CAR_Public/090514.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 94

                           Headlines

BLUE SHIELD: Faces Suit Over Coverage For Mentally Ill People
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Anthony's Appeal to Junked Case Remains Stayed
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Denied "Marin" Certification Pending
DCHW LLC: Former Pigall's Waiter Files Lawsuit in Ohio Over Tips
DUPONT CO: Consolidated Teflon Litigation in Iowa Dismissed

E-MEDSOFT.COM: Attorneys Seek About $200,000 in Ohio Settlement
FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval
GOOGLE INC: Faces Trademark Infringement Litigation in Texas
HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Appeals Order Denying Class Status Pending
HONEYWELL INT'L: Several Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending

INFOCUS CORP: Shareholder Files Suit in Oregon Over $39M Sale
LORD ABBETT: N.J. Judge Puts Investors' Litigation On Hold
MERCK & CO: Reacts to California Court Ruling in VIOXX Lawsuit
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
NORTHERN TRUST: Faces Amended ERISA Violations Complaint in Ill.

NVIDIA CORP: Laptop Owners File Amended Complaint Over GPUs
REVLON INC: Faces Investor Suit Over MacAndrews Forbes Proposal
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: High Court Review of Lead Pigment Case Ongoing
SIMON PROPERTY: Still Faces N.Y. Consumer Suits Over Gift Cards
SPRING AIR: Former Employee Files WARN Violations Suit in Fla.

STATE STREET: Faces Suit in Mass. Alleging ERISA Violations
TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of N.Y. Suit
VIKING INDUSTRIES: Disputes Plaintiff's Claims in Calif. Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IDEARC INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
MORGAN STANLEY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Filing


                           *********

BLUE SHIELD: Faces Suit Over Coverage For Mentally Ill People
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Shield of California is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit alleging that the company violates its own policies, and
state law, to deny coverage for residential treatment for the
mentally ill, Maria Dinzeo of The Courthouse News Service
reports.

The suit was filed on May 8, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under the caption, "F. et al
v. Blue Shield of California et al., 3:2009-cv-02037."

The plaintiffs in the matter are known only by the names, Daniel
F., Shan O., and Geoffrey F., who are represented by David
Linienstein, Esq.  Listed as defendants in the case are Blue
Shield of California and Ogdemli/Feldman Design Group Benefit
Plan.

The Courthouse News Service reported that the class claims Blue
Shield violates state law requiring coverage for "seriously
emotionally disturbed" children and adolescents.

The lead plaintiff alleges Blue Shield improperly denied
coverage for his adopted son's residential psychotherapy
treatments, and refused to consider any appeals, according to
The Courthouse News Service report.

The plaintiffs want to be reimbursed for costs of the
residential treatments, and Blue Shield enjoined from ducking
costs in the future, reports the Courthouse News Service.

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

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

For more details, contact:

          David Lilienstein, Esq.
          Pillsbury & Levinson, LLP
          600 Montgomery Street
          31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415.433.8000 | 888.433.8335
          Fax: 415.433.4816
          Web site: http://www.pillsburylevinson.com/


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Anthony's Appeal to Junked Case Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Anthony's appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of his purported
class-action lawsuit against Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.
remains stayed.

The purported class-action lawsuit is captioned, "Gary Anthony
v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Small Tube
Products Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. 000525," which was
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, on Sept. 7, 2006.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4,
2006.

The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.  The defendants are
Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation, d/b/a Small Tube Products
Corporation, Inc.; Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube Methods, Inc.; and
Cabot Corporation.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a
period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.

The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence.  Plaintiff
seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost
of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical
screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint
against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006.
Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing
products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those
products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for
indemnification and contribution.  Brush moved to dismiss the
Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006.  On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube
Methods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brush
moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007; however, the Court denied the
motion on Sept. 28, 2007.  Brush filed its answer to the amended
third-party complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.

On Nov. 14, 2007, two of the defendants filed a joint motion for
an order permitting discovery to make the threshold
determination of whether plaintiff is sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the court approved the parties' stipulation
that the plaintiff is not sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 29, 2008, Brush filed a motion for summary judgment
based on plaintiff's lack of any substantially increased risk of
chronic beryllium disease (CBD).

Oral argument on this motion took place on June 13, 2008, and
the court took the motion under submission.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted the motion for summary
judgment in favor of all of the defendants and dismissed
plaintiff's class action complaint.

On Oct. 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.  The Court
of Appeals has granted a motion to stay the appeal due to the
bankruptcy of one of the appellees, Millennium Petrochemicals.

On April 3, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed a motion for
relief in bankruptcy court from the automatic stay, asking that
the court modify the stay to allow its indemnification claim
against Millennium Petrochemicals and the Anthony case to
proceed to final judgment, including all appeals, according to
the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April
3, 2009.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Denied "Marin" Certification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from their denied motion for class
certification in the beryllium action against Brush Engineered
Materials, Inc.'s subsidiary, Brush Wellman Inc., remains
pending.

The class-action suit, "Manuel Marin, et al. v. Brush Wellman
Inc., Case No. BC299055," filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County was filed on July 15, 2003.

The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield
Perry and Susan Perry.  The defendants are Brush Wellman,
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, naming
five additional plaintiffs.  The five additional named
plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,
James Jones and John Kesselring.

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to
beryllium while employed at the Boeing Company.  The plaintiffs'
wives claim loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately
250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing
or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.  They have brought claims for
negligence, strict liability - design defect, strict liability -
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied
warranties, and unfair business practices.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, medical monitoring,
medical and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees
and costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and
punitive damages.

Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and
Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in
California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.

Defendant Appanaitis Enterprises Inc. was dismissed on May 5,
2005.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the
Company opposed, was heard by the court on Feb. 8, 2008, and the
motion was denied by the court on May 7, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 1, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2009.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.


DCHW LLC: Former Pigall's Waiter Files Lawsuit in Ohio Over Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
DCHW, LLC and Martin Wade are facing a purported class-action
lawsuit that was filed by a former waiter at the now defunct
restaurant Jean-Robert at Pigall's for taking his tips, The
Business Courier of Cincinnati reports.

The suit was filed on May 7, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under the caption, "Strange v.
Wade et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00316."

Daniel Scott Strange claims that Mr. Wade and DCHW, the
restaurant company that operated Pigall's, violated federal wage
and hours law, according to The Business Courier of Cincinnati
report.

The lawsuit was filed by Cincinnati lawyers Marc Mezibov, Esq.
and Susan Lawrence, Esq. on behalf of plaintiff Daniel Scott
Strange and other former waiters at Pigall's.

The plaintiff seeks an award of back pay equal to the difference
between the hourly rate paid to the wait staff and the federal
minimum wage for every hour they worked over the prior three
years.  He also wants an award of all tips that waiters were
required to put into a common "tip pool" that were allegedly
paid to administrative and managerial employees at Pigall's, The
Business Courier of Cincinnati reported.

According to the complaint, waiters had to contribute a portion
of their tips to a pool that was then distributed to certain
non-tipped employees.  Waiters were paid an hourly rate of only
half the federal minimum wage rate -- a practice that's common
at restaurants, reports The Business Courier of Cincinnati.

Mr. Strange's complaint stated that Pigall's required waiters to
contribute an amount equal to 17 percent of their gross sales
into a tip pool.  Those tips were to be divided up between the
workers on each shift, including one share for the maitre'd and
another share for the assistant maitre'd.  Mr. Strange claims
that their responsibilities included administrative and
managerial duties -- scheduling and supervision of waiters, and
purchasing wine, for example.

The Business Courier of Cincinnati reported that Pigall's used
the money from the tip pool to offset its own salary obligations
to the maitre'd and assistant maitre'd, Mr. Strange alleged.  By
doing so, the restaurant "inappropriately participated in the
tip pool" and misappropriated waiters' tips in violation of
federal wage and hours law, the complaint alleges.

For more details, contact:

          Marc Mezibov, Esq.
          Susan Lawrence, Esq.
          401 East Court Street
          Suite 600
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513.621.8800
          Web site: http://www.mezibov.com


DUPONT CO: Consolidated Teflon Litigation in Iowa Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against DuPont Co., claiming its nonstick Teflon
cookware coating could pose health risks to users, has been
dropped, The Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit included 22 cases from about 15 states.  All had
been consolidated to be heard in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, according to the AP report.

According to Des Moines attorney Kim Baer, Esq., who represented
several of the plaintiffs, the case was dropped after the court
denied class-action status, reports The Associated Press.

Had it been granted, the lawsuit would have sought compensation
for millions of owners of Teflon-coated cookware costing DuPont
billions of dollars, The Associated Press reports.

In general, the lawsuit claimed that Teflon could release toxic
particles when heated to normal cooking temperatures, The
Associated Press reported.

The News Journal previously reported that Judge Ronald E.
Longstaff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Iowa has denied class-action status for 23 lawsuits over
DuPont Co.'s nonstick cookware coating Teflon (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 11, 2008.

Consumers have alleged that E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
made false claims about health risks connected with nonstick
cookware, including "polymer fume fever," a flu-like condition
linked to fumes from heated Teflon.

The ruling means plaintiffs in separate statewide actions
nationwide need to pursue their own lawsuits against the
company, according to The News Journal.

The News Journal reported that Judge Longstaff said in his
ruling that plaintiffs had not adequately defined which
consumers should be included in the class.


E-MEDSOFT.COM: Attorneys Seek About $200,000 in Ohio Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' attorneys are asking for a cut of about $200,000 in
the settlement of a class-action lawsuit accusing former
executives and directors of bankrupt health care software
company e-MedSoft.com of misleading investors about its alliance
with collapsed National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc..
Law360 reports.

The attorneys made the request in a motion filed on May 11, 2009
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
according to the Law360 report.

Law360 reported that attorneys have asked the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio to approve the
settlement (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 3, 2009).


FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a purported class-action lawsuit
against Fastenal Co. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and several state statutes remains subject to court
approval.

On Aug. 29, 2008, the company announced that it had reached a
preliminary agreement to settle a purported class-action lawsuit
relating to the classification of its Assistant General Managers
as exempt for purposes of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania state statutes.

This suit also alleged that Assistant General Managers in
California did not receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods under the California Labor Code.

While the company denies the allegations underlying the lawsuit,
it decided to enter into the settlement agreement in order to
avoid significant legal fees, the uncertainty of a jury trial,
distractions to its operations, and other expenses and
management time that would have to be devoted to protracted
litigation.  The settlement, which is still subject to court
approval, fully resolves all claims brought by the plaintiffs in
this lawsuit.

Pursuant to the settlement, the company will make a cash payment
of $10 million to cover claims by eligible class members,
plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs, and payments to the named
plaintiffs.

The expense for this settlement was recorded in the results for
the third quarter ending Sept. 30, 2008.

The company does not expect the settlement to have any material
impact on its operating results going forward, according to its
April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Fastenal Co. -- http://www.fastenal.com-- sells industrial and
construction supplies in a wholesale and retail fashion. As of
December 31, 2008, it operated 2,311 company-owned or leased
store locations in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada,
Mexico, Singapore, the People's Republic of China, and the
Netherlands. Fastenal's offerings are grouped into 10 product
lines: fasteners; tools and equipment; cutting tools and
abrasives; hydraulics, pneumatics, plumbing, and heating,
ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC); material handling,
storage and packaging; janitorial supplies, chemicals and
paints; electrical supplies; welding supplies; safety supplies,
and metals, alloys and materials.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Trademark Infringement Litigation in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Google, Inc. and other search ad providers are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit alleging that Google's AdWords
product "infringes the trademark of all Texas trademark owners,"
John Timmer of Ars Technica reports.

The suit was filed on May 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tecas, under the caption, "FPX, LLC
v. Google, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00142."  It was filed
by FPX, LLC, which does business in East Texas as Firepond,
alleging trademark infringement, according to the Ars Technica
report.

The suit also names YouTube, LLC, AOL, LLC., Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc., MySpace, Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp as
defendants.

According to the suit, each of these companies relies on Google
to provide a search service with embedded ads on their site, and
so are involved in aiding and abetting the alleged trademark
infringement, reports Ars Technica.


HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Appeals Order Denying Class Status Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas' order denying
class-action status to a six-year-old case against Halliburton
Co. over securities law violations remains on appeal, according
to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
March 31, 2009.

In June 2002, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the
company in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in
connection with the company's change in accounting for revenue
on long-term construction projects and related disclosures.  In
the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class-
actions were filed against the company.  Several of those
lawsuits also named as defendants several of the company's
present or former officers and directors.  The class-action
cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated
class action complaint, styled, "Richard Moore, et al. v.
Halliburton Company, et al.," was filed and served upon the
company in April 2003.  As a result of a substitution of lead
plaintiffs, the case is now styled, "Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al."  The
company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court.  In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the company file its
motion to dismiss.  The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.  In March 2006, the court entered an order in which
it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising
prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to
certain other claims while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of
those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.
In April 2006, AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated
complaint.  The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions
of the complaint that had been re-pled.  A hearing was held on
that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than its Chief Executive Officer.  The court ordered that the
case proceed against the company's CEO and Halliburton.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the company's response was filed in November 2007.

The court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order on
Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's motion for class certification.
AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
requesting permission to appeal the district court's order
denying class certification.  The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's
motion and the order denying class certification is currently on
appeal.  The case will remain stayed in the district court
pending the outcome of the appeal.

The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq. (rschiffrin@sbtklaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056

         Marc R. Stanley, Esq. (mstanley@smi-law.com)
         Stanley Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214-443-4301
         Fax: 214-443-0358

              - and -

         Thomas Burt, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the company is:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404


HONEYWELL INT'L: Several Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to face several
purported class-action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over
allegations that 12 filter manufacturers, including the company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate
U.S. customers for after-market automotive filters.

Initially, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a
filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube
Distributors Inc. v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:2008-cv-00475."  It is a purported class-action lawsuit
brought on behalf of direct purchasers who bought filters from
the defendants.

Parallel purported class-action lawsuits, including those on
behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the U.S. And
Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-
district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is
also investigating the allegations raised in these suits.  The
company continues to cooperate with the DOJ investigation,
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 31, 2009.

The consolidated lawsuit is "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v.
Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00475,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. (krcallahan@uks.com)
          Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
          One State St., Po Box 231277
          Hartford, CT 06123-1277
          Phone: 860-548-2600


INFOCUS CORP: Shareholder Files Suit in Oregon Over $39M Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
InFocus Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit alleging
that the board acted recklessly in its efforts to sell the
company to California entrepreneur John Hui for $39 million, or
95 cents per share, The Portland Business Journal reports.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
company said that the suit was filed by Donald Donovan, an
InFocus shareholder, in Clackamas County, Oregon.  Mr. Donovan
is not among the company's largest shareholders, according to
its most recent proxy statement, reports The Portland Business
Journal.

The suit names each of the firm's directors as defendants.  It
alleges that the offer price is "unfair and the result of a
flawed sale process" and it prohibits "competing offers,"
according to the SEC filing, The Portland Business Journal
reported.


LORD ABBETT: N.J. Judge Puts Investors' Litigation On Hold
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey put on hold a putative class-action suit
accusing money management firm Lord Abbett & Co. LLC of charging
investors excessive fees until the U.S. Supreme Court returns a
decision in a case involving similar claims, Law360 reports.

In a ruling issued on May 8, 2009, Judge Martini ruled that a
Supreme Court decision in "Jones v. Harris Associates LP" could
affect the case against Lord Abbett, according to the Law360
report.


MERCK & CO: Reacts to California Court Ruling in VIOXX Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Merck & Co., Inc. said on May 12, 2009 that a California
state court made the right decision in denying plaintiffs'
request to certify a class of California consumers and insurers
seeking reimbursement for VIOXX costs.

     Applying California law, Judge Victoria G. Chaney of the
Los Angeles Superior Court said in her ruling that trying
plaintiffs' claims would "require an examination of each
proposed class member's medical needs and history. Plaintiffs
adduce no evidence indicating the inquiry can be conducted on a
classwide basis."

     "The court rightly agreed this was not an appropriate case
to proceed as a class action," said Ted Mayer of Hughes, Hubbard
& Reed, outside counsel for Merck.

     Merck had argued that proceeding with plaintiffs' claims on
a classwide basis would be unfair because plaintiff's
circumstances varied. For example, a jury would need to consider
at trial whether each consumer plaintiff would have continued
taking VIOXX if more information had been available at the time,
and if not, how much an alternative drug would have cost.

     Merck also argued that individual insurer plaintiffs
considered different information and reached different
conclusions when making decisions about including VIOXX in their
plan coverage.

     "We believe that Merck's communications and representations
about VIOXX's efficacy and safety were proper, accurate and
timely," said Mayer.

     The court decision only addresses consumer and insurer
economic loss claims in California.

     Three courts have previously denied certification to
plaintiffs seeking VIOXX class action status.  In March 2009,
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee denied the
certification of a class of plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for
out-out-pocket VIOXX costs saying certification would be
"unfair" and "unmanageable."  In 2007, the New Jersey Supreme
Court ruled in Engineers v. Merck that certification of a
nationwide class of insurers who paid for VIOXX was not
appropriate because common questions of fact did not predominate
and a class action was not superior to other available
mechanisms for resolving their claims.  In addition, Federal
District Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon, who oversees the VIOXX
multidistrict litigation proceeding, denied certification of a
nationwide class of VIOXX users asserting personal injuries as a
result of their use of the drug.

     In November 2007, Merck entered into an agreement to
resolve state and federal myocardial infarction and ischemic
stroke personal injury claims filed or tolled by Nov. 9, 2007.
More than 99 percent of all eligible personal injury claimants
enrolled in the program, and the program is proceeding as
scheduled.

     Prior to the settlement, Merck had won the large majority
of personal injury cases that went to trial in the United States
and thousands of lawsuits had been dismissed.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company dedicated to putting
patients first.  Established in 1891, Merck currently discovers,
develops, manufactures and markets vaccines and medicines to
address unmet medical needs.  The Company devotes extensive
efforts to increase access to medicines through far-reaching
programs that not only donate Merck medicines but help deliver
them to the people who need them.  Merck also publishes unbiased
health information as a not-for-profit service.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. continues to defend the consolidated
amended complaints filed in several putative class-action suits
against them that were consolidated in the District of Columbia,
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 31, 2009.

In general, the lawsuits allege that the individual railroads
conspired in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class-action complaints have
been filed against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1
railroads in various federal district courts regarding fuel
surcharges (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2008).

On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial
Panel on Multi-district Litigation.  Consolidated amended class-
action complaints were then filed against Norfolk Southern and
three other railroads on April 15, 2008.

The complaints allege violations of federal antitrust laws and
other laws with regard to the railroads' fuel surcharge
programs.

Motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints were filed by the
railroads on May 30, 2008, and discovery has been stayed pending
resolution of these motions (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 29,
2008).

A lawsuit containing similar allegations against NS and four
other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling
agreement entered into in August 2008.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- controls a
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of
raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods
primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via
interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S.
and parts of Canada.


NORTHERN TRUST: Faces Amended ERISA Violations Complaint in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corp. faces an amended complaint in the purported
class-action lawsuit in Illinois, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to
its April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Oct. 15, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Corporation, the Northern Trust Employee Benefit
Administrative Committee, the Compensation and Benefits
Committee of the Board of Directors and certain officers and
directors, purportedly on behalf of participants in and
beneficiaries of The Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive
Plan whose individual accounts held shares of Corporation common
stock at any time from Oct. 19, 2007 to the present.

On Jan. 16, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the putative
class action lawsuit.  The defendants named in the amended
complaint are the Corporation, the Bank, the Northern Trust
Employee Benefits Administrative Committee and its members, the
Northern Trust Employee Benefits Investment Committee and its
members, and certain other officers, including the present Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation and the former Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, purportedly on behalf of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time
from Oct. 19, 2007 to Jan. 14, 2009.

The complaint purports to allege breaches of fiduciary duty in
violation of ERISA related to the Corporation's stock being
offered as an investment alternative for participants in the
Plan and seeks monetary damages.

The suit is "Patten v. Northern Trust Corp. et al., Case No.
1:08-cv-05912," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Joan H. Lefkow, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq. (ssbny@aol.com)
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          Suite 500
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212)687-7230

Representing the defendants is:

          James Vincent Hart, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 782-0600
          e-mail: courtnotification@mayerbrown.com


NVIDIA CORP: Laptop Owners File Amended Complaint Over GPUs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The owners of laptops manufactured by Apple, Inc., Dell, Inc.,
and Hewlett-Packard Co. have combined their lawsuits against
Nvidia Corp. in an attempt to force the graphics chip maker to
replace allegedly flawed graphics processing units (GPUs),
according to court documents obtained by Computerworld.

In an amended complaint filed last week in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, the five
plaintiffs said that if granted class-action status, the case
could involve millions of laptop computer owners, Computerworld
reports.

The complaint is accusing Nvidia of violating consumer-
protection laws.  It requests the case be granted class-action
status, and if it prevails, that Nvidia replace the faulty chips
and pay unspecified damages, according to the Computerworld
report.

Todd Feinstein of Louisiana was one of the plaintiffs who had
purchased an Apple laptop.  After buying a MacBook Pro in April
2008, the computer ran hot, periodically shut down without
warning and displayed only gray or black at times, Mr. Feinstein
said, reports Computerworld.

He sent a letter to Nvidia in September 2008 demanding that the
company fix his MacBook.  "Nvidia has failed to respond," he
said in the complaint.

Other plaintiffs who live in California, Illinois, New Jersey
and New Mexico bought Dell or HP notebooks, Computerworld
reported.

Computerworld reported that Nvidia admitted to the problem in
July 2008, when it said some older chipsets that had shipped in
"significant quantities" of notebooks were flawed.  In a
subsequent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), the company argued that its chip suppliers,
the laptop makers, and even consumers were to blame.

The company later told the SEC that it would take a $196 million
charge to pay for replacing the graphics processors.

Although Apple promised it would repair any defective MacBook
Pro for two years after its purchase date, whether it was in
warranty or not, HP and Dell first issued BIOS updates designed
by Nvidia that boosted fan speed.  The increased fan speed was
intended to ward off chip failure.  Later, however, both
companies also extended warranties for the affected laptops, and
in some cases offered free repairs, reports Computerworld.

The plaintiffs in the combined lawsuit said that anything other
than a replacement of the flawed chips was insufficient.  "This
is a grossly inadequate 'remedy,' as it results in additional
manifest defects, including, without limitation, further
degraded battery life, system performance and increased noise in
the Class Computers," according to the complaint, a copy of
which was obtained by Computerworld.

"Worse, this 'remedy' fails to solve the actual problem.
Instead, this measure only ensures that the Class Computers will
fail after the OEM's express warranty period expires,
potentially leaving consumers with a defective computer and no
immediate recourse," the lawsuit continued.

"Finally, even after this purported 'update,' video and system
performance is still degraded due to unacceptably high heat and
part failures," according to the Computerworld report.


REVLON INC: Faces Investor Suit Over MacAndrews Forbes Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Revlon, Inc. has filed a proposed securities
class action lawsuit against the company on behalf of the public
stockholders of Revlon, Inc.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff reportedly
alleges that on April 20, 2009, Revlon, Inc. announced that
MacAndrews Forbes Holdings, Inc. had proposed that all of the
outstanding shares of Revlon's Class A common stock not
currently held by MacAndrews Forbes Holdings, Inc., and its
affiliates would be converted into shares of a newly-issued
series of voting preferred stock of Revlon having an aggregate
liquidation preference of $75 million (or approximately $3.74
per share, based upon 20.042 million shares not currently owned
by MacAndrews and its affiliates).

     The Complaint also alleges that the terms of the
Transaction are unfair to the class, and the unfairness is
compounded by the gross disparity between the knowledge and
information possessed by MacAndrews, and Ronaldo O. Perelman by
virtue of their control of Revlon and that possessed by Revlon's
public shareholders.  Their scheme and intent is to take
advantage of this disparity and to induce the class to
relinquish their shares in the acquisition for inadequate,
unfair consideration.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: High Court Review of Lead Pigment Case Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for review of an decision made by the California
Court of Appeal in a purported class-action suit against
Sherwin-Williams Co. and several other defendants in connection
with lead pigment in paints remains pending before the
California Supreme Court.

Initiated in March 2000, the suit names as plaintiffs the County
of Santa Clara, County of Santa Cruz, County of Solano, County
of Alameda, County of Kern, City and County of San Francisco,
San Francisco Housing Authority, San Francisco Unified School
District, City of Oakland, Oakland Housing Authority, Oakland
Redevelopment Agency, and the Oakland Unified School District.

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of all public
entities in the State of California except the state and its
agencies.

The plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserts claims for
fraud and concealment, strict product liability or failure to
warn, strict product liability or design defect, negligence,
negligent breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private
nuisance and violations of California's Business and Professions
Code.

Various asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants
through pre-trial demurrers and motions to strike.

In October 2003, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment against the remaining counts on statute of
limitation grounds.

The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision, and on March
3, 2006, the Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District, reversed
in part the demurrers and summary judgment entered in favor of
the company and the other defendants.

The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for abatement brought by the cities of Santa
Clara and Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco, and
reversed summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' fraud claim
to the extent that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
had made fraudulent statements or omissions minimizing the risks
of low-level exposure to lead.  The Court of Appeal further
vacated the summary judgment holding that statute of limitations
barred the plaintiffs' strict liability and negligence claims,
and held that those claims had not yet accrued because physical
injury to the plaintiffs' property had not been alleged.

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for damages to the plaintiffs' properties, most
aspects of the fraud claim, the trespass claim and the unfair
business practice claim.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint.

On April 4, 2007, the trial court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to bar payment of contingent fees to private
attorneys.  The plaintiffs appealed this order and the
California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order.

The defendants filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has decided to review the
Court of Appeal's decision.  Proceedings in the trial court are
stayed pending the appeal, 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 31, 2009.

The Sherwin-Williams Co. -- http://www.sherwin-williams.com/--
is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of paint,
coatings and related products to professional, Industrial,
commercial and retail customers primarily in North and South
America.


SIMON PROPERTY: Still Faces N.Y. Consumer Suits Over Gift Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class-action suits brought by private parties in
New York against Simon Property Group, Inc. regarding gift card
sales remain pending.

The company has been defending actions brought by the Attorneys
General of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut in their
state courts and similar litigation brought by other parties
alleging that the sale of co-branded, bank-issued gift cards by
Simon Property's affiliate, SPGGC, Inc., at certain of the
company's properties, violated state gift certificate and
consumer protection laws.

The New Hampshire litigation has been dismissed.

During the fourth quarter of 2008, the complaint in the
Massachusetts litigation was dismissed and the company settled
the Connecticut litigation.

The only remaining legal proceedings involving gift card sales
are two purported class actions brought by private parties in
New York, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Simon Property Group, Inc. -- http://www.simon.com/-- is a real
estate company in United States.  Simon operates as a self-
administered and self-managed real estate investment trust
(REIT).  The company owns, develops, and manages retail real
estate properties in five retail real estate platforms: regional
malls, Premium Outlet Centers, The Mills, community/lifestyle
centers, and international properties.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the
company owned or held an interest in 324 income-producing
properties in the United States, which consisted of 164 regional
malls, 16 additional regional malls and four additional
community centers, 40 Premium Outlet Centers, 16 The Mills, 70
community/lifestyle centers, and 14 other shopping centers or
outlet centers in 41 states and Puerto Rico.  It also owns
interests in four parcels of land held for future development.
Simon Property Group, L.P. (the Operating Partnership) is a
majority-owned partnership subsidiary of Simon that owns all of
its real estate properties.


SPRING AIR: Former Employee Files WARN Violations Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spring Air Mattress, Co. is facing a purported class-action suit
by a former employee who is accusing the bedding producer of
violating federal law by failing to provide 60 days notice of
the factory shutdown, Larry Thomas of Furniture Today reports.

The suit was filed on May 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida under the caption, "Azzata
v. Spring Air Mattress, Co., Case No. 8:2009-cv-00870."

In the suit, former employee Jared Azzata claims the company
violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act, and should pay employees 60 days' worth of wages and
benefits, according to the Furniture Today report

Mr. Azzata is seeking to have the case certified as a class-
action suit, which would allow former employees at all the
shuttered factories to join him as plaintiffs, reports Furniture
Today.

Furniture Today reported that the bedding producer unexpectedly
closed its nine corporate-owned factories last week after a
proposed management buyout deal collapsed -- a move that put an
estimated 800 to 1,000 people out of work and sent retailers
scrambling to replace scheduled Spring Air shipments.


STATE STREET: Faces Suit in Mass. Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging that it misled employees about its financial condition
when it allowed workers to hold company stock in their
retirement plans last year, Beth Healy of The Boston Globe
reports.

The suit was filed on May 7, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts under the caption, "Kenney v.
State Street Corporation et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-10750,"
alleging the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

The suit was filed by Thomas U. Kenney, a former employee of
State Street against the company, North America Regional
Benefits Committee of State Street Corporation, State Street
Corporation Investment Committee of State Street Corporation,
John Does 1-30, James Malerba, and Richard Roes 1-20.

According to the complaint, 28 percent of the $1.5 billion
savings that employees had in their 401(k) accounts at the end
of 2007 was in the form of State Street common stock, nearly
$414 million worth, reports The Boston Globe.

The lawsuit alleges that employees would not have elected to
receive retirement contributions in the form of company stock
had State Street been more forthcoming about its financial
condition, The Boston Globe reported.

The company had record earnings in 2008, but its stock has since
plunged after it divulged more than $9 billion in troubled
investments that it may have to write down.  The lawsuit covers
the period back to Jan. 2, 2008, when the stock traded at
$82.12, according to The Boston Globe report.


TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York's dismissal of a consolidated
securities class-action lawsuit filed against TorreyPines
Therapeutics, Inc. -- formerly Axonyx, Inc.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February
2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from June 26, 2003, through and including Feb. 4, 2005.

Director and former Axonyx chief executive officer, Dr. M.
Hausman, and current Axonyx CEO Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named
as defendants in the lawsuits.  These suits were consolidated
into a single class action in January 2006.

The plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III
Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design
and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase
III Phenserine trial to show efficacy.

They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the
alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the company's shares during the class period.

On April 10, 2006, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The company filed its answer to that
complaint on May 26, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 26, 2006, and was submitted to the
court for a decision in September 2006.

On March 31, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed the proceedings.

On April 24, 2009, an appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit by the class-action plaintiffs,
according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

The suit is "In Re: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Thomas P. Griesa, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Evan Jay Kaufman, Esq. (ekaufman@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

              - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
          240 Mineola Blvd.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-741-4977

Representing the defendants are:

         May Orenstein, Esq. (morenstein@brownrudnick.com)
         Sigmund Samuel Wissner-Gross, Esq.
         (swissnergross@brownrudnick.com)
         Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP
         Seven Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-209-4800
                212-209-4930
         Fax: 212-938-2804


VIKING INDUSTRIES: Disputes Plaintiff's Claims in Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     A number of erroneous claims are being made by plaintiffs'
attorneys in the litigation now pending against Viking
Industries, Inc., in California Superior Court, announced Kevin
P. Cody, a partner at the San Jose law firm of Ropers Majeski
Kohn Bentley.

     "The Series 3000 aluminum windows made by Viking Industries
from about 1989 until their production ended in 1999 were
quality products that have performed well for homeowners,"
explained Cody.  "The allegations of defective products are
completely without merit and not supported by the facts."

     "This is an aluminum window product made by Viking
Industries until the line was retired in 1999, when consumer
preferences shifted to other building materials," he added.  The
fact is there are no claims against Pella Corporation or its
products.

     When California Superior Court Judge Carter Holly certified
the class action, this was simply a procedural ruling on how the
case may proceed at this stage. "The ruling had nothing to do
with the allegations, which are without merit," the attorney
added.

     "Plaintiffs' counsel has failed to mention the fact that
under actual weather conditions, the windows perform extremely
well," explained Cody.  "They also ignored the fact that neither
plaintiff experts nor Viking experts found any significant
problems caused by the windows," he said.

     "The plaintiffs are facing a significant burden in this
case because the windows have performed well over the 20 years
they have been in service.  The fact is, the vast majority of
people who have Viking aluminum windows are happy with the way
they operate in real-life conditions," said Cody.  "In the rare
cases of claims, they have been promptly handled."


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IDEARC INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Idearc, Inc. (Pink Sheets: IDARQ) between
August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009, inclusive.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Idearc's operations, prospects and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Idearc
securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847


MORGAN STANLEY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class
action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates of Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.
pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements issued between
December 2005 and November 2007 by Morgan Stanley Capital.

     The Class includes purchasers of Certificates of the
following trusts:

       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-5AR  
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-1XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-6AR  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-3XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7   
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-5AX
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-8AR  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-4SL
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-6XS
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-9AR  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-7AX
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-11   
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-9SL
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-12XS  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-11AR
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-10XS
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-15XS  
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12
       -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AX  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-13
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-17XS  
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-14AR
  -- Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-15AR
      
     The complaint charges Morgan Stanley Capital and certain of
its officers and directors, the issuers and underwriters of the
Certificates and the rating agencies that rated the Certificates
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

     Morgan Stanley Capital is engaged in the securitization of
loans and the business of acting as depositor of trusts that
issue series of certificates that represent interests in the
assets of the trust.

     The complaint alleges that on December 23, 2005 (with
amendments on February 17, 2006 and March 14, 2006), Morgan
Stanley Capital and the defendant issuers caused the
Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC in connection
with the issuance of billions of dollars of Certificates.  The
Certificates were supported by large pools of mortgage loans.
The Registration Statement discussed the underwriting standards
purportedly used in connection with the underwriting of the
underlying mortgage loans and included numerous representations
about the loan-to-value ratios used to qualify borrowers, the
appraisals of properties underlying the mortgages and the
maximum debt-to-income ratios permitted on the mortgage loans.

     According to the complaint, the Registration Statement
omitted and/or misrepresented the fact that the sellers of the
underlying mortgages to Morgan Stanley Capital were issuing many
of the mortgage loans to borrowers who:

       -- did not meet the prudent or maximum debt-to-income
          ratio purportedly required by the lender;

       -- did not provide adequate documentation to support the
          income and assets required for the lenders to approve
          and fund the mortgage loans pursuant to the lenders'
          own guidelines;

       -- were steered to stated income/asset and low
          documentation mortgage loans by lenders, lenders'
          correspondents or lenders' agents, such as mortgage
          brokers, because the borrowers could not qualify for
          mortgage loans that required full documentation; and

       -- did not have the income required by the lenders' own
          guidelines to afford the required mortgage payments
          which resulted in a mismatch between the amount loaned
          to the borrower and the capacity of the borrower.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
or entities who acquired the Certificates pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement.

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

For more details, contact:

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


OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Oppenheimer
Pennsylvania Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: OPATX) (NASDAQ: OPABX)
(NASDAQ: OPACX) between November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008,
inclusive.

     The complaint alleges that the Fund's Registration
Statements and Prospectuses misled investors about the fund's
objectives and underlying risk by describing the Fund as seeking
a "high level of current interest income... as is consistent
with preservation of capital." By failing to disclose the Funds
over concentration in lower rated bonds and bonds that had not
been rated by any 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 lost over 28% of its net asset value ("NAV")
during the Class Period.

     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:

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