the
Tewas Trust Action was administratively closed.

Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead
plaintiff in the consolidated class action and has filed a
consolidated class action complaint.

R. Neal Black, the company's president, and David E. Ullman, the
company's executive vice president and chief financial officer,
have been added as defendants.

On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5,
2005, and June 7, 2006, the class action purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's
disclosures during the class period.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The company's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action was not
granted, according to its April 8, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit is "Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-01892-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Judge William M. Nickerson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
         Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC
         John Wanamaker Bldg., Ste. 450, Juniper and Market Sts.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 1-215-561-3600
         Fax: 1-215-561-3000

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
         (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 1-212-937-7220
         Fax: 1-212-230-8888


KBR INC: Faces Suits Over Burn Pits at Iraq, Afghanistan Bases
--------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc., and its parent company, Halliburton Co. are facing
seven class-action lawsuits in seven states on behalf of service
members and civilians who say they were sickened by the open-air
burn pits on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kelly
Kennedy of AirForceTimes.com reports.

The lawsuits, including a wrongful death suit, were filed after
a Military Times story that ran last October showed that the
burn pit at Joint Base Balad, the biggest U.S. base in Iraq,
burned everything from petroleum products to dioxin-releasing
plastic water bottles to amputated limbs.

More than 150 people contacted Military Times with similar sets
of symptoms ranging from respiratory problems to lymphoma and
leukemia, according to the AirForceTimes.com report.

Kerry Baker, associate national legislative director for
Disabled American Veterans, put out a call to all service
members and veterans who believed they had been sickened by the
burn pits so that he could see if DAV should push for automatic
service-connected disability benefits for veterans who had been
exposed, just as is done with Vietnam vets who were exposed to
Agent Orange.

AirForceTimes.com reported Director Baker worked with lawyer
Elizabeth Burke, Esq. of Burke O'Neill LLC to connect veterans
who wanted to be included in a class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuits, filed in Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina and Wyoming, name
21 plaintiffs.
In a prepared statement, Ms. Burke said, "KBR knew or should
have known that operating vast open-air burn pits jeopardized
the health and safety of thousands of Americans.  KBR showed an
utter disregard for the safety of the troops when they chose to
use open-air burn pits and failed to use incinerators and other
safer methods of waste disposal."

According to AirForceTimes.com, the U.S. Department of Defense
contracted out waste disposal to KBR.  However, service members
operate some of the burn pits at smaller bases, and military
field manuals offer guidance about how to operate those burn
pits, calling them a "short-term" solution in a war zone.

In an interview with AirForceTimes.com, Ms. Burke said that
environmental health experts who looked at possible chemical
exposures were astonished by how the symptoms matched up.

According to the lawsuits, "These for-profit corporations
callously exposed and continue to expose soldiers and others to
toxic smoke, ash and fumes.  These exposures are causing a host
of serious diseases, increased risk of serious diseases in the
future, death and increased risk of death."

Several service members have died since returning from Iraq, and
their family members believe their illnesses were caused by the
burn pits, reports AirForceTimes.com.

The lawsuits accuses the defendants of negligence, battery,
nuisance, emotional distress, willful and wanton conduct,
negligent training and hiring, breach of duty to warn and breach
of contract.  In two cases, the lawyers accuse KBR of wrongful
death.

The suits ask for monetary damages for physical injuries, lost
wages, emotional distress, pain and suffering.  It asks that KBR
lose all revenue and profits it gained in the waste-disposal
contract, and it also asks for legal expenses, according to the
AirForceTimes.com report.


KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Mo. Judge Decides To Oversee ERISA Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol E. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri has decided she should preside over
proposed class-action lawsuits alleging that KV Pharmaceutical
Co. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act through
its handling of an employee investment plan in addition to a
proposed class action alleging KV violated securities laws, due
to similarities in the material facts of the cases, Law360
reports.

In an order isused on April 23, 2009, Judge Jackson said she
would preside over three putative class-action lawsuits alleging
ERISA violations, according to the Law360 report.


LIZ CLAIBORNE: Faces Investor's Litigation in New York Court
------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor of Liz Claiborne, Inc. (Public, NYSE:LIZ) has
filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Liz Claiborne, Inc. (NYSE: LIZ),
between February 28, 2007 and April 30, 2007 against Liz
Claiborne, Inc. and certain of its current and former executive
officers over alleged violations of federal securities laws.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Liz
Claiborne, Inc. and certain of its current and former executive
officers violated federal securities laws by knowing or
recklessly disregarding between February 28, 2007 and April 30,
2007 that their public statements concerning its business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the lawsuit, on May 1, 2007, Liz Claiborne,
Inc. reported an approximately 65 percent drop in earnings,
forecasted an unexpected decline in annual profit, and disclosed
massive cutbacks in orders from Macy's.

     Moreover, Liz Claiborne announced that Macy's reduced
orders were a reaction to the new Liz & Co. and CONCEPTS by
Claiborne brands launched at JCPenney. On this news, shares of
Liz Claiborne declined $7.72 per share, more than 17%, to close
on May 1, 2007 at $37.00 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Liz Claiborne, Inc. -- http://www.lizclaiborne.com/-- designs
and markets a global portfolio of retail-based brands.  Liz
Claiborne, Inc. is located in New York and had a total revenue
in 2007 of $4.441billion and in 2008 of $3.984billion.  Shares
of Liz Claiborne (LIZ) traded recently at $3.88 per share, down
from $22.71 per share in 2008 and $46.15 per share in 2007.


LOUIS VUITTON: Hearing on Dismissal Motion in "Arthur" Canceled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by Louis Vuitton North
America, Inc. in relation to the case, "Arthur v. Louis Vuitton
North America Inc et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-04731-AHM-FFM," that
had been scheduled for April 27, 2009 has been canceled, The Los
Angeles Times reports.

Mike Boehm of The Los Angeles Times previously reported that
Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a
purported class-action lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 27,
2009).

The suit was originally filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
but was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

When it was initially filed in June 2008, the suit alleged only
the company failed to provide information about the artworks
required under California's Fine Prints Act.  In August 2008
though, attorneys added fraud allegations, reports The Los
Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times previously reported that Louis Vuitton is
facing a class-action complaint filed in the Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging that the luxury retailer did not provide
proper documentation for the works sold at its Museum of
Contemporary Art (MOCA) boutique (Class Action Reporter, July 8,
2008).

Named plaintiff Clint Arthur alleges that Louis Vuitton failed
to take the law into account when selling limited-edition prints
by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami at his show at the
museum's Geffen Contemporary.

He says two limited-edition prints he bought for $6,000 each
were signed by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami but not also
numbered by the artist as promised in an accompanying
certificate.  MOCA, he says, provided no documentation at all
for two $855 Murakami prints.

The Los Angeles Times recounts that since 1970, California law
has required dealers who sell limited-edition prints of artists'
work to disclose an array of information supporting the prints'
authenticity.

Mr. Arthur says that because Louis Vuitton failed to provide
sufficient information, 500 Murakami prints that were on sale
for an average of $8,000 lacked the ironclad certification
required, making them less valuable for resale.  The show --
Vuitton store included -- is now at the Brooklyn Museum in New
York.

The California law allows triple damages for violations,
exposing Louis Vuitton to a potential multimillion-dollar
liability.

Mr. Arthur, who sued Louis Vuitton on June 23, 2008 said he
discovered the law on the Internet after having misgivings about
the prints he had purchased last winter during the "Murakami"
exhibition at MOCA's Geffen Contemporary building.

According to the LA Times report, the law on fine art prints
apparently has been enforced rarely, if ever, since it went on
the books in 1970, but on paper it carries considerable clout:
It specifically authorizes the state attorney general, district
attorneys and city attorneys to bring civil charges carrying
fines of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The suit is "Arthur v. Louis Vuitton North America Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-04731-AHM-FFM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Daniel E. Engel, Esq. (dan@danengel.com)
          Daniel E. Engel Law Offices
          18150 Archwood Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91335-5502
          Phone: 818-345-2634
          Fax: 866-535-1248

               - and -

          Matthew J. Butterick, Esq. (mb@buttericklaw.com)
          Butterick Law Corporation
          5419 Hollywood Blvd Suite C731
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Phone: 323-544-1435
          Fax: 866-801-1147

Representing the defendants are:

          Rebecca J. Edelson, Esq. (redelson@steptoe.com)
          Steptoe and Johnson
          2121 Avenue of the Stars Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-5052
          Phone: 310-734-3200
          Fax: 310-734-3300

               - and -

          Robert E. Shapiro, Esq. (rob.shapiro@bfkn.com)
          Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum and Nagelberg LLP
          200 West Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-984-3100
          Fax: 312-984-3150


METAVANTE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Proposed FNIS Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Two investors in Metavante Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: MV)
filed lawsuits on behalf of current investors in shares of
Metavante Technologies, who purchased their shares prior to the
proposed takeover of Metavante by Fidelity National Information
Services for $2.94 billion in stock, in Milwaukee County Circuit
Court against Metavante, its CEO, directors, and others alleging
the offered price is too low and the board of directors breached
their financial duties in agreeing to the sale under the present
conditions.

     Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (NYSE: FIS)
and Metavante Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: MV) announced on April
10, 2009 that the boards of directors of both companies have
approved a definitive agreement under which FIS will acquire
Metavante.  Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Metavante
shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 1.35 shares
of FIS common stock for each share of Metavante common stock
they own. The pro forma enterprise value of the combined company
would be approximately $10 billion. Shares of Fidelity closed
the following Tuesday at $18.20, up 2%, while shares of
Metavante were up 2.8% to close at $19.96.  With a fixed
exchange rate of 1.35, shareholders of Metavante Technologies,
Inc. (NYSE: MV) would get $24.57 per MV share they own.

     According to the lawsuit, the sale price does not take into
account Metavante Technologies true value or the company's
growth and revenue prospects.  According to the lawsuit in its
first full year as a public company Metavante's revenue grew by
nearly 50% to more than $1.7 billion and net income grew to over
$147 million. The suit complains that the Metavante board did
not tell shareholders about the potential deal with Fidelity
National until the sale was announced, despite months of
negotiations.

Metavante Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.metavante.com/--
owns and operates Metavante Corporation.  Metavante delivers
banking and payments technologies to financial services firms
and businesses worldwide.  Metavante is located in Milwaukee,
Wis., and had $1.707 billion in total revenue in 2008 and $1.598
billion in 2007 with a net income of $147.35million in 2008 and
$49.45 million in 2007.  The shares of Metavante Technologies
closed on Monday, April 27, 2009 with $24.79 per share.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit accepted the plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal. (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009)

No further developments in the matter were reported in the
company's April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
5, 2009.

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


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Approval to Settlement of SRAM Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of the purported antitrust class-action lawsuit
filed against Micron Technology, Inc., among others, over the
sale of Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) products is pending
the U.S. courts approval.

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

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

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

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

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and state antitrust and unfair competition laws
and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest
and attorneys' fees. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009)

On March 19, 2009, the company executed settlement agreements
with both the direct purchaser class and the purported indirect
purchaser class.  If approved by the Court, the agreements would
resolve the pending U.S. class action SRAM litigation against
the company and release Micron from those claims, according to
the company's April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
5, 2009.

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


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random
access memories (DRAM) continue to face several purported class-
action lawsuits in Canada that allege violations of antitrust
statutes.

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

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

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

In May and June 2008 respectively, the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was denied in the British Columbia and
Quebec cases.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of those decisions. (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009)

The company reported no development in the matter in its April
7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2009.

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


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

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

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

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

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

On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class
but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's
stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002.
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009)

No further updates regarding the case were reported by the
company in its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
5, 2009.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

              - and -

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


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

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

The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the SRAM cases filed in the U.S. cases. (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009)

The company reported no developments in the matter in its April
7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2009.

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


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

The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly
and indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers. (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009)

The company reported no development in the matter in its April
7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2009.

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


NEW YORK & CO: "Johnson" Privacy Lawsuit Settled in Jan. 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit captioned, "Leslie Johnson v. Lerner
New York, Inc." has been settled in January 2009,  according to
New York & Company, Inc.'s April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

On March 25, 2008, a class-action claim was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, the caption of which has been changed to "Leslie Johnson
v. Lerner New York, Inc."

The class-action case seeks relief for, among other things,
collection of customers' personal information in a manner that
is allegedly in violation of California law.

The company has denied liability.

In January 2009, the company reached a settlement in principle
with the plaintiffs of the class action claims in the State of
California, according to its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

New York & Co., Inc. is a leading specialty retailer of fashion
oriented, moderately priced women's apparel.  The company
designs and sources its proprietary branded New York & company
TM merchandise sold exclusively through its national network of
retail stores and E-commerce store at www.nyandcompany.com.  The
target customers for the company's merchandise are fashion
conscious, value sensitive women between the ages of 25 and 45.


MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART: Calif. Court Nixes "Arthur" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Highberger of the Los Angeles Superior Court
dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the
Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) and Louis Vuitton North
America violated the Fine Prints Act, a California law that
requires dealers in limited-edition art reproductions to certify
their authenticity and provide information about how rare they
are and how they were created, The Los Angeles Times reports.

The ruling by Judge William Highberger said that the plaintiff,
Clint Arthur had no standing to sue the museum because he didn't
accept MOCA's offer to refund him.

Judge Highberger wrote in his ruling issued on April 25, 2009,
"To allow a purchaser to both keep his allegedly defective
purchase and to get his money back...rewards opportunistic
litigation (of which this case is a prime example)," according
to the LA Times report.

However, the judge said Mr. Arthur could file another suit "if a
new and different set of facts exist at some future point in
time," such as MOCA not following through on its offer of a
refund, or if it fails to provide "a legally adequate
certificate."

The judge also denied MOCA's claim that it should be exempted
from the Fine Prints Act because it is a charitable
organization, The Los Angeles Times reported.

Mr. Arthur said that he would appeal, because Judge Highberger's
ruling won't address what he sees as MOCA's having deprived all
its other print-customers of their rights to certificates and
accurate descriptions of their purchases  -- which he thinks are
important to preserving the market value and authenticity of
limited-edition prints, reports The Los Angeles Times.

Mike Boehm of The Los Angeles Times previously reported that
MOCA and Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. are seeking the
dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit over allegations
that the luxury retailer did not provide proper documentation
for the works sold at its MOCA boutique (Class Action Reporter
April 27, 2009).

The suit against MOCA in Los Angeles Superior Court, reported by
The LA Times last year, alleges no fraud but concerns failure to
provide proper certificates for three limited-edition prints
signed by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami that the
plaintiff Clint Arthur bought for $2,655 at the regular museum
shop.

MOCA contends that the suit should be dismissed because in March
2009, it gave Mr. Arthur the legally required certificates it
had previously failed to provide, reports The Los Angeles Times.

Judge William Highberger is expected to rule by summer whether
that case should go forward, according to The Los Angeles Times
report.


NEW YORK & CO: "Schakow" Labor Violations Suit Settled in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit captioned, "Jannika Schakow v. Lerner
New York, Inc. and New York & Company, Inc.," has been settled
in January 2009,  according to its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

On April 29, 2008, the class-action claim was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Contra Costa.

It seeks relief for, among other things, meal and rest periods
allegedly not provided or permitted to certain eligible
employees in California.

The company has denied liability.

In January 2009, the company reached a settlement in principle
with the plaintiffs of the class action claims in the State of
California, according to its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

New York & Co., Inc. is a leading specialty retailer of fashion
oriented, moderately priced women's apparel.  The company
designs and sources its proprietary branded New York & company
TM merchandise sold exclusively through its national network of
retail stores and E-commerce store at www.nyandcompany.com.  The
target customers for the company's merchandise are fashion
conscious, value sensitive women between the ages of 25 and 45.


U.S. SUGAR: Fla. Judge Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida dismissed 12 of 13 counts that were
part of a class-action lawsuit filed by shareholders of U.S.
Sugar Corp., Susan R. Miller of The South Florida Business
Journal reports.

The suit, filed in January 2008 in West Palm Beach, alleged that
some of the company's top executives attempted to deprive
shareholders of a chance to sell their stock on two occasions
when U.S. Sugar received buyout offers.  The 13-count complaint
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and violation of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) statutes, according to
The South Florida Business Journal.

The suit alleged that the defendants "purposefully and
unlawfully undervalued the price at which they could redeem
their shares by failing to disclose or take into account a
third-party offer to buy the shares."

The South Florida Business Journal reported that the allegations
grew out of offers that U.S. Sugar received from the Lawrence
Group of Texas, first in June 2005 and again in January 2007.

In withholding the information about the offers from
shareholders, the plaintiffs alleged that the company was able
to artificially depress the stock's value and deprived them of
selling their shares for a significant profit.

"This would have been the only opportunity in decades for the
shareholders of U.S. Sugar to sell their shares to a third
party. The resulting damages to the employees and other
shareholders is alleged to be over $150 million," according to a
news release issued by the plaintiff's lawyers after the suit
was filed, reports The South Florida Business Journal.

In his 47-page ruling, Judge Middlebrooks said, among other
things, that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust all of their
administrative remedies and that, because they were part of an
employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) and were not direct
stockholders, they could not claim breach of fiduciary duty.

According to The South Florida Business Journal, the only claim
to survive was made by Mary Rafter, a former secretary and
administrative assistant for U.S. Sugar and a direct minority
shareholder.  The claim alleged breach of fiduciary duty against
the directors of the company.

Some of the claims though were dismissed without prejudice and
as such the plaintiffs can refile, The South Florida Business
Journal reported.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COX RADIO: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Bull & Lifshitz, LLP announces that on April 8, 2009,
Donald Dixon, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court Northern District of Georgia
Atlanta Division civil action No. 09-CV-00938 in connection with
a cash tender offer announced on March 23, 2009 by Cox
Enterprises, Inc., the Company's majority stockholder, through
its unit Cox Media Group, Inc. for all of the outstanding
publicly held minority interest in Cox Radio for $3.80 per share
in cash, or a total payment of approximately $69.1 million,
including fees and expenses.  On April 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed
an amended class action complaint.

     The Complaint alleges that the Tender Offer is unfairly
coercive and that SEC filings made pursuant to the Tender Offer
omitted material information.  The Complaint alleges that
defendants' actions with respect to the Tender Offer violated
the federal securities laws, including Sections 14(e), 14(d) and
13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rules
promulgated thereunder.

     In addition, the Complaint alleges that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed class of
shareholders.

     Consequently, the Company's public shareholders are being
asked to make a decision on whether to tender their shares or
seek appraisal without adequate information (and in a highly
condensed time frame).

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Bull & Lifshitz, LLP
          18 East 41st Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 213-6222
          Fax: (212) 213-9405
          e-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Bronstein, Gewirtz and Grossman, LLC announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Insight
Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq: NSIT) during the period from January
30, 2007 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 it 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 call 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 26, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Phone: 212-697-6484
          Web site: http://www.bgandg.com/


LIZ CLAIBORNE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Liz Claiborne, Inc. (NYSE: LIZ), between February 28, 2007 and
April 30, 2007, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Liz Claiborne, Inc. and certain of
the Company's current and former executive officers with
violations of federal securities laws.

     Liz Claiborne is engaged primarily in the design and
marketing of a broad range of apparel, accessories and
fragrances.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Liz Claiborne's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate, among other things, the following:

       -- that the Company's wholesalers were significantly
          reducing orders;

       -- that, specifically, Macy's, Liz Claiborne's largest
          customer, slashed orders in response to Liz
          Claiborne's decision to partner with JCPenney and
          launch the Liz & Co. and CONCEPTS by Claiborne brands
          at JCPenney;

       -- that this fact had been known to the Company and
          management as early as November 22, 2006; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, that the statements made
          by the Company and management lacked a reasonable
          basis.

     On May 1, 2007, Liz Claiborne shocked the market when the
Company reported an approximately 65 percent drop in earnings,
forecasted an unexpected decline in annual profit, and disclosed
massive cutbacks in orders from Macy's.  Moreover, the Company
revealed that Macy's reduced orders were a reaction to the new
Liz & Co. and CONCEPTS by Claiborne brands launched at JCPenney.
On this news, shares of Liz Claiborne declined $7.72 per share,
more than 17%, to close on May 1, 2007 at $37.00 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 29, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


MRU HOLDINGS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of investors who purchased shares of MRU Holdings, Inc.
(PINKSHEETS: UNCLQ) during the period between July 9, 2007 and
September 19, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the market for
Auction Rate Securities ("ARSs") was illiquid and existed at the
whim of the broker-dealers, and that without the favorable
securitization terms generated by this market the Company's
business model was untenable.  According to the complaint,
beginning on July 7, 2008, the truth regarding the Company was
revealed, causing the value of MRU's stock 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 19, 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: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund on
behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B
and/or Class C shares of the Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ:
ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX) from April 24, 2006 through October 21,
2008.

     The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., the
Fund and certain of its Trustees and officers violated sections
of the Securities Act of 1933.

     The suit claims that Oppenheimer, which runs the Fund,
misled investors about the risks of investing in the Fund,
resulting in an over 30% decline in the Fund's value. The
lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares
(ONJAX), B Shares (ONJBX) and C Shares (ONJCX).

     The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements
through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose
that under certain circumstances Trusts which contain Inverse
Floaters, such as those employed by the Fund, may be put to the
Fund for repayment of principal.  This caused the Trusts to be
collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal amount of
the tendered securities.  In order to do so, the Fund was forced
to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market
conditions and accept prices far below the values at which the
bonds were carried on its books.

     This risk factor was always present wherever inverse
floaters were employed.  However, no disclosure was made in any
of the Prospectuses filed as part of Registration Statements
with respect to the sale of the Fund's shares.  Because of this
lack of disclosure, the Fund's shares traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

     In October 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus Supplement
which disclosed the relevant risks associated with the Fund's
investment in Inverse Floaters -- the same risks that existed in
2006, 2007, and throughout 2008.  By October 2008, those risks
had already manifested themselves in dealing substantial losses
to investors, causing shares to lose approximately 30% of their
net asset value between January 2008 and October 2008.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased shares of Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund
from April 24, 2006 through October 21, 2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


                            *********

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  * * *