CAR_Public/090616.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 117

                           Headlines

ADVANCED METALLURGICAL: Timminco Subsidiary Faces Ontario Suit
AUSTIN CAPITAL: Spector Roseman Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit
BACK DOCTORS: Faces TCPA Violations Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in Kansas
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Quebec Judge Orders CAD$200M Payment

GENERAL MOTORS: Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal Request
GMAC LLC: Bondholder Drops Claims V. Cerberus in Del. Litigation
HORIZON LINES: Reaches Settlement for P.R. Antitrust Litigation
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Finkelstein & Krinsk Appointed Lead Counsel
KENEXA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Pennsylvania

MASSEY ENERGY: W.Va. Lawsuit Settlers Still Waiting Money
MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violations
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Approval Sought For Ohio Suit Settlement
POLO RALPH LAUREN: Approval of Calif. Settlement Remains Pending
POLO RALPH LAUREN: Contesting Suits by Former Store Employees

RAIT FINANCIAL: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending Approval
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Aug. 6 Final Hearing Set for Wilder Settlement
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Awaits Argument Date for Appeal to Junked Suit
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Faces 1st Amended Consolidated Shareholder Suit
TIMMINCO LTD: Faces Second Securities Litigation in Ontario

VODAFONE GROUP: Awaits Court Order on Amended Lothian Complaint


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

IDEARC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Litigation
KENEXA CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
KENEXA CORP: Izard Nobel LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
KENEXA CORP: Shalov Stone Announces Pa. Securities Suit Filing
NORTEL NETWORKS: Holzer Holzer Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit

OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Coughlin Stoia Announces Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit
SEQUENOM INC: Ann D. White Announces Securities Suit in Calif.


                           *********

ADVANCED METALLURGICAL: Timminco Subsidiary Faces Ontario Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     AMG Advanced Metallurgical Group N.V. is aware of a
proposed class action that commenced in the Ontario, Canada
Superior Court on June 11, 2009 by Robert Gowan against AMG, its
52.5 % owned subsidiary Timminco Limited ("Timminco"; TSX: TIM),
AMG's and Timminco's CEO Dr. Heinz Schimmelbusch, and others.
The proposed action filed on June 11, 2009, has not been served
to AMG or Dr. Schimmelbusch.

     AMG is expected to provide further update on the proposed
class action lawsuit filed against it and Dr. Schimmelbusch as
soon as it has been able to review the proposed action.
Timminco and others, including members of its Board of
Directors, its CEO and other senior management members, also
have been named as defendants in a proposed class action
commenced in the same court on May 14, 2009 by Ravinder Kumar
Sharma.


AUSTIN CAPITAL: Spector Roseman Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. has filed a second
class action against Austin Capital Management Ltd. for millions
of dollars of losses due to improper investments in securities
controlled by Bernard L. Madoff and his company.

     The suit, brought on behalf of the Pittsburgh-based Board
of Trustees of the Steamfitters Local 449 Retirement Security
Fund and a nationwide class of similar funds, alleges that
Austin failed to prudently invest the benefit funds' assets, in
violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

     Bernard Madoff was arrested on December 11, 2008 and
charged with running a $64 billion fraud known as a "Ponzi
scheme," in which early investors thought they were receiving
returns on investment, but were in fact being paid with the
investment money of later investors.

     The complaint alleges that Austin was a fiduciary to the
class of benefit funds and owed them the duty to manage
investments with the highest care.  Instead, the complaint
alleges, Austin failed to notice the numerous red flags about
the Madoff-related securities.  These included:

       a. the lack of transparency in the operations of Madoff
          and Madoff Securities, including Madoff's refusal to
          disclose his investment strategy;

       b. the fact that investment returns of Madoff Securities
          were abnormally smooth, with very little volatility,
          including only five months of negative returns in the
          past 12 years;

       c. the inability of other funds, using Madoff's stated
          method, to generate returns in any way comparable;

       d. the fact that Madoff acted as his own prime broker,
          while most hedge funds used large banks as their prime
          brokers;

       e. the fact that monthly account statements sent to
          Madoff investors did not support the returns being
          supposedly earned;

       f. the fact that Madoff's auditors consisted of one
          office in Rockland County, New York, with three
          employees: one was 78 years old and lived in Florida,
          and one was a secretary.

     The complaint notes that numerous other investment managers
did discover the red flags and declined to invest in Madoff-
related securities.

     The suit also names as defendants individual officers and
managers at Austin as well as its affiliated companies, KeyCorp,
Victory Capital Management, and Austin Capital Management GP
Corp.  Plaintiffs seek to represent all employee benefit plans
that used Austin as an investment manager and lost money due to
Austin's purchase of Madoff-related securities.

For more details, contact:

          Theodore M. Lieverman, Esq.
          Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C.
          Phone: 888-844-5862
          Web site: http://www.srkw-law.com
          e-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com


BACK DOCTORS: Faces TCPA Violations Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Back Doctors Ltd., doing business as Fairview Heights Spine and
Surgery Center, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit over
unsolicited faxes, Kelly Holleran of The Madison Record reports.

The suit was filed by Cynthia L. Holmes P.C. On June 9, 2009  in
St. Clair County Circuit Court (case number: 09-L-299).  The
Missouri corporation claims it used toner, paper and employee
time against its will because of unsolicited faxes it received
from a medical clinic, according to The Madison Record report.

Cynthia L. Holmes says Back Doctors violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending two advertisements via fax on
Nov. 25 and Dec. 9.  "Plaintiff had not invited or given
permission to Defendant to send fax advertisements," according
to the complaint obtained by The Madison Record.

The complaint alleges that receiving the faxes caused Cynthia L.
Holmes and other putative class members to lose paper and toner
consumed in the printing process, interrupted their privacy
interests and cost the companies employee time.  "That time
otherwise would have been spent on Plaintiff's business
activities," the suit states, reports The Madison Record.

The Madison Record reported that the plaintiff is asking the
court to declare the case as a class action lawsuit and to order
an injunction prohibiting Back Doctors from sending any more
advertisements.  It is also asking for $500 in damages for each
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, plus
additional unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs and other
relief of not more than $75,000 per class plaintiff.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners LP (NYSE: FGP) faces a purported class-
action lawsuit alleging that the propane company shortchanged
customers who bought 20-pound propane tanks by not filling them
up all the way but keeping prices the same, The Kansas City
Business Journal reports.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status and was filed on June 11,
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas by
Jeremy Drucker.  The suit contends that Overland Park-based
Ferrellgas sold 20-pound propane tanks, the type customers
normally use for barbecue grills, but that the containers
actually held 15-pounds, according to the Kansas City Business
Journal report.

The tanks in question normally hold 17 to 18 pounds of propane
as a precaution against expanding gas, but the company started
selling the tanks with 15 pounds of gas after 2008, according to
the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Kansas City
Business Journal.

The Kansas City Business Journal reported that because the price
of the tanks did not change and Ferrellgas did not say that the
amount of gas was less, the plaintiff claimed unjust enrichment
by Ferrellgas in his suit, captioned, "Drucker v. Ferrellgas
Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-02305."

The plaintiff, who is represented by Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP,
seeks at least $5 million, reports The Kansas City Business
Journal.

For more details, contact:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq. (siegel@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7112
          Fax: 816-714-7101


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Quebec Judge Orders CAD$200M Payment
------------------------------------------------------------
A Quebec judge ordered ten financial institutions to pay more
than CAD$200 million to credit-card holders who were overcharged
on currency-conversion fees, ctvmontreal.ca reports.

The customers had used their cards outside Canada, mainly in the
United States, from 1993 to 2003.  The order was was in
connection a June 11, 2009 ruling issued by Quebec Superior
Court Justice Clement Gascon in three separate class-action
lawsuits,a ccording to ctvmontreal.ca.

The banks, credit-card companies, and Caisse Desjardins have 30
days to appeal and it's not clear when customers will get their
money back, ctvmontreal.ca reported.

However, the Option Consommateurs consumers' group said the
ruling still speaks volumes.  "It is a very important decision,"
the group's lawyer, Stephanie Poulin tells ctvmontreal.ca.  "It
confirms that the Consumer Protection Act applies to the banks
and various financial institutions.  They cannot use the
argument that they are (under) federal jurisdiction to avoid
respecting the law."

The institutions that lost in court also include the Royal Bank,
the National Bank, Toronto Dominion, and American Express,
reports ctvmontreal.ca.


GENERAL MOTORS: Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal Request
--------------------------------------------------------------
     On June 11, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected
General Motors' request for permission to appeal a class action
undertaken by the Automobile Protection Association (APA) on
behalf of owners of 1997-2004 Chevrolet Venture, Oldsmobile
Silhouette, and Pontiac TransSport and Montana minivans
experiencing corrosion and/or paint chipping problems.

     Mr.Stéphane Vermette and the APA filed the class action in
2004, seeking damages for repairs to the defective minivans.
Authorization for the class action to proceed was granted by the
Quebec Court of Appeal in September 2008. General Motors
subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to reverse
the decision of the Court of Appeal.
     Pursuant to the response from the Supreme Court of Canada,
the case has been returned to the Superior Court of Quebec for a
trial.

For more details, contact:

          George Iny, President of the APA
          Phone: (514) 273-1662 (APA) and (514) 867-1662


GMAC LLC: Bondholder Drops Claims V. Cerberus in Del. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A GMAC LLC bondholder alleging that the financing company
unfairly swapped certain bonds for higher-priority notes,
leaving the rest more likely to go unpaid in the event of
bankruptcy, dropped claims against major stakeholder Cerberus
Capital Management LP in the putative class-action lawsuit,
Law360 reports.

Plaintiff S. Black Murchison filed an amended complaint on June
11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, that dropped claims against Cerberus Capital,
according to the Law360 report.


HORIZON LINES: Reaches Settlement for P.R. Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Horizon Lines, Inc. (NYSE: HRZ) today reported that it has
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the
Puerto Rico class action antitrust litigation, and also entered
into a credit agreement amendment with its lender group.

     As previously reported, several purported class action
lawsuits were filed against Horizon Lines and other domestic
shipping carriers on behalf of a class of individuals and
entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from
various domestic ocean carriers in the Puerto Rico tradelane
between 2002 and 2008.  Those lawsuits were consolidated into a
single multidistrict litigation proceeding in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.  The complaints
allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and Puerto
Rican antitrust laws and seek treble monetary damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly
unlawful conduct.

     On June 11, 2009, Horizon Lines entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Puerto Rico class action
antitrust litigation.  Under the settlement agreement, which is
subject to Court approval, Horizon has agreed to pay $20 million
and to certain base-rate freezes, to resolve claims for alleged
antitrust violations in the Puerto Rico tradelane.  The payment
terms would require Horizon Lines to pay into an escrow account
$20 million as follows:

     * $5 million within five business days following execution
       of a settlement agreement and submission of a motion for
       preliminary approval to the district court;

     * $5 million within 90 days after preliminary approval of
       the settlement agreement by the district court; and

     * $10 million within five business days after final
       approval of the settlement agreement by the district
       court.

     The base-rate freeze component of the settlement agreement
provides that class members who have contracts in the Puerto
Rico trade with Horizon Lines as of the effective date of the
settlement would have the option, in lieu of receiving cash, to
have their "base rates" frozen for a period of two years.  The
base-rate freeze would run for two years from the expiration of
the contract in effect on the effective date of the settlement.
All class members would be eligible to share in the $20 million
cash component, but only contract customers of Horizon Lines
would be eligible to elect the base-rate freeze in lieu of
receiving cash.

     The settlement agreement is subject to Court approval.  In
addition, Horizon Lines has the right to terminate the
settlement agreement under certain circumstances.

     As previously reported, Horizon Lines received a grand jury
subpoena and search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic
ocean shipping business, including Puerto Rico.  Horizon Lines
is cooperating with the Antitrust Division in that
investigation.  Also, several class action lawsuits relating to
ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes and
the Alaska tradelane have been filed against Horizon Lines.
Horizon Lines intends to vigorously defend itself against those
purported class action lawsuits.

     Horizon Lines also reached an agreement with its lenders to
amend the existing credit agreement in conjunction with the
Puerto Rico settlement.

     The agreement will amend the definition of Consolidated
EBITDA by:

     * Adding certain charges related to the Puerto Rico
       settlement back to the calculation of Consolidated
       EBITDA, and

     * Adding certain charges for litigation expenses related to
       antitrust litigation matters in an amount not to exceed
       $25 million in the aggregate and $15 million over a 12-
       month period back to the calculation of Consolidated
       EBITDA.

     The definition of Consolidated EBITDA is used to determine
whether Horizon Lines is in compliance with its secured leverage
ratio and interest coverage ratio, as well as its ability to
make certain restricted payments.

     As consideration for the amendment, Horizon Lines has
agreed to provide the following economic and structural changes
for the benefit of the lenders:

     * Increase loan and letter of credit pricing by 150bps and
       an increase in the commitment fee;

     * A reduction in the size of the revolving facility from
       $250 million to $225 million;

     * The elimination of the $150 million incremental facility;

     * An amendment to the definition of Consolidated EBITDA
       that clarifies "non-recurring charges"; and

     * Other structural enhancements, including a step-down in
       the secured leverage ratio and further limitations on the
       ability to make certain restricted payments.

     In addition, Horizon Lines has agreed to pay consent fees
of $1.8 million.  A copy of the Credit Agreement amendment is
filed as an exhibit to a current report that Horizon Lines filed
with the SEC on June 12, 2009.

     "We appreciate the support of our lender group in the
amendment process that provided the clarity and flexibility
necessary to effect this settlement," said Mike Avara, Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.  "Although the cost
of debt on both our $150 million revolver balance and $115.6
million term loan outstanding as of June 11th has increased by
1.50%, our revised blended total cost of debt remains fairly low
at 4.47%, up from the previous 3.81%.  The 4.25% interest rate
on our convertible notes remains unchanged. We have worked
closely with our banks and expect to remain in compliance with
our financial covenants," said Mike Avara.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- is the
nation's leading domestic ocean shipping and integrated
logistics company comprised of two primary operating
subsidiaries.  Horizon Lines, LLC, owns or leases a fleet of 21
U.S.-flag containerships and operates 5 port terminals linking
the continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam,
Micronesia and Puerto Rico.  Horizon Logistics, LLC, offers
customized logistics solutions to shippers from a suite of
transportation and distribution management services, information
technology developed by Horizon Services Group and intermodal
trucking and warehousing services provided by Sea-Logix.
Horizon Lines, Inc. is based in Charlotte, NC, and trades on the
New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol HRZ.


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Finkelstein & Krinsk Appointed Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action lawsuit pending against International Coal
Group, Inc. (NYSE: ICO) has progressed with the Court
appointment of lead Plaintiff and Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, as
lead counsel.

     The case alleges that ICO and certain of its directors and
officers made false statements to shareholders about the
company's coal production and safety record.  Plaintiff asserts
that ICO overstated its coal production and downplayed safety
issues (contributing to the Sago mine disaster), which caused a
collapse in the price of ICO shares.

For more details, contact:

          William Restis, Esq. (wrr@classaction.com)
          Finkelstein & Krinsk
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego CA, 92101
          Phone: 877-493-5366


KENEXA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kenexa Corp. (NASDAQ: KNXA), a global provider of business
solutions for human resources, announced that it has been
notified that a purported class action complaint had been filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, its chief executive officer
and its chief financial officer.

     The complaint alleges that between May 8, 2007 and November
7, 2007 the Company failed to disclose certain facts about the
Company's business, and on that basis the complaint asserts
violations of federal securities laws.  Under the provisions of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, it is possible
that additional complaints containing similar allegations may be
filed.

     The Company stated that it believes that the allegations
made in the complaint are without merit and that it intends to
vigorously defend against the complaint.

Kenexa Corp. -- http://www.kenexa.com-- provides business
solutions for human resources.  It helps global organizations
multiply business success by identifying the best individuals
for every job and fostering optimal work environments for every
organization.  For more than 20 years, Kenexa has studied human
behavior and team dynamics in the workplace, and has developed
the software solutions, business processes and expert consulting
that help organizations impact positive business outcomes
through HR.  Kenexa is the only company that offers a
comprehensive suite of unified products and services that
support the entire employee lifecycle from pre-hire to exit.


MASSEY ENERGY: W.Va. Lawsuit Settlers Still Waiting Money
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who have settled in a case against Massey Energy say
they have been promised they would receive their money four
times, but are yet to receive a check, Julia Roberts Goad of The
Williamson Daily News reports.

The case involves over 400 cases, which were consolidated into
one class-action lawsuit by Mingo County Circuit Judge Michael
Thornsbury, according to the Daily News report.

The plaintiffs are suing Rawl Sales, a subsidiary of Massey
Energy, for polluting water in the Rawl area.  The suit claims
there have been major, lasting medical problems caused by the
contamination, reports the Daily News.

In May, Judge Thornsbury ordered all the plaintiffs in the case
to report to the Mingo County Courthouse, where each received a
separate settlement offer, the Daily News reported.

Although most of the plaintiffs did not accept offers by Massey
Energy to settle out of court, approximately 200 did, and say
they were told they would receive payment within 30 days,
according to Daily News.

"But we still haven't gotten a check," one of the plaintiff,
speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Daily News.

Daily News reported that several of those who have settled with
Massey were in front of the courthouse on June 12, 2009.  They
said they had been told to be at the Sycamore Inn, a Williamson
hotel, on June 11, 2009. But, the plaintiffs say, no one
received their settlements, they were told to report to the
courthouse on June 12.

However, when they went to the courthouse, they were told again
they would have to wait.  "It ain't nothing but the runaround,"
another plaintiff tells the Daily News.  "On April 24, they told
us we would have our money within 30 days.  But we still don't
have it."

The plaintiffs say they have not been told the reason for the
delay in releasing the checks, the Daily News reports.


MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. faces a purported class-
action lawsuit filed by some workers at its Vance, Alabama
plant, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, The
Birmingham News reports.

The suit was filed on June 9, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama by Gralyin Lawson and
Joseph W. Arrington, under the caption, "Lawson et al v.
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., Case No. 7:2009-cv-
01157."

The plaintiffs -- who are seeking class-action status on behalf
of 100 workers -- claim that they're owed overtime wages because
they were forced to cover breaks for managers, according to The
Birmingham News report.

Specifically, the workers claim that they attended meetings
before the start of their shifts to hear updates from
management, among other unpaid duties, in violation of federal
labor laws, reports The Birmingham News.

Hourly employees who work more than 40 hours a week are supposed
to be paid 1 1/2 times their regular wage, according to the
complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Birmingham News.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Approval Sought For Ohio Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have asked a judge to give final approval to the
settlement of a proposed class-action lawsuit against Nationwide
Financial Services Inc. that alleged majority shareholder
Nationwide Corp.'s $2.17 billion buyout bid was too low and that
Nationwide had interests on both sides of the proposed deal,
Law360 reports.

In a motion filed on June 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, the plaintiffs asked the
judge to bless the settlement, according to the Law360 report.


POLO RALPH LAUREN: Approval of Calif. Settlement Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The terms of the final settlement of two customer class-action
lawsuits in California remain subject to court approval,
according to Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.'s  May 27, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 28, 2009.

On Oct. 11, 2007 and Nov. 2, 2007, two class-action lawsuits
were filed by two customers in state court in California
asserting that while they were shopping at certain of the
company's factory stores in California, the company allegedly
required them to provide certain personal information at the
point-of-sale in order to complete a credit card purchase.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a class of customers in
California who allegedly were injured by being forced to provide
their address and telephone numbers in order to use their credit
cards to purchase items from the company's stores, which
allegedly violated Section 1747.08 of California's Song-Beverly
Act.

The complaints sought an unspecified amount of statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The company subsequently had the actions moved to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern and Central Districts of
California.

The company commenced mediation proceedings with respect to
these lawsuits and on Oct. 17, 2008, the company agreed in
principle to settle these claims by agreeing to issue $20
merchandise discount coupons with six month expiration dates to
eligible parties.  The terms of the final settlement remain
subject to court approval and the resolution of the amount of
attorneys' fees payable to plaintiffs' counsel in connection
with these lawsuits.

In connection with this settlement, the company recorded a $5
million reserve against its expected loss exposure during the
second quarter of Fiscal 2009.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings.  The
Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.


POLO RALPH LAUREN: Contesting Suits by Former Store Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. contests the class-action lawsuit filed
by four former employees of the company's Ralph Lauren stores in
Palo Alto and San Francisco, California.

On May 30, 2006, four former employees of Ralph Lauren stores
filed a lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of employees who
allegedly have been injured by not properly being paid
commission earnings, not being paid overtime, not receiving rest
breaks, being forced to work off of the clock while waiting to
enter or leave the store and being falsely imprisoned while
waiting to leave the store.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, damages for emotional distress, disgorgement of
profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

The company has filed a cross-claim against one of the
plaintiffs for his role in allegedly assisting a former employee
to misappropriate company property.

Subsequent to answering the complaint, the company had the
action moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On July 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, according to the company's May 27, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 28, 2009.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings.  The
Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.


RAIT FINANCIAL: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of  the complaint captioned, "In re RAIT
Financial Trust Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-03148,"
remains subject to various conditions.

RAIT, certain of its executive officers and trustees and the
lead underwriters involved in the company's public offering of
common shares in January 2007, were named defendants in one or
more of nine putative class action securities lawsuits filed in
August and September 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

By Order dated Nov. 17, 2007, the court consolidated these cases
under the caption, "In re RAIT Financial Trust Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-03148," and appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

On Jan. 4, 2008, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class-
action complaint, or the complaint, on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of our securities between June 8, 2006 and
Aug. 3, 2007.

The complaint names as defendants RAIT, 11 current and former
officers and trustees of RAIT, 10 underwriters who participated
in certain of the company's securities offerings in 2007, and
its independent accounting firm.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain
defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by making materially false and misleading
statements and material omissions in registration statements and
prospectuses about the company's credit underwriting, its
exposure to certain issuers through investments in debt
securities, and its loan loss reserves and other financial
items.

The complaint further alleges that certain defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making materially false and
misleading statements and material omissions during the putative
class period about the company's credit underwriting, its
exposure to certain issuers through investments in debt
securities, and its loan loss reserves and other financial
items.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right
to rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings,
interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

On March 10, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on
a number of grounds.  The Court permitted plaintiffs to file a
single brief in opposition to all defense motions to dismiss on
May 15, 2008.   All defendants filed reply briefs in support of
their motions to dismiss on June 5, 2008.

RAIT and certain of the officer/trustee defendants sought leave
to file a supplemental brief, which the Court permitted as of
June 24, 2008.  Plaintiffs were permitted a response to the
supplemental brief, which was deemed filed as of July 1, 2008.

The parties have requested oral argument on the motions to
dismiss, but no argument has been scheduled.

On May 26, 2009, defendants entered into a written term sheet
with lead plaintiff for settlement of the action.  The term
sheet provides that the claims of the plaintiff class will be
settled for a cash payment of $32 million.  The settlement
payment is within the limits of RAIT's directors and officers
liability insurance, and RAIT's insurers have agreed to fund the
settlement.  Plaintiffs have agreed to a complete release of all
claims against all defendants in the action.  The settlement is
subject to the completion of a definitive written settlement
agreement, confirmatory discovery, and court approval of the
settlement after written notice to the class.

In connection with the settlement, the defendants have at all
times denied, continue to deny and admit no wrongdoing of any
kind, according to RAIT Financial Trust's Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated May 27, 2009.

RAIT Financial Trust -- http://www.raitft.com-- is a specialty
finance company that provides a set of debt financing options to
the real estate industry.  It originates and invests in real
estate-related assets that are underwritten through an
integrated investment process.  RAIT conducts business through
its subsidiaries, which include RAIT Partnership, L.P. and
Taberna Realty Finance Trust, as well as through their
respective subsidiaries.  RAIT is a self-managed and self-
advised real estate investment trust (REIT), which originates
and invests in asset classes, such as commercial mortgages,
mezzanine loans and other loans; trust preferred securities
(TruPS), and subordinated debentures; residential mortgage
loans; mortgaged-backed securities, including residential
mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS), unsecured REIT notes and other real estate-
related debt securities, and real estate investments and
preferred equity interests in entities that own real estate.


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Aug. 6 Final Hearing Set for Wilder Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing for the settlement of the suit styled
"Wilder v. Doris, et al. (C07-1500)," is scheduled for Aug. 6,
2009, according to Sonic Solutions' May 29, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

Between March and June 2007, the company was notified that a
total of five shareholder derivative lawsuits had been filed by
persons identifying themselves as its shareholders and
purporting to act on the company's behalf, naming the company as
a nominal defendant and naming some of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

Four of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and one was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Marin.

In these actions, the plaintiffs assert claims against the
individual defendants for violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act, violations of the California Corporations Code,
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, rescission, constructive fraud, and an accounting
and a constructive trust.

The plaintiffs' claims concern the granting of stock options by
the company and the alleged filing of false and misleading
financial statements.  All of these claims are asserted
derivatively on the company's behalf.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an indeterminate amount
of damages from the individual defendants and a judgment
directing the company to reform its corporate governance.

The federal cases were consolidated on Aug. 2, 2007, into one
action captioned "Wilder v. Doris, et al. (C07-1500)," which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action and shareholder derivative complaint.

Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, defendants' response
to the complaint was due Feb. 12, 2009.

On Sept. 19, 2007, the court in the state action granted the
company's motion to stay that proceeding in its entirety until
final resolution of the consolidated federal action.

In February 2009, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle these actions.  The company agreed to adopt certain
remedial measures to improve its stock option granting
processes, in addition to the repayment and repricing of
portions of the excess value received from stock options that
certain officers and directors previously agreed to.  As part of
the settlement, the company's Directors and Officers liability
insurer agreed to pay the derivative plaintiffs' counsel
attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $775,000, subject to
court approval.

On May 14, 2009 the Wilder court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement.  The final approval hearing is scheduled for
Aug. 6, 2009.

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats.  Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats.  The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name.  The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Awaits Argument Date for Appeal to Junked Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Marin has yet
to set a date for oral argument on the appeal from the dismissal
of a putative shareholder class-action lawsuit against Sonic
Solutions and various of its executive officers and directors.

The putative shareholder class-action suit was filed on Nov. 16,
2007, in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Marin against the company and various of its executive officers
and directors on behalf of a proposed class of persons who
purchased its shares between July 12, 2001, and May 17, 2007.

The action alleges breach of fiduciary duties, and is based on
substantially similar factual allegations and claims as in the
other lawsuits.

The court in the state putative shareholder class action suit
sustained the company's demurrers to the complaint with leave to
amend.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiffs in that action filed an
amended complaint, which asserts additional claims under the
California Corporations Code.  The court sustained the company's
demurrers to the amended complaint, without leave to amend in
part and with leave to amend in part.

The time for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in this
action has expired and they have not yet done so.

Accordingly, on July 30, 2008, the court dismissed the entire
case with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the
defendants.

On Sept. 26, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice
and entering final judgment.  On Jan. 15, 2009, Plaintiff-
appellant filed his opening brief.  Defendants-respondents'
responding brief was due Feb. 17, 2009.

The briefing on this appeal is complete, but the date for oral
argument has not been set by the court, according to the
company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2009.

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats.  Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats.  The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name.  The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Faces 1st Amended Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions and various of its executive officers and
directors face the first amended consolidated putative
shareholder class-action complaint, according to the company's
May 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

On Oct. 4, 2007, a putative shareholder class-action suit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs comprised of persons that purchased the company's
shares between Oct. 4, 2002, and May 17, 2007.  This action
alleges various violations of the Exchange Act and the rules
promulgated thereunder.

On March 21, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the company and various of its executive
officers and directors on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs comprised of persons that purchased the company's
shares between Oct. 23, 2002, and May 17, 2007.

On May 27, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a "corrected" consolidated
amended complaint.  The action alleges various violations of the
Exchange Act and the rules thereunder, and is based on
substantially similar factual allegations and claims as in the
derivative actions.

On June 27, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 4, 2008, this action was reassigned to the judge
presiding over the Wilder v. Doris action.  Upon the
reassignment, the court directed defendants to refile the motion
to dismiss.

Defendants refiled their motion to dismiss on Nov. 25, 2008.

Defendants' motion was heard on Feb. 26, 2009.

On April 6, 2009, the judge issued an order granting in part and
denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to
amend.

On May 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a first amended class action
complaint.  This complaint alleges violations of Sections 10b,
14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act.

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats.  Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats.  The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name.  The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.


TIMMINCO LTD: Faces Second Securities Litigation in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Timminco Limited (TSX: TIM) announced that it is aware of
another proposed class action commenced in the Ontario Superior
Court on June 11, 2009 by Robert Gowan against Timminco and
others.

     This new action contains the same types of allegations as
set forth in the proposed class action commenced in the same
court on May 14, 2009.  Timminco expects that these two actions
will be consolidated, if the court grants permission to bring
the class actions under the Secondary Market Disclosure
provisions of the Ontario Securities Act.

     Timminco intends to vigorously defend these allegations and
the plaintiffs' attempts to get court approval to proceed.

Timminco -- http://www.timminco.com-- produces solar grade
silicon for the solar photovoltaic energy industry.  Using its
proprietary, patent pending technology, Timminco purifies
silicon metal into solar grade silicon (also known as upgraded
metallurgical silicon) for use in the manufacture of solar
cells.  Timminco also produces silicon metal, magnesium
extrusions and other specialty metals for use in a broad range
of industrial applications serving the aluminum, chemical,
pharmaceutical, electronics and automotive industries.


VODAFONE GROUP: Awaits Court Order on Amended Lothian Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vodafone Group Plc is awaiting the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York's further consideration and order
on the amended class action complaint filed by The City of
Edinburgh Council on behalf of the Lothian Pension Fund.

On Nov. 12 2007, the company became aware of the filing of a
purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by The City of Edinburgh
Council on behalf of the Lothian Pension Fund against the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors for alleged violations of US federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that the company's financial statements
and certain disclosures between June 10, 2004 and Feb. 27, 2006
were materially false and misleading, among other things, as a
result of the company's alleged failure to report on a timely
basis a write-down for the impaired value of Vodafone's German,
Italian and Japanese subsidiaries.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages of an unspecified
amount and other relief on behalf of a putative class comprised
of all persons who purchased publicly traded securities,
including ordinary shares and American depositary receipts, of
the company between June 10, 2004 and Feb. 27, 2006.

The plaintiff subsequently served the complaint and, in March
2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, asserting
substantially the same claims against the same defendants on
behalf of the same putative investor class.  Thereafter, an
additional plaintiff, a US pension fund that purportedly
purchased Vodafone ADRs on the New York Stock Exchange, was
added as an additional plaintiff by stipulated order.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
June 6, 2008.

By judgment entered on Dec. 1, 2008, the court dismissed the
amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration
of that dismissal, arguing that the court overlooked the claims
of the US pension fund, as to which there had been no subject
matter jurisdiction challenge.  On April 9, 2009, the court
granted that motion to the extent that it sought reopening of
the action for the purpose of adjudication of the claims
asserted on behalf of the US pension fund, but denied the motion
with respect to the dismissal of Lothian's claims.  The court
ordered the case re-opened pending consideration and order with
respect to other arguments of the company in its motion to
dismiss in connection with which the court also indicated it
will address any arguments regarding supplemental jurisdiction
over Lothian's claims, according to its June 1, 2009 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

Vodafone Group Plc -- http://www.vodafone.com-- is engaged in
providing service, such as voice, messaging, data and fixed line
and others.  Voice services include provision of mobile voice
communications.  Messaging include text, picture and video
messaging on mobile devices.  Date services provide e-mail,
mobile connectivity and Internet on mobile.  Fixed broadband
offerings include communications services for both consumers.
The company offers a range of devices to access its services,
such as handsets, the Vodafone Mobile Connect card with third
generation broadband and the Vodafone Mobile Connect USB modem.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases
  
IDEARC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased the common stock of Idearc Inc. (Pink Sheets:
IDARQ), between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges certain of the Company's executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     Idearc is a media company that manages and delivers print,
online and wireless publishing and advertising services on
multiple platforms.  The Company's services include yellow
pages, white pages, online directory and search services, web
site design and hosting services, magazines, direct mail and
directory and information services for wireless subscribers.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Idearc's operations, prospects and
financial performance were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during 2007 the
Company relaxed its credit policies in order to increase the
amount of revenue which it reported to stockholders, while
defendants touted the Company's ever-improving, "stringent"
credit and collection policies.  By selling to non-creditworthy
customers, the Company effectively reported tens of millions of
dollars of sales that it otherwise would not have reported,
while accumulating tens of millions of dollars of uncollectible
receivables.  The Company carried these uncollectible
receivables on its books as though they were collectible until
mid-2008, when the Company admitted to a "relaxation of certain
aspects of the Company's credit policy in mid-2008" and began to
write off these uncollectible receivables in piecemeal fashion
over several quarters.

     Between mid-2008 and the end of that year, the Company
wrote off $47 million of worthless receivables that it
attributed to its relaxation of credit policies in mid-2008.
This non-collection of tens of millions of dollars of
receivables had a materially adverse impact on the Company's
liquidity and materially contributed to the Company's need to
file for bankruptcy protection. On March 3, 2009, Idearc filed
for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a
law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class
actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving
corporate fraud.

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

For more details, contact:

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


KENEXA CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Kenexa Corporation (Nasdaq: KNXA) between
May 8, 2007 and November 7, 2007, inclusive.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 10, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


KENEXA CORP: Izard Nobel LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Izard Nobel LLP announces a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Kenexa Corp. (NASDAQ: KNXA)
between May 8, 2007 and November 7, 2007, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Kenexa and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose the following adverse facts:

       -- that sales cycles for the Company's Employment Process
          Outsourcing ("EPO") and assessments lines of business
          were lengthening, causing sales to be pushed out and
          revenue growth to slow;

       -- that Kenexa was experiencing problems with its
          international sales and would need to revamp that
          sales force;

       -- that the Company was experiencing problems with a
          significant EPO client such that the client was
          requesting to be released from its contract with the
          Company; and

       -- based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable
          basis for their positive statements about the Company,
          its earnings, operations and prospects.

For more details, contact:

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


KENEXA CORP: Shalov Stone Announces Pa. Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Kenexa Corporation (NASDAQ: KNXA) between May 8,
2007, and November 7, 2007, inclusive.  The lawsuit is pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Kenexa; Nooruddin S. Karsan, the Chief
Executive Officer of Kenexa; and Donald Volk, the Company's
chief financial officer.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material adverse facts
that were known to the defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them.  More specifically, the complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
the following: that sales cycles for certain of the Company's
lines of business were growing longer, thereby slowing revenue
growth; that Kenexa's international sales were suffering and
that the Company would need to reorganize its sales force as a
result; that a significant Kenexa customer was seeking to be
released from its agreements with the Company; and that, due to
the preceding matters, there was no reasonable basis for the
defendants' positive statements about the Company and its
financial condition and business prospects.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., Esq. (tciarlone@lawssb.com)
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          Web site: http://www.lawssb.com


NORTEL NETWORKS: Holzer Holzer Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf all persons or entities
who purchased shares of Nortel Networks Corporation (PINKSHEETS:
NRTLQ) between May 2, 2008 and September 17, 2008.

     The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain
officers of Nortel violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by misrepresenting demand for the Company's products and by
failing to properly write down its goodwill.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 20, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Coughlin Stoia Announces Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or held shares of the Oppenheimer
Pennsylvania Municipal Fund offered by OppenheimerFunds, Inc.
(NASDAQ: OPATX) (NASDAQ: OPABX) (NASDAQ: OPACX) during the
period between November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008,
including in connection with its November 28, 2005, September
27, 2006, March 5, 2007 and November 28, 2007 offerings.

     The complaint charges the Pennsylvania Fund and certain of
its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.  The
Pennsylvania Fund, a series of the Oppenheimer Multi-State
Municipal Trust, is an open-end, non-diversified management
investment company.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, while
the Pennsylvania Fund promoted itself as focusing on capital
preservation and being safer than a high yield municipal bond
fund, unbeknownst to investors, the Fund altered its investment
style and began to significantly increase its risk in the hopes
of seeking higher returns.  Defendants concealed that the
Pennsylvania Fund had increased its exposure in these
excessively risky bets in the hopes of higher returns, such that
investors remained unaware of these additional risk exposures.

     Then, beginning in late September 2008 and continuing
through February 2009, the Fund began to acknowledge the serious
deterioration in its portfolio. As a result of the Fund's
disclosures, the price of the Fund's shares collapsed. As a
result, the Fund lost over 33% of its value in a few months.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statements/Prospectuses issued in
connection with the Offerings were as follows:

       -- the Fund was no longer adhering to its objective of
          preserving capital, but in an effort to achieve
          greater yields was pursuing riskier instruments;

       -- the Fund was no longer adhering to its no-
          concentration policy;

       -- the extent of the Fund's liquidity risk due to the
          illiquid nature of a large portion of the Fund's
          portfolios, including the Fund's investment in Tobacco
          and Dirt Bonds, was concealed;

       -- the extent to which the Fund's portfolio contained
          unrated securities was concealed;

       -- the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent defendants from taking on excessive risk or to
          prevent them from improperly evaluating the credit
          quality of unrated securities;

       -- the extent of the Fund's risk exposure to derivatives
          and other high-risk instruments such as Inverse
          Floaters was concealed; and

       -- the extent of the Fund's leverage exposure was
          misstated.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or held shares of the Pennsylvania
Fund during the Class Period, including in connections with the
Offerings.

For more details, contact:

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


OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP is filing a class-
action suit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against Oppenheimer Pennsylvania
Municipal Fund (Nasdaq: OPATX; OPABX; OPACX) and certain
officers.

     The class action is brought on behalf of those who
purchased A, B and C shares of the fund during the period from
November 28, 2005 to November 28, 2008.

     The Complaint alleges that the Fund, related Oppenheimer
entities, and various individuals employed by or associated with
Oppenheimer violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 13(a) of the Investment
Company Act.

     The Complaint alleges that the Fund's Registration
Statements and Prospectuses, issued and filed with the SEC
during the Class Period, were false and misleading in that they
represented the Fund sought a "high level of current interest
income…as is consistent with the preservation of capital."

     Consistent with this stated objective, these Registration
Statements and Prospectuses also stated that the Fund would
honor certain concentration limits and limitations on the amount
of Fund assets that could be invested in non-investment grade
bonds.

     The complaint further alleges that, at the time these
statements were made, the Fund was operating in a manner that
was inconsistent with these policies, rendering these statements
false and misleading.

     For example, the complaint alleges that the Fund had an:

       -- over-concentration of bonds whose credit quality was
          largely at the lowest investment grade or below
          investment grade (junk bonds);

       -- over-concentration of unrated bonds whose sole rating
          was established by the Fund's internal modeling, which
          inflated such ratings;

       -- over-concentration in higher risk securities, such as
          Tobacco Bonds, Dirt Bonds and Inverse Floaters.

     The complaint also alleges that the named defendants'
violation of these investment policies, without shareholder
approval, violated applicable federal law.

     As a result of the foregoing, during the Class Period, the
fund lost approximately 28% of its Net Asset Value.

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

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 888-476-6529
                 888-4-POMLAW


SEQUENOM INC: Ann D. White Announces Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C. announces that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California against Sequenom, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SQNM).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, including allegations of issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from June 4, 2008 through April 29, 2009.

     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.

     Furthermore, the Company represented that the product would
available for use by June 2009.  Defendants' public statements
were false and/or failed to disclose material adverse
information which as a result prevented Sequenom from bringing
to market SEQureDx 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 2008 could no longer be relied upon. On this news,
Sequenom's stock price fell more than 75% on extremely high
trading volume.

For further information, questions about the lawsuit or how to
participate, please contact Ann White Law Offices, at the email
below.

For more details, contact:

          Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C.
          Phone: 1-866-389-0274
          e-mail: mbucher@awhitelaw.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  * * *