CAR_Public/090506.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 6, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 88

                           Headlines

ATLAS MINING: Reaches Settlement in Idaho Securities Fraud Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Supreme Court Reviews Dismissed N.Y. Lawsuit
BATESVILLE CASKET: Texas Court Dismisses Antitrust Litigation
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Dismissal of Pfeffer's Claims Affirmed in Jan.
BLOCKBUSTER INC: "End of Late Fees" Program Suits Remain Pending

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif.
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Invasion of Privacy Suit Still Pending in Texas
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Suits on Contract Law Breach Pending in Canada

CENTEX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Pulte Homes Sale
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Ruling in "Northstar Financial" Lawsuit
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Bid in N.Y. Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif., Pa. Lawsuits Over SecuROM DRM
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.J. Litigation Over Recording Fees

IOVATE HEALTH: Juroviesky and Ricci Files Suit Over "Hydroxycut"
MEDICI BANK: Fund Investors File Suit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme
NEW YORK: Settlement Reached in "Wright" Racial Bias Litigation
RESORT CONDOMINIUMS: Faces N.J. Litigation Over D.R. Timeshares
SOUTH FINANCIAL: Objections to Proposed Settlement Due on May 7

SPRINT NEXTEL: N.J. Judge Withholds Approving $14M Settlement
YANKEE HOLDING: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Pending Approval

* Industry Seeing Surge in Securities Suit Filing, Report Says


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Brower Piven Announces Pa. Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Dyer & Berens Announces Lawsuit Filing
SEQUENOM INC: Glancy Binkow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
SEQUENOM INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing


                           *********

ATLAS MINING: Reaches Settlement in Idaho Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Atlas Mining Company (Pink Sheets:ALMI) announced that it
has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on May 1, 2009 as
to the key terms of the settlement agreement with the Class
Plaintiffs in "In Re: Atlas Mining Company Securities
Litigation," pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho, Civil Action No. 07-428-N-EJL.

     Atlas has agreed to pay Plaintiffs $1,250,000 and to fund
Plaintiffs' expenses associated with providing notice to class
members, not to exceed $75,000.  Atlas' cash payments to
Plaintiffs are to be made from the proceeds of existing
insurance policies.  Plaintiffs have agreed to a complete
release of all claims against Atlas, Nano Clay Technologies,
Inc., and Atlas' former officers and directors.  The agreement
is subject to the completion of a definitive written settlement
agreement, subsequent confirmatory discovery and court approval
of the settlement after notice to the class.

     The Company, with the approval of its Board of Directors,
determined that the settlement is in its best interests and that
of its shareholders because it halts the substantial expense,
uncertainty, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation.

     Andre M. Zeitoun, CEO of Atlas Mining stated, "With this
settlement, together with the Jacobson settlement announced last
week, the Company has reached a major milestone in resolving the
remaining legacy issues.  Management can now focus its energy
and resources primarily on furthering the development and
commercialization of its Dragon Mine Halloysite property and on
completing the final steps necessary to become fully compliant
and current with its S.E.C. filings.  The Company intends to
provide details of its upcoming shareholders' meeting in
conjunction with an announcement regarding its completed
financial statements."


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Supreme Court Reviews Dismissed N.Y. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seeking to evaluate the control states have over federal class-
action lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a
decision in a putative class-action suit against Allstate
Insurance Co. that was filed in federal court but dismissed
under a New York law barring such suits, Law360 reports.

The Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari
filed by Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates PA after the case was
initially dismissed by a New York federal court, according to
the Law360 report.


BATESVILLE CASKET: Texas Court Dismisses Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas (Houston), on April 29, 2009, ordered the dismissal of
a previously disclosed antitrust lawsuit filed by Pioneer Valley
Casket Co., Inc., and three other current or former independent
casket retailers against Batesville Casket Company, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand, Inc. (NYSE: HI)

     The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their
complaint against all defendants with prejudice. Plaintiffs and
defendants will each be responsible for their own legal costs
and expenses.

     In March, the District Court had denied the Pioneer Valley
plaintiffs' motion to certify their lawsuit as a class action.

     Another related lawsuit in which the District Court also
denied class certification is currently awaiting ruling on the
plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of
class-action status.

     "We are very pleased with the complete dismissal of this
lawsuit," said Kenneth A. Camp, Hillenbrand's president and
chief executive officer.  "For more than 100 years, our company
has believed that our policy of selling caskets only to licensed
funeral directors operating licensed funeral homes helps ensure
that families receive quality products and services any time
they choose a Batesville casket."

Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.hillenbrandinc.com-- is the
holding company for Batesville Casket Company, a leader in the
North American death care industry through the sale of funeral
services products, including burial caskets, cremation caskets,
containers and urns, selection room display fixturing and other
personalization and memorialization products.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Dismissal of Pfeffer's Claims Affirmed in Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of all claims of plaintiff Beverly Pfeffer in a
putative class-action complaint was affirmed by the Supreme
Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery on
Jan. 23, 2009, according to Blockbuster, Inc.'s April 6, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 4, 2009.

On Aug. 3, 2006, Beverly Pfeffer filed a putative class action
complaint under Delaware corporate fiduciary laws against Sumner
M. Redstone, George S. Abrams, David R. Andelman, Joseph A.
Califano, Jr., William S. Cohen, Philippe P. Dauman, Alan C.
Greenberg, Jan Leschly, Shari Redstone, Frederic V. Salerno,
William Schwartz, Patty Stonesifer and Robert D. Walter in the
Court of Chancery of New Castle County, Delaware.

On Jan. 12, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint and asserted additional claims under Delaware
corporate fiduciary laws against National Amusements, Inc., John
F. Antioco, Richard J. Bressler, Jackie M. Clegg, Michael D.
Fricklas, Linda Griego, John L. Muething and CBS Corp. (f.k.a.
Viacom Inc.).

The amended class-action complaint purports to be filed on
behalf of all former Viacom stockholders who tendered their
Viacom stock in exchange for common shares of Blockbuster stock
as part of the Blockbuster split-off exchange offer commenced on
Sept. 8, 2004 and completed on Oct. 5, 2004, and all Blockbuster
shareholders at the time a special dividend was declared by the
Blockbuster Board of Directors in connection with the
Blockbuster split-off exchange offer in June 2004.

Plaintiff claimed that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in violation of Delaware corporate fiduciary laws and, as
a result, plaintiff sought declaratory relief, compensatory
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs
and expenses, expert witness fees and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the Court of Chancery granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss and dismissed all of plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.  On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiff Pfeffer filed her notice
of appeal of the Court of Chancery's dismissal.  On April 14,
2008, plaintiff Pfeffer withdrew her notice of appeal of the
Court of Chancery's dismissal as it applied to defendants John
F. Antioco, Jackie M. Clegg, Linda Griego, and John L. Muething.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff
Pfeffer's claims against the remaining defendants, 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
Jan. 4, 2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: "End of Late Fees" Program Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., continues to face two purported class-action
suits over its "end of late fees" program.

                       Galeno Litigation

On Feb. 25, 2005, Michael L. Galeno filed a putative class
action suit before the Supreme Court of New York County, New
York, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and that
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates New York's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief.

Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York.

                      Creighton Litigation

On March 4, 2005, Beth Creighton filed a putative class action
suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging
that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.

The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable
and injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for District of Oregon.

The company did not report further developments in the cases in
its April 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 4, 2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
One additional extended viewing fee putative class-action suit
in the U.S. is inactive and subject to dismissal under the Scott
settlement, according to Blockbuster, Inc.'s April 6, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Jan. 4, 2009.

The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on
April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for
settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a
settlement agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D
162-535 (Jefferson County, Texas) (Scott).

Blockbuster was a defendant in 12 lawsuits filed by customers in
nine states and the District of Columbia between November 1999
and April 2001.

These putative class-action lawsuits alleged common law and
statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices and/or
unlawful business practices regarding the company's extended
viewing fee policies for customers who chose to keep rental
product beyond the initial rental term.

Some of the cases also alleged that these policies imposed
unlawful penalties and resulted in unjust enrichment.

In January 2002, the 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas entered a final judgment approving a national
class settlement (the "Scott settlement").

Under the approved settlement, the company paid $9.25 million in
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees during the first quarter of 2005 and
made certificates available to class members for rentals and
discounts through November 2005.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. continues to face a putative class-action
complaint filed under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA),
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and California's Computer Crime Law in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On Aug. 12, 2008, Sean Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali
Sammour, Mohammaed Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton
Hunker, Firas Sheikha, Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran,
Matthew Smith, Erica Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip
Huerta, Alicia Hunker, and Mega Lynn Hancock (a minor, through
her parent Rebecca Holey) filed the class action complaint.

The plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster
Inc., Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc.,
Overstock.com, Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John
Does 1-40, corporations.

They are purporting to act on behalf of every Facebook member
who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates' websites and
engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook affiliates'
websites to communicate with Facebook regarding the activity
from Nov. 6, 2007 to Dec. 5, 2007.

The plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and
CFAA by allegedly violating the plaintiffs' privacy through
their activities on the Blockbuster and Facebook websites.

They seek class certification, injunctive and equitable relief,
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required
to respond to the pending complaint at this time, 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
Jan. 4, 2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Invasion of Privacy Suit Still Pending in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint against Blockbuster, Inc., over
allegations it invaded customers' privacy by sending information
about their movie rentals to the Facebook Web site remains
pending, 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 Jan. 4, 2009.

This is a class action, originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under the Video Privacy
Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2710.  The plaintiffs also bring
this action pursuant to Rules 23 (b)(3) and 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of each and every
individual in the United States of America who has ever been a
member of Facebook and Blockbuster on-line during the same
period beginning from Nov. 6, 2007, through the date of judgment
herein whose name, and address, or a title, description, or
subject matter of any video tapes or other audio visual
materials that were rented, sold or delivered to each individual
were distributed to third parties by defendant without the
informed written consent of such individuals or a clear and
conspicuous manner to prohibit the disclosure of such
individuals name and address.

CourtHouse News Service reported that the plaintiffs claim
Blockbuster's cooperation with Facebook's "Beacon" system
violates the Videotape Privacy Protection Act, which Congress
passed after a newspaper obtained a list of 146 movies Robert
Bork or his family had rented, and publicized it during Bork's
failed nomination to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs say that Facebook launched Beacon in November
2007, in cooperation with 44 other Web sites, that automatically
fed information to Facebook.  This was not just for social
purposes, but was "a core element in the Facebook Ads system for
connecting businesses with users," the plaintiffs say.

According to the complaint, Blockbuster sent information about
movie rentals to Facebook, which added it to members' Facebook
profile, something like this: "Preston added Lord of the Rings
to his queue on Blockbuster.com," the complaint states.

This was an opt-out system, in which users had to check a box to
prevent the information from being distributed, the plaintiffs
say.

According to CourtHouse, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, faced
with furious criticism about privacy invasion, was forced to
issue an apology, in December, which is quoted, apparently in
full, in this filing.  "To this day, however, Facebook still
receives personal identifiable information from participating
Web site with the Beacon javascript, whether the Facebook member
has chosen to distribute their information or not," Facebook
says.

The plaintiffs say that if users did not check the opt-out box
quickly enough, their information would be sent to Facebook, and
that along with "a picture of the individual who purchased the
movie and a Blockbuster ad."

They say that Blockbuster did not notify online customers that
this information was being sent to Facebook until "sometime in
December 2007.  However, the summary is immediately sent to a
user's Facebook profile even before the user has a chance to
decline the distribution of his personal identifiable
information -- as long as you have not marked the privacy
feature telling Blockbuster never to send summaries.  To this
day, Blockbuster online victims remain unsuspecting victims,"
the complaint states.

Blockbuster, which has 64 million "active users," is the 7th
most popular site on the Web, the complaint points out.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants improperly distributed and used
         "personal identifiable information" obtained from their
         websites of members of the class, within the meaning of
         the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710;

     (b) whether defendants' obtaining and distributing
         "personal identifiable information" from the
         defendants' Web sites of members of the class was done
         knowingly, within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC
         Section 2710;

     (c) whether defendants' when disclosing the names and
         addresses of members of the class provided members of
         the class "a clear and conspicuous manner, to prohibit
         such disclosure," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18
         USC Section 2710;

     (d) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and
         addresses of members of the class disclosed the "title,
         description, or subject matter of any video tapes or
         other audio visual materials," within the meaning of
         the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710;

     (e) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and
         addresses of members of the class was for the
         "exclusive use of marketing goods and services directly
         to the consumer," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18
         USC Section 2710; and

     (f) whether defendants' obtaining and distribution of
         "personal identifiable information" from the
         defendants' Web sites of members of the class was
         destroyed "as soon as practicable, but not later that
         one year from the date the information is no longer
         necessary for the purpose for which it was collected,"
         within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

     -- declaring that this action may be maintained as a class
        action;

     -- granting judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the other
        members of the class against the defendant in the amount
        of $2,500 for each instance in which the defendant
        disclosed, or used persona identifiable information
        concerning the plaintiff and members of the class;

     -- awarding punitive damages should the court find that the
        defendants acted in willful or reckless disregard of the
        VPPA;

     -- awarding attorney's fees and other litigation costs
        reasonably incurred; and

     -- requiring the defendants to destroy any personal
        information illegally distributed.

On Dec. 30, 2008, the trial court granted Blockbuster's amended
motion to transfer venue and transferred the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.

The suit is "Cathryn Elaine Harris, et al. v. Blockbuster,
Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas, Judge T. John Ward, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq. (jwilson@corealaw.com)
          The Corea Firm PLLC
          The Republic Center
          325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 4150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-953-3900
          Fax: 214-953-3901

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael Lawrence Raiff, Esq. (mraiff@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          2001 Ross Ave.
          3700 Trammell Crow Center
          Dallas, TX 75201-2975
          Phone: 214-220-7744
          Fax: 1-214-999-7705


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. continues to defend the extended viewing fee
putative class-action case styled, "Cohen v. Blockbuster,"
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 Jan. 4, 2009.

The case, filed on Feb. 18, 1999 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, was not completely resolved
by a court-approved national class settlement (the "Scott
settlement").

The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on
April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for
settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a
settlement agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D
162-535 (Jefferson County, Texas) (Scott).

Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper and Denita Sanders assert
common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive
practices, unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding
Blockbuster's extended viewing fee policies.  Such claims were
brought against Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all
entities doing business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video.

The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and other
plaintiff class members including actual damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified
plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended
viewing fees and/or purchased unreturned videos between Feb. 18,
1994 and Dec. 31, 2004, and who were not part of the Scott
settlement or who do not have a Blockbuster membership with an
arbitration clause.  In the same order, the trial court
certified a defendant class comprised of all entities that have
done business in the United States as Blockbuster or Blockbuster
Video since Feb. 18, 1994.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the trial court denied Blockbuster's motion to
reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff classes.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the
trial court's decision to certify plaintiff classes back to the
trial court for reconsideration of Blockbuster's motion to
decertify plaintiff classes. Plaintiffs did not petition the
Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal.

On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration the trial court granted
Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes and
decertified both plaintiff and defendant classes.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Suits on Contract Law Breach Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to
face two putative class-action lawsuits that are pending in
Canadian courts.

                        Hazell Litigation

William Robert Hazell filed a complaint before the Supreme Court
of British Columbia on Aug. 24, 2001, against Viacom
Entertainment Canada Inc., Viacom Inc., Blockbuster Canada, and
Blockbuster.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, violations of the
trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct.

The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and
exemplary and punitive damages.

                        Hedley Litigation

Douglas R. Hedley filed a complaint before the Court of Queen's
Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19,
2002.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment,
misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual
damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief,
punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys'
fees.

No further updates regarding the lawsuits were reported in the
company's April 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 4, 2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


CENTEX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Pulte Homes Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky ("L&K") filed a class action alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law
against the board of directors of Centex Corporation arising out
of their attempt to sell the Company to Pulte Homes ("Pulte").

     Under the terms of the proposal, Centex shareholders will
receive 0.975 shares of Pulte stock for each share of Centex
they own, or $10.50 per share based on the April 7, 2009 closing
price of Pulte stock.  Further, the transaction appears unfair
given that, among other things, the Company's shares traded
above $12.40 per share as recently as January 8, 2009 and the
Company has a book value in excess of $10.50 per share.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          39 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/ctx.html


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Ruling in "Northstar Financial" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is appealing a ruling in the purported
class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Northstar Financial Advisors
Inc. v. Schwab Investments et al., Case No. 3:2008-cv-04119,"
David Hoffman of Investment News reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
District of California on Aug. 28, 2008 by Northstar Financial
Advisors, Inc. against Schwab Investments, Charles Schwab & Co.
Inc., Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. and Schwab
Total Bond Market Fund.

Northstar Financial alleges that the Schwab Total Bond Fund was
allowed to deviate from its investment strategy in violation of
the Investment Company Act, according to the Investment News
report.

According to the fund's documents, it tracks the performance of
the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index.  The suit,
however, alleges that the fund improperly invested in mortgage-
backed securities that were riskier than those in the index.

The suit claims that the fund also invested more than 25% of its
assets in mortgage-backed securities despite its own policy
prohibiting it from investing more than 25% in any single
industry, reports Investment News.

The fund's deviations from its stated investment objectives
caused it to lose 1.09% from Sept. 4, 2007, to Aug. 27, compared
with a gain of 5.29% for the index, according to the suit.

Investment News reported that Judge Susan Illston of the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of California in San
Francisco found that the allegations were sufficient to survive
a motion to dismiss, and on Feb. 19, 2009, she said that
investors have the right to sue an investment company under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 for deviating from the fund's
stated investment objectives.  The company has since appealed
that decision.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Bid in N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York unsealed a decision on May 1, 2009
denying Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.'s motion for partial
summary judgment on allegations in a long-running class-action
lawsuit against Citigroup and a battery of former officers of
Flag Telecom Holdings Ltd., Law360 reports.

According to the judge, Citigroup and former Flag Telecom
officers have failed to winnow claims that statements related to
the bankrupt telecom company's initial public offering misled
investors about demand for fiber-optic services, reports Law360.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif., Pa. Lawsuits Over SecuROM DRM
------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. is facing three class-action suits that
were filed on behalf of those who say they've been negatively
affected by SecuROM in the video games Mass Effect, Spore, and
Spore Creature Creator.

                          Mass Effects

The Courthouse News Service previously reported that one such
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under the caption, "Brandon Gardner et
al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. C08 04629."  It was over
allegations that EA failed to inform consumers that the video
game "Mass Effect" installs a second program, SecuROM, onto
their computers without their knowledge or consent (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 10, 2008).

The consumer class-action lawsuit arises from EA's engaging in
deceptive and unlawful conduct in designing, marketing,
distributing, and selling a computer game disk that contains
undisclosed and unconsented to Digital Rights Management (DRM)
technology.

It is brought on behalf of a class of all consumers globally who
have purchased the Mass Effect computer game.  The suit says
that EA intentionally did not disclose to any such purchasers
that the Mass Effect game disk also possessed a second, hidden
program which secretly installed to the command and control
center of the computer, and surreptitiously operated, overseeing
function and operation on the computer, preventing the computer
from operating under certain circumstances and disrupting
hardware operations.

The suit constitutes violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et seq. and California's
Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code Sections
17200 et seq., and further constitute a trespass to chattels.

                             Spore

The Courthouse News Service previously reported that another
such lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under the caption, "Melissa
Thomas, et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. C 08 04421"
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2008).

The suit is alleging that EA defrauds consumers through its
"Spore" game, which "completely wipes their hard drive" and
replaces it with an undisclosed program that prevents the
computer from operating under some circumstances and disrupts
hardware operations.

The report says that the plaintiff brings this action pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons or entities globally who
purchased a Spore computer game as an end-user.

The class claims that "Spore," a virtual reality simulation
game, contains "a second, undisclosed program" called SecuROM, a
"form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) for computer games."

Consumers are not warned about the program, which is installed
without notice and cannot be uninstalled, the complaint states.
The secret SecuROM program is "secretly installed to the command
and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel), and
surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation on
the computer, preventing the computer from operating under
certain circumstances and disrupting hardware operations," the
complaint states.

                     Spore Creature Creator

A third lawsuit over SecuROM, as reported by Adam Hartley of
TechRadar.com, was filed in Pennsylvania.  That case makes an
issue over DRM software installed in EA's  critically-lauded and
massively popular game, "Spore" (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 12,
2008).

In the suit, Richard Eldridge claims that EA's Spore Creature
Creator Free Trial Edition secretly installed SecuROM on his PC,
which he claims is "deceptive and unlawful."

TechRadar.com reports that the lawsuit reads, "The inclusion of
undisclosed, secretly installed DRM protection measures with a
program that was freely distributed constitutes a major
violation of computer owners' absolute right to control what
does and what does not get loaded onto their computers, and how
their computers shall be used...

It goes on to state, "[SecuROM] cannot be completely
uninstalled.  Once installed it becomes a permanent part of the
consumer's software portfolio..."


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.J. Litigation Over Recording Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., Chicago Title Insurance
Co., Lawyers Title Insurance Co., and several other title
insurance companies are facing a purported consumer fraud class-
action lawsuit that was filed by plaintiffs who are are trying
to convince a federal judge in Newark, N.J., to enjoin the
defendants from overcharging home buyers on recording fees, Mary
Pat Gallagher of New Jersey Law Journal reports.

The named plaintiffs in matter, "Chassen v. Fidelity National
Financial, 09-Civ.-291," which was filed earlier this year in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, are nine
home buyers who claim they were overcharged amounts ranging from
$95 to $350 for the recording of deeds and mortgages.  For most
of them, the settlement agent who did the overcharging was their
own lawyer.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of every person
similarly overcharged in buying or refinancing a home since Jan.
22, 2003.  The class could number more than 1 million, the
plaintiffs' counsel, the Philadelphia firm of Williams Cuker &
Berezofsky, estimates, according to the New Jersey Law Journal
report.

The plaintiffs allege the overcharges are illegal and rampant,
while the title companies contend the requested injunction would
shut down residential real estate closings in New Jersey.

The recording fees are collected at closing and itemized on the
closing statement, or HUD-1 form, by the settlement agent,
usually the buyer's lawyer, though in the southern part of the
state, it can be a title agency, title closing service or title
insurance company, reports the New Jersey Law Journal.

It is alleged that the settlement agents falsely certified on
the HUD-1 statements that the fees they collected were the
amounts disbursed, that they did so with the intent that buyers
would rely on the false statements and that they retained and
misappropriated the excess monies on behalf of the title
insurers.

The complaint also alleges breach of contract, conspiracy and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act,
the New Jersey Law Journal reported.

The settlement agents are not defendants, only the title
insurers, who allegedly issued closing protection letters, also
known as closing service letters, to the buyers, and knew about
the overcharging and failed to put a stop to it or return the
money, reports the New Jersey Law Journal.


IOVATE HEALTH: Juroviesky and Ricci Files Suit Over "Hydroxycut"
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP have filed a
class action lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against Iovate Health Sciences Inc. and MuscleTech Research and
Development Inc., the manufacturers and distributors of the
Hydroxycut weight loss products.

     The suit alleges widespread violations of various consumer
protection legislation and certain common law causes of action.
Juroviesky and Ricci LLP are seeking to pursue remedies against
the Defendants for breaches under the Consumer Protection Act
and the Food and Drug Act, as well as for Negligence and other
claims based on the allegation that consumers were not made
aware of the potential health consequences of using Hydroxycut
weight loss products.

     For further details or to sign up as a class member, please
see the statement of claim on Juroviesky and Ricci's websites
http://www.hydroxycutclassaction.ca,
http://www.hydroxycutclassactioncanada.comand/or
http://www.jrclassactions.com. For more background information,
please see the Health Canada advisory regarding Hydroxycut
products.

     Note that the detailed statement of claim filed with the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice is the result of an extensive
and independent investigation conducted by Juroviesky and Ricci
LLP.

     In respect of Canada, to the knowledge of Juroviesky and
Ricci LLP, no other statement of claim has been filed in this
matter against the Defendants and no other law firms, as at the
time of filing its statement of claim, represent plaintiffs in
this litigation.

For further information, contact:

          Henry Juroviesky
          Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
          Phone: (416) 481-0718 Ext. 324
          Fax: (416) 481-1792
          e-mail: info@jrclassactions.com


MEDICI BANK: Fund Investors File Suit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Investors in the Thema International Fund, Herald USA and
Herald Luxemburg Fund, and Primeo Select and Executive Fund have
filed a class action lawsuit, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors who invested in the Thema International Fund, Herald
USA and Herald Luxemburg Fund, and Primeo Select and Executive
Fund between March 1, 2001 and December 10, 2008 against
defendants Medici Bank, Sonja Kohn, Peter Scheithauer, Bank
Austria Creditanstalt, Unicredit S.A., Pioneer Alternative
Investments, Ernst & Young LLP, and HSBC Holdings plc.

     Several investors in the Thema International Fund, Herald
USA and Herald Luxemburg Fund, and Primeo Select and Executive
Fund have filed proposed class-action lawsuits against Medici
Bank, Sonja Kohn, Peter Scheithauer, Bank Austria Creditanstalt,
Unicredit S.A., Pioneer Alternative Investments, Ernst & Young
LLP, and HSBC Holdings plc over their losses in connection with
the Bernard Madoff $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the U.S.
federal securities laws (10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934) and also asserts claims under state law
(negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty).

     The plaintiffs allege all that the defendants caused harm
to the investors in the stated funds by improperly funneling
money to Bernard L. Madoff instead of properly investing money
in the securities market -- as the Funds' prospectuses stated
that defendants would do.  Investors were never told their money
was being invested with Madoff.

     After Bernard Madoff was arrested, numerous investment
funds disclosed that they were little more than 'feeder funds'
for Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.  Such
funds included the Herald, Primeo, and Thema Funds.  They each
sought funds directly from investors, and delivered, or fed the
investments they received to Madoff. Medici Bank controlled the
Herald, Primeo, and Thema Funds, and caused these funds to be
fed to Madoff, so the lawsuit.


NEW YORK: Settlement Reached in "Wright" Racial Bias Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a class-action suit filed against
former New York City Department of Parks & Recreation
Commissioner Henry Stern over his allegedly discriminatory pay
and promotion practices, David Sims of Chief-Leader reports.

African-American and Hispanic employees of the Parks Department
will receive as much as $50,000 under a settlement from the
long-brewing case, according to the Chief-Leader report.

The suit is captioned, "Wright, et al. v. Stern, et al., Case
No. 1:01-cv-04437-DC-MHD," and was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 25, 2006).

For more details, contact:

          Cynthia Rollings, Esq.
          Beldock, Levine & Hoffman, L.L.P.,
          99 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-1503
          Phone: (212) 490-0400

          Lewis M. Steel, Esq.
          Outten & Golden, LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 100016
          Phone: (212) 245-1000

               - and -

          Robert H. Stroup, Esq.
          N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
          99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600,
          New York, NY 10013
          Phone: (212) 965-2248


RESORT CONDOMINIUMS: Faces N.J. Litigation Over D.R. Timeshares
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resort Condominiums International, LLC and its subsidiary,
Lifestyle Holiday Vacations Club are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit in New Jersey alleging that they cheated
investors in timeshares in the Dominican Republic, the
Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit is captioned, "Monique Crete, et al. v. Resort
Condominiums International, LLC, Case No. 2:33-av-00001," and
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on May 1, 2009.

In general, plaintiffs claim that the defendants "lured
thousands of individuals into purchasing timeshares by lying
outright about the quality and, more, the nature of services
provided."  They demand punitive damages, according to the
Courthouse News Service report.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3c75

For more details, contact:

          Yasmeen A. Allen, Esq.
          Craig Stuart Lanza, Esq,
          BALESTRIERE LANZA PLLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 2900
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 374-5400
          Fax: (212) 208-2613


SOUTH FINANCIAL: Objections to Proposed Settlement Due on May 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
The South Carolina State Court set May 7, 2009, as the deadline
for filing objections to the proposed settlement of the putative
shareholder class-action lawsuits filed against The South
Financial Group, Inc.

The company and certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers have been named as parties in two shareholder
lawsuits, one filed on Nov. 7, 2008, in South Carolina State
Court in Greenville County having Vernon A. Mercier as the named
plaintiff, and one filed on Nov. 26, 2008, in the Court having
John S. McMullen on behalf of Andros Associates, Inc. as named
plaintiff.

On March 24, 2009, all parties to the Litigation executed an
Agreement in Principle providing for the settlement of the
Litigation.

The Court entered the Order granting, among other things,
preliminary approval to the Stipulation and the proposed notices
to shareholders and class members, and setting:

   (1) May 7, 2009 as the deadline for filing objections with
       the Court, and

   (2) May 21, 2009 as the date for a hearing to consider, among
       other things, final approval of the proposed settlement.

The Notice will be mailed to all shareholders of record as of
April 1, 2009, according to the company's Current Report Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
April 2, 2009.

The South Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.thesouthgroup.com/
-- is a bank holding company.  TSFG operates principally through
Carolina First Bank, a South Carolina-chartered commercial bank,
which conducts banking operations in South Carolina and North
Carolina (as Carolina First), in Florida (as Mercantile), and on
the Internet (as Bank CaroLine).  TSFG's subsidiaries provide a
range of financial services, including deposits, loans, treasury
management, merchant processing, full-service brokerage and
investments, business and personal insurance, trust, investment
management, and financial planning.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, TSFG
conducted business through 82 branch offices in South Carolina,
71 in Florida, and 27 in North Carolina.


SPRINT NEXTEL: N.J. Judge Withholds Approving $14M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey withheld
approval of proposed $14,000,000 settlement in the matter
"Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Civ. Action No. 2:07-cv-
05325," Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record reports.

On April 30, 2009, Judge Jose Linares withheld approval of
settlement between plaintiffs' attorneys and the company because
of weak response to the class notice.

In general, the class-action lawsuit is alleging that Sprint
Nextel's flat-rate early termination fee (ETF) violates state
and federal law (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 6, 2009).

Under the settlement, Sprint Nextel has agreed to pay $14
million into a common fund to be distributed pursuant to the
settlement benefit rules set forth in the settlement agreement.

The company has also agreed to provide qualified settlement
class members up to $3.5 million in Non-Cash Benefits.  It also
has agreed to not insert a flat-rate ETF provision into its
customer service agreements for personal wireless service in the
U.S. for 24 months.

Sprint Nextel customer agreements initiated after Nov. 3, 2008
have pro-rated ETFs, and the Settlement does not require Sprint
Nextel to modify those contracts.

The settlement will release all claims that customers may have
against Sprint Nextel relating in any way to its flat-rate ETFs
and term contracts, and will bar future claims, unless the
individual excludes him/her self from the settlement.

For more details, contact:

          Sprint ETF Settlement Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Company LLC
          P.O. Box 6002
          Larkspur, CA 94977- 6002
          Phone: 1-800-916-6940
          Web site: http://www.sprintetfsettlement.com

          Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
               Olstein
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: (973) 994-1744
          e-mail: Info@CarellaByrne.com
          Web site: http://www.carellabyrne.com/

               - and -

          Freed & Weiss LLC
          Phone: (312) 220-0000
          e-mail: Info@FreedWeiss.com
          Web site: http://www.freedweiss.com/


YANKEE HOLDING: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Pending Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a wage and hour class-action lawsuit against
Yankee Holding Corp. is pending court approval.

A class-action lawsuit was filed against the company in February
2005, for alleged violations of certain California state wage
and hour and employment laws with respect to certain employees
in Yankee's California retail stores.

In December 2007, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached
pursuant to mediation.

Pursuant to the agreement, the company would pay a total of
$950,000 (inclusive of attorneys' fees and administrative
expenses) into a settlement fund.  The company expects to make
this payment to the settlement fund in the first half of 2009,
according to the company's April 3, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 3, 2009.

Yankee Holding Corp. is engaged in designing, manufacturing and
distribution of scented candles in the United States.  During
the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007 (fiscal 2007), the Company
offered approximately 2,000 stock-keeping units (SKUs) of candle
products in approximately 400 fragrances, which included a range
of jar candles, Samplers votive candles, Tarts wax potpourri,
pillars and other candle products, which are marketed under the
Yankee Candle brand.  The company also sells a range of other
home fragrance products, including Yankee Candle branded
electric home fragrancers, potpourri, scented oils, reed
diffusers, room sprays, Yankee Candle Car Jars auto air
fresheners, and candle-related home decor accessories.  During
fiscal 2007, the company operated 459 specialty retail stores
(including 30 Illuminations stores) in 43 states.


* Industry Seeing Surge in Securities Suit Filing, Report Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The commercial insurance industry is exposed to a surge in
securities litigation filings in the first quarter of 2009,
according to results of a quarterly review of securities
litigation by Advisen, the leading provider of market
information to the global commercial insurance industry.
Advisen tracked 169 securities cases in its Master Significant
Case and Action Database (MSCAd), up from 125 cases in Q4 2008
and 134 suits a year earlier in Q1 2008.

     Projecting this filing activity forward, 2009 would see 676
securities cases, an increase of 38% over 2008.  However,
Advisen notes that Madoff-related cases were responsible for 30%
of all securities cases in the first quarter, so the brisk pace
of filings will likely abate through 2009.

The full report is available at no cost at
http://corner.advisen.com/reports_topical_securities_quarter1_pu
rchase_cases.html

     "The Ponzi schemes Madoff and Stanford were the big
drivers of securities suits filed in the first quarter," said
David K. Bradford, EVP and Co-Founder of Advisen.  "Those suits,
along with a large number of sub-prime and credit crisis suits
filed in the quarter, continue to pound the financial
institution sector, much as was the case in 2008.  It's shaping
up to be another tough year for financial institution D&O and
E&O underwriters."

     Sixty-Seven securities class action suits (SCAS) were filed
in Q1 2009, up from 53 cases the quarter before and 56 suits a
year earlier.  This translates to an annualized Q1 2009 figure
of 268 cases filed, which would surpass the relatively litigious
year of 2004 with 263 suits and 23% higher than the 218 suits
filed in 2008.

     After SCAS cases, securities fraud accounted for 34 suits
filed in the first quarter, up from 19 in Q4 2008, but down from
54 in Q3 2008.  On an annualized basis, securities fraud cases
filed in Q1 2009 represented 136 cases, flat with 2008 but down
from 175 in 2007.  Other types of cases filed in Q1 2009 were:
breach of fiduciary duties (26), collective actions in non-US
courts (20), derivative shareholder actions and other derivative
cases (14), and others (8).

     "Advisen tracks all forms of securities litigation in
MSCAd. In the past, securities class actions were the most
common type of securities suit, but with the increase in breach
of fiduciary liability, shareholder derivative and securities
fraud suits, securities class action suits now represent less
than 40% of filings," continued Bradford. "We also are seeing a
significant up-tick in the number of securities suits filed
outside the US, many of which were triggered by the Madoff
scandal."

     MSCAd contains global filings and Advisen reports that the
number of suits filed against non-US companies in US courts is
on the rise, and so is the number of suits filed against both US
and non-US companies in courts outside the US.  Of the 169
securities cases filed in Q1 2009, 47 were filed against non-US
companies, and 22 were in courts outside the US.  A total of 27
suits were filed outside of the US court system, including five
against US companies.

     The average securities settlement/award in the first
quarter was similar to recent year averages, but the quarter was
unusual in that the largest awards all were securities fraud
suits.  Securities fraud cases typically are filed by regulatory
agencies such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

     "Q1 2009 saw 76 cases settled or awarded at an average
amount of $27.9 million, which is up slightly from the 2008
average of $25.5 million," noted John Molka III, CFA, Senior
Industry Analyst and author of the report.  "Securities fraud
cases represented the largest five events totaling $951.8
million including one case awarding $406.5 million to
STMicroelectronics from Credit Suisse in an auction-rate
securities case."

     Dave Bradford and Jim Blinn of Advisen will be joined by
Kevin LaCroix, author of the Internet weblog The D&O Diary
http://www.dandodiary.com,on a webinar on Friday May 4th at
Noon, EST, to review the findings of this quarterly report and
to discuss the implications on the liability insurance market.
Kevin is also an attorney and Partner in OakBridge Insurance
Services, Beachwood, Ohio. To register for the free webinar,
visit https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/804065345.

     As an additional service to readers, Advisen editors have
identified five events consisting of 16 lawsuits making up most
of the settled/awarded amounts for Q1 2009, totaling $951.8
million.  Advisen defines each company named as a defendant in
any event as a separate lawsuit, accounting for the 16 lawsuits.
All were securities fraud cases, and all but one was a result of
a regulatory action.

     Lists of suits and filing details are available at the
Advisen store online at
http://corner.advisen.com/reports_topical_securities_quarter1_pu
rchase_cases.html and available at no extra charge to Advisen
subscription members through their advisen.com logins.  For more
information please call +1.212.897.4800 or e-mail
corner@advisen.com.

Advisen -- http://www.advisen.com-- integrates business
information and market data for the commercial insurance
industry and maintains critical risk analytics and time-saving
workflow tools for over 530 industry leading firms.  Through its
work for the broadest customer base among information service
providers, Advisen delivers actionable information and risk
models at a fraction of the cost to have them built internally.
Designed and evolved by risk and insurance experts, and used
daily by more than 100,000 professionals, Advisen combines the
industry's deepest data sets with proprietary analytics and
offers insight into risk and insurance that is not available on
any other system. Advisen is headquartered in New York.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Brower Piven Announces Pa. Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all persons or entities who acquired shares of the
Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: OPATX)
(NASDAQ: OPABX) (NASDAQ: OPACX) during the period between
November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act by virtue
of the Fund's failure to comply with its investment objective to
secure a high level of current interest income as is consistent
with preservation of capital as stated in the Fund's
Registration Statement and Prospectus.

     According to the complaint, because the Fund engaged in
excessively risky investment strategies by concentrating its
investments in large positions in low rated bonds, bonds not
reviewed by an independent rating agency and by portfolio
concentration in high risk securities including, Tobacco Bonds,
Dirt Bonds, and derivative instruments known as "inverse
floaters," the Fund suffered an approximate 33% decline in the
net asset value in 2008.

     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 29, 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 PENNSYLVANIA: Dyer & Berens Announces Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Dyer & Berens LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who, between
November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008, purchased or acquired
shares of the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund
(NASDAQ: OPATX) (NASDAQ: OPABX) (NASDAQ: OPACX).

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940,
and alleges that the Fund's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses misrepresented the Fund as seeking "a high level of
current interest income... as is consistent with preservation of
capital."

     According to the complaint, however, "the Fund's investment
policies were formulated and its operations were conducted
virtually in complete disregard for preservation of capital."
As a result, during the Class Period the Fund lost approximately
28% of its Net Asset Value.

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

For more details, contact:

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


SEQUENOM INC: Glancy Binkow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased the securities of Sequenom
Inc. (Nasdaq: SQNM), between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Sequenom and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     Sequenom provides products, services, diagnostic testing,
applications and generic analysis products that translate
genomic science into solutions for biomedical research,
translational research, molecular medicine and agricultural and
livestock applications.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Sequenom'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 material adverse developments concerning Sequenom's
SEQureDx prenatal Down Syndrome test ("SEQureDx"), including
that:

       -- clinical tests and data concerning SEQureDx were not
          being conducted or monitored properly;

       -- SEQureDx did not offer verifiable, statistically
          significant improvement over competing tests;

       -- due to undisclosed problems with the clinical tests
          data and results, it was not feasible that Sequenom
          would be able to bring SEQureDx to the market in 2009;
          and

       -- Company employees were mishandling test data and
          results for the SEQureDx clinical trials.

     In addition, during the Class Period, and while in
possession of this undisclosed material adverse information,
defendants completed a Secondary Offering in June 2008, selling
approximately 5.5 million shares of Sequenom stock to the public
at a price of $15.50 per share, for net proceeds of more than
$85 million.

     On April 29, 2009, Sequenom issued a press release
disclosing that the expected launch of SEQureDx had been delayed
due to the discovery of employee "mishandling"of research and
development clinical trial data and results, which "raise[d]
significant concerns regarding the integrity of that data." The
Company further disclosed each and all of Sequenom's prior
public statements concerning SEQureDx test data and results were
superseded by the April 29, 2009, revelations and could no
longer be relied upon.  As a result of this news, shares of
Sequenom declined $11.29 per share, or more than 75%, to close
at $3.62 per share on April 30, 2009, 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 30, 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


SEQUENOM INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Sequenom, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SQNM) between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Sequenom and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
making materially false statements concerning the clinical data
and efficacy of the Company's Down syndrome test under
development.

     As a result, 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, the Company announced that the expected
launch of its Down syndrome test would be delayed due to the
discovery of employee mishandling of research and development
test data and results.  On April 30, 2009, Sequenom's stock fell
over $11 per share to close $3.62 per share.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/mru/


                            *********

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  * * *