CAR_Public/090512.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, May 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 92

                           Headlines

AMAZON.COM INC: Settlement of Lawsuits v. Audible Pending OK
BAKERS FOOTWEAR: Suit by Former Store Managers Remains Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: Unit Faces "Hostetter" Complaint in California
BORDERS GROUP: Faces Suit Over Sale of Non-redeemable Gift Cards
BORDERS GROUP: To Defend Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations

CARMAX INC: Units Face Consolidated Suit in Los Angeles, Calif.
CASEY'S GENERAL: Settles Two Overtime Pay Lawsuits For $11.7M
ENERGY DRINK MAKERS: Juroviesky & Ricci Files Ontario Lawsuit
EXELON CORP: Argument on Ex-Employee's Appeal Set for April 2009
EXELON CORP: Assessing Impact of Savings Plan Claim on Finances

GENESCO INC: Calif. Suit Over Customer E-mail Addresses Pending
GENESCO INC: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Junked in Dec.
GENESCO INC: To Conduct Discovery in "Jacobs" Labor Litigation
JACKSON NATIONAL: Ill. Court OKs $22M Annuity Suit Settlement
JANUS CAPITAL: Fourth Circuit Overturns Dismissal of Md. Lawsuit

LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to $8M Settlement
MACY'S INC: "Decristofaro" Merger Suit Still Pending in Missouri
MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
MCDONALD'S CORP: Class Certification Request in Ill. Suit Denied
MERCK & CO: Calif. Court Refuses Lawsuit Over Vioxx To Proceed

SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit to Defend Private Plaintiffs' Suit in N.Y.
SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Faces Calif. Lawsuits Over Oracle Corp. Merger
WESTERN DIGITAL: To Defend "Durrani" Complaint Over Unpaid Wages


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIDZ.COM INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
BIDZ.COM INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
BIDZ.COM INC: Sarraf Gentile Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
IDEARC INC: Gainey & McKenna Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
SEQUENOM INC: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing

SEQUENOM INC: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********


AMAZON.COM INC: Settlement of Lawsuits v. Audible Pending OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of the securities class-action lawsuit naming
Audible, Inc., as a defendant awaits court approval, according
to Amazon.com, Inc.'s April 23, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

In June 2001, Audible, the company's subsidiary acquired in
March 2008, was named as a defendant in a securities class-
action filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York related to its initial public offering in July 1999.

The lawsuit also named certain of the offering's underwriters,
as well as Audible's officers and directors as defendants.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.

The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for Audible's offering failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive"
commissions from investors and that some investors allegedly
agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the company's
stock.

Audible and its officers and directors were named in the suits
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and other related
provisions.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney and expert
fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

In March 2009, all parties, including Audible, reached a
settlement of these class actions that would resolve this
dispute entirely with no payment required from Audible.  The
settlement is still subject to review and approval by the Court.

Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- offers services to
consumer customers, seller customers and developer customers.
The company serves its consumer customers through its retail
Websites.  it offers programs that enable seller customers to
sell their products on the company's Websites and their own
branded Websites.  It serves developer customers through Amazon
Web Services, which provides access to technology infrastructure
that developers can use to enable virtually any type of
business.  In addition, the company generates revenue through
co-branded credit card agreements and other marketing and
promotional services, such as online advertising.  The company's
operations are organized into two principal segments: North
America and International.


BAKERS FOOTWEAR: Suit by Former Store Managers Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by two former store managers
against Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. remains pending in the U.S
District Court for the Central District of California.

On June 2, 2008 the company was served with the class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The store managers alleged that they should have been classified
as non-exempt employees under both the California Labor Code and
the Fair Labor Standards Act and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

The store managers filed the lawsuit on behalf of California
based store managers.

In December 2008, the parties agreed to a cash settlement, which
the court has preliminary approved.  The agreed upon settlement
is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the
company, according to its April 24, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. -- http://www.bakersshoes.com/-- is
engaged in the sale of shoes and accessories under the Bakers
and Wild Pair names.  The company is a full-service retailer
specializing in moderately priced fashion footwear.  Bakers
Footwear products include private-label and national brand
dress, casual, and sport shoes, boots, sandals and accessories,
such as handbags and costume jewelry.


BARNES & NOBLE: Unit Faces "Hostetter" Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action complaint entitled, "Hostetter v.
Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.," is pending, according
to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 4, 2008, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court
for the State of California making these allegations against
defendants with respect to hourly managers and/or assistant
managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of
California:

   (1) failure to pay wages and overtime;
   (2) failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks;
   (3) waiting time penalties; and
   (4) unfair competition.

The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of
any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf the purported class.

On March 4, 2009, Barnes and Noble filed an answer denying all
claims.

On March 5, 2009, Barnes and Noble removed this matter to
federal court.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/-- is a
bookseller.  The company's principal business is the sale of
trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles,
excluding educational textbooks and specialized religious
titles), mass-market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance,
science fiction and other fiction), children's books, bargain
books, magazines, gift, cafe products and services, music and
movies direct to customers.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company
operated 778 bookstores and a Website.  Of the 778 bookstores,
726 operate under the Barnes & Noble Booksellers trade name and
52 operate primarily under the B. Dalton Bookseller trade name.


BORDERS GROUP: Faces Suit Over Sale of Non-redeemable Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Borders Group, Inc. intends to defend an action filed by Amanda
Rudd, on behalf of herself and a putative class consisting of
all other customers who received Borders Gift Cards from March
2005 to March 2009.

In March 2009, Ms. Rudd filed an action in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Diego alleging that
the company sells gift cards that are not redeemable for cash in
violation of California's Business and Professionals Code
Section 17200, et seq.

The Complaint seeks disgorgement of profits, restitution,
attorney's fees and costs and an injunction.

Discovery has not yet commenced, according to the company's
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

Borders Group, Inc., -- http://www.bordersgroupinc.com/--
through its subsidiaries, operates book, music and movie
superstores, and mall-based bookstores.


BORDERS GROUP: To Defend Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Borders Group, Inc. intends to defend the purported class-action
suit over the alleged violation of the California Labor Code.

In February 2009, three former employees, individually and on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and former
employees who work or worked as General Managers in Borders
stores in the State of California at any time from Feb. 19,
2005, through Feb. 19, 2009, have filed an action against the
company in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Orange.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
plaintiffs and the purported class members were improperly
classified as exempt employees and that the company violated the
California Labor Code by failing to (i) pay required overtime
and (ii) provide meal periods and rest periods, and (iii) that
those practices also violate the California Business and
Professions Code.

The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the court deems proper.

Discovery has not commenced yet, according to the company's
March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

Borders Group, Inc., -- http://www.bordersgroupinc.com/--
through its subsidiaries, operates book, music and movie
superstores, and mall-based bookstores.


CARMAX INC: Units Face Consolidated Suit in Los Angeles, Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto
Superstores West Coast, Inc. continue to face a consolidated
putative class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, according to CarMax, Inc.'s
April 24, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 28, 2009.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class-action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and
CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles.

Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of
the Fowler case.

The allegations in the consolidated case involve:

   (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation
       in lieu thereof;

   (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees
       related to meal and rest breaks and overtime;

   (3) failure to pay overtime;

   (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
       provisions; and

   (5) unfair competition.

The putative class consists of sales consultants, sales
managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company
in California from April 2, 2004, to the present.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company
and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries.  The
company is a retailer of used cars.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Settles Two Overtime Pay Lawsuits For $11.7M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. agreed to pay $11.7 million to
settle two class-action wage lawsuits, John Kell of The Dow
Jones Newswires reports.

The convenience-store chain was sued by plaintiffs representing
about 7,800 current and former assistant managers and about
76,000 current and former non-management-level employees over
allegations they weren't paid overtime, according to The Dow
Jones Newswires report.

Initially, the managers filed a suit against the company, with
cooks and cashiers suing for overtime pay in early 2008.  Those
employees also claimed they were denied mandatory meal and rest
breaks and said they were asked to perform tasks before and
after their shifts, reports The Dow Jones Newswires.

Under the settlement agreement, the company will also pay up to
$400,000 in related settlement expenses.  The company's
directors and officers insurance company will pay $3 million of
the settlement on behalf of the defendants, The Dow Jones
Newswires reported.


ENERGY DRINK MAKERS: Juroviesky & Ricci Files Ontario Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP have filed a
series of class action lawsuits in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against the manufacturers and distributors of many
popular "Energy Drink" products, including those drinks known as
Red Bull, Full Throttle, Monster, Jolt, Amp and Rockstar.

     The suits allege 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,
the Food and Drugs Act and the Competition 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 "Energy Drink" products.

For more details, contact:

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


EXELON CORP: Argument on Ex-Employee's Appeal Set for April 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will hear
argument on the appeal filed by a former employee of
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) in April 2009, according to
Exelon Corp.'s April 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

On July 11, 2006, a former employee of ComEd filed a purported
class-action lawsuit against the Exelon Corporation Cash Balance
Pension Plan (Plan) in the Federal District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the Plan, which covers certain
management employees of Exelon's subsidiaries, calculated lump
sum distributions in a manner that does not comply with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The plaintiff seeks compensatory relief from the Plan on behalf
of participants who received lump sum distributions since 2001
and injunctive relief with respect to future lump sum
distributions.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit in
its entirety.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the District Court amended its order, in part,
to allow the plaintiff to file an administrative claim with the
Plan with respect to the calculation of the portion of his lump
sum benefit accrued under the Plan's prior traditional formula.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of the District
Court's dismissal of his claims.

In addition, on Jan. 6, 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint in
the District Court challenging the Plan's denial of his
administrative claim.

Exelon Corp. -- http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- is a utility
services holding company.  It operates through its principal
subsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company
(PECO).  Generation's business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities, its wholesale energy
marketing operations and its competitive retail sales
operations.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail and wholesale sale of electricity
and the provision of distribution and transmission services to
retail customers in northern Illinois, including Chicago. PECO's
energy delivery business consists of the purchase and regulated
retail sale of electricity and the provision of transmission and
distribution services to retail customers in southeastern
Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, as well as the purchase
and regulated retail sale of natural gas to retail customers in
the Pennsylvania counties.


EXELON CORP: Assessing Impact of Savings Plan Claim on Finances
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. continues to assess the potential impact of the
savings plan claim on its operations and financial results and
condition, according to its April 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

On Sept. 11, 2006, five individuals claiming to be participants
in the Exelon Corporation Employee Savings Plan, Plan #003
(Savings Plan), filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint names as defendants Exelon, its Director of
Employee Benefit Plans and Programs, the Employee Savings Plan
Investment Committee, the Compensation and the Risk Oversight
Committees of Exelon's Board of Directors and members of those
committees.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA by, among other things, permitting fees and
expenses to be incurred by the Savings Plan that allegedly were
unreasonable and for purposes other than to benefit the Savings
Plan and participants, and failing to disclose purported
"revenue sharing" arrangements among the Savings Plan's service
providers.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable and monetary relief
on behalf of the Savings Plan and participants, including
alleged investment losses.

On Feb. 21, 2007, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim for investment losses.

On June 27, 2007, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On June 28, 2007, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to stay proceedings in this action pending the outcome of
the appeal to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
another case not involving Exelon.  In that case, an appeal is
pending before the Seventh Circuit from the June 20, 2007
decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, which dismissed with prejudice substantially similar
claims.  On Feb. 12, 2009, a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of that case
and, on March 9, 2009, the plaintiffs in that case filed a
motion requesting a rehearing before the entire Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Exelon Corp. -- http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- is a utility
services holding company.  It operates through its principal
subsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company
(PECO).  Generation's business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities, its wholesale energy
marketing operations and its competitive retail sales
operations.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail and wholesale sale of electricity
and the provision of distribution and transmission services to
retail customers in northern Illinois, including Chicago. PECO's
energy delivery business consists of the purchase and regulated
retail sale of electricity and the provision of transmission and
distribution services to retail customers in southeastern
Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, as well as the purchase
and regulated retail sale of natural gas to retail customers in
the Pennsylvania counties.


GENESCO INC: Calif. Suit Over Customer E-mail Addresses Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against Genesco, Inc., alleging
violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971,
California Civil Code Section 1747.08, related to requests that
customers in the company's California retail stores voluntarily
provide the company with their e-mail addresses, remains
pending.

The suit was filed before the Superior Court of California, San
Diego County on April 8, 2008.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint consisting of a
general denial of its allegations and asserting a number of
affirmative defenses and is presently unable to predict whether
or to what extent it may have liability in the case.

On Oct. 13, 2008, the court certified the action as a class-
action suit and preliminarily approved a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the company has issued to each plaintiff class
member a discount coupon good for 25% off up to a $200 purchase
from a Johnston & Murphy store in a single transaction,
exchangeable at the class member's option for a $25 gift card.

The company also agreed to pay attorney's fees and costs and
additional consideration to the named plaintiff totaling
approximately $200,000, according to its April 1, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

Genesco, Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


GENESCO INC: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Junked in Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against Genesco,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee was dismissed in December 2008, according to the
company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

                       Roeglin Litigation

On Dec. 5, 2007, a class-action complaint, entitled "Roeglin v.
Genesco Inc., et al.," was filed against the company and four of
its officers before the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock between April 20 and Nov. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements about
the company's business during that period.  It seeks unspecified
damages and interest, costs and attorneys' fees and other
relief.

                       Koshti Litigation

On Dec. 13, 2007, a second class-action complaint, entitled
"Koshti v. Genesco Inc., et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock between April 20 and Nov. 26, 2007.

The complaint, which was filed against the company and three of
its officers, also alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by failing to disclose material adverse facts
about the company's financial well being and prospects during
the class period.  It seeks unspecified damages and interest,
costs and attorneys' fees and other relief.

                         Consolidation

On Jan. 22, 2008, the U.S. District Court entered a stipulation
and order consolidating the Koshti case with the Roeglin case.

On Dec. 29, 2008, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal
Without Prejudice, dismissing the consolidated cases.

The suit is "Roeglin v. Genesco Inc., et al., Case No. 3:2007-
cv-01183," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Judge William J. Haynes, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          A. Rick Atwood, Esq. (ricka@lerachlaw.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

          George Edward Barrett, Esq.
          (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
          Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
          217 Second Avenue, N
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: 615-244-2202

               - and -

          Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. (pknashlaw@aol.com)
          Bramlett Law Offices
          P.O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Phone: 615-248-2828
          Fax: 615-254-4116

Representing the defendants is:

          Britt K. Latham, Esq. (blatham@bassberry.com)
          Bass, Berry & Sims
          AmSouth Center
          315 Deaderick Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37238-3001
          Phone: 615-742-6200


GENESCO INC: To Conduct Discovery in "Jacobs" Labor Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. is preparing to conduct oral and written discovery
in a putative class-action suit styled, "Jacobs v. Genesco Inc.
et al."

On June 16, 2008, the suit was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Shasta, a putative class-
action suit styled, "Jacobs v. Genesco Inc. et al.," alleging
violations of the California Labor Code involving payment of
wages, failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, and
unfair competition, and seeking back pay, penalties and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company has removed the case to the Federal District Court
for the Eastern District of California.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the court dismissed certain of the plaintiff's
claims, including claims for conversion and punitive damages.

The company is preparing to conduct oral and written discovery
and to defend itself against the remaining claims in the case,
according to its April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

Genesco, Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


JACKSON NATIONAL: Ill. Court OKs $22M Annuity Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Clair County Circuit Court approved a $22 million
settlement in a class-action suit against Jackson National Life
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of British insurance company,
Prudential plc, over fixed annuity policies, Ann Knef of The
Madison County Record reports.

The suit was filed by policyholder George Farmer in 2002 over
its methods used to set interest-setting rates for new premiums
and for those premiums previously paid to fixed annuities.  Mr.
Farmer along with James Granger, who was later added as a named
plaintiff, also claimed that he company failed to advise its
fixed annuity purchasers that Jackson would be crediting higher
interest rates to new premiums than it did to previously-paid
premiums, according to The Madison County Record report.

In 2006, Judge Robert LeChien certified a class of policy
holders who purchased a Jackson fixed annuity in Illinois and in
which Jackson subsequently offered and paid higher interest
rates to new purchasers of similar products, reports The Madison
County Record.

According to the settlement agreement, which was signed by Judge
LeChien on May 6, 2009, Jackson denies all wrongdoing alleged in
the litigation and disputes that certification of the class was
proper.

The settlement class includes Illinois policy holders between
July 1, 1989 and Oct. 31, 2008, except employers and unions that
maintained the annuities through employee benefit plans, The
Madison County Record reported.


JANUS CAPITAL: Fourth Circuit Overturns Dismissal of Md. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the
dismissal of a putative class-action lawsuit alleging derivative
trader Janus Capital Group, Inc. and its subsidiary Janus
Capital Management, LLC made misleading statements about funds
they managed, causing shareholders to lose money when the
alleged fraud was made public, Law 360 reports.

In a decision, issued on May 8, 2009, the appeals court reversed
and remanded the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland's dismissal of the complaint, according to the Law360
report.


LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to $8M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, on April 29, 2009, gave final
approval to the $8,000,000 settlement of a securities fraud
class-action lawsuit on behalf of a class of investors in
Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc.

Initially, six purported class actions were filed between Aug.
8, 2007, and Sept. 12, 2007, alleging violations of federal
securities laws (Class Action Reporter, April 9, 2009).

The suits were filed against Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc.,
the sponsor of the Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-1Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2007-1, and against certain of its
current and former directors and officers.

They are seeking certification of classes composed of
stockholders who purchased the Company's securities during
certain periods, starting as early as Oct. 10, 2006, and
concluding as late as Aug. 6, 2007.

The legal proceedings related to these complaints have been
consolidated into a single action.  A consolidated complaint has
been filed, on behalf of a purported class of investors who
purchased the company's securities between June 25, 2007, and
Aug. 6, 2007.

The lawsuits allege generally, that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations to
the market concerning the Company's operations and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's common
stock.  It seeks unspecified damages.

Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-1 reported no development in the
matter in its March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:07-cv-04073-PJH," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard Bemporad, Esq. (rbemporad@lowey.com)
          Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.
          One North Broadway
          Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601-2310
          Phone: 914-997-0500
          Fax: 914-997-0035

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. (nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6531
          Phone: 212-983-9330
          Fax: 212-983-9331

               - and -

          Mark Irving Labaton, Esq. (mlabaton@kreindler.com)
          Kreindler & Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-622-6469
          Fax: 213-622-6019

Representing the defendants is:

          Joshua Hill, Esq. (Joshua.Hill@Hellerehrman.com)
          Heller Ehrman LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2878
          Phone: 415-772-6000
          Fax: 415-772-6268


MACY'S INC: "Decristofaro" Merger Suit Still Pending in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc. continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by Edward Decristofaro, an alleged former stockholder of
The May Department Stores Company (May), according to its April
1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the Company completed the acquisition of May.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Mr. Decristofaro filed a purported class-
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri on
behalf of all former May stockholders against May and the former
members of the board of directors of May.

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of May
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith
and candor to May stockholders in connection with the Merger.

The plaintiffs seek rescission of the Merger or an unspecified
amount of rescissory damages and costs including attorneys' fees
and experts' fees.

In July 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the case.

Macy's, Inc., -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated
Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retail
stores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's,
women's and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings and other consumer goods.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The Company, through its divisions, conducts
electronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog
businesses under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com and
Bloomingdale's By Mail.  In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an
online bridal registry to customers.


MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc. is still facing a purported class-action suit filed
by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in the company's
Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan, according to its April 1,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 3, 2007, Mr. Shanehchian filed a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan
and The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan
between Feb. 27, 2005 and the present.

The complaint charges the Company, as well as certain current
and former members of its board of directors and certain current
and former members of management, with breach of fiduciary
duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan,
alleging that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects in relation to the integration of the acquired May
operations, resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the
Company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005 and May 15, 2007.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and costs.

Macy's, Inc., -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated
Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retail
stores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's,
women's and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings and other consumer goods.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The Company, through its divisions, conducts
electronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog
businesses under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com and
Bloomingdale's By Mail.  In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an
online bridal registry to customers.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Class Certification Request in Ill. Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elaine Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois denied a class certification request in a
consolidated lawsuit that claims McDonald's Corp. deceived the
public about allergens in its potato products, calling the
proposed class "too broad" and "unmanageable," The Courthouse
News Service reports.

Judge Bucklo wrote that the proposed class was "over-inclusive:"
anyone who purchased the fried potatoes from McDonald's between
Feb. 27, 2002 and Feb. 7, 2006, and who had been diagnosed with
"celiac disease, galactosemia, autism and/or wheat, gluten or
dairy allergies," regardless of whether they bought the products
in the belief that they were allergen-free, according to The
Courthouse News Service report.

Judge Bucklo wrote that there appears to be no physical harm
caused by the consumption of these products among the named
plaintiffs, and that if there is such evidence, delving into
such proof would be far too time-consuming for such nominally
priced items, rpeorts The Courthouse News Service.

Bucklo also ruled that the state laws involving unjust
enrichment, consumer protection violations and breach of express
warranty vary too much to hold over a national group and that
the suit "fail[s] to provide any choice of law analysis," The
Courthouse News Service reported.

                         Case Background

Previously, the Class Action Reporter reported on March 3, 2008
that McDonald's Corp. faces a consolidated class action suit
alleging fraudulent use of gluten in its french fries and hash
browns, according to the Company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs have filed several complaints against the Company
(and in some instances its franchisee or a franchisee's
operating company), alleging that McDonald's misrepresented its
french fries and hash browns as free of wheat, gluten and milk,
when the french fries and hash browns allegedly contain
derivatives of wheat, gluten and milk.

Eight of the cases have been consolidated into one action that
seeks to form a national class of consumers, generally defined
as individuals who purchased McDonald's french fries and hash
browns and who have allergies or sensitivities to consumption of
wheat and dairy products.

The first case of this type, "Debra Moffatt v. McDonald's
Corporation, MDL Case No. 06-cv-4467," was filed on Feb. 17,
2006, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Currently, 14 cases, including Moffatt, have been transferred
and consolidated for pretrial purposes, and are pending as
multi-district litigation with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District court of Illinois.

The complaints include claims for violation of state consumer
fraud acts, unfair competition or deceptive trade practices
acts, strict liability, failure to warn, negligence, breach of
express and implied warranties, fraud and fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation and concealment, unjust
enrichment, and false advertising.

They seek to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, and attorneys'
fees.

A copy of the court decision is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3cb2

The suit is "In Re: McDonald's French Fries Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-04467," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Larry Daniel Drury, Esq. (ldrurylaw@aol.com)
          Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
          205 West Randolph, Suite 1430
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 346-7950

               - and -

          Francis Richard Greene, Esq. (fgreene@edcombs.com)
          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
          120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 739-4200

Representing the company is:

          Michael A. Pope, Esq. (mpope@mwe.com)
          McDermott, Will & Emery LLP
          227 West Monroe Street #4400
          Chicago, IL 60606-5096
          Phone: (312) 372-2000


MERCK & CO: Calif. Court Refuses Lawsuit Over Vioxx To Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victoria Chaney of Los Angeles Superior Court rejected a
proposed class-action lawsuit against Merck & Co. that was
brought on behalf of California residents who took the
painkiller Vioxx before it was pulled from the market in 2004,
Linda A. Johnson of The Associated Press reports.

Attorneys for former Vioxx users and health insurance plans
wanted to sue the drug's maker, Merck & Co., to recover at least
part of what they paid for the medicine.  The plaintiffs'
lawyers argued patients would have taken other pain relievers,
had they known that Vioxx doubled risk of heart attack and
stroke, according to The Associated Press report.

However, Judge Chaney ruled that the patients and insurers
cannot sue as a group.  She wrote that patients paid varying
amounts for Vioxx and had too many other differences to sue
jointly, including their medical histories and how long they
took the anti-inflammatory medicine, The Associated Press
reported.

As in many other lawsuits over Vioxx, the plaintiff lawyers
allege that Merck deliberately concealed the risks of Vioxx from
the public and doctors, reports The Associated Press.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit to Defend Private Plaintiffs' Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Jewelers Inc., a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited,
intends to defend a class action lawsuit filed in the New York
federal court by private plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed against the company's subsidiary for an
unspecified amount.

No further details regarding the lawsuit were provided in the
company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

Signet Jewelers Limited -- http://www.signetjewelers.com/--
formerly Signet Group plc, is a specialty retail jeweler, with
stores in the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland
and Channel Islands.  In the United States, as of Jan. 31, 2009,
Signet operated 1,401 stores in 50 states.  Its stores trade
nationally in malls and off-mall locations as Kay Jewelers
(Kay), and regionally under a number of mall-based brands.
Destination superstores trade nationwide as Jared The Galleria
Of Jewelry (Jared). In the United Kinfdom, the stores trade as
H.Samuel, Ernest Jones and Leslie Davis, and are situated in
High Street locations (main shopping thoroughfares with high
pedestrian traffic) or shopping malls.  The United Kingdom
division operated 558 stores, as of Jan. 31, 2009, including 14
stores in the Republic of Ireland.  The Company operates in two
geographical segments: the United States division (approximately
76% of sales) and the United Kingdom division (approximately 24%
of sales).


SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Faces Calif. Lawsuits Over Oracle Corp. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Microsystems, Inc. is facing three class-action complaints
from shareholders seeking to block the company's planned merger
with Oracle Corp., Chris Preimesberger of eWeek reports.

The company disclosed in a 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that the lawsuits, which were filed by
disgruntled Sun Microsystems shareholders, claim that the $7.4
billion compensation proposed by Oracle is unfair and
inadequate, according to the eWeek report.

The suits also charges Sun and its executive team with "claims
for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants
and for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against
the corporate defendants," eWeek reported.

The lawsuits were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court and
name Sun, several of its executives—including co-founder and
Chairman Scott McNealy and CEO Jonathan Schwartz—and Oracle as
defendants, reports eWeek.


WESTERN DIGITAL: To Defend "Durrani" Complaint Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation intends to defend a putative class-
action complaint filed by Ghazala H. Durrani, a former employee
of the company, in the Alameda County (California) Superior
Court.

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a putative class-action
complaint alleging that certain of the company's engineers have
been misclassified as exempt employees under California state
law and are, therefore, due unpaid hourly overtime wages and
other amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal
and rest periods.

The case is in the preliminary stages, with no formal discovery
having occurred.

A court hearing on whether the case should be certified as a
class action will likely not occur until late calendar 2009 at
the earliest.

According to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 27, 2009, if Western Digital is unsuccessful in its
defense of this matter, potential liability could include unpaid
wages, interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs.

Western Digital Corporation -- http://www.westerndigital.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and sells hard drives.  It sells
its products worldwide to original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) and original design manufactures (ODMs) for use in
computer systems, subsystems or consumer electronics (CE)
devices, and to distributors, resellers and retailers.  The
company's hard drives are used in desktop computers, notebook
computers and enterprise applications, such as servers,
workstations, network attached storage, storage area networks
and video surveillance equipment.  Additionally, its hard drives
are used in CE applications, such as digital video recorders,
and satellite and cable set-top boxes.  It markets its hard
drives under brand names, including WD Caviar, WD Raptor, WD
VelociRaptor, WD Scorpio, WD Elements, My Passport, My Book, My
DVR Expander and GreenPower.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIDZ.COM INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of
Bidz.com, Inc. between August 13, 2007 and November 26, 2007.

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

     The complaint stated that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Bidz.com.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


BIDZ.COM INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Bidz.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BIDZ) during the period between August 13, 2007 and November 26,
2007, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company
engaged improper business tactics in order to artificially raise
the auction price of its products.  According to the complaint,
when details of these improprieties were revealed beginning on
November 26, 2007, the value of Bidz.com's stock declined
significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 6, 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


BIDZ.COM INC: Sarraf Gentile Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firms of Sarraf Gentile LLP and Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Bidz.com,
Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDZ) during the period between August 13, 2007
and November 26, 2007.

     The complaint charges Bidz.com and its chief executive with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action
Reporter, May 11, 2009).

     Bidz.com is in the business of selling jewelry and other
products online through an auction process.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements
intended to project the picture of a financially sound and well-
operating company, when, in fact, the company was operating with
material deficiencies and undisclosed substantial problems that
went to the heart of its business model.

     On November 26, 2007, a Citron Research article identified
numerous "red flags" and revealed previously undisclosed
material problems with the Company.  Two days later Citron
issued a second article that provided additional details,
revealing, among other things, that the Company engaged improper
business tactics in order to artificially raise the auction
price of its products.

     On this news, the Company's stock price dropped from a
closing price of $19.94 on Friday, November 23, 2007, to a low
of $10.10 on November 28, a loss of nearly 50%.

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

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 6, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile LLP
          11 Hanover Square
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-868-3610
          Fax: 212-918-7967
          web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/


IDEARC INC: Gainey & McKenna Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Gainey & McKenna filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District Texas, Dallas
Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of
Idearc, Inc. (Pink Sheets: IDARQ) during the period between
August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009.

     The complaint charges certain officers of Idearc with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Complaint alleges that during 2007, while touting the Company's
ever-improving "stringent" credit and collection policies, the
Company "relaxed" its credit policies in order to increase its
dollar amount of the revenue.

     The Complaint further alleges that the Company, by selling
to non-credit-worthy customers, effectively reported tens of
millions of dollars of sales that it otherwise would not have
reported while accumulating tens of millions of dollars of
uncollectible receivables.

     By failing to disclose the material facts regarding the
Company's credit policies, Defendants presented a misleading
picture of Idearc's business and prospects.

     Defendants' false and misleading statements had the
intended effect and caused Idearc common stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period.

     The Company carried these uncollectible receivables on its
books as though they were collectible until mid-2008, when the
Company admitted to a "relaxation of certain aspects of the
Company's credit policy in mid-2007" and began to write off
these uncollectible receivables in a piecemeal fashion over
several quarters.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Idearc securities during the Class Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 8, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
          Gainey & McKenna
          297 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-1300


SEQUENOM INC: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
announces that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sequenom, Inc.
(Nasdaq: SQNM) between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009
inclusive.

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

     Sequenom is engaged in genetics analysis and diagnostic
testing.

     The Company had been developing a test known as SEQureDx,
which was to be a non-invasive prenatal test for Down Syndrome.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

       -- that the Company's employees had mishandled test data
          and results for SEQureDx;

       -- that SEQureDx failed to provide a significant
          improvement to existing Triple and Quad Tests;

       -- that as a result, the Company would be unable to
          achieve a commercial launch of the test by June 2009;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
          and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being and future
          business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
          basis when made.

     On April 29, 2009, the Company astounded its investors and
the market when it announced that the launch of SEQureDx would
be delayed due to the discovery by Company officials of employee
mishandling of research and development ("R&D") test data and
results.

     As a result, the Company announced that its statements made
between June 4, 2008 and February 3, 2009 regarding SEQureDx
should no longer be relied upon.  Following this announcement,
it became apparent that the Company would be unable to launch
SEQureDx in 2009, as originally planned.

     Further, the Company indicated that it would wait for
results from independent clinical trials before launching the
test, rather than relying on its own research.  Upon the release
of this news, shares of the Company's stock fell an astounding
$11.29 per share, or 75.72 percent, to close on April 30, 2009
at $3.62 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

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

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com


SEQUENOM INC: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Spector, Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C.
announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Sequenom Incorporated (Nasdaq: SQNM) between June 4, 2008
through April 29, 2009, inclusive.

     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 the
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements were false and misleading concerning Sequenom's
noninvasive SEQureDx prenatal Down Syndrome test ("SEQureDx"),
including that:

       -- clinical trial 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 clinical trial test
          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.

     These false statements and omissions of material
information caused the price of Sequenom to be artificially
inflated.

     Additionally, defendants took advantage of the Company's
inflated stock price by issuing 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.

     Finally, 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 collapsed $11.29 per share, or more than 75%, to close
at $3.62 per share on April 30, 2009, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862
          e-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com
          Web site: http://www.srkw-law.com


                            *********

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  * * *