CAR_Public/090610.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 113

                           Headlines

AETNA INC: Faces Suit in Pennsylvania Over Massive Data Breach
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Suit Over Alfimeprase
CELLCYTE GENETICS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Wash.
DUKE ENERGY: California Natural Gas Suit Settlements Approved
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Calif. Judge Refuses to Nix Antitrust Claims

FIRST DATA: Motion to Dismiss Amended ATM Antitrust Suit Pending
HILTON HEAD: S.C. High Court Upholds Dismissal of Patients' Suit
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Face Suit Over Service Misrepresentation
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Arizona
MIVA INC: Discovery in Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit Ongoing

NATIONAL SECURITY: Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath Remain Pending
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: 2011 Trial Set for Utah Securities Fraud Suit
NEW YORK: Proner & Proner Files N.Y. Litigation Over Roadblocks
NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Judge Dismisses Claims in Securities Lawsuit
NOVATEL WIRELESS: California Judge Reconsiders Dismissal Motion

NVIDIA CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Stayed
NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 28 Hearing Set for Possible Motion to Dismiss
OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit
OSI RESTAURANT: Expecting EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims
PPG INDUSTRIES: July 20 Hearing Set $780,000 VT Suit Settlement

PRETZEL TIME: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging FACTA Violations
ROYLE PRINTING: Faces Wage, Hours Law Violations Suit in Wis.
SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Calif. Court To Hear Suits Over Oracle Merger


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JML PORTFOLIO: Prossnitz Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: The Shuman Law Firm Announces Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Weiss & Lurie Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                           *********

AETNA INC: Faces Suit in Pennsylvania Over Massive Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
AETNA, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit that claims it
allowed hackers to enter its Web site and gain access to
personal information about 450,000 employees, former employees
and potential employees, The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on June 5, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Corneilus Allison,
under the caption, "Allison v. AETNA, Inc., Case No. 2:2009-cv-
02560."

The plaintiff -- represented by Sherrie Savett, Esq. of Berger &
Montague -- demands credit monitoring, punitive damages, costs
and other relief, according to The Courthouse News Service
report.

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

For more details, contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. (ssavett@bm.net)
          Berger & Montague, PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-875-3000
          Fax: 215-875-5715


ARCA BIOPHARMA: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Suit Over Alfimeprase
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARCA biopharma, Inc., formerly known as Nuvelo, Inc., pursues
the dismissal of an amended consolidated complaint related to
the clinical trial results of alfimeprase.

On Feb. 9, 2007, Nuvelo and certain of its former and current
officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported
securities class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which
Nuvelo announced on Dec. 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf
of purchasers of Nuvelo's common stock during the period between
Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo misled investors
regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood
of success.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of
New York on Feb. 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007.  On
April 10, 2007, three separate motions to consolidate the cases,
appoint lead plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff's counsel
were filed.

On April 18, 2007, Nuvelo filed a motion to transfer the four
cases to the Northern District of California.  The Court granted
Nuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern District
of California in July 2007.

Plaintiffs have filed motions for consolidation, lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel in the Northern District of
California.  Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in
the Northern District of California on Nov. 9, 2007.

Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs consolidated
complaint on Dec. 21, 2007.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
Nuvelo's motion to dismiss on Feb. 4, 2008.  On June 12, 2008,
the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

On Dec. 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing
plaintiff's complaint, and granting leave to amend.

On Jan. 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging similar claims.

On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Based on the Court's Dec. 4, 2008 order, and plaintiff's amended
complaint, ARCA believes that any attorneys' fees, loss or
settlement payment with respect to this suit will be paid by its
insurance providers, 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.

ARCA biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.nuvelo.com/-- formerly known
as Nuvelo, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for acute
cardiovascular disease, cancer and other debilitating medical
conditions.


CELLCYTE GENETICS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
Cellcyte Genetics Corp. is pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the
company's May 20, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Initially, three shareholder lawsuits were filed against the
company, all of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, under the captions:

       -- "Armbruster v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. Al,
          Case No. C08-0047,"

       -- "Tolerico v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al.,
          Case No. C08-0163," and

       -- "Pruitt v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al.,
          Case No. C08-0178."

Gary Reys and Ronald Berninger are also named in all three
lawsuits, and John Fluke (who was appointed to the board during
its regular quarterly board meeting held on June 1, 2007) is
named in the Tolerico lawsuit.

In July 2008, an amended lawsuit, consolidating all three
lawsuits was filed, and John Fluke was not named a defendant in
the consolidated complaint.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, inter alia, that the
company, and its officers and directors filed misleading
statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding the company's products, and that the company posted
misleading information regarding an officer on its website.

The lawsuits claim that investors purchased our stock based on
the alleged misleading statements and the plaintiffs are seeking
monetary relief.

The suit is "Armbruster v. CellCyte Genetics Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00047-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          (denright@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          1050 30th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. (lsarko@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          Fax: 206-623-3384

Representing the defendants is:

          William Randolph Squires, III, Esq.
          (rsquires@corrcronin.com)
          Corr Cronin
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-625-8600
          Fax: 206-625-0900


DUKE ENERGY: California Natural Gas Suit Settlements Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
has granted preliminary approval of six proposed settlements in
a class action lawsuit involving natural gas purchased in
California and/or at the California border.  The settling
defendants are: (1) Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C.,
(2) Reliant Energy, Inc., (3) American Electric Power Company,
Inc., (4) El Paso Corporation, (5) Sempra Energy, and (6) e
prime, inc. and related entities.  The class action is "In Re
Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1566."

     The settlements are in addition to six settlements that
were approved in 2007 and resolve the claims of all individuals
and entities that purchased natural gas directly from
defendants, their affiliates, or co-conspirators in California
and/or at the California border from September 1, 1996 to
January 26, 2009, inclusive, for use, for generation of
electricity for the purpose of resale, or for resale.  The
current settlements will provide $14,650,000 to the class in
exchange for the release of claims.  The lawsuits allege that
defendants caused the price of natural gas to artificially
increase by conducting prearranged "wash trades" (alleged to be
the contemporaneous purchase and sale of the same amount of
natural gas at the same price) and by reporting false price and
volume information to trade publications, in violation of
federal and California law.  In addition, several defendants
placed restrictions on pipelines transporting natural gas to and
through the state.  California purchasers paid more for natural
gas as a result.  Defendants deny these allegations.

     A complete listing of the parties, the proposed
settlements, the full releases, and Class members' legal rights,
is available at http://www.FederalNaturalGasSettlements.com.

     Class members who wish to be included in the settlements
must submit a Proof of Claim in order to recover any money. The
form must be submitted or postmarked by October 15, 2009.

     Class members who do not wish to be included or bound by
the terms of the settlements must submit a request to be
excluded.  Instructions for exclusion are found in the Notice of
Proposed Class Action Settlements posted on the settlement
website.  Requests for exclusion must be postmarked by July 27,
2009.

     Class members who remain in the settlements can object or
comment on the proposed settlements or request in writing to
appear in Court.  Written objections or request for appearance
must be received by July 27, 2009.

     The Court has appointed counsel to represent the class.
Attorneys' fees and expenses and any service awards will be paid
from the settlement fund. The Court will decide whether to
approve the settlements, the proposed plan of allocation, and
counsels' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, and service
awards at a Fairness Hearing scheduled on August 25, 2009 at
10:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 7C, United States Courthouse, 333
Las Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Calif. Judge Refuses to Nix Antitrust Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California refused to throw out federal antitrust
claims against video game maker Electronic Arts Inc. in a
proposed consumer class-action lawsuit, Law360 reports.

On June 5, 2009, Judge Walker denied EA's motion to toss the
antitrust claims in the case, which is alleging that the
company's exclusive licenses with various football leagues have
"killed off" competition for its Madden NFL series of football
games, according to the Law360 report.


FIRST DATA: Motion to Dismiss Amended ATM Antitrust Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corp., along with its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc.,
and various financial institutions seek dismissal of a second
amended antitrust class action complaint, 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.

A class-action complaint was filed on July 2, 2004, by
plaintiffs claiming that the defendants violated antitrust laws
by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were
ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other
relief as the nature of the case may require or as may seem just
and proper to the court.

Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and
October 2004 (referred to collectively as the "ATM Fee Antitrust
Litigation").

On Aug. 3, 2007, Concord EFS, Inc. filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' per se claims, arguing
that there are procompetitive justifications for the ATM
interchange.

On March 24, 2008, the Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motions for partial summary judgment finding that
the claims raised in this case would need to be addressed under
a "Rule of Reason" analysis.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint.  On April 6, 2009, the defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

First Data Corp. -- http://www.firstdatacorp.com/-- operates
electronic commerce, payment services and customer account
management businesses.  FDC has four main business segments:
First Data Commercial Services Segment, First Data Financial
Institution Services Segment, First Data International Segment
and Integrated Payment Systems Segment, and a fifth segment,
known as All Other and Corporate.


HILTON HEAD: S.C. High Court Upholds Dismissal of Patients' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld a lower court's
dismissal of a class-action lawsuit against Hilton Head Hospital
about unauthorized therapeutic cardiac catheterizations, Josh
McCann of The Hilton Head Island Packet reports.

The hospital performed more than 200 of the procedures without
state authorization between 1997 and 2000, and the state
Department of Health and Environmental Control fined the
hospital $100 for each case.  In a cardiac catheterization, a
doctor inserts a thin, plastic tube into an artery or vein to
test for and treat heart problems, according to The Hilton Head
Island Packet report.

Robert J. Dema, Edward M. Finn and Joyce E. Gadson filed a
lawsuit in February 2006, but a state court dismissed the
complaint, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the case,
The Hilton Head Island Packet reported.

The three Beaufort County residents say they are among patients
who received heart catheterizations between 1997 and 2000 when
the hospital did not have an open-heart-surgery unit.  The unit
provides a safety net should something go wrong during the
procedure (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006).

On June 8, 2009, the state high court upheld the dismissal with
Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal writing that Even though the
hospital was "undoubtedly unjustly enriched" by the procedures,
the plaintiffs "cannot show that they were injured" as a result
of the hospital's actions because they would have received the
procedures from another provider if the hospital had not
administered them, reports The Hilton Head Island Packet.

While affirming the case's dismissal, Judge Toal questioned the
effectiveness of DHEC's response to the hospital's actions.  The
judge wrote, "Such sanctions amount to a mere 'slap on the
wrist' penalty and provide no meaningful deterrence," The Hilton
Head Island Packet reports.


HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Face Suit Over Service Misrepresentation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc. and its subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC (HNS), are defendants in a purported class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

On May 18, 2009, the company and HNS received notification of a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California by two consumers on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated persons for, among others, breach of
warranties, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs are seeking to have the case be certified as a
class action.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
misrepresented the speed of the HughesNet service in its
advertising.

The company has not yet had the opportunity to fully evaluate
the substance of the claims and its available defenses, and no
discovery has occurred, according to its May 20, 2009 Form 8-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Hughes Communications, Inc., -- http://www.hughes.com/--
operates through its wholly owned subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC (HNS), a telecommunications company.  The company
is a provider of broadband satellite network services and
systems to the enterprise market.  It is also the satellite
Internet access provider to North American consumers and small
and medium sized businesses, such as small office and home
office users.  In addition, the company provides managed
services to large enterprises that combine the use of satellite
and terrestrial alternatives.  The company operates in four
business segments: the North America very small aperture
terminal (VSAT) segment, the International VSAT segment, the
Telecom Systems segment and the Corporate and other segment.
Its subsidiaries include Hughes Systique Corporation, Hughes
Network Systems, LLC and SkyTerra Communications, Inc. and
Electronic System Products, Inc. (ESP).


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
Insight Enterprises, Inc. faces purported securities class-
action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.

Beginning in March 2009, three purported class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of
Insight's securities during the period April 22, 2004 to Feb. 6,
2009 (the period specified in the first complaint is Jan. 30,
2007 to Feb. 6, 2009).

The complaints, which seek unspecified damages, assert claims
under the federal securities laws relating to the company's Feb.
9, 2009 announcement that it expected to restate its financial
statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 and for the first
three quarters of 2008 and that the restatement would include a
material reduction of retained earnings.

The complaints also allege that the company issued false and
misleading financial statements and issued misleading public
statements about its results of operations.

None of the defendants have responded to the complaints at this
time, 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.

Insight Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.insight.com/ -- is a
provider of brand-name information technology (IT) hardware,
software and services to small, medium and large businesses and
public sector institutions in North America, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa and Asia-Pacific.  The company operates in three
geographic segments: North America, EMEA and APAC.  Insight is a
provider of technology solutions, helping companies globally
design, enable, manage and secure their IT environment with the
process knowledge, technical expertise and product fulfillment
and logistics capabilities.  Insight is located in 22 countries
and support clients in 170 countries, transacting business in 17
languages and 13 currencies.


MIVA INC: Discovery in Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit filed against Miva, Inc. -- formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.
-- and certain of its officers and directors before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class-
action complaints were filed, alleging that the company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual
defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control
persons" of MIVA.

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of the company's investors who purchased company stock
between Jan. 5, 2004, and May 4, 2005.  They allege generally
that, during the putative class period, the company made
misleading statements and omitted material information regarding
the goodwill associated with a recent acquisition and certain
material weaknesses in its internal controls.

The plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual
defendants made these misstatements and omissions in order to
keep its stock price high to allow certain individual defendants
to sell stock at an artificially inflated price.  They seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the company and the other
defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure
to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform
Act and also served answers to the complaints.

On July 27, 2005, the court consolidated all of the outstanding
lawsuits as "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation," selected
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated cases, and
granted plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated amended
complaint.

The company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Sept. 8, 2005.  The dismissal motion
was granted by the court in December 2005.  The plaintiffs,
however, were granted leave to submit a further amended
complaint, which they filed on Jan. 17, 2006.

The defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case.  On
March 15, 2007, the court granted in large part the defendants'
dismissal request.

However, the court denied their motion to dismiss as to certain
claims relating to:

       -- removal of traffic sources,

       -- spyware,

       -- implementation of screening policies and procedures,
          and

       -- amounts of traffic purchased from distribution
          partners.

The defendants then filed a motion for amendment to the March
15, 2007 order to include certification for interlocutory appeal
or, in the alternative, for reconsideration.

In July 2007, the court denied the motion for amendment to the
March 15, 2007 order to include certification for interlocutory
appeal, but granted the motion for reconsideration as to the
issue of whether the plaintiffs pleaded a strong inference of
scienter in light of intervening precedent.

The court requested additional briefing on the scienter issue,
and on Feb. 15, 2008, entered an order dismissing one of the
individual defendants from the lawsuit and limiting the claims
that could be brought against another individual defendant.

The plaintiffs moved the court to certify a putative class of
investors, and the defendants had filed briefs in opposition to
this request.  On March 12, 2008, the court entered an order
certifying a class of those investors who purchased the
company's common stock from Feb. 23, 2005, to May 4, 2005.  The
court also dismissed two of the proposed class representatives
for lack of standing.

The plaintiffs have served discovery requests on the defendants,
and the discovery phase of the lawsuit is presently underway.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its May 20, 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 MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Judge John E. Steele presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          (cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com)
          Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
          300 W. Platt St., Suite 150
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: 813-489-1001
          Fax: 813-489-1008

               - and -

          Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
          (cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP
          5200 Town Center Circle, Ste. 600, Tower One
          Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018
          Phone: 561-361-5000
          Fax: 561-367-8400

Representing the defendant is:

          Joseph G. Foster, Esq. (jfoster@porterwright.com)
          Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, P.A.
          5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300
          Naples, FL 34108
          Phone: 239-593-2900
          Fax: 239-593-2990


NATIONAL SECURITY: Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Group, Inc.'s property & casualty subsidiaries
continue to defend a number of legal matters filed in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Alabama.

These actions include individual lawsuits and purported
statewide class actions, although to date no class has been
certified in any action.

These actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of
hurricane-related claims, including allegations that the flood
exclusion found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in
certain actions other insurance companies' policies, is either
ambiguous, unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public
policy, or inapplicable to the damage sustained.

The various suits seek a variety of remedies, including actual
and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or
declaratory relief.

All of these matters are in various stages of development,
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.

Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. --
http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding
company.  The Company, through its property and casualty
subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage,
including dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile
homeowners and personal non-standard automobile lines of
insurance in 11 states.  The Company, through its life insurance
subsidiary, offers a basic line of life, and health and accident
insurance products in six states.


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: 2011 Trial Set for Utah Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative Jan. 24, 2011 trial is slated for the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending against Nature's
Sunshine Products, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah.

Between April 3, 2006 and June 2, 2006, five separate
shareholder class-action lawsuits were filed against the company
and certain of its present and former officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

These matters were consolidated and on Nov. 3, 2006, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint against the company,
its Chief Executive Officer and former director, Douglas
Faggioli, its former Chief Financial Officer, Craig D. Huff, and
a former director and former Chair of its Audit Committee, Franz
L. Cristiani.

The consolidated complaint asserts three separate claims on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock:

       -- a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the company for
          violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
          Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that Mr.
          Faggioli made a series of alleged material
          misrepresentations to the investing public;

       -- a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the company for
          violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, alleging
          that Mr. Faggioli made a series of misrepresentations
          to the company's then independent auditor, KPMG, LLP,
          for the purpose of obtaining unqualified or "clean"
          audit opinions and review opinions from KPMG
          concerning certain of the annual and quarterly
          financial statements; and

       -- a claim against Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and Cristiani
          for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
          alleging that the individual defendants have "control
          person" liability for the previously-alleged
          violations by the company.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, together with interest thereon, litigation
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
and any such other and further relief as may be allowed by law.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the company and Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and
Cristiani moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its
entirety.

On May 21, 2007, the court issued its decision denying the
motion in large part, but shortening the proposed class period
on one of the plaintiffs' claims.

On June 6, 2007, the company and the other defendants answered
the Consolidated Complaint, wherein they denied all allegations
of wrongdoing and raised a number of affirmative defenses.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in part, establishing the class as all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common
stock, and were damaged thereby, from March 16, 2005 to March
20, 2006.

On May 9, 2008, at the invitation of the court based upon recent
case law developments, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second cause of action (a 10b-5 claim based on non-
public representations to KPMG).  The plaintiffs opposed this
motion.  On Sept. 23, 2008, the court granted the company's
motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' second cause of action.

The case is currently in the early stages of discovery.  Trial
is not scheduled to commence until Jan. 24, 2011, according to
the company's May 20, 2009 Amendment to its registration
statement on Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The suit is "Hyman v. Nature's Sunshine Products et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00267-TS-SA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah, Judge Ted Stewart, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          Climaco Lefkowtiz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli
          55 Public Sq., Ste 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113-1972
          Phone: (216) 621-8484

               - and -

          Gary A. Dodge, Esq.
          Hatch James & Dodge
          10 W Broadway, Ste. 400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 363-6363
          e-mail: gdodge@hjdlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq.
          (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius, P.A.
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: (215) 963-5000

               - and -

          Erik A. Christiansen, Esq. (ecf@parsonsbehle.com)
          Parsons Behle & Latimer
          201 S. Main St., Ste. 1800
          P.O. Box 45898
          Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
          Phone: (801) 532-1234


NEW YORK: Proner & Proner Files N.Y. Litigation Over Roadblocks
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Proner & Proner, Attorneys at law, have filed a Federal
class action lawsuit in the Federal Court for the Northern
District of New York against the New York State Police as well
as New York State and county authorities to stop them from
conducting motorcycle-only roadblocks near popular motorcycle
events.

     Last year the New York State Police and county sheriffs
stopped every motorcycle en route to twelve different events for
"safety checks." With the riding season starting, the New York
State Police expect to conduct up to fifteen motorcycle-only
roadblocks throughout the state this year.  The events targeted
include Americade in Lake George, the largest motorcycle event
in the Northeast.

     Mitchell Proner, an active motorcyclist and personal injury
attorney, is initiating the lawsuit on behalf of all
motorcyclists.  Mr. Proner said that the New York State Police
"uses the pretense of safety inspections to delay and harass
motorcyclists without any reasonable belief that any laws are
being broken."  Although courts have upheld DWI checkpoints as
generally permissible, "These motorcycle roadblock stops are
lengthy and do not address any legitimate safety concerns,"
according to Mr. Proner.

     Mr. Proner alleges that these motorcycle-only roadblocks
violate the motorcyclists' Fourth Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable search and seizure.  In addition, by
specifically targeting motorcycle events, New York State is
infringing on the motorcyclists' First Amendment rights of
freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

For more details, contact:

          Proner & Proner
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1448
          New York, New York 10165
          Phone: (212) 986-3030
          Web site: http://www.bikerhelp.com


NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Judge Dismisses Claims in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York judge tossed some claims against NovaGold Resources,
Inc. and its officers in a securities class action over a failed
mining project, but denied a motion to dismiss allegations that
the company made recklessly false statements about the project's
viability, Law360 reports.

A single claim against NovaGold under the Securities Act of 1934
will survive, along with some "controlling persons" claims
against its officers, according to Judge Denise Cote of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the Law360 report.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: California Judge Reconsiders Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California decided to reconsider a decision
to deny Novatel Wireless, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative
securities class-action suit against the company, Law360
reports.

On June 8, 2009, Judge Huff vacated an April 1, 2009 ruling
denying the company's motion to dismiss the case in part because
of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal
regarding heightened pleading standards, according to the Law360
report.

Jonathan Sidener of The San Diego Union Tribune previously
reported that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California denied a motion by Novatel Wireless, Inc. that
sought for the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit
against the San Diego wireless modem company (Class Action
Reporter, April 16, 2009).

In general, the lawsuit alleges that the company's executives
engaged in insider trading and fraud as they sold nearly $29
million in stock in the weeks before word leaked out that the
company had lost its largest customer, Sprint, according to The
San Diego Union Tribune report.

Calling the stock sales "suspicious," Judge Marilyn Huff ruled
that the suit provided enough support for its allegations to
proceed.  In her ruling, Judge Huff also denied Novatel's motion
to dismiss the suit, originally filed in January.

The suit contends that while the Novatel executives were dumping
stock, they were engaged in a "fraudulent scheme" to prop up its
value.  It alleges that the company "made false and misleading
statements concerning Novatel's market share and financial
results, failed to disclose material information about its
contracts with Sprint, and failed to disclose that Novatel was
prematurely shipping products in order to meet or exceed Wall
Street expectations causing Novatel to improperly recognize
revenue," reports The San Diego Union Tribune report.

The suit, filed by lead plaintiffs Plumbers & Pipefitters Local
No. 562 and Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees pension
funds, alleges that insider trades were made by Novatel Chief
Executive Peter Leparulo, then-President George Weinert, Chief
Marketing Officer Robert Hadley, Senior Executive Vice President
and Chief Marketing Officer Slim Souissi and Senior Vice
President of Business Affairs and General Counsel Catherine
Ratcliffe, The San Diego Union Tribune reported.


NVIDIA CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
NVIDIA Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California the District Court proceedings remains
stayed, according to the company's May 20, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 26, 2009.

In September 2008, three putative securities class-action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California arising out of its announcements on July 2, 2008,
that it would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover
anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging
material set in certain versions of the company's previous
generation media and communications processors or MCPs and
graphics processing units or GPUs and that the company was
revising financial guidance for its second quarter of fiscal
2009.

The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
On Oct. 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the
caption "In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL)."

Pursuant to the order consolidating the lawsuits , NVIDIA is not
obligated to respond to any of the underlying complaints.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, motions for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were due by Nov. 10, 2008.  A hearing on these
motions is currently scheduled for Dec. 22, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation
of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.

On Feb. 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District
Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending
resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit.

On Feb. 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay.  The Writ is
still pending in the Court of Appeals.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 28 Hearing Set for Possible Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 28, 2009 hearing date has been set for an anticipated
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated consumer class-action
case against NVIDIA Corp., according to the company's May 20,
2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 26, 2009.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative
consumer class-action lawsuits were filed against the company,
asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging
material set in certain versions of the company's previous
generation MCP and GPU products used in notebook systems.

Most of the lawsuits were filed in Federal Court in the Northern
District of California, but three were filed in state court in
California, in Federal Court in New York, and in Federal Court
in Texas.  Those three actions have since been removed or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, where all of the actions now
are currently pending.

The various lawsuits are titled:

   -- Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp.,

   -- Feinstein v. NVIDIA Corp.,

   -- Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and
      Hewlett Packard,

   -- Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard,

   -- Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc.,

   -- Cormier v. NVIDIA Corp.,

   -- National Business Officers Association, Inc. v. NVIDIA
      Corp., and

   -- West v. NVIDIA Corp.

The First Amended Complaint was filed on Oct. 27, 2008, which no
longer asserted claims against Dell, Inc.  The various
complaints assert claims for, among other things, breach of
warranty, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Business & Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and other
consumer protection statutes under the laws of various
jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and strict liability.

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the above
cases related under the relevant local rules.  On Dec. 11, 2008,
NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the consumer class
action cases.

On Feb. 26, 2009, the District Court consolidated the cases, as
well as two other cases pending against Hewlett-Packard, under
the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and ordered the
plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2, 2009.

On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain
related issues.

On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead
counsel.

On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty
under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied
Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust
Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California’s
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On May 14, 2009, the District Court entered a case schedule
order, which sets a Sept. 28, 2009 hearing date for an
anticipated motion to dismiss, a Dec. 7, 2009 hearing date for
anticipated class certification motion, and a July 12, 2010 fact
discovery deadline.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


OSI RESTAURANT: Continues to Defend "Ervin" Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. continues to defend a purported
class-action complaint alleging violations of state and federal
wage and hour law, 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 Feb. 21, 2008, the purported class-action complaint styled,
"Ervin, et al. v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc.," was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

This lawsuit alleges violations of state and federal wage and
hour law in connection with tipped employees and overtime
compensation and seeks relief in the form of unspecified back
pay and attorney fees.

The complaint alleges a class-action under state law and a
collective action under federal law.

Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com-- which was formerly known
as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant
company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-
wide restaurants.  The Company operates in all 50 states and in
20 countries internationally, predominantly through company-
owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of
partnerships and franchises.


OSI RESTAURANT: Expecting EEOC to Pursue Discrimination Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. expects the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to pursue claims of gender discrimination
against the company on a nationwide basis through other
proceedings, 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.

Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services,
Inc. are the defendants in a class-action lawsuit brought by the
EEOC alleging that they have engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination against women on the basis of their gender with
respect to hiring and promoting into management positions as
well as discrimination against women in terms and condition of
their employment and seeks damages and injunctive relief.

The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 28, 2006, is styled, "EEOC v.
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services,
Inc.," U.S. District Court, District of Colorado.

In addition to the EEOC, two former employees have successfully
intervened as party plaintiffs in the case.

On Nov. 3, 2007, the EEOC's nationwide claim of gender
discrimination was dismissed and the scope of the suit was
limited to the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana.

Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com-- which was formerly known
as Outback Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant
company, with eight restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-
wide restaurants.  The Company operates in all 50 states and in
20 countries internationally, predominantly through company-
owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of
partnerships and franchises.


PPG INDUSTRIES: July 20 Hearing Set $780,000 VT Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chittenden County Superior Court in Vermont will hold a
fairness hearing on July 20, 2009 at 9:00n a.m. for the proposed
$780,000 settlement in the matter, "Washburn's Autobody and
Thomas Brassard v. PPG Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1122-
04CnC."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Helen M. Toor in
the Chittenden County Superior Courthouse, 175 Main Street,
Burlington, Vermont 05402.

The settlement covers anyone who had all or part of the paint on
their vehicle refinished during the period beginning Jan. 1,
1993 through Sept. 24, 2004, or an automobile refinisher or auto
repair shop who purchased paint during that period.

Separate settlements have been proposed with each of the five
defendants in the following amounts: (i) Defendants BASF
Aktiengesellschaft, BASF Coatings AG, and BASF Corporation
(collectively, "BASF"): $125,000; (ii) Defendants The Sherwin-
Williams Company and Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes
(collectively, "Sherwin-Williams"): $125,000; Defendant PPG
Industries, Inc. ("PPG"): $240,000; Defendants Akzo Nobel Car
Refinishes B.V. and Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc. (collectively
"Akzo"): $90,000; and Defendants E.I. duPont de Nemours and
Company, and DuPont Performance Coatings, Inc. (collectively,
"DuPont"): $200,000.

For more details, contact:

          Vermont Autopaint Settlement Claims Administrator
          Strategic Claims Services
          P.O. Box 230
          600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3
          Media, Pennsylvania 19063
          Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net

               - and -

          Dennis J. Johnson, Esq.
          Eben Duval, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2305, 1690 Williston Road
          S. Burlington, VT 05407
          Phone: (802) 862-0030


PRETZEL TIME: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging FACTA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pretzel Time of Middletown, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, Keith Goldberg of The Times Herald-Record reports.

The suit was filed on June 4, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption, "Pesce
v. Pretzel Time of Middletown Inc et al., Case No. 7:2009-cv-
05250."

The suit claims that the store printed the expiration date of of
the plaintiff's credit card on the receipt after he made a
purchase on May 17, a violation of FACTA, according to The Times
Herald-Record report.

In general, FACTA prohibits merchants from printing the
expiration date or more than the last five digits of a credit-
card number on a receipt, The Times Herald-Record reported.

For more details, contact:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq. (akleinman@solve360.com)
          Kleinman LLC
          626 RexCorp Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Phone: (516) 522-2621
          Fax: (888) 522-1692


ROYLE PRINTING: Faces Wage, Hours Law Violations Suit in Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royle Printing Co. faces a purported class-action suit claiming
the company forced employees to take unpaid breaks during work
days in violation of state wage and hours laws, The Wisconsin
State Journal reports.

The lawsuit was filed in Dane County Circuit Court on June 8,
2009 to recover wages for employees who worked in the pressroom,
pre-press, bindery and warehouse and to make the company change
its policies, Madison attorney Tamara Packard, Esq. said in a
written statement, according to The Wisconsin State Journal
report.

The lawsuit claims Royle for the past two years has required
employees to punch out for a 20-minute break each day if they
wanted to leave company premises during that time.  Smokers were
required to leave the premises to smoke, according to Ms.
Packard, The Wisconsin State Journal reported.


SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Calif. Court To Hear Suits Over Oracle Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Santa Clara court will hear this month three class-action
lawsuits brought against Sun Microsystems, Inc. and its chairman
and co-founder Scott McNealy over company's planned merger with
Oracle Corp., claiming that Oracle's offer is unfair and
inadequate, according to a report by Gavin Clarke of The
Register.

Chris Preimesberger of eWeek previously reported Sun is facing
three class-action complaints from shareholders seeking to block
the company's planned merger with Oracle (Class Action Reporter,
May 12, 2009).

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

JML PORTFOLIO: Prossnitz Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard Prossnitz announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of
variable annuities offered by JML Portfolio Management, Ltd. and
issued by Capital Leben, now known as Swiss Life Holding AG,
which was invested with Nomura Holding, Inc.'s All Weather Fund.
The Nomura All Weather Fund was heavily invested with Bernard
Madoff Investment Securities LLC.  This class action is being
brought on behalf of all victims who were sold Swiss Life
variable annuities through JML from January 3, 2006 to December
10, 2008.  The defendants are JML Portfolio Management Ltd.,
Swiss Life Holdings AG, and Nomura Holdings, Inc.

     The complaint charges the Defendants violated various
federal securities laws, and also alleges breach of fiduciary
duty, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
Florida state securities law.  Plaintiffs allege that JML, Swiss
Life and Nomura collectively engaged in unlawful practices by
misrepresentations and omissions to investors who purchased the
Swiss Life annuity through JML.  Plaintiffs allege Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by investing
Plaintiffs money with Madoff while failing to perform adequate
due diligence, despite many red flags.  As a result of
Defendants' many violations, purchasers of the annuities lost a
significant portion of their investment when the Madoff Ponzi
scheme collapsed.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Swiss Life annuities offered through JML from
January 3, 2006 to December 10, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Howard Prossnitz, Esq.
          The Law Offices of Howard Prossnitz
          200 West Madison Street
          Suite 2670
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312)-960-1800
          Web site: howard@prossnitzlaw.com


OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: The Shuman Law Firm Announces Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Shuman Law Firm announced that a lawsuit has been filed
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B and/or Class C
shares of the Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals Fund
(Nasdaq:OPTAX) (Nasdaq:OTFBX) (Nasdaq:OMFCX) during the period
from May 13, 2006 to October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint charges OppenheimerFunds, Inc.,
OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the Fund and certain of its
trustees and officers with violations of Sections 11, 12 (a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibit materially
false and misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in the Fund.

     According to the complaint, during the Class Period the
Fund failed to disclose risk factors associated with the Fund's
investments, including, but not limited to: (1) the Fund's
investments in "inverse floater" securities that exposed it to
the risk that it would be forced to sell, upon certain
occurrences relating to the inverse floater securities, other
securities in its portfolio at fire-sale prices.  This amounted
to hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed potential
liabilities; and (2) the Fund's over concentration of
investments in illiquid securities in violation of its 15% cap
by investing in illiquid tobacco bonds and ordinary municipal
bond and notes that could turn illiquid quickly.

     On October 21, 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus supplement
alerting investors of the true liquidity risks of its
investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007 and
throughout 2008.  By October 2008, however, those risks had
already manifested, causing substantial losses to investors.  On
October 21, 2008, the Fund's shares traded at approximately
$5.96 per share, down from $8.93 per share at the beginning of
the year, an approximate decline of 33.3% per share for the
year.  The Fund was among the worst performing in its peer
group.

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

For more information, contact:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80203
          Phone: 866-974-8626
          Fax: 303-484-4886
          Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/


OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Weiss & Lurie Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Weiss & Lurie announces its filing a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of shares of Oppenheimer AMT-
Free New York Municipals, an open ended mutual fund investing in
high- yield municipal securities exempt from federal income and
New York personal income taxes.  Included are the Fund's Class
A, B and C shares (respectively, NASDAQ: OPNYX, NASDAQ: OPYBX,
and NASDAQ: OPYCX) purchased from May 21, 2006 through and
including October 21, 2008, who were damaged thereby.

     The complaint charges the Fund, Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.,
and certain of its officers and directors, with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 for failing to properly disclose the
Fund’s investments in inverse floaters and the attendant risks.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 7, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Mark D. Smilow, Esq.
          Weiss & Lurie
          The French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York City 10176
          Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025
          e-mail: infony@weisslurie.com


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *