CAR_Public/090518.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 18, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 96

                           Headlines

AMERCAN INT'L: Ex-Exec Seeks Dismissal of Claims in N.Y. Lawsuit
ATLANTIC RECORDING: Defendants Seek Dismissal of "Andersen" Case
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Online Legal Research
ENERNOC INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
FARMERS GROUP: Ninth Circuit Reinstates "Ojo" Lawsuit in Calif.

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Shareholder Litigation Put On Hold
LIBERTY MEDIA: Faces Del. Litigation Over DirecTV Merger Deal
MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Final Approval for Deal in Antitrust Suit
MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended IPO-Related Suit Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Lawsuits Over Consumer Overcharges Still Pending

MASTERCARD INC: Seeks to Junk Consolidated Interchange Fees Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: MissPERS Appointed Lead Plaintiff in N.Y. Lawsuit
NEW YORK: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in SS Benefits Lawsuit
NICOR GAS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Municipal Utility Tax Charges
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" Pending in Calif.

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: To Defend Suit Over Returns Policy Disclosure
OWENS CORNING: Judge Denies Motion to Amend Ruling in ERISA Suit
POPULAR INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in California
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: La. Court Dismisses Suit Over Red-Light Cameras
SATYAM COMPUTER: Miss. Pension Fund Appointed Lead Plaintiff

ST. JOHN HOSPITAL: Faces Mich. Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
T-MOBILE USA: Reaches $11.5M Settlement in N.J. ETF Litigation
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Ticket Settlement
TIMMINCO LTD: Kim Orr Barristers P.C. Files CDN$520M Litigation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIDZ.COM INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
INDYMAC MBS: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Abraham Fruchter Files N.J. Stock Lawsuit
POPULAR INC: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing
POPULAR INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing

ZYNEX INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colo.


                           *********

AMERCAN INT'L: Ex-Exec Seeks Dismissal of Claims in N.Y. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
L. Michael Murphy, a former American International Group, Inc.
senior director, has asked a court to throw out claims against
him in a consolidated securities class-action suit alleging
book-cooking by the insurer and its executives, Law360 reports.

In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed on May 13,
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Mr. Murphy claimed that shareholders can pin nothing
on him, according to the Law360 report.


ATLANTIC RECORDING: Defendants Seek Dismissal of "Andersen" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several defendants in the purported class-action suit, "Andersen
v. Atlantic Recording Corporation et al., Case No. 3:2007-cv-
00934," have moved for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint, replacing their previous motion for "judgment on the
pleadings," according to a posting at p2pnet.net.

Previously in a posting at Slashdot, the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon ordered the sealing of the entire record
of the motion for class-action certification in the matter,
"Andersen v. Atlantic Recording Corporation et al., Case No.
3:2007-cv-00934" (Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2009).

The suit was filed by Tanya Andersen on June 22, 2007 against
Atlantic Recording Corp., Priority Records, LLC, Capitol
Records, Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., BMG Music, Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA), Safenet, Inc., and
Settlement Support Center, LLC.

Ms. Andersen, a disabled single mother, filed the lawsuit
against RIAA and other defendants over its tactics to fight
piracy.  Ms. Andersen originally sued the RIAA after its
representatives threatened to interrogate her young daughter if
she did not pay thousands of dollars for music she downloaded
from somebody else (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2008).

Ms. Andersen had defended herself against copyright infringement
allegations by the RIAA for almost two years, until the RIAA
finally dropped its case against her "with prejudice."

Ms. Andersen's countersuit is for malicious prosecution.  In it,
she alleges that RIAA used illegal and flawed methods when
investigating people for downloading or swapping copyrighted
songs without paying.  Furthermore, Ms. Andersen claims that
RIAA knew of the faulty methods but continued to pursue its
lawsuits, even against innocent people such as herself.

On Feb. 28, 2008, the Class Action Reporter reported that Judge
Anna J. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon tossed out the purported class-action lawsuit against
RIAA.

However, CBS News reported that Ms. Andersen filed a new
complaint accusing record companies and RIAA of racketeering,
fraud, and illegal spying.

According to CBS News, Ms. Andersen's amended complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court in Portland seeks national class-
action status for other people allegedly victimized by the
recording industry's anti-piracy campaign and the company it
hired, MediaSentry.

The new lawsuit accuses the industry and MediaSentry of spying
"by unlicensed, unregistered and uncertified private
investigators" who "have illegally entered the hard drives of
tens of thousands of private American citizens" in violation of
laws "in virtually every state in the country."

The information was used to file "sham" lawsuits intended only
as intimidation to further the anti-piracy campaign, the lawsuit
said.

Lory Lybeck, Esq., Ms. Andersen's attorney said that the lawsuit
is partly aimed at forcing the industry to reveal how extensive
the spying had become.

"We're very pleased that we'll finally be able to force the RIAA
and MediaSentry to give up secret records they have steadfastly
refused to disclose in tens of thousands of cases that they've
filed," Ms. Lybeck said.

The suit is "Andersen v. Atlantic Recording Corporation et al.,
Case No. 3:2007-cv-00934," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lory Ray Lybeck, Esq. (lrl@lybeckmurphy.com)
          Lybeck Murphy, LLP
          7525 SE 24th Street
          Suite 500
          Mercer Island, WA 98040-2336
          Phone: (206) 230-4255
          Fax: (206) 230-7791

               - and -

          Richard A. Adams, Esq. (radams@pattonroberts.com)
          Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP
          Century Bank Plaza, Suite 400
          2900 St. Michael Drive
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Phone: (903) 334-7000
          Fax: (903) 334-7007

Representing the defendant are:

          Amy Bauer, Esq. (amy.bauer@hro.com)
          Holme Robert & Owen, LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street
          Suite 4100
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (303) 866-0417
          Fax: (303) 866-0200

               - and -

          Kenneth R. Davis, II, Esq. (davisk@lanepowell.com)
          Lane Powell P.C.
          601 S.W. Second Avenue
          Suite 2100
          Portland, OR 97204-3158
          Phone: (503) 778-2121
          Fax: (503) 778-2200


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Online Legal Research
----------------------------------------------------------------
The international law firm Chadbourne & Parke LLP is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in California Superior Court that
was filed by J. Virgil Waggoner, Erik Sherman of BNET reports.

The suit alleges that the law firm overbilled for legal
research.  It states that Mr. Waggoner was billed about
$20,191.64 for online legal research, but that the firm's
billing practices for computerized legal research were
"deceptive" because Chadbourne & Parke did not reveal that it
billed out more for research expenses than it spent.  Mr.
Waggoner's lawyer, Patricia Meyer, Esq., said in an interview
that the actual amount should have been closer to $5,000,
according to the BNET report.


ENERNOC INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     EnerNOC, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENOC), a leading developer and
provider of clean and intelligent energy solutions, announced
that the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed without leave to re-plead the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.  The lawsuit
has previously been disclosed in the Company's SEC filings.

     Chairman and CEO Tim Healy commented, "We have remained
focused on delivering our high-value clean energy solutions and
did not let this lawsuit become a distraction.  Nonetheless, we
are very pleased that the Court has dismissed the purported
claims."

     Lead plaintiff may file notice of any appeal of the
dismissal within thirty days of the Court's order.

EnerNOC, Inc. -- http://www.enernoc.com-- is a leading
developer and provider of clean and intelligent energy solutions
to commercial, institutional, and industrial customers, as well
as electric power grid operators and utilities.  EnerNOC's
technology-enabled demand response and energy management
solutions help optimize the balance of electric supply and
demand.  The Company uses its Network Operations Center, or NOC,
to remotely manage and reduce electricity consumption across a
network of commercial, institutional, and industrial customer
sites and make demand response capacity and energy available to
grid operators and utilities on demand.


FARMERS GROUP: Ninth Circuit Reinstates "Ojo" Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a
class-action lawsuit accusing Farmers Group, Inc. of using a
secret, discriminatory credit-scoring system to charge black
homeowners higher insurance premiums, The Courthouse News
Service reports.

The lawsuit was filed by Patrick O. Ojo on Aug. 10, 2005 in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under
the caption, "Patrick O. Ojo v. Farmers Group Inc et al., Case
No. 2:2005-cv-05818."

According to lead plaintiff Patrick Ojo, a Houston resident,
Farmers Group used "a number of undisclosed factors" to compute
credit scores and price homeowners' insurance policies.  The
company allegedly considered "geographical distinctions" and
"various other artifices" to "identify and target minorities for
the purpose of charging minorities higher premiums ... than the
premiums charged to similarly situated Caucasians," reports The
Courthouse News Service.

As a result, according to the suit, Mr. Ojo and other black
homeowners "have lost and face losing millions of dollars in
premiums paid" as a result of discrimination.

Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted later Farmers Group's motion to
dismiss the claim on the grounds that it was "reverse-preempted"
by the McCarran-Ferguson Act, The Courthouse News Service
reported.

However, in reversing that ruling, Judge Pregerson of the San
Francisco-based appeals court wrote, "In dismissing Mr. Ojo's
claim, the district court erred in two respects.  First, the
district court erroneously read Ojo's claim as challenging the
practice of credit scoring per se.  Second, the district court
erroneously interpreted Texas state insurance law as permitting
disparate impact race discrimination that results from credit
scoring, thereby triggering McCarran-Ferguson reverse
preemption," according to The Courthouse News Service report.

The judge further wrote, "Because Mr. Ojo's federal [Fair
Housing Act] claim was not reverse-preempted by McCarran-
Ferguson, the district court erred in dismissing Ojo's
complaint."

In dissent, Judge Bea said the district court "got it precisely
right."  The judge argued that Mr. Ojo's complaint failed to
allege that Farmers Group used race-based factors in assigning
the credit scores used to set insurance premiums, The Courthouse
News Service reports.

A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3cf3


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Shareholder Litigation Put On Hold
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California agreed to stay a consolidated shareholder
class-action law suit against Infineon Technologies AG until a
federal appeals court issues its ruling on an order granting
class certification in the case, which stems from a price-fixing
scheme involving the company and its executives, Law360 reports.

On May 13, 2009, Judge Ware signed off on a stipulation filed by
the parties agreeing to temporarily stay the case, according to
the Law360 report.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Faces Del. Litigation Over DirecTV Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
alleging that it is cheating shareholders by spinning off its
Liberty Entertainment, Inc. subsidiary to merge with The
DirectTV Group, Inc., in a deal that will enrich Liberty
Chairman John C. Malone, who also is a director of DirecTV, The
Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit is captioned, "Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund and
The City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, et al., v.
The DirectTV Group, Inc., Liberty Media Corp.,John C. Malone,
Chase Carey, Neil R. Austrian, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Mark D.
Carleton, Charles R. Leem Peter A. Lund, Greg Maffei, Nancy S.
Newcomb, and Haim Saban, Case No. 4581," which was filed on May
12, 2009 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The named plaintiffs in the matter are two pension funds, the
Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund and The City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System.

They say the spun-off division will contain Liberty's majority
stockholding in DirecTV, and that "far from being 'entirely
fair' to DTV and its public shareholders, the proposed
transaction provides a windfall to Liberty and its largest
shareholder, John C. Malone, a DTV director and Liberty's
chairman, according to The Courthouse News Service report.

The Courthouse News Service reported that the $14 billion all-
stock deal was proposed on May 3, 2009.  According to the
plaintiffs, the deal is intended to "wrest voting control over
DTV from the company's public shareholders for inadequate
consideration."

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3cf1

For more details, contact:

          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: +1.302.622.7000
          Fax: +1.302.622.7100
          Web site: http://www.gelaw.com/


MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Final Approval for Deal in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's
final approval of the settlement agreements in the lawsuit "In
re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation" remains
pending, according to MasterCard Inc.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.
(USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are defendants in a
number of federal putative class actions that allege, among
other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the
asserted one percent currency conversion "fee."

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("MDL Complaint") adding MBNA Corporation and
MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants.

This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

   (i) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
       MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
       with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
       conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no
       less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently
       more"; and

  (ii) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
       each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have
       conspired with its members to fix currency conversion
       "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than
       1% of the transaction amount" and "to facilitate and
       encourage institution—and collection—of second tier
       currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and
related matters, as well as the Schwartz matter.  Pursuant to
the settlement agreements, MasterCard paid $72,480,000 to be
used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL action
and $13,440,000 to settle the Schwartz matter.  On Nov. 8, 2006,
Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreements.  The settlement agreements are subject to final
approval by Judge Pauley, and resolution of all appeals.  The
hearing on final approval of the settlement agreements was held
on March 31, 2008, and Judge Pauley reserved decision on final
approval.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state
court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On June 6, 2007, the appellate court granted MasterCard's motion
to defer briefing until a final settlement is approved in the
MDL action.  With regard to other state court currency
conversion actions, MasterCard has reached agreements in
principle with the plaintiffs for a total of $3,557,000, which
has been accrued.  Settlement agreements have been executed with
plaintiffs in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Arizona, New York, Minnesota and Illinois actions,
but such an agreement has not been executed with plaintiffs in
the Missouri action.

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David J. Bershad, Esq.
         Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com

         Christopher Burke, Esq.
         Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
         Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
         Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
         110 East 59th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-1600


MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended IPO-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Inc.'s motion to dismiss the first amended
supplemental class-action complaint alleging violations related
to the company's initial public offering of its Class A Common
Stock in May 2006, remains pending.

On July 5, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's IPO and
certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and
its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect
allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2)
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly
constitute an unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3)
constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are
allegedly attempting to release without adequate consideration
from the member banks MasterCard's right to assess the member
banks for MasterCard's litigation liabilities in these
interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust
litigations pending against it.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing
and unwinding the IPO.

On Sept. 15, 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims
contained in the supplemental complaint.

On Nov. 25, 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its
entirety with leave to file an amended complaint.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs repleaded their complaint
directed at MasterCard's IPO by filing a First Amended
Supplemental Class Action Complaint.  The causes of action in
the complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original
IPO-related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to
expand their factual allegations based upon discovery that has
been garnered in the case.  The class plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and injunctive relief including, but not
limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

On March 31, 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its
entirety.  The parties are currently briefing this motion.
Briefing on dispositive motions, including summary judgment
motions, is scheduled to be completed by March 8, 2010.  No
trial date has been scheduled.  The parties have also entered
into court-recommended mediation, according to MasterCard's May
1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of
over 24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are
its customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as
franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and
markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and
provides support services to its customers and, depending upon
the service, to merchants and other clients.  It manages a
family of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its
customers.  The Company conducts its business principally
through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating
subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated.


MASTERCARD INC: Lawsuits Over Consumer Overcharges Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class-action complaints alleging state unfair
competition, consumer protection and common law claims against
MasterCard International Incorporated remain outstanding,
according to MasterCard Inc.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

Individual or multiple complaints have been brought in 19
different states and the District of Columbia alleging state
unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims
against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of
putative classes of consumers.

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made
in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced
with excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these
overcharges to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods
and services sold.

MasterCard has been successful in dismissing cases in 17 of the
jurisdictions as courts have granted MasterCard's motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their complaints.  However, there are
outstanding cases in New Mexico and California.  The parties are
awaiting a decision on MasterCard's motion to dismiss in New
Mexico.

In December 2008, MasterCard reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the California state court actions for a payment by
MasterCard of $6,000,000.  The parties are negotiating a
settlement agreement that will be subject to court approval.

MasterCard Incorporated -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a
global payment solutions company that provides a variety of
services in support of the credit, debit and related payment
programs of over 24,000 financial institutions and other
entities that are its customers.  Through its three-tiered
business model as franchisor, processor and advisor, the company
develops and markets payment solutions, process payment
transactions, and provides support services to its customers
and, depending upon the service, to merchants and other clients.
It manages a family of payment card brands, including
MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it
license to its customers. The Company conducts its business
principally through MasterCard Incorporated's principal
operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated.


MASTERCARD INC: Seeks to Junk Consolidated Interchange Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second consolidated class-action
complaint over MasterCard International Incorporated's
interchange fees remains pending, according to MasterCard Inc.'s
May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On June 22, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc.
Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and
conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade.  In addition, the
complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's purported tying and
bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The suit seeks treble damages in
an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been
approximately 50 similar complaints (the majority styled as
class actions although a few complaints are on behalf of
individual plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against
MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in
federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720.

On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of the
individual merchants are generally brought under both Section 1
of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which
prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to
monopolize a particular industry.

Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these
claims: (i) that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange
fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions) violates
Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) that MasterCard and Visa have
enacted and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge
rule and purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section
1 or 2 of the Sherman Act; (iii) that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to
standard credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement;
and (iv) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and
bundled transaction fees.  In addition to the claims brought
under federal antitrust law, some of these complaints contain
certain unfair competition law claims under state law based upon
the same conduct.

These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages
in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints
allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the
tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.

On June 9, 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to
dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage
claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were
brought in the individual merchant complaints.  On Jan. 8, 2008,
the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-2004 damage
claims.  On May 14, 2008, the court denied MasterCard's motion
to dismiss the Section 2 monopolization claims.  Fact discovery
has been proceeding and was generally completed by Nov. 21,
2008.  Briefs have been submitted on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  The allegations and claims
in this complaint generally mirror those in the first amended
class action complaint described above although plaintiffs have
added additional claims brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act against MasterCard, Visa and a number of banks
alleging, among other things, that the networks and banks have
continued to fix interchange fees following each network's
initial public offering.  On March 31, 2009, MasterCard and the
other defendants in the action filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint in its entirety, or
alternatively, to narrow the claims in the complaint.  The
parties are currently briefing this motion.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of
over 24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are
its customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as
franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and
markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and
provides support services to its customers and, depending upon
the service, to merchants and other clients.  It manages a
family of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it license to its
customers.  The Company conducts its business principally
through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating
subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated.


MERRILL LYNCH: MissPERS Appointed Lead Plaintiff in N.Y. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appointed the Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi (MissPERS) in a lawsuit against a group of
financial institutions, John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports.

On April 23, 2009, Judge Rakoff named the pension fund and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman of New York, as lead
plaintiff and lead counsel in a case that includes Merrill Lynch
and J.P. Morgan and those who sold mortgage-backed certificates
to investors, according to the Legal Newsline report.


NEW YORK: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in SS Benefits Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the blind, aged, and
disabled residents of New York who are legal resident aliens are
not entitled to the same level of Social Security benefits as
their counterparts who are U.S. Citizens, Jeff Gorman of The
Courthouse News Service reports.

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 restricted the access of non-
citizens to federal assistance programs.  Aliens lose their
federal and state benefits if they do not become U.S. citizens
within seven years, according to The Courthouse News Service
report.

Boris Khrapunskiy filed a class-action suit against New York
States for equal protection rights under the federal and state
constitutions.  The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, but
Judge Jones of state appeals court reversed the decision, The
Courthouse News Service reported.

Judge Jones noted that the state's Aid to the Aged, Blind, and
Disabled program was terminated in 1974 - when Supplemental
Security Income was created - and was not replaced by another
state program, The Courthouse News Service reports.

According to Judge Jones, "The right to equal protection does
not require the state to create a new public assistance program
in order to guarantee equal outcomes under wholly separate and
distinct public programs."   The judge added, "Enactment of a
new public assistance program requires legislative action,"
reports The Courthouse News Service.

The New York Times previously reported that Justice Jane S.
Solomon of State Supreme Court in Manhattan said that New York
State couldn't give low-income people who are elderly, blind and
disabled less benefit money just because they are immigrants,
even though the federal government stopped paying its share
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2005).

The ruling restores higher aid payments to thousands of disabled
legal immigrants, many of them elderly refugees who were facing
eviction after being cut off from federal and state disability
benefits because they had not become United States citizens
within a seven-year period set by Congress.

As previously reported in the Dec. 8, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Boris Khrapunskiy, a 97-year-old widower, who
arrived in Brooklyn as a refugee from Ukraine seven years ago
and has subsisted on federal and state disability payments, as
elderly or disabled poor people in New York State have done for
the past 60 years is the lead plaintiff the class-action
lawsuit, which charges that New York State is violating the
federal and state Constitutions by using alien status to deny
impoverished elderly, blind or disabled residents the lawful
standard of need, which in New York has been set at $651 a
month.

A letter from the government that Mr. Khrapunskiy received in
June 2004, saying his benefits would be cut off until he became
a United States citizen, prompted the legal action, The New York
Times reported.

The letter from the government was the result of a 1996 decision
by Congress to eliminate Supplemental Security Income, or
S.S.I., for most immigrants who entered the country after August
22 of that year, and to set a seven-year time limit for others -
mainly refugees - receiving the welfare payment.

New York State echoed those restrictions in a 1998 law denying
state aid to anyone ineligible for federal benefits because of
immigration status.

Congress had reasoned that seven years was long enough to
achieve citizenship, however time is up for the first wave of
refugees and those granted asylum, who number as many as 48,000
around the country, including 7,000 in New York.  Most are
refugees from the former Soviet Union; others fled persecution
in Asia, Bosnia, Cuba or Africa.  Hundreds have already lost
their benefits.

A copy of the recent ruling is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3cf4


NICOR GAS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Municipal Utility Tax Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Illinois Gas Company faces a purported class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of customers who have been charged a
municipal utility tax by the company but who are not residents
of the taxing municipality.

In April 2009, the purported class-action lawsuit was filed
against Nicor Gas in state court in Cook County, Illinois

The lawsuit asserts claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and the Illinois Public Utilities Act and for unjust enrichment.

The suit seeks actual and punitive damages and an injunction,
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.

Northern Illinois Gas Company -- http://www.nicor.com/-- doing
business as Nicor Gas Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nicor Inc.  Nicor Gas is a regulated natural gas distribution
utility, serves 2.2 million customers in a service territory
that encompasses most of the northern third of Illinois,
excluding the city of Chicago.  The company's service territory
is diverse and its customer base provides the company with a mix
of residential, commercial and industrial customers.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. continues to face a class-action lawsuit
styled, "Sean Lane et al. v. Facebook Inc. et al., Case No. C08
03845," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On Aug. 12, 2008, the company along with 7 other defendants, was
sued by Sean Lane, and 17 other individuals, on their own behalf
and for others similarly in a class action suit, alleging
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and
California' Consumer legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law.

The complaint relates to the company's use of a product known as
Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the company by
Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook
users to share purchasing data among their Facebook friends.

The plaintiffs and defendants, including the company, have
stipulated to an extension in the time for answering the
complaint, while the parties engage in a mediation of the
dispute.  The company has not responded to the Complaint.

The company has notified Facebook, Inc. of its indemnification
obligations under the contract by which the company obtained and
deployed Facebook Beacon.

The parties have entered stipulation specifying the party
defendants need not answer the complaint while the parties
discuss resolution alternatives.

The company intends to defend this action and pursue with
Facebook its indemnification rights under the Facebook Beacon
agreement, according to its May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. (ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          2757 Leonis Blvd.
          Vernon, CA 90058-2304
          Phone: 323-585-8696


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: To Defend Suit Over Returns Policy Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. intends to defend the class-action lawsuit
filed by the nominative plaintiff, Cynthia Hines, in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York.

On March 10, 2009 the company was sued in the class-action filed
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Ms. Hines alleges the company failed to properly disclose its
returns policy to her and that it improperly imposed a
"restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner.

The nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach of
contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws.

The suit is in its early stages, according to its May 1, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online
closeout retailer offering discount brand name merchandise,
including bed-and-bath goods, home decor, kitchenware, watches,
jewelry, electronics and computers, sporting goods, apparel, and
designer accessories, among other products.  The company also
sells books, magazines, compact disc (CD), digital versatile
disc (DVD), and video games (BMMG).  In addition, it operates as
a section on its Website, an online auction site, a marketplace
for the buying and selling of goods and services, as well as,
the section on its Website for listing cars and real estate for
sale.  The company utilizes the Internet to aggregate the
fragmented supply and demand and create a market for liquidation
merchandise.  It focuses on providing a one-stop discount
shopping destination for products and services sold through the
Internet.  The company's shopping business includes direct
business and a fulfillment partner business.


OWENS CORNING: Judge Denies Motion to Amend Ruling in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jack Zouhary of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio refused to set aside his earlier dismissal of a
putative class-action suit against Owens Corning's retirement
savings plan, ruling that his reasoning continues to stand up
against the plaintiffs' challenges.

On May 19, 2009, Judge Zouhary denied the plaintiffs' bid to
amend the judgment, ruling that he had been right to dismiss one
of the defendants in the case, which generally alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA).


POPULAR INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOP) has filed a
proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOP)
between January 23, 2008 and January 22, 2009 against Popular,
Inc. and certain of its officers over alleged violations of
Federal Securities Laws.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Popular, Inc., and certain of its officers violated the Exchange
Act by failing to disclose between January 23, 2008 and January
22, 2009 material adverse facts about Popular's true financial
condition, business and prospects.

     Then on January 22, 2009, Popular announced its financial
results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2008, the period
ended December 31, 2008.

     For the quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $702.9
million, citing to a higher provision for loan losses, among
other things.  In response to this announcement, shares of
Popular;s common stock fell $2.52 per share, or 50%, to close at
$ 2.46 per share, on heavy trading volume.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: La. Court Dismisses Suit Over Red-Light Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
dismissed a lawsuit about red-light cameras filed by citizens
against Jefferson Parish and REDFLEX Traffic Systems, Inc., the
company that operates the camera system, WDSU.com rpeorts.

TheNewspaper.com previously reported that REDFLEX Traffic
Systems, Inc., The Parish of Jefferson, The Jefferson Parish
Council, are facing a purported class-action suit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana over
the Parish's speed camera program that used hidden speed limit
signs to trap motorists (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2008).

The suit was filed by Barry Sevin, Jr., and Edwin T. Bernard on
Jan. 31, 2008.  It is alleges that the program violates both
procedural due process protected under the Fourteenth Amendment
and a Louisiana state law that bans the mailing of traffic
citations.

Additionally, the suit argues that the 60,000 motorists who have
been ticketed thus far deserve a full refund, TheNewspaper.com
reports.

The suit is "Sevin et al v. Parish of Jefferson et al., Case No.
2:08-cv-00802-SSV-SS," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Sarah S. Vance,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph R. McMahon, III, Esq. (jrm@webdsi.com)
          Joseph R. McMahon, III, Attorney at Law
          110 Ridgelake Dr.
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Phone: 504-828-6225


SATYAM COMPUTER: Miss. Pension Fund Appointed Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi's Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) has
been appointed as the lead plaintiff in a purported class-action
lawsuit against Satyam Computer Services Ltd., Daily News &
Analysis reports.

Bloomberg previously reported that Satyam Computer stated in a
court filing that the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement
System (PERS), which claimed it lost $12.7 million, was not
qualified to join in a dozen U.S. Securities fraud class-action
lawsuit filed by other investors, because it bought Satyam's
common shares rather than its American depositary receipts
(ADRs), the focus of the litigation (Class Action Reporter,
April 15, 2009).

In a March 26, 2009 court filing, the company said, "Mississippi
PERS does not belong to any purported class in this action,"
according to the Bloomberg report.

The Class Action Reporter previously reported that between Jan.
9, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2009, that several law firms have filed
purported class-action lawsuits against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

One of these lawsuits was filed by law firm of Vianale & Vianale
LLP.  That suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
American Depository Shares of Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
during the period Jan. 6, 2004 through Jan. 6, 2009 (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2009).

The complaint alleges that the Company and its top executives
violated the Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading financial
statements.


ST. JOHN HOSPITAL: Faces Mich. Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The St. John Hospital and Medical Center of Detroit faces a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by nine employees who
allege age discrimination in the elimination of a program that
paid staff for unused sick days when they retired or resigned,
Patricia Anstett of The Detroit Free Press reports.

The lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2009 in Macomb County Circuit
Court.  Those filing the suit ask that it be certified as a
class-action to include another 430 hourly employees affected by
action.  They are also alleging breach of contract and other
benefit violations, according to The Detroit Free Press report.

The nine employees are entitled to more than $2,700 to $11,000
in benefits, according to Farmington Hills attorney Raymond
Sterling, Esq., and Walter Connolly Jr., Esq., of Detroit, who
filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, reports The Detroit
Free Press.

According to the lawsuit, St. John announced on June 11, 2008
that it would eliminate the program, starting on Jan. 1, 2009,
to save $1.5 million, The Detroit Free Press reported.


T-MOBILE USA: Reaches $11.5M Settlement in N.J. ETF Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA, Inc. reached a proposed $11.5 million settlement
in a class-action suit entitled, "Milliron v. T-Mobile USA,
Inc., No. 08-04149(JLL) (ES)," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Phil Goldstein of
FierceWireless reports.

The lawsuit alleges that T-Mobile violated state and federal
laws by charging customers a flat-rate early termination fee
(ETF) in its wireless telephone service contracts.

T-Mobile subscribers who were charged a flat-rate ETF from July
23, 1999, to Feb. 19, 2009, are eligible to be part of the class
action suit.  If the settlement is approved, T-Mobile will pay
$11.5 million to members of the lawsuit who paid an ETF or were
charged but did not pay an ETF.  Customers will be able to get
up to $125 each or a "non-cash" item such as extra minutes, text
messages or a pro-rated ETF, according to the FierceWireless
report.

For more details, visit: http://www.etf-settlement.com/.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Ticket Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
     A Federal Court approved a settlement involving a class-
action lawsuit filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.
(Nasdaq: TKTM) which claimed the ticket-selling giant conspired
with the National Collegiate Athletic Associate (NCAA) to
violate the law by operating an illegal lottery to distribute
tickets to certain Division One sporting events.

     The suit, filed last May, claims the two companies
conspired to increase profits by running an illegal lottery for
limited tickets to Division One championship games.  The alleged
lottery collects non-refundable application fees from fans for a
limited number of tickets.  Under state law, this practice is
considered gambling and is illegal.

     Plaintiffs also claim both parties failed to disclose the
true number of tickets available through the lotteries or failed
to refund customers' application fees if they didn't win
tickets.  After the suit was filed, plaintiffs learned that
Ticketmaster only participated in part of the lottery and only
for one year.  The NCAA ran all other alleged illegal ticket
lotteries.

     The settlement agreement says that after the 2008 ticket
application process concluded, Ticketmaster refunded the $10
fees paid by customers who applied for tickets through the
lottery to the NCAA 2009 men's basketball tournament and did not
win.  The company also agrees it will not process tickets for
NCAA events where non-refundable fees are required to apply for
a number of insufficient tickets.

     Though not part of this settlement, the NCAA appears to
have changed its ticketing policies outlined on its Web site
last week.  The site indicates that the NCAA reversed course and
doesn't allow multiple entries for ticketing lotteries and if a
fan doesn't win, the application fee is returned in full.

     "This is a great first step for plaintiffs," said lead
attorney Rob Carey.  "Ticketmaster and the NCAA knowingly
painted customers into a corner to increase profits, and our
lawsuit helped return some of that money.  If the NCAA changed
its policies, that's great, but that doesn't mean what they did
was right or that they don't have to return those illegal fees."

     The settlement class includes anyone who submitted an
application to Ticketmaster and paid a non-refundable fee for
tickets to the 2009 preliminary rounds of the NCAA men's
basketball tournament.  As part of the settlement, plaintiffs
are dropping all claims against Ticketmaster with the exception
of a conspiracy claim that continues in the case against the
NCAA.

     Both Ticketmaster and the NCAA operate in states in which
lotteries are illegal unless run by the state or licensed
charities.

     According to the original lawsuit, plaintiffs claim the
NCAA and Ticketmaster created two types of lotteries, one for
the preliminary rounds and one for the "Final Four," the final
three games of the extraordinarily popular college basketball
playoff held each spring.

     Fans who wanted to purchase face-value tickets to
preliminary-round NCAA basketball games were required to
participate in a lottery by sending in an application requesting
up to eight tickets, the suit says.  To take part in the
lottery, applicants must pre-pay the full ticket price for all
the games in that round, along with a $10 "service fee."

     According to the suit, if the applicant won the lottery,
the NCAA released the tickets.  If the applicant was not
selected, NCAA refunded only the value of the ticket price while
pocketing the fees.  Those seeking tickets could enter more than
one time so long as they paid a non-refundable entry fee for
each application.

     The lawsuit moving forward against the NCAA, if approved,
represents all fans who submitted an application for tickets to
an NCAA championship tournament -- including women's basketball
and men's hockey -- and paid a fee to enter a drawing for the
right to purchase one or more tickets from 1998 until the
present.

     The lawsuit lists several charges against the NCAA,
including unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, violations of the
Indiana Consumer Protection Act and monies had and received.

For more details, contact:

          Rob Carey
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (602) 224-2626 or (602) 840-5900
          e-mail: ncaa@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/NCAA


TIMMINCO LTD: Kim Orr Barristers P.C. Files CDN$520M Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Kim Orr Barristers P.C. has filed a $520 million class
action on behalf of investors of Timminco Limited, a company
listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under symbol TIM.  In
addition to Timminco, certain officers and directors of the
company are also named as defendants, including Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors Dr. Heinz C.
Schimmelbusch for knowingly misleading investors about
Timminco's growth and profit potential.

     Beginning in early 2008, Timminco and Schimmelbusch made
continuous representations in the company's public disclosure
regarding its ability to convert metallurgical-grade silicon
into solar-grade silicon in a cost-efficient manner for sale to
the solar industry.

     Following criticism by certain analysts and the media,
Timminco released a report by Photon Consulting in May 2008 that
made positive statements about Timminco and its growth and
profit potential. Timminco's stock price rose sharply in early
to mid 2008 following these statements.

     In August 2008, Timminco admitted that its solar-grade
silicon production process was flawed. The Photon Report was
subsequently withdrawn by Timminco because "some of the material
factors or assumptions originally used to develop the forward-
looking information in the Photon Report, including in respect
of revenues, production line volumes and costs, may no longer be
valid."  The stock price subsequently collapsed as a result.
Photon Consulting LLC is also named as a defendant in the class
action.

     The Statement of Claim in the class action alleges that the
defendants knew or ought to have known that the representations
regarding the company's ability to produce low-cost, high-
quality silicone in commercial quantities were false or
misleading.  The Plaintiff will also seek leave of the court to
bring a class action pursuant to the Civil Liability for
Secondary Market Disclosure provisions of the Securities Act
(Bill 198).

     The class action is being brought on behalf of all
investors who acquired Timminco's shares between March 17, 2008
up to and including November 11, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Victoria Paris
          Kim Orr Barristers P.C.
          Phone: (416) 596-1414
          e-mail: vp@kimorr.ca

  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIDZ.COM INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased shares of Bidz.com (NASDAQ: BIDZ) between
August 13, 2007 and November 26, 2007.

     The complaint alleges that Bidz violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


INDYMAC MBS: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York on May 14, 2009 on
behalf of all persons who purchased the following IndyMac Pass-
Through Certificates:

     Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A5CB; IndyMac
INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR9; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan
Trust 2006-AR11; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR6;
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A6; Residential
Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A7CB; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan
Trust 2006-AR13; IndyMac INDB Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-1;
IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series
2006-H2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR21; Residential
Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A8; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan
Trust 2006-AR19; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR1;
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR23; Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2006-A10; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-AR12; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR25; IndyMac
INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-R1; Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2006-A11; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-AR2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR27; IndyMac
Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series 2006-H3;
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A12; IndyMac INDX
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR29; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-AR31; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FLX1;
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A13; Residential
Asset Securitization Trust 2006-R2; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan
Trust 2006-AR3; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR14 (and
5 Additional Grantor Trusts For The Class 1-A1a, Class 1-A2a,
Class 1-A3a, Class 1-A3b and Class 1-A4a Certificates, to be
established by the Depositor, IndyMac MBS, Inc.); Residential
Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A14CB; IndyMac INDX Mortgage
Loan Trust 2006-AR33; Residential Asset Securitization Trust
2006-A15; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR35; IndyMac
INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR37; Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2006-A16; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-AR41; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR39;
Residential Asset Securitization Trust; IndyMac INDX Mortgage
Loan Trust; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1;
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A1; IndyMac INDX
Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FLX1; Residential Asset Securitization
Trust 2007-A2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1;
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FLX2; Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2007-A3; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust;
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR5; Residential Asset
Securitization Trust 2007-A5; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust
2007-AR7; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR9; IndyMac
INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan
Trust 2007-FLX3; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR11;
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A6; IndyMac IMSC
Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-F1; Residential Asset Securitization
Trust 2007-A7; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR13;
IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR3; IndyMac INDX Mortgage
Loan Trust 2007-FLX4; IndyMac IMJA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-A1;
and, IndyMac IMJA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-A2, backed by pools
of mortgage loans, pursuant to or traceable to each
certificate's respective offering against IndyMac MBS, Inc.,
certain officers and directors of IndyMac, Underwriters of the
Certificates and certain ratings agencies, pursuant to Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2) and 77o.

     The case name is styled, "Police and Fire Retirement System
of the City of Detroit, v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., et al."

     The Complaint alleges that following the issuance of the
Certificates, information began to emerge revealing that IndyMac
routinely disregarded the underwriting guidelines set forth in
the IndyMac mortgage loan origination documents.  The veracity
of this information was subsequently confirmed by the disclosure
of substantially higher rates of delinquencies and foreclosures
on collateral for such highly-rated debt issues.  These
disclosures, and the poor performance of the collateral, forced
the Underwriter Rating Agencies to review and revise downward
the ratings assigned to the Certificates due to the fact that
the true nature of the collateral had not been properly assessed
at the time of the Offerings and the ratings assigned by the
Underwriter Rating Agencies did not accurately reflect expected
delinquencies.  The Underwriter Rating Agencies downgraded the
Certificates, causing a substantial decline in the value of the
Certificates.

     As a direct and proximate result of the conduct engaged in
by each of the defendants in issuing materially false and
misleading Offering Materials (the Form S-3 registration
statement filed on or about February 24, 2006, as amended on
March 29, 2006 and April 13, 2006, and the Certificates'
respective prospectus supplements), plaintiff and the other
members of the Class have sustained substantial damage in
connection with the purchase of the securities issued pursuant
to or traceable to the Offering Materials.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 13, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          David W. Wales, Esq.
          Rachel S. Poplock, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Abraham Fruchter Files N.J. Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of persons who purchased shares of
Oppenheimer AMT-FREE Municipals Fund (NASDAQ: OPTAX) (NASDAQ:
OTFBX) (NASDAQ: OMFCX) from May 13, 2006 through Oct. 21, 2008.

     The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. (OFI)
and certain of its Trustees violated the Securities Act of 1933
by issuing prospectuses which misled investors concerning the
risks of investing in the Fund.  These undisclosed risks are
alleged to have been the cause of a severe decline in the value
of the Fund's shares, far exceeding the decline of competing
municipal bond funds.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 14, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


POPULAR INC: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a
securities class action has been commenced on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOP)
securities between January 23, 2008 through January 22, 2009,
inclusive.

     The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

     The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net)
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-886-1900


POPULAR INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of those who purchased the
securities of Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOP) between January 23,
2008 and January 22, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Popular and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following material adverse facts, among others:

       -- that the Company's deferred tax assets related to its
          U.S. operations were materially overstated;

       -- that Popular was experiencing increasing loan losses
          in Puerto Rico and the U.S. construction sectors;

       -- that the quality of the Company's remaining mortgage-
          related loans in its U.S. mainland portfolios and
          other assets were deteriorating and were materially
          overstated;

       -- that Popular was experiencing a higher percentage of
          non-performing loans;

       -- that the Company's new loan originations were
          declining; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company would soon
          be facing liquidity concerns and would be forced to
          cut or eliminate paying a dividend to shareholders.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 13, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


ZYNEX INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a federal securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Zynex, Inc. (OTC BB:ZYXI) (formerly Zynex Medical
Holdings, Inc.) between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009,
inclusive.

The case, "Manandik v. Zynex, Inc., et al., No. 09-cv-00829-REB-
KMT," has been assigned to the Honorable Robert E. Blackburn,
United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

     The Complaint charges Zynex and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and S.E.C. Rule 10b-5,
and further alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements
concerning the Company's financial performance were materially
false and misleading.

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

For more details, contact:

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


                            *********

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  * * *