CAR_Public/090504.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 4, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 86

                           Headlines

BAYWOOD INT'L: To Face Suits on Failure to Disclose Lead Content
BON-TON: Settlement in Adamson's Suit v. Saks Reached in 2Q 2008
CSX CORP: Indirect Purchasers Appeal Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
CHINA ORGANIC: "Provo" Suit Over False Statements Pending in NY
HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit Over "Kraftmaid/Thomasville Rebate Offer"

ISOLAGEN INC: Federal Securities Suits Dismissed on March 25
KAPLAN INC: Faces Antitrust Complaint in N.Y. Over LSAT Market
KIT DIGITAL: Defending Suit Over ROO HDD's Acquisition of Wurld
MEDEFILE INT'L: Class Certification in TCPA Breach Suit Pending
MELTDOWN MASSAGE: Defends Suit Over Wage & Hour Laws Violations

NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Securities Lawsuit Settled in January
PARK WEST: Chimicles & Tikellis Files RICO Litigation in Mich.
PELLA CORP: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Leaking-Windows Case
PRIME TANNING: Faces Illinois Litigation Over Toxic Sludge
PT INDOSAT: Price-fixing Suit in Jakarta Court Remains Ongoing

QUALCOMM INC: California Court Dismisses UMTS-Related Lawsuits
SCORES HOLDING: Discovery & Settlement Talks in "Diaz" Ongoing
SEQUENOM INC: Investors File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
SOUTH AFRICA: N.Y. Judge Gives Green Light to Apartheid Cases
STRIP HOUSE: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations

W.R. GRACE: Seeks Del. Court Approval of $10M ERISA Suit Deal
WELLS MID-HORIZON: Certification Bid in Securities Suit Pending
ZYNEX INC: Faces Suits Over Restatement of Unaudited Statements


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

BAYWOOD INT'L: To Face Suits on Failure to Disclose Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baywood International, Inc. is set to defend a class-action suit
alleging failure to disclose the amount of lead in one of the
company's products.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the company was notified that it was named as
a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a class action
lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly failing to
disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.

No further details regarding the class action lawsuit were
disclosed in the company's April 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Baywood International, Inc. -- http://www.bywd.com/-- is a
nutraceutical company specializing in the development, marketing
and distribution of its own brands under the names LifeTime,
Baywood PURECHOICE, Baywood SOLUTIONS, Baywood EVOLUTION and
Complete La Femme.  The company distributes its products through
independent and chain health food stores, pharmacies, grocery
stores and other direct-to-consumer channels internationally and
domestically.


BON-TON: Settlement in Adamson's Suit v. Saks Reached in 2Q 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of Adamson Apparel, Inc.'s purported class-action
lawsuit against Saks Incorporated, a subsidiary of The Bon-Ton
Stores, Inc., was reached in the second quarter of 2008,
according to Bon-Ton's April 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 8, 2005, Adamson Apparel filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Saks in the U.Ss District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.

In its complaint the plaintiff asserted breach of contract
claims and alleged that Saks improperly assessed chargebacks,
timely payment discounts and deductions for merchandise returns
against members of the plaintiff class.

The lawsuit sought compensatory and incidental damages and
restitution.

Under the terms of the purchase agreement relating to the
acquisition of NDSG from Saks in March 2006, the company had an
obligation to indemnify Saks for any damages incurred by Saks
under this lawsuit by Adamson Apparel, Inc. solely to the extent
that such damages related to the business the company acquired
from Saks.

A settlement on this action was reached in the second quarter of
2008.

The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. -- http://www.bonton.com-- is a
regional department store operator in the United States,
offering an assortment of brand-name fashion apparel and
accessories for women, men and children as well as cosmetics,
home furnishings and other goods.  As of January 31, 2009, the
company operated 280 stores under various nameplates, including
the Bon-Ton, Bergner's, Boston Store, Carson Pirie Scott, Elder-
Beerman, Herberger's, and Younkers in 23 northeastern,
midwestern, and upper Great Plains states; and under the
Parisian nameplate in the Detroit, Michigan area, encompassing a
total of approximately 26 million square feet.  It offers a core
merchandise assortment, including nationally distributed brands
through its private brands.


CSX CORP: Indirect Purchasers Appeal Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The indirect purchasers are appealing the dismissal of a
consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against CSX Corp. and
other major U.S. railroads in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia over allegations that the individual
railroads violated the U.S. antitrust laws.

Since May 2007, at least 30 putative class-action lawsuits have
been brought in various federal district courts against CSX and
four other U.S.-based Class I railroads.

The lawsuits contain substantially similar allegations to the
effect that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to
contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal
conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws.  The lawsuits seek
unquantified treble damages allegedly sustained by purported
class members, attorneys' fees and other relief.

All but three of the lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a
class of shippers that allegedly purchased rail freight
transportation services from the defendants through the use of
contracts or through other means exempt from rate regulation
during defined periods commencing as early as June 2003 and were
assessed fuel surcharges.

Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of indirect
purchasers of rail services.  One additional lawsuit has been
filed by an individual shipper.

The class-action lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss and oral arguments were heard on Oct.
10, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2008)

The district court has dismissed all of the indirect purchasers
causes of action except for injunctive relief.  The indirect
purchasers have appealed that decision and the district court
case has been stayed pending the appeal.

The railroads have asked the District Court for the District of
Columbia to first proceed with discovery relating to the
appropriateness of class certification, and then permit merit
discovery only if a class is certified, according to the
company's April 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
27, 2009.

CSX Corp. -- http://www.csx.com/-- is a transportation company.
The company owns companies providing rail, intermodal and rail-
to-truck transload services, connecting more than 70 ocean,
river and lake ports.  CSX operates in two segments: rail and
intermodal.


CHINA ORGANIC: "Provo" Suit Over False Statements Pending in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by Lance C. Provo, "on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated," against China
Organic Agriculture, Inc., past officers and directors of the
company, and one of its current directors, remains in the
preliminary stages.

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on Dec. 12, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
disseminated false and misleading statements or concealed
materially adverse facts causing members of the class to
purchase the company's stock at inflated prices, and engaged in
other improper actions, including divesting the company of its
sole productive asset and acquiring a luxury retreat for the use
of the Defendants.

The suit alleges that the Defendants' actions violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10(b)5 under the Exchange Act.

The suit seeks as relief civil penalties, attorney's fees, and
disgorgement.

The company intends to vigorously contest the claims made by Mr.
Provo.  As of April 15, 2009, service had not yet been made on
any of the individual defendants, according to the company's
latest Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

China Organic Agriculture, Inc., formerly Industrial Electric
Services, Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is
engaged in the business of rice production, processing and
distribution.  China Organic Agriculture, Ltd. is the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary.  It operates in three segments: Ankang,
the segment for the trading of agricultural products; ErMaPao,
the one for rice production and processing, and Bellisimo
Vineyard, the segment for wine production.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit Over "Kraftmaid/Thomasville Rebate Offer"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc. refused to pay "thousands" of rebates it
offered, of up to $1,000 apiece, or shortchanged customers after
the administrator of the rebate programs declared bankruptcy, a
class-action claims in Federal Court, The Courthouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Loretta Alkalay says the store has not paid her
$1,000 rebate for special order kitchen counter-tops and major
appliances (Kraftmaid/Thomasville Rebate Offer).

According to Ms. Alkalay, "The Kraftmaid/Thomasville Rebate
Offer was administered on Home Depot's behalf by its agent CPG
Marketing Inc. and/or Continental Promotion Group Inc.
(collectively, 'CPG')," which have filed for Chapter 11
protection in Tampa.  She adds, "thousands of other persons and
entities made qualifying purchases during this period and were
entitled to receive rebates under the Rebate Offers.
Reportedly, CPG's Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan sought financing
from Home Depot to back 68,865 customer checks," reports The
Courthouse News Service.

"In connection with the CPG Chapter 11 filing, Home Depot issued
a Rebate Check Alert on its Web site advising customer that,
inter alia, the CPG bankruptcy 'resulted in thousands of
customers at risk of receiving unfunded rebate checks.'  The
Rebate Check Alert acknowledged Home Depot's responsibility for
the rebate payments, stating that 'customers entitled to receive
a rebate check for products purchased at The Home Depot stores
will be supported by The Home Depot.'"

Despite this promise, Ms. Alkalay says, Home Depot gave her a
$250 rebate, though it owed her $750.     The plaintiff is
represented by Judith Spanier, Esq. with Abbey, Spanier & Rodd,
according to the Courthouse News Service report.


ISOLAGEN INC: Federal Securities Suits Dismissed on March 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the matter "Isolagen, Inc., Securities &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:06-md-01741-RB," was approved
on March 25, 2009, and the case has been dismissed with
prejudice, according to the company's April 15, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are defendants in various class action complaints
filed in August 2005 and September 2005, alleging securities
fraud and asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of publicly traded Isolagen securities between March
3, 2004, and Aug. 1, 2005.

These lawsuits were:

       -- "Elliot Liff v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No. H-05-
          2887," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
          Southern District of Texas;

       -- "Michael Cummiskey v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
          05-cv-03105," filed in the U.S. District Court for
          the Southern District of Texas;

       -- "Ronald A. Gargiulo v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
          05-cv-4983," filed in the U.S. District Court for
          the Eastern District of Pennsylvania," and

       -- "Gregory J. Newman v. Frank M. DeLape, et al., C.A.
          No. 05-cv-5090," filed in the U.S. District Court
          for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Liff and Cummiskey actions were consolidated on Oct. 7,
2005.  The Gargiolo and Newman actions were consolidated on Nov.
29, 2005.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the Federal
Securities Actions to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The Liff and Cummiskey actions were stayed on Nov. 23, 2005,
pending resolution of the MDL Motion.  The Gargiulo and Newman
actions were also stayed on Dec. 7, 2005, pending resolution of
the MDL Motion.

On Feb. 23, 2006, the MDL Motion was granted and the actions
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where they have been jointly
captioned, "In re Isolagen, Inc. Securities & Derivative
Litigation, MDL No. 1741."

On April 4, 2006, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed
Silverback Asset Management, LLC; Silverback Master, Ltd.;
Silverback Life Sciences Master Fund, Ltd.; Context Capital
Management, LLC; and Michael F. McNulty as lead plaintiffs, and
the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and
Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP as lead counsel in the Federal
Securities Litigation.

On July 14, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Isolagen common
stock or convertible debt securities between March 3, 2004, and
Aug. 9, 2005.

The amended complaint purports to assert claims for securities
fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Isolagen and certain of
its former officers and directors.  The amended complaint also
purports to assert claims for violations of Section 11 and 12 of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 against the company and certain
of its current and former directors and officers in connection
with the registration and sale of certain shares of Isolagen
common stock and certain convertible debt securities.

The amended complaint also purports to assert claims against
CIBC World Markets Corp., Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc.,
Canaccord Adams, Inc. and UBS Securities LLC as underwriters in
connection with an April 2004 public offering of Isolagen common
stock and a 2005 sale of convertible notes.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint,
which motion was denied by the Court.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the court entered a scheduling order that
provides for discovery to be completed by June 8, 2009.  On
April 1, 2008, the court also entered an order staying the
schedule set forth in its Nov. 6, 2007, order for a period of 90
days and directing the parties to participate in mediation
before a private mediator.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
had set a June 2, 2008 mediation session for the matter.

The mediation occurred on June 2, 2008, and June 5, 2008, and
the parties continue attempts toward reaching a resolution of
the actions. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2008)

On Oct. 23, 2008, the parties executed a definitive settlement
agreement.  In November 2008, the company received settlement
proceeds from its directors and officers liability insurance
carrier, of which $4.4 million was paid to the class action
plaintiffs in December 2008 in accordance with the definitive
settlement agreement.  On March 25, 2009, the court entered an
order and final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing
the Federal Securities Litigation with prejudice.

The suit is "Isolagen, Inc., Securities & Derivative Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-md-01741-RB," filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Ronald L.
Buckwalter presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Eugene Norman, Esq.
         Crowley Douglas, et al.
         1301 McKinney, Suite 3500
         Houston, TX 77010
         Phone: 713-651-1771

              - and -

         Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
         Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 212-594-5300

Representing the company are:

         Charles W. Schwartz, Esq.
         Skadden Arps, et al.
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 6800
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-655-5160

              - and -

         Robert W. Hayes, Esq. (rhayes@cozen.com)
         Cozen O'Connor
         1900 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-665-2094
         Fax: 215-665-2013


KAPLAN INC: Faces Antitrust Complaint in N.Y. Over LSAT Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post Co.'s Kaplan, Inc. unit was accused in an
antitrust complaint of dominating the market for Law School
Admission Test (LSAT) preparation, Bloomberg News reports.

The class-action lawsuit was filed on April 29, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  It
alleges that Kaplan conspired with the BAR/BRI bar-examination
review firm to restrain competition in the market for the LSAT,
taken by law-school applicants.  Thomson Reuters, now BAR/BRI's
parent, is not a defendant in the case, according to the
Bloomberg News report.

In 2007, Thomson's BAR/BRI and Kaplan agreed to pay $49 million
to settle an antitrust case brought by former students who
bought BAR/BRI bar review courses.  The former students said the
companies agreed not to compete with each other in the bar-exam-
preparation market, Bloomberg News reported.

The new suit, which focuses on the LSAT market, says the impact
of the alleged BAR/BRI-Kaplan conspiracy was "to eliminate a
substantial competitor in the LSAT course market in the United
States," reports Bloomberg News.


KIT DIGITAL: Defending Suit Over ROO HDD's Acquisition of Wurld
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIT Digital, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-action
suit entitled, "Julie Vittengl et al.  vs. ROO HD, Inc.," which
is pending in New York Supreme Court, Saratoga County.

In November 2007, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, ROO HD,
Inc., currently KIT HD, Inc., was named as the defendant in the
class-action lawsuit.

The suit, brought by four former employees of Wurld Media, Inc.
purportedly on behalf of themselves and "others similarly
situated," claims that ROO HD's acquisition of certain assets of
Wurld was a fraudulent conveyance and that ROO HD is the alter-
ego of Wurld.

The plaintiffs seek the appointment of a receiver to take charge
of the Company's property in constructive trust for plaintiffs
and payment of plaintiffs' unpaid wages and costs of suit, both
in an unspecified dollar amount.

ROO HD filed its answer to the complaint in January 2008, and
there have been no developments in this action since then.
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2008)

No further updates regarding the complaint were disclosed in the
company's April 15, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

KIT digital, Inc., -- http://www.kit-digital.com/-- formerly
ROO Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
business of providing Internet software products and solutions
that enable its customers to distribute video content through
Internet Websites and mobile devices.  Its core activities
include video player deployment, ingestion and transcoding,
localization, content syndication, digital rights management,
hosting, storage and content delivery.  The Company provides
video solutions for over 600 Websites internationally.  The
Company is a provider of Internet Protocol television enablement
technology and video-centric interactive marketing solutions.
It has a range of mobile television content, including a daily,
global sports program, SportCall.


MEDEFILE INT'L: Class Certification in TCPA Breach Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified by the District Court of Arizona
in the Consumer Protection Corp.'s suit against Medefile
International, Inc.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the company was notified via a process server
of a proposed class action suit brought by CPC in Superior Court
in the State of Arizona.

CPC alleges that the company sent an unsolicited facsimile
advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 (TCPA).

On Oct. 8, 2008, the matter was moved to the District Court of
Arizona.

On Oct. 28, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
action based on the plaintiff's failure to properly allege a
cause of action.

CPC filed a response to the company's motion to dismiss on Nov.
4, 2008.

CPC is seeking damages of $500 per member of the class. (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2008)

As the class has yet to be certified by the court, management is
unable to estimate the potential liability related to this
claim.  The company denies any involvement in the alleged
facsimile transmission, according to its April 15, 2009 Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Medefile International, Inc. -- http://www.medefile.com/--
through its subsidiary, Medefile, Inc., has developed a system
for gathering, digitizing, storing and distributing information
for the healthcare field.  The company has created a system for
gathering and digitizing medical records so that individuals can
have a record of all of their medical visits.  Medefile's
primary product is the MedeFile system, a secure system for
gathering and maintaining medical records.  The MedeFile system
is designed to gather all of its members' medical records and
create a single, comprehensive medical record that is accessible
round the clock.


MELTDOWN MASSAGE: Defends Suit Over Wage & Hour Laws Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meltdown Massage and Body Works, Inc. is facing a lawsuit
alleging violations of wage and hour laws.

In March 2008, a wage and hour class-action lawsuit was filed
against the company by three former employees and Sprinkler
Fitters Union Local 669.

The essence of the plaintiffs suit is that the company allegedly
violated wage and hour laws by failing to pay all wages owed for
overtime, breaks and off the clock work, and did not allow
employees to take breaks.

According to its April 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, it is the company's position that this lawsuit
has been brought against it for the improper motive of forcing
the company to enter into a labor agreement with Sprinkler
Fitters Local 669.

Meltdown Massage and Body Works, Inc. was incorporated in the
State of Nevada on April 4, 2007, and was a development stage
company with the principal business objective of becoming a
chain of professional body treatment and skin care service
centers offering spacious, luxurious settings and a multitude of
personal services including a variety of styles of massages,
aromatherapy, heated stones, exfoliate and moisturizing
treatments, mud baths, facials, manicures and pedicures, waxing
and special occasion make-up appointments as well as
consultations for everyday make-up applications.


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Securities Lawsuit Settled in January
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative securities class-action lawsuit, "In re Northwest
Biotherapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-07-1254-RAJ,"
was settled with prejudice on Jan. 8, 2009.

On Aug. 13, 2007, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington naming the company,
the Chairperson of its Board of Directors, Linda F. Powers, and
its Chief Executive Officer, Alton L. Boynton, as defendants in
a class-action case for violation of federal securities laws.

After this complaint was filed, five additional complaints were
filed in other jurisdictions alleging similar claims.

The complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company's Common Stock between July 9, 2007 and July 18, 2007
and allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses.

On Dec. 18, 2007, a consolidated complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington
consolidating the stockholder actions previously filed.

The putative securities class-action lawsuit was settled with
prejudice Jan. 8, 2009.  The company has agreed to pay in
settlement US$1 million.  In accordance with the stipulation the
insurance company has directly deposited the $1,000,000 in a
court controlled escrow account.  The settlement must be
approved by the Court.

Additional details about the settlement can be found in the
formal settlement documents, which are available from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The case alleged that the company misrepresented certain facts
that resulted in the artificial inflation of the price of
Northwest Biotherapeutics publicly-traded common stock between
April 17, 2007 and July 18, 2007.

The company disputes the allegations of the lawsuit, and denies
that there was any such misrepresentation or that the shares of
Northwest Biotherapeutics common stock were artificially
inflated.  Nevertheless the company is settling the lawsuit to
avoid potentially expensive and protracted litigation, according
to its April 15, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.nwbio.com-- is a
development-stage biotechnology company focused on discovering,
developing, and commercializing immunotherapy products that
generate and enhance immune system responses to effectively
treat cancer.


PARK WEST: Chimicles & Tikellis Files RICO Litigation in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP of Haverford, Pa.,
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan against Park West Gallery,
Inc., PWG Florida, Inc., Vista Fine Art, LLC d/b/a Park West at
Sea, and Albert Scaglione (Docket No. 09-cv-11392).

     Park West Gallery, Inc. is located and headquartered in
Southfield, Michigan and is the largest operator of art auctions
on cruise ships in the United States.

     The class action alleges a Class consisting of all persons
who purchased artwork while attending one of Park West's
shipboard art auctions conducted on famous cruise lines: Regent
Seven Seas, Royal Caribbean, Celebrity, Carnival, Norwegian,
Oceana, Disney and Holland America.  The complaint seeks damages
and other appropriate relief for the Class and charges the
Defendants with violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, state
consumer protection laws, breach of contract, breach of warranty
and the common law.

     Plaintiffs allege that defendants operated a fraudulent
scheme to target the naive art purchaser by touting that the
artwork sold at these shipboard auctions were good investments
that would appraise for many more times the purchase price,
when, in fact, the artwork plaintiffs received was either of low
value, worthless or fake.

     The complaint also alleges that Park West sold phony
appraisals to art purchasers, and that Park West conducted its
on-board art auctions while cruise ships were traveling in
international waters in an effort to avoid application of state
consumer protection laws to its illegal activities.

     The class action complaint filed by Chimicles & Tikellis
can be viewed by clicking here:
http://chimicles.com/assets/Complaint_1.pdf.

For more details, contact:

          Denise Davis Schwartzman, Esq.
          (DeniseSchwartzman@chimicles.com)
          Kimberly A. Sanders, Esq.
          (KimberlySanders@chimicles.com)
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: (610) 642-8500 or (866) 399-2487
          Fax: (610) 649-3633
          Webs ite: http://www.chimicles.com


PELLA CORP: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Leaking-Windows Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
     In a decision released April 10, 2009, Judge Carter Holly
of the California Superior Court San Joaquin County certified a
Class Action lawsuit against a Pella Corporation subsidiary.

     The lawsuit alleges that windows manufactured by Pella
Corporation subsidiary Viking Industries are defective and leak
in their lower corners.  Pella bought Viking in 1998.

     Surprisingly, Viking's own experts found that 43% of the
windows leaked, according to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

     Plaintiffs estimate the total number of windows sold is in
excess of 1.2 million.

     The Plaintiffs' window experts reported that 61% of the
windows they tested leaked and testified that to a "reasonable
engineering certainty" those windows that had not yet leaked
would during their expected useful life.

     In court documents, the Pella subsidiary's experts declared
that 43% of the windows they tested leaked even when tested at a
lower performance standard than was promised by Viking.  The
Plaintiffs' attorneys pointed out that projecting Pella's
subsidiary experts' opinion of a 43% leak rate onto all of the
windows means that between 336,000 and 696,000 of the windows
leak. Pella and its subsidiary have been aware of its expert's
43% leak rate since its spring 2008 investigation, according to
the plaintiffs' attorneys.

     Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Stuart Eppsteiner, reports that
on April 3, 2007, Plaintiffs requested that Viking address the
problems with the windows.  It never responded.

     Eppsteiner stated: "Pella advertises how good its products
are and that it has the 'Highest customer satisfaction among
window and door manufacturers. Two years in a row.'  However, in
my opinion these claims are contradicted by the Pella
subsidiary's refusal to replace the defective windows.  This is
especially true given that the windows had a Lifetime Warranty
and Viking's own experts admitted in sworn testimony that 43% of
the 1.2 million windows leaked."

     According to the Plaintiffs attorney, representing
homeowners, Pella's subsidiary has a potential liability of
several hundred million dollars.

For more details, contact:

          Eppsteiner & Fiorica Attorneys, LLP
          12555 High Bluff Drive
          Suite 155
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: 866.548.8857 or 858.350.1500
          Fax: 858.350.1501
          Web site: http://www.eppsteiner.com/


PRIME TANNING: Faces Illinois Litigation Over Toxic Sludge
----------------------------------------------------------
Prime Tanning Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
in Illinois that was brought on behalf of all residents in
Andrew, Buchanan, Clinton and DeKalb counties, Ahmad Safi of St.
Joseph News-Press reports.

Attorneys for four residents in those counties allege Prime
Tanning gave farmers sludge from its St. Joseph plant to use as
a fertilizer while fully aware that the sludge contained a known
cancer-causing agent, chromium 6.

The lawsuit -- for negligence and liability -- alleges the
practice saved the company from costs of putting the toxic
material in a landfill, according to the St. Joseph News-Press
report.

The suit was filed on April 24, 2009 in DeKalb County Circuit
Court and is asking for damages to be determined through a jury
trial.

It is also seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring
program for anyone in the four counties who may have been
exposed to the sludge, a medical registry to track cases and a
long-term epidemiological study to gauge health risks, reports
the St. Joseph News-Press.

The four plaintiffs are named in the class-action suit: Alice
McVicker of St. Joseph; Ruth Nicholson of Maysville, Mo.; and
Robert and Judy Hall of Holt, Mo.  They are represented by
Kansas City-based Speer Law Firm.

Also named as a defendant in the case is Rick Beam of St.
Joseph, a Prime Tanning employee who allegedly oversaw
application of the sludge on farmlands, St. Joseph News-Press
reported.


PT INDOSAT: Price-fixing Suit in Jakarta Court Remains Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit filed against PT Indosat Tbk in the
Central Jakarta District Court alleging price fixing of
telecommunications services remains ongoing.

A series of class-action lawsuits were filed against the
company, Telkomsel and Excelcomindo in the District Court of
Bekasi, the Central Jakarta District Court and the Tangerang
District Court relating to Temasek Holding's prior cross
ownership of shares in Indosat and Telkomsel, which is alleged
to have caused high price fixing of telecommunications services
that harmed to the public.

On Oct. 31, 2007, a group of consumers of cellular telephones in
Indonesia filed suit in the District Court of Bekasi demanding,
among other remedies, IDR1,231.7 billion in compensation for
losses allegedly suffered.

The company is also a defendant in a class action suit filed in
the Tangerang District Court on Dec. 19, 2007, or the Tangerang
Class Action.  The plaintiffs represent customers of the
company, Telkomsel and Excelcomindo throughout Indonesia who
used the Simpati, Mentari, Kartu As, IM3, Kartu Halo, Matrix,
Jempol, Xplor, and Bebas services and are demanding compensation
amounting to IDR30,808.7 billion, among other remedies.

On April 22, 2008, the company received notification that
Indosat, Temasek Holdings, STT, STT Communications Ltd, AMH,
ICLM, ICLS, SingTel, SingTel Mobile, Telkomsel, Telkom and the
Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises, are defendants in another
class action filed in the Central Jakarta District Court.  The
plaintiffs represent customers of Telkomsel, Indosat and
Excelcomindo and have asserted allegations similar to that of
the Tangerang Class Action.

The plaintiffs are demanding compensation amounting to
Rp30,808.7 billion, among other remedies.

In July 2008, the company was notified that the class action in
the Bekasi District Court was revoked by the plaintiffs and the
class action in the Central Jakarta District Court was merged
with the Tangerang Class Action.  The class action allegation in
the Tangerang District Court was postponed by the judges pending
resolution of an appeal to the Supreme Court by the plaintiffs
from the class action filed in Central Jakarta District Court.

On March 27, 2009, the company was informed that the Supreme
Court issued a decision on Jan. 21, 2009 revoking the Central
Jakarta District Court decision and ordering the Central Jakarta
District Court to continue with the class action, according to
its April 15, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

PT Indosat Tbk -- http://www.indosat.com/-- is a
telecommunication and information service provider in Indonesia
that provides cellular services (Mentari, Matrix and IM3), fixed
telecommunication services or fixed voice (IDD 001, IDD 008 and
FlatCall 01016, fixed wireless service StarOne and I-Phone).
Indosat also provides Multimedia, Internet & Data Communication
Services (MIDI) through its subsidiary company, Indosat Mega
Media (IM2) and Lintasarta.  Indosat also provides 3.5 G with
HSDPA technology.


QUALCOMM INC: California Court Dismisses UMTS-Related Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class-action lawsuits against Qualcomm, Inc. were
dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, Gee L. Lee of Dow Jones Newswires reports.

In its quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company states that the two lawsuits were filed
in April 2008 on behalf of purported classes of individuals who
purchased Universal Mobile Telecommunications System, or UMTS,
devices or service, according to the Dow Jones Newswires report.

The lawsuits had sought damages and injunctive relief under
federal and/or state antitrust and unfair competition laws as a
result of Qualcomm's licensing practices, Dow Jones Newswires
reported.


SCORES HOLDING: Discovery & Settlement Talks in "Diaz" Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery and settlement negotiations are ongoing in a purported
class-action suit, captioned "Diaz v. Scores Holding Company,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-THK," which was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Scores Holding Co., Inc., formerly Adonis Energy, Inc.

On Oct. 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed the
purported class action suit and collective action on behalf of
all tipped employees against the company and other defendants
alleging violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.

The suit is captioned, "Siri Diaz et al. v. Scores Holding
Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a Scores West
Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores East Side,
Case No. 07 Civ. 8718," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended purported
class-action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and
servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same
violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.

On or about Feb. 21, 2008, the plaintiffs served a second
amended complaint adding two additional party defendants, but
limiting the action to persons employed in the New York Scores'
clubs.  The amended complaint alleges that the defendants are
"an integrated enterprise" and that the company jointly employ
the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants to liability
for the alleged wage/hour violations.

On April 18, 2008, co-defendant Go West filed for bankruptcy.

On behalf of Scores Holding and the other defendants, the
company filed a motion to dismiss that portion of the complaint
that asserted state law class action allegations.  The company
also moved to dismiss the claims of two of the named plaintiffs
for failure to appear for depositions.

At the same time, the plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification under the federal law for a class of the servers,
bartenders and dancers.

On May 9, 2008, the court issued its decision, denying the
motion to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a
class of servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers
who have worked at Scores East since October 2004.

The case is stayed as against Go West pursuant to the bankruptcy
law.  The court directed that notice be sent to all potential
class members. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2008)

Discovery into both the procedural and substantive issues is
ongoing, as are settlement negotiations, according to Scores
Holding Company's April 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The suit is "Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-THK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Tammy Marzigliano, Esq. (tm@outtengolden.com)
         Outten & Golden Law Firm
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005

Representing the defendants is:

         Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq. (GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com)
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-801-9209
         Fax: 212-805-9209


SEQUENOM INC: Investors File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Certain investors, on April 30, 2009, filed a proposed
securities class action lawsuit, who purchased Sequenom, Inc.
(NASDAQ:SQNM) shares between June 04, 2008 and April 28, 2009,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California in San Diego against Sequenom, Inc. and certain
officers and directors over alleged violations of Federal
Securities Law.

     According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that
Sequenom, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
violated Federal Securities Laws by issuing material false and
misleading public statements between June 04, 2008 and April 28,
2009 concerning its business, operations and prospects and
failed to properly disclose that Sequenom employees mishandled
test data and results regarding the Down syndrome test.
Sequenom, Inc recently announced that multiple prior press
releases and public statements concerning SEQureDx TM can no
longer be relied upon, including press releases issued by
Sequenom, Inc on June 4, 2008, September 23, 2008, December 1,
2008, January 28, 2009, and February 3, 2009.

     Specifically, so the lawsuit, on June 04, 2008 Sequenom,
Inc. announced the results of Screening Studies for Down
Syndrome.  Sequenom shares (SQNM) rose from $7.66 before the
announcement to $9.33 per share on June 04, 2008 and inclined
within one month to $14.17 per share on June 23, 2008, the day
Sequenom, Inc launched its second public offering of common
stock.  Shares of Sequenom, Inc continued to rise to $21.90 per
share on July 15, 2008. Over the course of the period Sequenom
shares reached $27.76 per share on September 24, 2009 close
before the financial crisis hit the market.  Shares of Sequenom
withstood the exposure of the financial crisis and recovered in
January 2009 from $12.71 in November 2008 to $25.54 per share,
but continued to decrease to a closing price of $14.91 per share
on Wednesday, April 29, 2009.  Then, so the lawsuit, when
Sequenom announced on Wednesday that "the company is no longer
relying on the previously announced R&D test data and results"
and its SEQureDx test for Down syndrome will be delayed for an
unknown period of time because of employee "mishandling" of test
data, the shares of Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ:SQNM) went in a
freefall to $4.76 in after-hours trading or a loss of 68%
percent.  Shares of Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ:SQNM) continued to
fall on Thursday to $3.41 per share.


SOUTH AFRICA: N.Y. Judge Gives Green Light to Apartheid Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York gave the green light to sue
multinationals such as Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp.
for their alleged role in the segregation, torture, and killing
of blacks in South Africa, Macleans.ca reports.

In an April 8, 2009 ruling, Judge Scheindlin allowed class-
action lawsuits to proceed against Ford, GM and Daimler for
allegedly "aiding and abetting" torture and extrajudicial
killing by supplying military vehicles used in the persecution
of blacks during South Africa's apartheid regime.  IBM faces
similar charges for allegedly providing computers for the
surveillance of rebels, and Germany-based defence giant
Rheinmetall may face a suit for its alleged role in arms
dealing, according to the Macleans.ca report.

The judge wrote in her ruling, "One who substantially assists a
violator of the law of nations is equally liable if he desires
the crime to occur or if he knows it will occur and simply does
not care."

Macleans.ca reported that the battle for reparations has been a
long one for the plaintiffs, who first filed in 2002.  Due in
part to warnings from the U.S. and South Africa about negative
foreign policy implications, the cases were initially thrown
out.  The Court of Appeals partially overturned the ruling in
2007.  However, Judge Scheindlin, who narrowed the scope of
claims and the number of companies named, calls the
international relations fears "speculative at best."


STRIP HOUSE: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
     A lawsuit filed on April 29, 2009 alleges that the Glazier
Group's renowned Strip House New York violated federal and state
labor laws by misappropriating employee tips and withholding
minimum wages and overtime compensation, according to Outten &
Golden LLP and Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP.

     The suit, which alleges violations of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law, was
filed on behalf of Ian Matheson, a resident of New York who was
employed as a tipped hourly service worker at Strip House from
approximately March 2007 through November 2008.

     The "wage-and-hour" lawsuit seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, and misappropriated tips for Mr. Matheson
and other workers such as servers, bussers, bartenders and other
hourly employees at Strip House New York.

     Justin M. Swartz, Linda A. Neilan, and Lauren E.
Schwartzreich, of Outten & Golden LLP's New York office, and
Joseph A. Fitapelli and Brian S. Schaffer, of Fitapelli &
Schaffer, LLP, of New York, represent Mr. Matheson, and will
seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action that covers
current and former Strip House workers who elect to opt into the
case.

     Attorney Justin M. Swartz stated, "Strip House's success,
and the success of The Glazier Group comes at the expense of
their hourly service workers.  These workers have been denied
proper minimum wages, overtime compensation, customer
gratuities, and reimbursement for uniform expenses and other
earned wages."

     Attorney Brian S. Schaffer stated, "Many restaurants fail
to pay hourly service workers proper minimum wage and overtime.
These restaurants also unlawfully retain portions of tips that
service workers earn.  They redistribute the money to employees
in management and to other positions that are not entitled to
receive tips."

     The defendants are the Glazier Group, Inc.; T-Bone
Restaurant, LLC (also known as Strip House New York); Peter H.
Glazier; Penny Glazier; and Mathew Glazier.

     The Glazier Group owns and operates seven Strip House steak
restaurants located in New York City; Livingston, New Jersey;
Las Vegas, Nevada; Key West, Florida; Naples, Florida; Houston,
Texas; and El Conquistador, Puerto Rico.  The Glazier Group also
owns and operates Michael Jordan's The Steak House N.Y.C., as
well as Bridgewaters, Bridgewaters To Go, Monkey Bar, and Twenty
Four Fifth.

     The case is "Ian Matheson, et al. v. The Glazier Group,
Inc.; T-Bone Restaurant, LLC a/k/a Strip House New York; Peter
H. Glazier; Penny Glazier; and Mathew Glazier," (U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 09-cv-4214).

For more details, contact:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP
          Phone: 212.245.1000
          Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com/

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP
          Phone: 212.300.0375
          Website: http://www.fslawfirm.com/


W.R. GRACE: Seeks Del. Court Approval of $10M ERISA Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. has asked a judge to approve a $10 million deal
that would end a nearly five-year legal battle alleging the
bankrupt chemical maker's officers hid investment risks from
employees who participated in one of its retirement plans.

On April 27, 2009 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware, the company moved to approve the deal, which would
draw the Employee Retirement Income Security Act class-action
case to a close.


WELLS MID-HORIZON: Certification Bid in Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification in the putative class-action
and derivative complaint styled In re Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation remains pending,
according to Wells Mid-Horizon Value-Added Fund I, LLC's Form
10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated April 15, 2009.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty
Trust, Inc., formerly known as Wells Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc., filed a putative class action and derivative
complaint, presently styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont
REIT; Leo F. Wells, III; Wells Capital, Inc. (Wells Capital);
Wells Management, the company's sponsoring member; certain
affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain
individuals who formerly served as officers or directors of
Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2007, as amended.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT internalization
transaction.

On April 9, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for an order enjoining the internalization transaction.

On April 17, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in the Northern
District of Georgia on April 24, 2007.

On June 7, 2007, the Court granted a motion to designate the
class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of those
persons who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont
REIT proxy statement filed with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2007, and
derivative claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On July 9, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery related to an anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
Court dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended
complaint in their entirety.  The Court dismissed the remaining
two counts with the exception of allegations regarding the
failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT proxy statement details
of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.  The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the
internalization transaction.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. The defendants responded to the plaintiff's
motion for class certification on Jan. 16, 2009.  The plaintiff
filed its reply in support of its motions for class
certification on Feb. 19, 2009.  The motion for class
certification is currently pending before the court.  The
parties are presently engaged in discovery.

Norcross-based Wells Mid-Horizon Value-Added Fund I, LLC (Wells
VAF I) was organized as a Georgia limited liability company on
July 15, 2005 for the purpose of acquiring, developing, owning,
operating, and improving or otherwise enhancing income-producing
commercial properties, and liquidating such investments over a
period of three to five years following acquisition.  The term
of Wells VAF I shall continue until the earlier of December 31,
2020 or the filing of a Certificate of Termination. Wells
Management Company, Inc. is the sponsoring member of Wells VAF I
and has the exclusive authority to conduct the day-to-day and
overall direction and supervision of the business and affairs of
Wells VAF I pursuant to an operating agreement.


ZYNEX INC: Faces Suits Over Restatement of Unaudited Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zynex, Inc. faces three purported class action lawsuits filed in
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado over the
company's restatement of unaudited financial statements.

A lawsuit was filed against the company, 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
(Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et al.).

On April 9, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Robert Hanratty in the
same court against the same defendants.

On April 10, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Denise Manandik in the
same court against the same defendants.

These lawsuits allege substantially the same matters.

The lawsuits refer to the April 1, 2009 announcement of the
company that it will restate its unaudited financial statements
for the first three quarters of 2008.

The lawsuits purport to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company securities between May 21, 2008 and
March 31, 2009.

The lawsuits allege, 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 plaintiffs ask for a determination of class action status,
unspecified damages and costs of the legal action.

The company has notified its directors and officers liability
insurer of the claims, according to its April 15, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Founded in 1996, Zynex, Inc. -- http://www.zynexmed.com/--
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 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.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ:SQNM) common stock during
the period between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009.

     The complaint charges Sequenom and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Sequenom is a diagnostic testing and genetics analysis
company.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's Down syndrome test under development.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Sequenom
employees mishandled test data and results regarding the Down
syndrome test.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, Sequenom stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $27.76 per
share on September 24, 2008.  This inflated stock price
permitted Sequenom to raise $92 million in a secondary stock
offering in July 2008, acquire a diagnostic company for fewer
shares of Sequenom stock than would have been necessary absent
the inflation, and commence a tender offer for another company
in an all-stock transaction.

     On April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company
issued a press release announcing that the expected launch of
its Down syndrome test would be delayed due to the discovery by
Company officials of employee mishandling of research and
development test data and results.  As a result, the Company
could no longer rely on the previously announced test data and
results. On this news, Sequenom's stock collapsed over $11 per
share to as low as $3.23 per share, a one-day decline of more
than 75%, on volume of more than 85 million shares.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Sequenom common stock during the Class Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
         Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/sequenom/


                            *********

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  * * *