CAR_Public/090525.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, May 25, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 101

                           Headlines

3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
3M CO: Still Faces Employees' Lawsuits Over Age Discrimination
3M CO: Trial on Remaining Property Damage Claims to Begin in May
3M CO: "Whitaker" Class Certification Ruling Reversed in April
ARIEL FUND: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York Court

CADENCE DESIGN: Defending Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: August 14, 2009 Final Settlement Hearing Set
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Liendo" Settlement Finalized in Dec. 2008
COCA-COLA CO: Consumer Group Files Lawsuit Over "Vitaminwater"
DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits

DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal
DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron
FRANKLIN BANK: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas Court
LDK SOLAR: Cohen Milstein Distributes Class Certification Notice
LEAP WIRELESS: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Suit

LIVEDOOR CO: Shareholders Win Damages From Company Founder
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Minn. Judge Allows Securities Suit To Proceed
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
MRU HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California
OIL REFINERIES: Faces Litigation in Haifa Over Smoke Emissions

OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.J.
OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Pa.
TELUS SOURCING: Faces Litigation Over Payroll, Benefits Errors


                           *********

3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues defending purported class-action lawsuits
involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry exposure at or near the
company's Decatur, Ala. manufacturing facility.

A former employee filed a purported class-action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving
perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the plaintiffs
suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and
property damage from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at
or near the company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The Circuit Court in 2005, granted the company's motion to
dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on
the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity
provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving
alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds) granted the company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the action described above filed
in the same court in 2002.

Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class.  No further action in the case is expected unless and
until the stay is lifted, 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.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Still Faces Employees' Lawsuits Over Age Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to face purported class-action lawsuits filed
by employees over age discrimination charges, 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.

Three former employees filed age discrimination charges against
the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the pertinent state agencies in Minnesota, Texas
and California during 2005.  Such filings include allegations
that the release of claims signed by certain former employees in
the purported class defined in the charges is invalid for
various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf
of certain current and former salaried employees in states other
than Minnesota and New Jersey.

In 2006, one current employee filed an age discrimination charge
against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the pertinent state agency in Missouri, asserting
claims on behalf of a class of all current and certain former
salaried employees who worked in Missouri and other states other
than Minnesota and New Jersey.

In 2007, a former employee filed an age discrimination charge
against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the pertinent state agency in California,
asserting claims on behalf of a class of all current and certain
former salaried employees who worked in California.

In January 2009, two former employees filed age discrimination
charges against the Company with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agency in
Minnesota.  The filings include allegations that the release of
claims signed by certain former employees in the purported class
defined in the charges is invalid for various reasons and assert
age discrimination claims on behalf of certain current and
former salaried employees in states other than Minnesota.  The
same law firm represents the plaintiffs in the "Whitaker"
lawsuit as well as the claimants in each of these EEOC
proceedings.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Trial on Remaining Property Damage Claims to Begin in May
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial on the remaining property damage claims based on
negligence and trespass in an action filed against 3M Co. was
scheduled to begin on May 4, 2009.

Two residents of Washington County, Minnesota, filed in October
2004, a purported class action in the District Court of
Washington County on behalf of Washington County residents who
have allegedly suffered personal injuries and property damage
from alleged emissions from the former perfluorooctanyl
production facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and from
historic waste disposal sites in the vicinity of that facility.

After the District Court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the claims for medical monitoring and public nuisance in April
2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional allegations involving other perfluorinated compounds
manufactured by the company, alleging additional legal theories
in support of their claims, adding four plaintiffs, and seeking
relief based on alleged contamination of the City of Oakdale
municipal water supply and certain private wells in the vicinity
of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding two additional plaintiffs.  The two original plaintiffs
then dismissed their claims against the company.

On June 19, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the litigation as a class action.  Two of the remaining
named plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed their claims.

In December 2008 and January 2009, the Court granted the
company's summary judgment motions dismissing all of the
plaintiffs' claims under the Minnesota Environmental Response
and Liability Act and all claims for personal injury and
emotional distress, but allowed the plaintiffs to add a claim
for punitive damages with respect to their property damage
claims.

In March 2009, the Court granted the company's summary judgment
motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' private nuisance
and trespass to blood claims, but denied the company's summary
judgment motion with respect to the plaintiffs' negligence and
trespass to soil and water claims, and denied the company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages.

Subsequent rulings by the Court in April 2009, have limited the
plaintiffs to property damage claims based on negligence and
trespass, and punitive damages if plaintiffs prove their
trespass claim, 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.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: "Whitaker" Class Certification Ruling Reversed in April
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals, on April 28, 2009, reversed the
District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota's decision granting
class certification in the "Whitaker" case.  The case has been
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

One current and one former employee of the company filed a
purported class action in the District Court of Ramsey County,
Minnesota, in December 2004, seeking to represent a class of all
current and certain former salaried employees employed by the
Company in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age
46 or older at any time during the applicable period to be
determined by the Court (the "Whitaker" lawsuit).

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of
the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble
under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive
damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.  This motion was unopposed by the
company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case,
although one claim has been dismissed following an individual
settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007.  On
April 11, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in
a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any
time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document
on their last day of employment purporting to release claims
arising out of their employment with 3M.

On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the
company's petition for interlocutory review of the District
Court's decision granting class certification in the case.

On April 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued its decision,
reversing the District Court's class certification decision.
The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had not
required plaintiffs to meet the proper legal standards for
certification of a class under Minnesota law and had deferred
resolving certain factual disputes that were relevant to the
class certification requirements.  The Court of Appeals remanded
the case to the District Court for further proceedings in line
with the evidentiary standards defined in its opinion.

No trial date or calendar of pretrial proceedings has been set
at this time, 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.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


ARIEL FUND: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor with Ariel Fund Limited has filed a proposed
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons
who invested in Ariel Fund during the period December 22, 2003,
through and including December 16, 2008 against the Fund and
others over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws.

     Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed the class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who invested in
Ariel Fund Limited during the period December 22, 2003, through
and including December 16, 2008 against the Fund, Gabriel
Capital Corporation, J. Ezra Merkin, Fortis Bank (Cayman) Ltd.,
Fortis Prime Solutions (Cayman) Ltd., Fortis Bank, Fortis Prime
Solutions (USA) LLC, BDO Tortuga, and BDO International (Class
Action Reporter, May 11, 2009).

     This case arises from a massive, fraudulent scheme
perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff through his investment firm,
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (BMIS), and others,
and which was facilitated by defendants named herein.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
information and financial statements concerning, among other
things, the Fund's reported net asset value, the manner in which
the Fund's assets were invested, the extent of the defendants'
due diligence of Madoff and BMIS, and the true state of
supervision and oversight over the Fund's assets.

     Defendants caused and permitted 24 percent of the Fund's
total assets to be handed over to Madoff to be "invested" for
the benefit of plaintiff and the Class.  Plaintiff's investments
with the Fund were decimated as a direct result of the fraud
perpetrated by Madoff and BMIS and the complete failure of BDO
Tortuga and BDO International to perform adequate audits and
create its annual audit reports in conformance with generally
accepted auditing standards despite the existence of a myriad of
"red flags" indicating a high risk to Ariel Fund from
concentrating its investment exposure in Madoff.

     On December 10, 2008, Madoff informed certain senior BMIS
employees (reported to be his sons) that BMIS' investment
advisory business was an utter fraud.  Madoff also stated that
he estimated the losses from this fraud to be approximately $50
billion. On December 11, 2008, SEC and criminal charges were
brought against Bernard Madoff.  He was arrested and admitted to
a Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent that "there is
no innocent explanation" for BMIS' losses and that he "paid
investors with money that wasn't there."

     One of Madoff's client's was defendant Ariel Fund, which,
unknown to Plaintiff and other class members, and
notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, failed to monitor or
supervise the investments made with Madoff and BMIS, and failed
to perform adequate due diligence.  Investors who entrusted
their savings are now ruined.  Indeed, scores of charities were
destroyed and have either closed their doors or canceled their
proposed grants.

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

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/


CADENCE DESIGN: Defending Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. is defending a consolidated
securities class-action complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and any other securities
lawsuits that may be filed, 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 4, 2009.

Three securities class-action complaints that allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, were filed on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock.

The complaints are captioned:

   (1) "Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
       William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik," filed on Oct. 29,
       2008;

   (2) "Vyas v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
       and Kevin S. Palatnik," filed on Nov. 4, 2008; and

   (3) "Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J.
       Fister, John B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William
       Porter," filed on Nov. 21, 2008.

On March 4, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating these three complaints and captioning the
consolidated case "In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation."  The District Court also named a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the consolidated litigation.

The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
April 24, 2009, naming Cadence, Michael J. Fister, Kevin S.
Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin Bushby as defendants, and
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5  promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Cadence's common stock who
traded Cadence's common stock between April 23, 2008 and Dec.
10, 2008, or the Alleged Class Period.

This consolidated action alleges that Cadence and the individual
defendants made statements during the Alleged Class Period
regarding Cadence's financial results that were false and
misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should
have been recognized in subsequent quarters.

The lead plaintiff requests certification of the action as a
class action, unspecified damages and interest, the plaintiffs'
reasonable costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

Cadence Design Systems, Inc. -- http://www.cadence.com/--
develops electronic design automation (EDA) software and
hardware.  The Company licenses software, sells or leases
hardware technology, and provides design, methodology and
education services throughout the world to help manage and
accelerate electronics product development processes.  Its range
of products and services are used by the electronics companies
to design and develop complex integrated circuits (ICs) and
electronics systems.  The Company offers its customers three
license types for its software: perpetual, term and
subscription.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: August 14, 2009 Final Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 14, 2009 hearing has been set for final approval of the
settlement of a consolidated class-action suit in California
that was filed by former store employees against CEC
Entertainment, Inc.

Initially, on Nov. 19, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit
against the company entitled "Ana Chavez v. CEC Entertainment,
Inc., et. al., Cause No. BC380996," was filed in the Central
District Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County.
The company received service of process on Dec. 21, 2007.

The Chavez Litigation was filed by a former store employee
purporting to represent other similarly situated current and
former employees of the company in the State of California from
Nov. 19, 2003, to the present.  The lawsuit alleges violations
of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid vacation wages,
meal periods, wages due upon termination, waiting time
penalties, and unfair competition and seeks an unspecified
amount in damages.

On Jan. 9, 2008, a second purported class action lawsuit,
entitled "Cynthia Perez et. al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et.
al., Cause No. BC3853527," was filed against the company in the
Central District Superior Court of California in Los Angeles
County.  The company was served with this complaint on Jan. 30,
2008.

The Perez Litigation was filed by former store employees
purporting to represent other similarly situated current and
former employees of the Company in Los Angeles County from Jan.
8, 2004 to the present.  The lawsuit also alleges violations of
the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime wages,
meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, waiting time
penalties, retaliation, unfair competition, and constructive
trust and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

The company removed the two cases to federal court on Jan. 18,
2008, and Feb. 29, 2008, respectively.  In March, the Chavez
Litigation was remanded back to state court and in April, it was
the Perez Litigation that was remanded.

The two cases were then consolidated by the court for procedural
purposes in the Superior Court of the State of California in Los
Angeles County on June 18, 2008.

The company attended formal mediation with representatives of
the plaintiffs in both suits and reached a tentative settlement
for all of the claims alleged on Nov. 17, 2008.

On Dec. 3, 2008, following the tentative settlement, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint combining the
allegations of the two actions in accordance with the tentative
settlement agreement.  The company then filed an Answer to the
Consolidated Complaint on Dec. 16, 2008.  The tentative
settlement is subject to both preliminary and final approval by
the court.  On March 11, 2009, the court granted preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.

The company commenced efforts to administer the settlement and
notice of the settlement, claim forms and opt-out forms were
sent to approximately 18,500 class members on March 31, 2009.
The hearing for final approval of the class action settlement is
scheduled for Aug. 14, 2009, according to the company's May 1,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2009.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is
engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business.
The company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's
restaurants.  In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of
the company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants.  Chuck E.
Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar,
sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and
comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family
oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities.  The company
and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five
foreign countries/territories.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Liendo" Settlement Finalized in Dec. 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. has finalized a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuit entitled,
"Liendo, et al., v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., Cause No.
BC395195."

On July 25, 2008, the Liendo purported class-action suit against
the company was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.

The company received service of process on July 28, 2008.

The Liendo Litigation was filed by two alleged customers of the
company's Chuck E. Cheese's stores in California purporting to
represent all mobility impaired/wheelchair bound individuals in
the State of California who were allegedly denied the full and
equal enjoyment of goods, services, programs, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations in violation of the
Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12181 and
California state laws.

The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 25, 2008.

The Liendo plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Throughout the months of November and December 2008, the company
engaged in informal settlement negotiations with the named
plaintiffs in the lawsuit and finalized a settlement with these
individuals on Dec. 31, 2008, according to its May 1, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 29, 2009.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is
engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business.
The company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's
restaurants.  In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of
the company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants.  Chuck E.
Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar,
sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and
comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family
oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities.  The company
and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five
foreign countries/territories.


COCA-COLA CO: Consumer Group Files Lawsuit Over "Vitaminwater"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a
purported class-action lawsuit against Coca-Cola Co., accusing
the company of making deceptive health claims about its
Vitaminwater beverages, Martinne Geller and Lisa Richwine of
Reuters reports.

The lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, according to the
Reuters report.

The U.S. consumer group said that the company made a range of
claims about Vitaminwater that go beyond those allowed by the
Food and Drug Administration.

In a press statement, CPSI said, "Coke markets Vitaminwater as a
healthful alternative to soda by labeling its several flavors
with such health buzz words as 'defense,' 'rescue,' 'energy' and
'endurance,'" Reuters reported.

The company also claims the drinks reduce the risk of chronic
disease and eye disease, promote healthy joints and support
immune function, according to the CSPI.

"In fact, according to CSPI nutritionists, the 33 grams of sugar
in each bottle of Vitaminwater do more to promote obesity,
diabetes and other health problems than the vitamins in the
drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the
bottles," the consumer group said, reports Reuters.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International, Inc., is still facing several lawsuits
that accuse the company of engaging in a conspiracy to violate
antitrust laws in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or
products containing Trubyte teeth.

Subsequent to the Department of Justice's filing of a complaint
in 1999, several private party class actions were commenced
based on allegations similar to those in the DoJ case, on behalf
of dental laboratories, and denture patients in 17 states who
purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth.

These cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.  The private party suits seek damages in
an unspecified amount.

At the company's behest, the Court declared the lack of standing
of the laboratory and patient class action suits to pursue
damage claims.

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which largely
upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the
plaintiffs' damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception
of allowing the plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a
theory of resale price maintenance between the company and its
tooth dealers.

The plaintiffs then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
Third Circuit's decision, but the request was denied.

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint
asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers
among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the
antitrust laws.

DENTSPLY and the dealers have filed motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' new claims, except for the resale price maintenance
claims.

The District Court granted the motions filed by DENTSPLY and the
dealers, leaving only the resale price maintenance claim.  The
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims to the Third
Circuit.

Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines and a
dealer, as a putative class action, have filed separate actions
seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the
company's tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of
the antitrust law.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 1, 2009 Form 10-K/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for  the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal
with regard to the decertification of a purported class-action
lawsuit that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc., of
misrepresenting its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S., and Richard Nathan,
D.D.S., filed a class-action complaint in San Francisco County,
California.

The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of
the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who
have purchased it for use in oral surgery.

The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006,
with respect to the suit's breach of warranty and unfair
business practices claims.  The class is defined as California
dental professionals who purchased and used one or more Cavitron
ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical
procedures on their patients.

The company filed a motion for decertification of the class,
which request was granted.  The plaintiffs have appealed this
decertification order to the California Court of Appeals.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 1,
2009 Form 10-K/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for  the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International, Inc., continues to face a purported
class-action lawsuit alleging that the company's Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty.

The company allegedly misrepresented the potential uses of the
product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water.

On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, D.D.S., and Robert Jaffin,
D.D.S., filed a complaint against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron
scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs have filed their request for class certification
to which the company has filed its response.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 1,
2009 Form 10-K/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for  the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge R. Barclay
Surrick, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

        Alan Klein, Esq. (aklein@duanemorris.com)
        Duane Morris LLP
        30 South 17th St.
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
        Phone: 215-979-1000
        Fax: 215-979-1020

Representing the defendants is:

        Richard G. Placey (rplacey@mmwr.com)
        Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
        123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor
        Philadelphia, PA 19109
        Phone: 215-772-7424


FRANKLIN BANK: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Franklin Bank Corporation Series A Non-
Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock filed a proposed securities
class action lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of investors, who purchased Series A
NON-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock issued by Franklin Bank
Corp. pursuant or traceable to Franklin Bank's May 05, 2006
initial public offering.

     If you are an investor in Series A NON-Cumulative Perpetual
Preferred Stock issued by Franklin Bank Corp. and purchased
those shares pursuant or traceable to Franklin Bank's May 5,
2006 initial public offering you have certain options and there
are strict and short deadlines running.  Deadline is on July 03,
2009.

     According to the complaint filed May 04, 2009, this lawsuit
is related to a pending case in the same Court against the
parent company.  The lead plaintiff in that case has not
asserted any claims on behalf of Franklin's preferred stock
purchasers.

     The claims asserted within the complaint are not all of the
claims that can or should be asserted on behalf of preferred
stock purchasers, but they are asserted herein out of an
abundance caution because of the impending expiration of the
repose period under the Securities Act."

     The plaintiff alleges specifically that on August 6, 2008,
Franklin disclosed that it needed to restate its previously
disclosed financial results not merely for the third quarter of
2007, but for all of fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2006.

     These shocking disclosures revealed not only that the
Bank's financial results for the past several years were
unreliable but also that the Bank's accounting procedures and
internal controls, as well as its lending practices, were
severely deficient and as a result the Bank's financial position
was imperiled.

     As a result of these disclosures, several disclosures in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed by Franklin with
the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with its
Preferred IPO which commenced on or about May 6, 2006, have
proved to be materially false and/or misleading, to the injury
of investors who purchased preferred shares in or traceable to
that May 2006 offering.

For more details, contact:

          Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
          Phone: +1 (858) 779-1554.


LDK SOLAR: Cohen Milstein Distributes Class Certification Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
announced that notices were recently sent to class members in
the In Re LDK Solar Co. Ltd. class action litigation.

     The case, which is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges
that LDK (NYSE:LDK) and certain of its officers and directors
engaged in improper accounting practices and, specifically, that
they fraudulently misled investors about the Company's
profitability and the status of its raw material inventory.

     LDK is a China-based company which manufactures solar
wafers, a component of solar cells, and is traded on the New
York Stock Exchange.

     The notice describes the case, which was filed in late
2007, and how class members may opt out of it if they do not
want to remain members of the class.

     On January 28, 2009 the District Court authorized the case
to go forward as a class action and certified a class generally
consisting of "all persons and entities that (a) purchased LDK
Solar Co., Ltd. American Depository Shares, (b) purchased call
options for LDK American Depository Shares, or (c) sold put
options for LDK American Depository Shares from June 1, 2007,
through October 7, 2007."

     On May 4, 2009 the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit rejected the Defendants' request that it hear an
appeal of the District Court's order certifying the class.

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

     http://www.abdataclassaction.com/Cases.aspx?CaseID=164

For more details, contact:

          Laura Armstrong
          Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
          202-408-4600

               - and -

          Notice Administrator
          Phone: 866-905-8127


LEAP WIRELESS: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit against Leap Wireless International, Inc.,
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

On March 10, 2009, the lead plaintiff in the case filed a Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint after the defendants
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Leap Wireless International, Inc.,
and the individual defendants filed on Aug. 28, 2008, three
separate motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint and on Jan. 9, 2009, the District Court Judge issued
three orders granting the defendants' three motions to dismiss
the consolidated class-action complaint without prejudice.

Initially, lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, between November 2007
and February 2008 purportedly on behalf of investors who
purchased Leap common stock between May 16, 2004, and Nov. 9,
2007 (Class Action Reporter, March 12, 2009).

The company's independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these
lawsuits.

The suits allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege that the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making false and misleading statements about the company's
business and financial results arising from its Nov. 9, 2007
announcement of its financial restatement.  Some of the lawsuits
also allege false and misleading statements revealed by Leap's
Aug. 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release.

The class-action complaints seek determinations that the suits
are proper class actions.  They also seek unspecified damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

A consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on Aug. 28, 2008.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants' motions
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

On Feb. 23, 2009, defendants were served with an amended
complaint, which does not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Defendants' motions to dismiss are due on April 9, 2009,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The first identified complaint is "HCL Partners Limited
Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-2245," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
          Latham and Watkins
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Phone: 619-236-1234
          Fax: 619-696-7419


LIVEDOOR CO: Shareholders Win Damages From Company Founder
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders won damages from Takafumi Horie, founder of
Internet startup Livedoor Co., in a class-action lawsuit that
claimed people had been duped into making dubious investments in
the Japanese company, The Associated Press reports.

Kyodo News reported that the court awarded damages totaling 7.6
billion yen ($81 million).  It said 3,340 individual and
corporate shareholders had filed the lawsuit, which had demanded
23 billion yen.

In general, the lawsuit says that shareholders racked up massive
losses when Livedoor stock plunged, according to The Associated
Press report.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Minn. Judge Allows Securities Suit To Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota ruled that a class-action lawsuit accusing St. Louis
Park-based MoneyGram International, Inc. and several of its
current and former executives of securities fraud can proceed,
Nicole Garrison-Sprenger of the Pioneer Press reports.

However, Bill Putney, MoneyGram's CIO from November 2005 until
his resignation in April 2008, was dismissed from the list of 10
defendants that includes the company and former CEO Philip
Milne, who resigned in June, reports the Pioneer Press.

The order -- issued by Judge Doty on May 20, 2009 -- gives the
plaintiffs the green light to begin discovery in the case,
according to the Pioneer Press report.

On March 28, 2008, the City of Ann Arbor Employees Retirement
System filed a complaint in the District of Minnesota against
the company and three of its officers.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and
alleges against company officers violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 8, 2009).

The suit alleges failure to adequately disclose, in a timely
manner, the nature and risks of the company's investments, as
well as unrealized losses and other-than-temporary impairments
related to certain of the company's investments.  The suit also
seeks recovery of losses incurred by stockholder class members
in connection with their purchases of the company's securities.

In April 2008, three others, Willie R. Pittman, Edward J.
Goodman Life Income Trust, and Manzoor Hussain, separately filed
complaints in the same court, making substantially the same
claims.  The Goodman matter names the company and four of its
officers and certain members of its board of directors.

In July 2008, the four cases were consolidated into one case
captioned, "In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

The Consolidated Complaint was filed on Oct. 3, 2008, and
alleges against each defendant violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
under the Exchange Act and alleges against Company officers
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges failure to adequately
disclose, in a timely manner, the nature and risks of the
Company's investments, as well as unrealized losses and other-
than-temporary impairments related to certain of the Company's
investments. The complainant seeks recovery of losses incurred
by stockholder class members in connection with their purchases
of the Company's securities, according to its Nov. 10, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:08-cv-00883-DSD-JJG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge David S.
Doty, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com)
          Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Phone: 612-341-0400
          Fax: 612-341-0844

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          (jangelovich@npraustin.com)
          Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP
          205 Linda Dr
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Phone: 903-645-7333

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael J. Bleck, Esq. (mbleck@oppenheimer.com)
          Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP
          45 S 7th St, Ste 3300
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-607-7264
          Fax: 612-607-7100


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates has filed a proposed securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities who acquired the below stated Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates of Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc against the company
and others over alleged violations of Federal Securities laws.

     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed the 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 (Class
Action Reporter, May 14, 2009).

     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/


MRU HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in shares of MRU Holdings, Inc. (OTC: UNCLQ;
formerly NASDAQ:UNCL) filed a proposed securities class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of investors who purchased shares of MRU
Holdings during the period between July 9, 2007 and September
19, 2008 against the company and others over alleged violations
of Federal Securities Laws.

     Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed the class-action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of investors who purchased shares of MRU
Holdings, Inc. during the period between July 9, 2007 and
September 19, 2008, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, April 23,
2009).

     The complaint charges MRU and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that the defendants' public
statements failed to disclose, among other things, that:

       -- the market for Auction Rate Securities ("ARS"), which
          the Company issued in its first student loan
          securitization, was illiquid and existed at the whim
          of the broker-dealers;

       -- the illusion of liquidity created by the broker-
          dealers allowed the Company to securitize its student
          loans on favorable terms;

       -- that once the true nature of the ARS market became
          known, the terms of future securitizations by the
          Company would not be favorable to the Company; and (4)

       -- that without the favorable terms available in the ARS
          market as a result of manipulation by the broker-
          dealers, the Company would not have sufficient capital
          to originate loans, making the Company's business
          model untenable.

     On July 7, 2008, the Company revealed the unfavorable terms
of its second securitization, causing the price of its
securities to drop to $2.27 per share - a one day decline of
$0.23 per share, or 9.2%.  Then, on August 18, 2008, Moody's
Investors Service placed the ARSs issued by MRU on review for
downgrade, driving the price of MRU shares even further, to
$1.05 per share.  After the market closed on September 5, 2008,
the Company ceased originating student loans, which caused MRU's
stock price to fall even further, closing on September 6, 2008
at $0.71.  Finally, on February 9, 2009, MRU announced that it
had filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy.  The Company's
shares have been delisted from the NASDAQ stock exchange, and
currently trade at less than $.01 per share.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 19, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Eva Hromadkova
          Brian Brooks
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Phone: 212-682-1818 or 800-497-8076
          e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com


OIL REFINERIES: Faces Litigation in Haifa Over Smoke Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Oil Refineries, Ltd. (TASE: ORL.TA), Israel's largest oil
refiner, announced that on May 17, 2009 a request for the
classification of a legal claim as a class action claim, as
defined in Action Law - 2006 (hereinafter: the "Request"), was
filed with the Haifa District Court against the Company and
Carmel Olefins Ltd. (hereinafter: the "Responders").

     The Request was filed with respect to non-monetary damages
caused, according to the Requestor, as a result of two smoke
emissions events which occurred on September 15, 2003 and
October 5, 2003 (hereinafter: "the Events"), with regards to
which three prior requests for classification of the claims as
class action have already been submitted, two of which are still
pending.

     The Requestors claims that each of the members of the Group
is to be compensated NIS 1,500 with respect to, among others,
health risks, damage to autonomy, distress and discomfort as
well as for damages to Requestors resulting from global warming,
caused, according to the Requestors, as a result of the events.

     The Requestors ask, in their Request, to represent the
citizens of Kiryat Tivon, Kfar Hassidim, Nofit, Sha'ar Ha'amakim
and Rehassim (hereinafter: "the Group").  According to the
Requestors, the Group comprises of approximately 22,500 people
and the total amount that the Responders need to compensate the
Group is approximately NIS 34 million.

     It should be noted that the majority of the causes of
action claimed herein, appear in the previous claims and the
amounts noted in the Request are lower than the amounts noted in
prior request to which the Company is a party to.

     As part of the Request, the courts have been asked to
review the Request together with the prior requests.

     The Company is currently studying the Request with the
assistance of its legal advisors.

Oil Refineries Ltd. -- http://www.orl.co.il-- located in the
bay area of the city of Haifa, is Israel's largest oil refinery.
ORL operates sophisticated and state-of-the-art industrial
facilities with refining capacity of 9 million tons of crude oil
per year, with a Nelson complexity index of 7.4, providing a
variety of quality products used in industrial operation,
transportation, private consumption, agriculture and
infrastructure.  The Company is also active in the area of
Aromatics and Polymers through wholly-owned Gadiv Petrochemical
Industries Ltd. and 50% owned Carmel Olefins Ltd. ORL is traded
on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange under the ticker ORL.


OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in a Oppenheimer AMT-FREE Municipals Fund has
filed a proposed securities 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 A, B, and C (NASDAQ: OPTAX) (NASDAQ: OTFBX)
(NASDAQ: OMFCX) from May 13, 2006 through October 21, 2008
against Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. and others over alleged
violations of Federal Securities Laws.

     Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed the 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
(Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2009).

     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


OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in the Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund
has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund and others on behalf of
all persons who purchased Class A, Class B and/or Class C shares
of Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX)
(NASDAQ: ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX) from April 24, 2006 through and
including October 21, 2008 pursuant to various Registration
Statements and Prospectuses issued by the Oppenheimer New Jersey
Municipal Fund.

     The law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Oppenheimer New Jersey
Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ: ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX)
on behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B
and/or Class C shares of the Fund from April 24, 2006 through
and including October 21, 2008 pursuant to various Registration
Statements and Prospectuses issued by the Fund during the Class
Period (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009).

     The complaint alleges that the Fund and certain of its
trustees and officers and also Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., violated
sections of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits
materially false and misleading statements in registration
statements and prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in
the Fund.

     In addition, the Fund failed to disclose that its use of
derivative instruments known as "inverse floaters" which, under
certain conditions, could (and did) effectively force the Fund
to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market
conditions.  In or around October 2008, the Fund filed a
prospectus supplement alerting investors of the true risks of
its investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007,
and throughout 2008.  By October 2008, however, those risks had
already manifested themselves dealing substantial losses to
investors causing shares to lose approximately 30% of their net
asset value between January 2008 and October 2008.

     Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf and
on behalf of the Class and are represented by the law firm of
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 23, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: 800-660-7843 or 845-356-2570


OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Fund
has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
behalf on behalf of purchasers of the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania
Municipal Fund (NASDAQ:OPATX) (NASDAQ:OPABX) (NASDAQ:OPACX)
Class A, Class B and/or Class C shares from November 28, 2005
through and including November 28, 2008 against the Oppenheimer
Pennsylvania Municipal Fund, Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. and others
over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws.

     Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased shares of the Oppenheimer
Pennsylvania Municipal Fund between November 28, 2005 and
November 28, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009).

     The complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania Fund,
Oppenheimer Funds and certain of its officers and trustees
violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company
Act of 1940 by departing from the stated investment premise and
otherwise injured Fund shareholders.  The Pennsylvania Fund is a
municipal bond fund yielding interest income exempt from federal
and Pennsylvania income taxes.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Registration Statements and Prospectuses misled investors about
the Fund's investment objectives, policies and the underlying
risk by characterizing its investments as consistent with
preservation of capital.  In fact, the Fund lost over 33% of its
net asset value ("NAV") in 2008 compared with an average peer
group loss of approximately 9.5%.  The complaint alleges that
capital preservation was disregarded as the Fund significantly
increased exposure through excessively risky strategies not
properly disclosed to investors.

     Specifically, the overarching principle of capital
preservation was compromised by concentrating large positions in
low rated bonds, bonds not reviewed by an independent rating
agency and by portfolio concentration in high risk securities
including, Tobacco Bonds, Dirt Bonds, and Inverse Floaters.

     Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages on behalf of all
investors in Pennsylvania who purchased or held shares between
November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008.

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

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Toll free: 877-493-5366
          Fax: 619-238-5425
          e-mail: jrk@classaction.com


TELUS SOURCING: Faces Litigation Over Payroll, Benefits Errors
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Health-care workers throughout the former Calgary Health
Region have launched a $50M Class Action Lawsuit against Telus
Sourcing Solutions Inc., the region's payroll and benefits
provider, for years of payroll errors that include missed pay
periods, wage overpayments and underpayments, insufficient or
nonexistent health benefit coverage and ongoing pension
contribution blunders.

     "When you go to work, you show up on time and expect to be
paid on time, right?  Well so do we," said Maureen Mackrory, a
Social Worker employed at Calgary's Peter Lougheed medical
centre and one the initial plaintiffs listed in the class action
suit.

     "Health-care workers are no different. We have families to
feed, mortgages and car payments to make like the rest of
Canadians, and we're tired of crossing our fingers hoping our
wages and benefits will be there every two weeks.

     "It's been exhausting since Alberta Health Services
contracted out the payroll and benefits system to TSSI in 2003,
and we want it brought back in-house. We had few problems when
payroll services were administered in-house."

     The class action suit was filed on behalf of more than
4,000 health-care workers, following years of problems
surrounding payroll and benefit errors experienced by employees
throughout the former Calgary Health Region.

     "I have never seen a class action with so many class
members experiencing so many problems so often," said Clint
Docken, legal representation for the health-care workers.
"These health-care professionals have lived with these chronic
payroll and benefits problems on a daily basis."

     Docken is encouraging other Calgary health-care workers to
document their stories and join the class action lawsuit against
TSSI by visiting http://www.tssiclassaction.com,a website
launched specifically for Calgary Health Region health-care
workers to document their stories and register as a member of
the $50M lawsuit.

     The class action suit must now be certified by the Court of
Queens Bench before it can proceed.

For more details, contact:

          Clint Docken, Legal Counsel
          Phone: (403) 269-3612


                            *********

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  * * *