CAR_Public/090609.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 112

                           Headlines

CA INC: Rulings on Wyly Litigants' Appeals Remain Pending
CELLFISH MEDIA: Faces Wash. Litigation Over Billing Aggregator
CHINA SHENGHUO: Mulls Filing Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit
CLEARWIRE CORP: Not Yet Served with King County, Wash. Complaint
CONSTAR INT'L: Expects July '09 Oral Argument For Lawsuit Appeal

CONVERTED ORGANICS: Lawsuit by FTA Purchasers Pending in Del.
HEALTH BENEFITS: Bid to Junk Contract Breach Suit Still Pending
HEALTH BENEFITS: Former Employees' FLSA Suit Dismissed in April
HEELYS INC: Merged Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval
HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: July 27 Final Settlement Approval Trial Set

HORIZON BANK: Expects Final OK of Ind. Suit Settlement in Aug.
INFOSONICS CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Approved on May 5
MBNA CORP: Delaware Judge Give Preliminary OK to $25M Settlement
MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces Fla. Suit Over Bacteria Found in Listerine
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Denied Appeal Bid "Tele-Aid" Lawsuit

NETLIST INC: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Ongoing in Calif.
NEUROMETRIX INC: Mediation on Securities Fraud Suit Set for June
OPTIONABLE INC: Plaintiff Seeks to File Amended Shareholder Suit
PALM INC: Treo 600 Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Accessory Litigation Settled
POMEROY IT: Directors Face Suit Over Proposed Deal With Founder

RESERVE GOLF: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Sale to McConnell Golf
S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. Over Windex
YANKEE HOLDING: Paid Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Last April 3


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

CA INC: Rulings on Wyly Litigants' Appeals Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Decisions on the appeals by Sam Wyly and certain related parties
from the court-approved settlement of stockholder class-action
lawsuits against CA, Inc. that were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York are pending,
according to CA, Inc.'s May 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2009.

The company, its former Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang, its
former Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar, its former Chief Financial
Officer Ira Zar, and its Vice Chairman and Founder Russell M.
Artzt were defendants in one or more stockholder class-action
lawsuits filed in July 1998, February 2002, and March 2002 in
the Federal Court, alleging, among other things, that a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's Common
Stock during the period from Jan. 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998
were harmed by misleading statements, misrepresentations, and
omissions regarding the Company's future financial performance.

In addition, in May 2003, a class-action lawsuit captioned,
"John A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et
al.," was filed in the Federal Court.

The complaint in this matter, a purported class action on behalf
of the CA Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the
participants in, and beneficiaries of, the CASH Plan for a class
period from March 30, 1998 through May 30, 2003, asserted claims
of breach of fiduciary duty under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The named defendants were the Company, the Company's Board of
Directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative Committee of the
CASH Plan, and certain current or former employees and/or former
directors of the Company: Messrs. Wang, Kumar, Zar, Artzt, Peter
A. Schwartz, and Charles P. McWade; and various unidentified
alleged fiduciaries of the CASH Plan.

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company
securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On Aug. 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of the
class-action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors, alleging misleading
statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the
Company's financial performance, as well as breaches of
fiduciary duty.

As part of the class action settlement, which was approved by
the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company agreed to issue
a total of up to 5.7 million shares of Common Stock to the
stockholders represented in the three class action lawsuits,
including payment of attorneys' fees.

The Company has completed the issuance of the settlement shares
as well as payment of US$3.3 million to the plaintiffs'
attorneys in legal fees and related expenses.

On Dec. 7, 2004, a motion to vacate the Order of Final Judgment
and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in
connection with the settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder
lawsuits was filed by the Wyly Litigants.

The motion sought to reopen the settlement to permit the moving
stockholders to pursue individual claims against certain present
and former officers of the Company.  The motion stated that the
moving stockholders did not seek to file claims against the
Company.

In a memorandum and order dated Aug. 2, 2007, the Federal Court
denied all of the 60(b) Motions and reaffirmed the 2003
settlements.  On Aug. 24, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices
of appeal of the August 2 decision.  On Aug. 16, 2007, the
Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to amend or clarify
the August 2 decision, and the Company joined that motion.  On
Sept. 12 and Oct. 4, 2007, the Federal Court issued opinions
denying the motions to amend or clarify.  On Sept. 18, 2007, the
Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the September 12
decision.  The Company filed notices of cross-appeal of the
September 12 and October 4 decisions on Nov. 2, 2007.

On July 28, 2008, the Wyly Litigants served their opening
briefs. On Sept. 11, 2008, the Company filed its brief in
opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals.  Also on Sept. 11,
2008, current CA director The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato and
former CA directors Richard Grasso, Shirley Strum Kenny, Jay
Lorsch, Roel Pieper, Lewis Ranieri, Walter Schuetze, Willem F.P.
de Vogel and Charles Wang filed briefs in opposition to the Wyly
Litigants' appeals.  On Oct. 9, 2008, the Wyly Litigants filed a
reply brief in support of their appeals in the class actions.

Oral argument on the Wyly Litigants' appeals and cross-appeals
occurred on March 11, 2009, and decisions are pending.

Islandia, N.Y.-based CA, Inc. -- http://www.ca.com/-- provides
tools for managing networks, databases, applications, storage,
security, and other systems.


CELLFISH MEDIA: Faces Wash. Litigation Over Billing Aggregator
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellfish Media LLC faces a purported class-action lawsuit that
accuses it of of letting aggregators charge cellphone customers
for services they didn't ask for, Rhett Pardon of XBIZ.com
reports.

The suit was filed in King County Superior Court by Washington
state resident Joshua Nicol, who claims that the mobile services
operator is illegally charging customers for the content.  It
seeks class-action status, reports XBIZ.com.

According to the suit, "Unlike transactions made using checks
and credit cards, which require a signature or a highly private
16-digit credit card number, the only information a mobile
content provider needs to charge a consumer for its products is
the consumer's cellphone number, it can cause that consumer to
be billed for services and products irrespective of whether the
consumer actually agreed to purchase them," XBIZ.com reported.

Cellfish, which did not respond to XBIZ for comment on the suit,
contracts billing to a third-party billing aggregator -- in the
suit's case, m-Qube Inc. -- and not the cellphone carrier.  The
billing aggregator then instructs the relevant cellular carrier
to add the charges to the bill associated with the cellphone
number, according to the XBIZ.com report.

The suit contends that due to Cellfish's business model, the
likelihood of false charges are enormous.

"If Cellfish wanted to end this illegal billing, it could do so
in an instant," the suit said.  "All it would have to do to
ensure that it is obtaining the consent of the charged party is
agree to use a unique access code for each customer account."

"But instead of implementing such a simple safeguard, Cellfish
has intentionally created and maintained a system that
encourages wrongdoing at every step.  Such system results in the
wrongful charging of small amounts of money to large numbers of
people."

The suit seeks an award for damages against the class, as well
as attorneys fees, XBIZ.com reports.


CHINA SHENGHUO: Mulls Filing Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. mulls filing
motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in a
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in New York.

Putative class-action lawsuits have been asserted against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Only one
complaint, "Beni Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical
Holdings, Inc., Gui Hua Lan, Qiong Hua Gao, Gene Michael
Bennett, And Yunhong Guan, Index No. 08 CIV. 7422," has been
served on the company thus far.

The complaints allege, among other things, that certain of the
company's SEC filings and other public statements contained
false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the company's securities.

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each of the
actions seek an unspecified amount of damages under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

According to the company's Nov. 19 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, on Oct. 20, 2008, the company and counsel
to the plaintiff in the Varghese Action filed a stipulation with
the Court in which the parties agreed that the plaintiff may
file a consolidated, amended complaint within 60 days after the
entry of an order appointing and approving lead counsel, and
that the company's time to answer that complaint is extended
until 60 days after the filing of the consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 12, 2009, an amended complaint was served on the company
by new lead counsel for the class, consolidating the putative
class actions and bearing the caption, "Beni Varghese,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., et al., Index No.
1:08 CIV. 7422."  The defendants include the company, its
controlling shareholders, Lan's International Medicine
Investment Co., Limited, its chief executive officer, Gui Hua
Lan, its former chief financial officer, Qiong Hua Gao, and its
independent registered public accounting firm, Hansen, Barnett &
Maxwell, P.C.

During the second quarter of 2009, the company plans to file
motions to dismiss the complaint, according to its May 15, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. is primarily
engaged in the research, development, production and marketing
of pharmaceutical, nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.
The company's core offering, Xuesaitong Soft Capsules, is a
pharmaceutical product developed to treat the symptoms of
cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.  This drug is
designed to invigorate the circulation of blood and improve
microcirculation.  Nearly all of Shenghuo's products are derived
from the medicinal herb Panax notoginseng, also known as Sanqi,
Sanchi or Tienchi.  Shenghuo's research and development efforts
focus on pharmaceutical products and over-the-counter (OTC)
products that are based on traditional Chinese medicines.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Not Yet Served with King County, Wash. Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation has not been served with the complaint in
a purported class action lawsuit pending before the Superior
Court in King County, Washington, according to the company's May
14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On April 22, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in Superior Court in King County, Washington
by a group of five plaintiffs from Hawaii, Minnesota, North
Carolina and Washington.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the company disseminated
false advertising about the quality and reliability of its
services; imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and invoked
unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service to the
detriment of customers.

Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a determination that the
alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis; an order
declaring certain provisions of the company's Terms of Service,
including the early termination fee provision, void and
unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the company from
collecting early termination fees and further false advertising;
restitution of any early termination fees paid by the company's
subscribers; equitable relief; and an award of unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees.

Clearwire Corporation -- http://www.clearwire.com/-- builds and
operates wireless broadband networks that enable Internet
communications.  Its wireless broadband networks cover entire
communities and deliver a high-speed Internet connection that
not only creates a new communications path into the home or
office, but also provides a broadband connection anytime and
anywhere within its coverage area.  It offers services in both
domestic and international markets.  The company's services
consist primarily of providing wireless broadband connectivity,
but in some of its domestic markets, it also offers voice-over
Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony services.


CONSTAR INT'L: Expects July '09 Oral Argument For Lawsuit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 2009 oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit is expected for the class certification appeal
in a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed against
Constar International, Inc.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various
underwriters, were named defendants in the consolidated putative
securities class action suit, captioned "In re Constar
International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-
05020."

This action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, is a consolidation of two complaints:

     -- "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et
        al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

     -- "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

A consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants in these lawsuits
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  They
seek class-action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.

The court has previously denied the company's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
as well as the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On May 7, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
company filed objections to the Report and Order.

The Court later overruled the company's objections, adopting the
Special Master's Report and Order, and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On March 18, 2008, the company filed a Rule 23(f) Petition in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to
take an immediate appeal from the class certification ruling.

On April 30, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an Order granting
the company's Rule 23(f) Petition.

The parties have briefed the appeal.  The company expects that
oral argument, if required, will be held in July 2009.

At the company's request, the Special Master and the District
Court have agreed to stay all further proceedings before the
District Court pending the outcome of the appeal, with the
exception of certain limited discovery, according to the
company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge
Edmund V. Ludwig, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. (beige@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq. (andrewb@lcsr.com)
          Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes & Lerach, LLP
          401 B. Street, STE. 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbclasslaw.com)
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the defendants are:

          Steven B. Feirson, Esq. (steven.feirson@dechert.com)
          Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
          (michael.kichline@dechert.com)
          Scott A. Thompson, Esq. (scott.thompson@dechert.com)
          Dechert, Price & Rhoads
          1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
          Phone: 215-994-2749
          215-994-2390
          Fax: 215-994-2222


CONVERTED ORGANICS: Lawsuit by FTA Purchasers Pending in Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit captioned "Gerald S. Leeseberg,
et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc.," is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the
company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The company received notice that a complaint had been filed in a
putative class-action lawsuit on behalf of 59 persons or
entities that purchased units pursuant to a financing terms
agreement dated April 11, 2006 ("FTA"), filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith in
connection with the alleged failure to register certain
securities issued in the FTA, and the redemption of the
company's Class A warrants in November 2008.

The lawsuit seeks damages related to the failure to register
certain securities, including alleged late fee payments, of
approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified damages related to
the redemption of the Class A warrants.

In February 2009, the company filed a Motion for Partial
Dismissal of Complaint.

Converted Organics Inc. -- http://www.convertedorganics.com/--
operates processing facilities that use food waste as raw
material to manufacture all-natural soil amendment products
combining nutritional and disease suppression characteristics.
In addition to its sales in the agribusiness market, the company
sells and distributes its products in the turf management and
retail markets.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company operated two
facilities: Woodbridge facility and Gonzales facility.


HEALTH BENEFITS: Bid to Junk Contract Breach Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Benefits Direct Corp.'s motion to dismiss a national
class-action complaint filed by a former employee of the company
in the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Broward County, Case
No. 062008 CA 042798 XXX CE, remains pending.

On Aug. 28, 2008, the plaintiff filed the complaint alleging
that the company breached a contract with employees by failing
to provide certain commissions and/or bonuses.

The complaint also contains claims for an accounting and for
declaratory relief relating to the alleged compensation
agreement.

The plaintiff purports to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of current and former insurance sales agents.

The plaintiff seeks payment from the company of all commissions
allegedly owed to him and the putative class, triple damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which has
not yet been heard by the court, according to the company's May
15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Radnor, Pennsylvania-based Health Benefits Direct Corp. --
http://www.healthbenefitsdirect.com/-- engages in the direct
marketing and distribution of health and life insurance
products.  The Company operates though two segments, Telesales
and Atiam.


HEALTH BENEFITS: Former Employees' FLSA Suit Dismissed in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative collective action filed by a former employee of
Health Benefits Direct Corp. alleging a violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was dismissed on April 21, 2009.

On Aug. 7, 2008, a former employee of the company filed a
putative collective action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, case no. 08-CV-61254-Ungaro-
Simonton, alleging that the company and a co-defendant, who is
an officer of Health Benefits, unlawfully failed to pay overtime
to its insurance sales agents in violation of the FLSA.

Plaintiff purported to bring claims on behalf of a class of
current and former insurance sales agents who were classified as
non-exempt by the company and compensated at an hourly rate,
plus commissions ("Agents").

On Oct. 16, 2008, the Court conditionally certified a collective
action under the FLSA covering all Agents who worked for the
company within the last three years.

Plaintiff and all Agents who opt to participate in the
collective action seek payment from the company of compensation
for all overtime hours worked at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, costs, and interest.

On March 2, 2009, the parties reached an agreement to settle
this case.

On April 21, 2009, the Court entered an Order of Final Dismissal
with Prejudice, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Radnor, Pennsylvania-based Health Benefits Direct Corp. --
http://www.healthbenefitsdirect.com/-- engages in the direct
marketing and distribution of health and life insurance
products.  The Company operates though two segments, Telesales
and Atiam.


HEELYS INC: Merged Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
yet to approve the proposed settlement of a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Heelys, Inc.

The company, its former chief executive officer, its chief
financial officer, and its directors, who signed the company's
registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with its Dec. 7, 2006 initial public
offering -- along with Capital Southwest Corp., Capital
Southwest Venture Corp., and the underwriters for the IPO -- are
defendants in a lawsuit originally filed on Aug. 27, 2007, by
plaintiff Brian Rines, individually and on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the IPO registration statement.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  The plaintiff seeks an order
determining that the action may proceed as a class action,
awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the
other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel
fees and expert fees.

Four similar lawsuits were also filed in September and October
2007 before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, by plaintiffs Vulcan Lee, John Avila, Gerald Markey, and
Robert Eiron on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making
substantially similar allegations under Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and seeking substantially
similar damages.

These lawsuits have been transferred to a single judge and have
been consolidated into a single action.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on March 11, 2008.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus used in
connection with our IPO contained misstatements of material fact
or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make
the statements made not misleading relating to among other
allegations, safety concerns and injuries associated with the
company's products and their alleged impact on demand,
visibility into its sales channel and competition from
knockoffs, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and requests substantially similar
damages and relief as previously mentioned.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.

On Aug. 14, 2008, the Court denied Defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, and discovery commenced.

During a mediation conducted by the Hon. Nicholas H. Politan
(ret.), Plaintiffs and Defendants reached a settlement pursuant
to which Defendants will pay Plaintiffs and a proposed plaintiff
settlement class a total of $7.5 million, including attorneys'
fees and expenses.  The company has reached an agreement in
principal with its insurers for its insurance policies to fund
the majority of this settlement amount.  This settlement is
subject to final documentation and approval by the Court.  The
company expects that the proposed settlement will be submitted
to the Court for preliminary approval within the next month.  If
the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, notice will be
provided to shareholders, who will be provided an opportunity to
object to the settlement or to opt out of the proposed
settlement class, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Rines v. Heelys Inc., et al,. Case No. 3:07-cv-
01468-K," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Judge Ed Kinkeade, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Willie Briscoe, Esq. (wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com)
          Preston Commons West
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Phone: 214-706-9314
          Fax: 214-706-9315

               - and -

          Roger F. Claxton, Esq. (roger@claxtonhill.com)
          Claxton & Hill PLLC
          10000 N. Central Expwy., Suite 725
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Phone: 214-969-9029
          Fax: 214-953-0583

Representing the defendants are:

          Karen L. Hirschman, Esq. (khirschman@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-220-7795
          Fax: 214-220-7716

               - and -

          Rodney Acker, Esq. (racker@fulbright.com)
          Fulbright & Jaworski
          2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-2784
          Phone: 214-855-7446
          Fax: 214-855-8200


HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: July 27 Final Settlement Approval Trial Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A July 27, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the
settlement of a consolidated class-action suit filed against
Himax Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers.

On July 30, 2007, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California entitled,
"Vivian Oh v. Max Chan, CV07-04891-DDP."  The suit was allegedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's ordinary shares
pursuant and/or traceable to its initial public offering on or
about March 30, 2006.  The complaint named the company's Chief
Financial Officer, Max Chan, as the sole defendant, alleging a
breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act.  The complaint sought damages in
an unspecified amount, rescission of the initial public
offering, and attorney's fees and costs.

On Aug. 30, 2007, a similar class-action suit was filed in the
same court entitled, "Michael Pfeiffer v. Himax Technologies,
Inc., Max Chan, and Jordan Wu, CV07-05468-JFW."  The suit was
allegedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's ADSs
issued in its initial public offering.  The complaint named the
company, its Chief Executive Officer, Jordan Wu, and its Chief
Financial Officer, Max Chan, as defendants, alleging violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.  The complaint
sought damages in an unspecified amount and attorney's fees and
costs.

On Oct. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to consolidate the cases,
appoint lead plaintiffs and approve lead plaintiffs' selection
of counsel.  That motion was granted on Feb. 5, 2008.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 25, 2008.  The
amended complaint again names as defendants the company, Jordan
Wu, and Max Chan, and adds Chairman Biing-Seng Wu, director
Jung-Chun Lin and CMO as defendants.  The amended complaint
alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act by failing to disclose certain facts related to
CMO's inventory.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
attorney's fees and expenses, and rescission of the initial
public offering.

On Jan. 22, 2009, the company entered into a settlement
agreement to settle the class action lawsuit, which must be
approved by the court, following notice to members of the
settlement class.  The court issued an order on April 23, 2009,
granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and
will hold a hearing on July 27, 2009 to determine whether to
approve the proposed settlement.  If final approval is granted,
the settlement will result in a dismissal of all claims against
us and the other defendants.  In entering into the settlement
agreement, the defendants explicitly denied any liability or
wrongdoing of any kind.  The amount of the settlement is $1.2
million, which was fully covered by the company's insurance
carrier.  There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the proposed settlement, according to the company's May 15, 2009
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Himax Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.himax.com.tw/-- is a
holding company that operates through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Himax Technologies Limited (Himax Taiwan).  Through
Himax Taiwan and its subsidiaries, it designs, develops and
markets semiconductors that are critical components of flat
panel displays.  Its principal products are display drivers for
large-sized thin film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-
LCD) panels, which are used in desktop monitors, notebook
computers and consumer electronics products, such as display
drivers for small- and medium-sized TFT-LCD panels, which are
used in mobile handset, digital cameras, mobile gaming devices
and car navigation displays.  In addition, it has expanded its
product offering to include television semiconductor solutions,
as well as liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) products.  It has
four principal product lines: display drivers and timing
controllers; display drivers and timing controllers; LCOS
products, and power management integrated circuit (ICs).


HORIZON BANK: Expects Final OK of Ind. Suit Settlement in Aug.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of the settlement in a purported class-action
suit against Horizon Bank, N.A., the bank subsidiary of Horizon
Bancorp, over repossessed vehicles, is expected by Aug. 17,
2009.

On Aug. 5, 2008, Maria Coto filed a putative class action
complaint in the Porter County Superior Court, Porter County,
Indiana, on behalf of herself and others who have had their
vehicles repossessed by the Bank during the four years prior to
the filing of the action.

The complaint alleges that the Bank's post-repossession notice
to defaulting borrowers does not comply with certain aspects of
Indiana law.  The plaintiff seeks statutory damages and costs.

The parties agreed to settle this action in April 2009, and the
court preliminarily approved the settlement on April 24, 2009.
Final court approval is expected on or around Aug. 17, 2009.

According to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009, as part of the settlement, Horizon agreed
to pay $200 to the lead plaintiff, agreed not to pursue
deficiency judgments against the class members and agreed to pay
up to $28,000 towards the attorneys' fees and costs of the class
plaintiffs.

Horizon Bancorp -- http://www.accesshorizon.com/-- is a bank
holding company based in Michigan City, Indiana.  It provides a
range of banking services in Northwestern Indiana and
Southwestern Michigan through its bank subsidiary, Horizon Bank,
N.A., and other affiliated entities. Horizon operates as a
single segment, which is commercial banking.  The Bank is a
full-service commercial bank offering commercial and retail
banking services, corporate and individual trust and agency
services and other services incident to banking.  On April 23,
2007, the Bank opened a full service branch in Benton Harbor,
Michigan and on Jan. 28, 2008 the Bank opened its second full
service branch in Valparaiso, Indiana.  The Bank maintains 14
other full service facilities in Northwest Indiana and Southwest
Michigan.  The Bank also maintains a loan production office in
Lake County Indiana.


INFOSONICS CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Approved on May 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
on May 5, 2009, approved the settlement in the consolidated
class-action lawsuit "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities
Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

Six securities action complaints, originally filed between June
and July 2006, were consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp.
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14,
2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of the
U.S. Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in
connection with the company's restatement announced June 12,
2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements and
accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with
VK Corp.

The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecified
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified
relief.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint.  In April 2008, the Court
issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' dismissal motion.

In June 2008, the Court dismissed without prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of first
quarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claims
against a certain individual defendant (Class Action Reporter,
June 27, 2008).

On Aug. 8, 2008, prior to defendants filing a motion to dismiss
or other responsive pleading to the third amended consolidated
complaint, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to resolve the case.

On Oct. 17, 2008, the parties entered a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the Securities Settlement) of the case,
which provides the securities class action settlement is
contingent on preliminary and final Court approval (after
appropriate notice), as well as settlement of the derivative
action against the company, among other contingencies, and
provides for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice of
the lawsuit, releases of the defendants, and a payment by the
Company or its insurer of $3.8 million to plaintiffs (inclusive
of any plaintiffs' attorneys fees, to be determined by the
Court). It is anticipated that the settlement payment will be
funded entirely by the Company's insurer.

The Securities Settlement further provides that defendants deny
any liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no
admission of any wrongdoing.

On Oct. 30, 2008, the Court took under submission without oral
argument the request for an order preliminarily approving the
Securities Settlement.

On Jan. 20, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying the
class, preliminarily approving the Securities Settlement,
providing for notice to the class, and setting a fairness
hearing on April 23, 2009.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the company's insurer funded the full
settlement payment.

On April 23, 2009, the Court held the hearing for final approval
of the Securities Settlement.  On May 5, 2009, the Court entered
an order approving the Securities Settlement as fair and
reasonable, directing the clerk to enter final judgment and
dismissing the action with prejudice.   The Securities
Settlement is contingent upon final court approval of the
derivative action, which is still under submission with the
Court, according to its May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

The suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz,
presiding.

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


MBNA CORP: Delaware Judge Give Preliminary OK to $25M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware gave preliminary approval to $25 million
settlement in a class-action lawsuit against MBNA Corp., Law360
reports.

The lawsuit generally accuses MBNA and some of its officers and
directors of failing to disclose the true financial condition of
the company and making false and misleading statements to
investors, according to the Law360 report.


MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces Fla. Suit Over Bacteria Found in Listerine
----------------------------------------------------------------
McNeil-PPC, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, faces a
purported class-action lawsuit in Florida over its Listerine
mouthwash, Susan Salisbury of The Palm Beach Post reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on June 4, 2009 by Kayla Hess and Susan
McKenzie under the caption, "Hess et al v. McNeil - PPC, Inc.,
Case N0. 9:2009-cv-80840."

When Ms. Hess, then 10 years old, used Listerine Agent Cool Blue
mouthwash in 2007, she became ill with repeated strep throat
infections and stomach cramps.  She even cracked a permanent
molar tooth, according to The Palm Beach Post report.

Recalled in April 2007, the Listerine mouthwash contained four
kinds of bacteria, according to Brian Smith, Esq., a West Palm
Beach attorney representing Kayla and her mother Ms. McKenzie,
in the lawsuit, reports The Palm Beach Post.

The bacteria found included klebsiella oxytoca, which can cause
urinary-tract infections and blood poisoning; serratia
marcecens, linked to bloodstream infections; enterobacter
cloacae, tied to respiratory infections; and pseudomonas
fluorescens, which is harmless to most people, The Palm Beach
Post reported.

"People thought that because it was a Listerine product, it
contained antiseptic, but it did not," Mr. Smith told The Palm
Beach Post.

Damages in excess of $5 million are being sought in the class-
action suit, which names Skillman, N.J.-based McNeil-PPC.

Ms. McKenzie told The Palm Beach Post that her daughter, who had
never had strep throat, began having repeated bouts of the
illness beginning in November 2006.  That's when she began using
the Agent Cool Blue rinse her dentist recommended.

"The dentist recommended she start using this to make sure the
plaque was not building up on her teeth," according to Ms.
McKenzie.  But afterwards, "She was consistently on antibiotics
for five months," The Palm Beach Post reports.

For more details, contact:

          Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
          914 Waters Avenue
          Suite 20
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Phone: 832-715-2788

               - and -

          Brian William Smith, Esq. (bws@smithvanture.com)
          Smith & Vanture, LLP
          1615 Forum Place
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-684-6330
          Fax: 561-688-0630


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Denied Appeal Bid "Tele-Aid" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarily denied
on June 4, 2009 the petition for leave by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
to appeal the decision of the district court to grant class-
action status to a lawsuit.

Charles Toutant of The New Jersey Law Journal reported that
Judge Dickinson Debevoise of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey certified a class-action case alleging
that Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC sold cars equipped with an
emergency-response system that the company knew would soon
become obsolete (Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2009).

In granting class-action status to the case, Judge Debevoise
ruled that the plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable loss because
they bought vehicles designed to last 20 or more years, while
the emergency system became useless after 2007.

"A class action will be the most efficient method for
adjudicating plaintiffs' claims," Judge Debevoise ruled on April
24, 2009, finding the claims met the class-action criteria of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequacy of representation, according to The New
Jersey Law Journal report.

The case, "In Re: Mercedes-Benz Tele-Aid Contract Litigation,
MDL 1914," consolidates 10 suits filed in six states against
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC of Montvale, N.J.

The New Jersey Law Journal reported that the plaintiffs assert
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and a cause of
action for unjust enrichment.  They claim that Mercedes made
statements or omissions of material facts that it knew or should
have known were false or misleading when promoting vehicles
equipped with "Tele Aid," an emergency response system that
linked subscribers to roadside assistance operators through
global positioning and cellular technology through AT&T Wireless
Services Inc., for a subscription fee.

The system ran on analog signals, not digital, and Mercedes-Benz
continued to sell vehicles so equipped from 2002 to 2007 even
though it knew as early as August 2002 that a change in Federal
Communications Commission regulations would allow AT&T to
discontinue its analog cellular service in 2008, rendering the
system inoperative, the plaintiffs allege.

Mercedes-Benz placed a notice about discontinuation of the
analog Tele Aid service on its Web site in November 2006.  But
many car owners did not learn about the change until AT&T sent
them letters upon the expiration of their subscriptions in 2007,
reports The New Jersey Law Journal.

The class certified by Judge Debevoise -- who estimated the
class at more than 100,000 members -- consists of two groups of
owners who bought a Mercedes-Benz after Aug. 8, 2002: consumers
who paid to have their car retrofitted to accommodate a digital
version of Tele Aid and those who paid subscription fees for the
analog service until it ended in 2007.

Compensatory damages for consumers whose cars were retrofitted
would come to about $1,000 per vehicle, lead plaintiffs counsel
Jonathan Selbin of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in New
York tells The New Jersey Law Journal.

Mr. Selbin furhter told The New Jersey Law Journal that
compensatory damages would be somewhat more for consumers who
paid subscription fees until 2007; they would receive $1,000 for
retrofitting as well as compensation for the period they went
without Tele Aid service.


NETLIST INC: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Ongoing in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit,
captioned "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677
DOC (MLGx)," is ongoing, according to Netlist's May 14, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009.

Initially, in May 2007, Netlist and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in four purported shareholder
class-action suits, two of which were filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the
other two filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The New York suits are:

     1. "Tran v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV 3754;" and

     2. "Benjamin v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV5518."

The California suits are:

     1. "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. SACV07-677 DOC
        (MLGx);" and

     2. "Swofford v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. CV07-04006 PSG
        (FMOx)."

These purported class-action suits were filed on behalf of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's
Nov. 30, 2006 Initial Public Offering.

The complaints allege that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued by the company in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
Securities Act of 1933.  They seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action, under
th caption, "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677
DOC (MLGx)," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on Nov. 5,
2007, generally asserting the same claims.  The defendants filed
their motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Jan. 9,
2008.

The motions to dismiss were taken under submission on April 28,
2008, and on May 30, 2008, the court granted the defendants'
motions.

However, the plaintiffs were granted the right to amend their
complaint and subsequently filed their First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 15, 2008.

Generally, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement issued by the Company in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of Securities
Act of 1933.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
Jan. 9, 2009, and on April 17, 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motions to dismiss.  However, plaintiffs were again
granted the right to amend their complaint.  Plaintiffs' second
amended complaint is due on or before May 21, 2009.  Defendants'
responses to that complaint are due June 22, 2009.

The suit is "Bruce Belodoff v. Netlist Inc et al., Case No.
8:07-cv-00677-DOC-MLG," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. (ctrinko@trinko.com)
          Curtis V. Trinko Law Office
          16 West 46th Street 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-490-9550

Representing the defendants are:

          Sean T. Prosser, Esq. (sprosser@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-2040
          Phone: 858-720-5100

               - and -

          Keith E. Eggleton, Esq. (keggleton@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100


NEUROMETRIX INC: Mediation on Securities Fraud Suit Set for June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation on a consolidated putative securities class-action
complaint against NeuroMetrix, Inc., in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, is scheduled for June 2009.

On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class-action complaint
was filed in the Massachusetts District Court against the
company and certain of its current and former officers.

On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities-class action
complaint was filed in the same court, against the same
defendants.

These two actions were subsequently consolidated, and the court
appointed a lead plaintiff.

On Nov. 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class-action complaint
was filed, which alleges, among other things, that between Oct.
27, 2005 and Feb. 12, 2008, defendants violated the federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material information to the
investing public.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others,
that it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

In March 2009, the parties mutually agreed to participate in
mediation to attempt to resolve the litigation, and the court
entered an order staying the proceedings until the mediation is
complete, according to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

NeuroMetrix, Inc. -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- designs,
develops and markets medical devices used to help physicians
diagnose and treat diseases of the nervous system, such as
neuropathies, which are disorders of the peripheral nerves and
parts of the spine, and neurovascular disorders such as diabetic
retinopathy.  The Company is also developing medical devices
designed to be used to provide regional anesthesia and pain
control.  The Company's focus has been on products that help
physicians with the diagnosis or detection of neuropathies and
neurovascular disorders.  It has two product lines cleared by
the United States Food and Drug Administration that are being
marketed primarily to physicians and clinics: the NC-stat System
for the assessment of neuropathies and the DigiScope for the
detection of eye disorders such as diabetic retinopathy.


OPTIONABLE INC: Plaintiff Seeks to File Amended Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a shareholder class-action lawsuit against
Optionable Inc. seeks to file an amended complaint, according to
the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

On May 11, 2007, two lawsuits were initially filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
These suits are:

      -- "Alexander Fleiss v. Optionable Inc., Mark Nordlicht,
         Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig and
         Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," and

      -- "Robert Rastocky v. Optionable, Inc., Kevin Cassidy
         and Edward O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3755 (CLB),"

Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York:

     1. "Jagdish Patel v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, and
        Edward J. O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3845 (LAK)," filed
        on May 16, 2007;

     2. "Peters v. Optionable, Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin P.
        Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-
        Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3877 (LAK)," filed on
        May 17, 2007;

     3. "Manowitz v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Edward J.
        O'Conner, and Mark Nordlicht, Case No. 07 CV 3884
        (UA)," filed on May 17, 2007;

     4. "Glaubach v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 4085 (LAK)," filed
        on May 24, 2007; and

     5. "Bock v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 5948 (LAK)," filed
        on June 22, 2007.

Each of the lawsuits names the company as a defendant and some
of the lawsuits name as defendants all or certain of the
directors and officers of the company.

The directors and officers of the company that were named as
defendants include:

   * Mark Nordlicht, former Chairman of the Board of Directors
     of the Company;

   * Kevin Cassidy, former Chief Executive Officer and Vice-
     Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company;

   * Edward J. O'Connor, President of the Company and member of
     the Board of Directors; and

   * Marc-Andre Boisseau, the Chief Financial Officer of the
     Company.

By order dated May 24, 2007, the Rastocky matter was voluntarily
dismissed.

By Orders dated June 20 and July 3, 2007, the Fleiss, Patel,
Peters, Manowitz, and Glaubach cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07-CV-
3753 (LAK)."

By Order Nov. 20, 2007, Judge Kaplan granted the motion of KLD
Investment Management, LLC, to serve as lead plaintiff and
approved its choice of counsel, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages arising from alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, including the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b -5.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class
period of Jan. 22, 2007, to May 14, 2007, defendants failed to
disclose certain information in public filings and statements,
made materially false and misleading statements and
misrepresentations in public filings and statements, sold
artificially inflated stock and engaged in improper deals, had
an improper relationship with and "schemed" with its customer
Bank of Montreal, and understated the company's reliance on its
relationship with BMO.

The complaint alleges that while the company's stock was trading
at artificially inflated prices, certain defendants sold shares
of common stock of the company.

On Feb. 15, 19, and 20, 2008, the company and the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which motions
were opposed by the plaintiffs.

On April 3, 2008, Judge Kaplan ordered the individual defendants
to file only a single joint reply memorandum in response to the
plaintiffs' oppositions.  Thus, in April 2008, the company filed
its reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss
the complaint, and the individual defendants filed their joint
reply memorandum of the same.

Earlier, Optionable, Inc., sought the dismissal of the
consolidated shareholder lawsuit entitled "In re Optionable
Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)" (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

On Oct. 20, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion in all
respects, and a final judgment of dismissal was entered on Oct.
23, 2008.

On Jan. 13, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule
60(b) for relief from the Oct. 23, 2008 Final Judgment and
seeking to file an amended complaint.

The suit is "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV
3753 (LAK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-1980

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 212-230-8800
          Fax: 212-230-8888

               - and -

          Paul Edouard Dans, Esq. (pdans@eapdlaw.com)
          Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLP
          750 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-912-2736
          Fax: 212-308-4844


PALM INC: Treo 600 Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Accessory Litigation Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action suit filed against Palm, Inc., and Sprint Nextel
Corp. in 2004 has now led to a settlement for affected
customers, Humberto Saabedra of PhoneNews.com writes.

The suit was filed with the plaintiffs alleging claims from both
companies of WiFi and Bluetooth expansion cards for Treo 600
smartphones were untrue because no Bluetooth or WiFi cards were
ever developed that are compatible with the Treo 600, reports
PhoneNews.com.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, class members who
are current Sprint subscribers are eligible to receive a $20
bill credit, with class members who are not current Sprint
subscribers are eligible for a $27.50 credit that may be used
for a purchase at Palm's online store, PhoneNews.com reported.

The deadline for filing a claim if affected is Sept. 15, 2009,
according to the PhoneNews.com posting.


POMEROY IT: Directors Face Suit Over Proposed Deal With Founder
---------------------------------------------------------------
Directors of Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. is facing a purported
class-action suit over a deal wherein David Pomeroy would buy
back the company he founded.

The suit was filed by Kenneth Hanninen to prevent the deal where
Mr. Pomeroy made a $5.02 per share offer.

In a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Boone County Circuit
Court, Mr. Hanninen claims directors breached their fiduciary
duties to shareholders by accepting the offer.


RESERVE GOLF: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Sale to McConnell Golf
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Golf Club faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
connection to the proposed sale of the private club in Pawleys
Island to McConnell Golf, LLC, Alan Blondin of The Myrtle Beach
Sun News reports.

The plaintiffs -- four resigned members of Reserve Golf -- claim
there are approximately 100 resigned members who are to be
reimbursed their initiation fee as new members join the club,
and they would not be entitled to the reimbursement under terms
of the sales agreement, according to The Myrtle Beach Sun News
report.

They request repayment of initiation fees to all inactive
members prior to the sale.  Court documents show the resigned
members are also seeking actual and punitive damages for breach
of contract, conspiracy and negligence, reports The Myrtle Beach
Sun News.

The individual plaintiffs in the class-action suit are Michael
Sacco, William Buss, Vito Novembrino, and Frank Stiglin, The
Myrtle Beach Sun News reported.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Gene Connell, Esq. of the
Kalaher, Connell & Conner law firm, initiation fees for the
resigned members who no longer pay monthly dues were between
$12,000 and $35,000, The Myrtle Beach Sun News reports.


S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. Over Windex
----------------------------------------------------------------
S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. faces a federal lawsuit in California,
alleging that the maker of Windex is misleading consumers about
the "environmental safety and soundness" of the cleaning
product, Tresa Baldas of The National Law Journal reports.

At issue is S.C. Johnson's use of its "Greenlist" trademark,
which the lawsuit claims is misleading because it's not a third-
party endorsement, but rather a mark owned by S.C. Johnson,
according to The National Law Journal report.


YANKEE HOLDING: Paid Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Last April 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yankee Holding Corp. made the settlement payment in a wage and
hour class-action lawsuit on April 3, 2009, according to the
company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009.

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

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

Pursuant to the agreement, the company would pay a total of
$950,000 (inclusive of attorneys' fees and administrative
expenses) into a settlement fund.

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District
of California, against Sequenom, Inc. (SQNM) and certain of its
top officials.

     The class action (09-cv-976) was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of the Company between June 4, 2008
and April 29, 2009, inclusive.  The Complaint alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Ace and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

     Sequenom is a diagnostic testing and genetics analysis
company.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants issued public statements concerning the Company's
"crown jewel" -- SEQureDx Down syndrome test ("SEQureDx") --
which is intended to detect Down Syndrome in the first trimester
of a pregnancy.  Defendants consistently reported that clinical
results concerning the Down syndrome test trials for the product
were extremely favorable, with 100% detection and no false
positives, compared to only 70-90% detection and 5% false
positives in competing tests.  Moreover, the Company represented
that the product would be ready for sale by June 2009.

     Defendants' public statements were false and/or failed to
disclose material adverse information, i.e., (1) Sequenom
employees "mishandled" test data and results regarding SEQureDx
clinical trials; (2) SEQureDx did not offer verifiable,
statistically significant improvement over competing tests; and
(3) due to undisclosed problems with the clinical tests data and
results, Sequenom would be unable to bring SEQureDx to the
market by June 2009.

     On April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company
issued a press release revealing the foregoing facts, and
stating that the Company's press releases and SEC filings going
back to June 4, 2008 could no longer be relied upon.  On this
news, Sequenom's stock price fell by $11.29, or more than 75%,
on extremely high trading volume of over 88 million shares.

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

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529

                            *********

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  * * *