CAR_Public/090629.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 29, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 126

                           Headlines

APPLE INC: Faces Ill. Consumer Fraud Suit Over iTunes Gift Cards
AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over GD Merger
BANK LEUMI: Israeli Holocaust Survivors Seeks Ancestors' Money
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in New York
CASELLA WASTE: Defending Suit Over BMR Discriminatory Practices

CENTEX CORP: To Defend Lawsuits Over Proposed Pulte Homes Merger
CENTRAL JERSEY: To Defend "Perillo" Shareholder Suit in N.J.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE: Settles N.C. Suit Over Business License Fess
EBAY INC: Sellers in PayPal Case Seek Australian, U.K. Documents
FLAMEL TECH: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Billhofer" Suit Pending

FLOWSERVE CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Securities Breach in Texas
GIANT INTERACTIVE: Bid to Junk Consolidated Amended Suit Pending
GLASS MANUFACTURERS: Pa. Court Sets Sept. 10 Status Conference
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Calif. Court Allows Suit Over Sonatas to Proceed
MACY'S INC: "Decristofaro" Merger Suit Still Pending in Missouri

MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
MEDIA BREAKAWAY: Settle Fla. Suit Over "Mobile Content" Services
MOODY'S INVESTORS: N.Y. Judge Appoints MSA CEO as Special Master
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Former Employees Files Calif. Labor Lawsuit
OCEANFIRST FINANCIAL: Faces "Perillo" Shareholder Suit in N.J.

OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: June 29 Set as Plaintiff Status Cutoff
ORANGE COUNTY: Calif. Judge Ratifies Carriers' Suit Settlement
PERRIGO CO: Pomerantz Haudek Picked Co-Lead Counsel in "Warner"
PNM RESOURCES: Not Yet Served with Navajo Nation Allottees' Suit
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Classes Certified in Bondholders' Suits

SEQUENOM INC: June 30, 2009 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
STARBUCKS CORP: Still Faces Employment-Related Lawsuit in Calif.
SOUTH KENDALL: Fla. Court Sets Sept. 14 Hearing for Drywall Case
TOLL BROTHERS: Still Faces Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Consolidated Reese-Levering Violations Suit

UNITED STATES: State Department Settles ACLU Suit Over Passports
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Litigation Over 2006 IPO


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RAYMOND JAMES: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

APPLE INC: Faces Ill. Consumer Fraud Suit Over iTunes Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc. is facing a purported class-action suit for fraud,
breach of contract, and violations of Illinois consumer
protection laws in connection to its iTunes Gift Cards, Thomas
Claburn of InformationWeek reports.

The suit was filed on June 24, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois by Daniel E. Owens and
Barbara S. Owens, under the caption, "Owens et al v. Apple,
Inc., Case No. 3:2009-cv-00479."

The plaintiffs allege that Apple's iTunes Gift Cards promised
song downloads for $0.99 and that the company's decision to
raise song prices on April 7 to $1.29 turned the company's
marketing message into misrepresentation, InformationWeek
reported.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by
InformationWeek, the plaintiffs "seek a $0.30 refund for any
song that has been purchased for $1.29 while using a 99 iTunes
Gift Card."  The plaintiffs are also seeking class
certification, in order to represent the estimated tens of
thousands of other iTunes Gift Card users in a similar
situation.

The complaint states that Apple, "knowingly and fraudulently
misrepresented, concealed, omitted, and/or suppressed the cost
to purchase individual songs from its iTunes Internet Web site.
As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the putative class have
suffered economic harm in that they have paid monies for a
product that was worth less than what was represented and/or
they have been denied the benefit of their bargain to purchase
any song from Defendant's iTunes Store for $0.99," reports
InformationWeek.

For more details, contact:

          Michael S. Kruse, Esq. (kruse@onderlaw.com)
          Onder, Shelton et al.
          110 East Lockwood, 2nd Floor
          Webster Groves, MO 63119
          Phone: 314-963-9000
          Fax: 314-963-1700


AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over GD Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in Connecticut state court challenging the proposed
acquisition of Axsys Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXYS).

     The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Axsys
stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with General Dynamics Corp.  Under the terms of the merger
agreement, Axsys shareholders will receive $54 in cash for each
share they own for a total transaction value of approximately
$643 million.  The price appears to be unfair given that in 2008
Axsys generated $245.48 million in total revenue with a net
income of $25.87 million and Axsys shares traded over $72 per
share as recently as December 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/axys1.html


BANK LEUMI: Israeli Holocaust Survivors Seeks Ancestors' Money
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Company for Location and Restitution of Holocaust Victims'
Assets, a state-run company representing Holocaust survivors is
suing Bank Leumi, a major Israeli bank for $75 million, saying
the money belongs to Holocaust victims' heirs, The Associated
Press reports.

The company says Jews killed in the Holocaust deposited money in
hundreds of accounts at Bank Leumi.  It is accusing Bank Leumi
of withholding money from the depositors' heirs, according to
AP.

The Associated Press reported that the company represents 60,000
Holocaust survivors in Israel.  Some 4,000 survivors are part of
the class-action suit against Bank Leumi.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
accusing the company of discriminating against female brokers at
the former Merrill Lynch & Co. by offering them lower retention
bonuses than their male counterparts, Elinor Comlay and Jonathan
Stempel of Reuters reports.

The lawsuit -- captioned, "Goodman v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Case
No. 09-5841," -- seeks class-action status, and contends that
women brokers were typically eligible for lower bonuses because
of gender bias at Merrill, including the brokerage's practice of
steering wealthier clients to male brokers, according to
Reuters.

Because bonuses were based on "production," or fees earned on
client assets, the payout practice authorized by Bank of America
"disproportionately disadvantages women and advantages white men
as favored employees," according to the the complaint, a copy of
which was obtained by Reuters.

Reuters reported that the case was filed by Jaime Goodman, who
said she worked as a Merrill Lynch broker for 16 years prior to
the Jan. 1, 2009 merger.  Ms. Goodman was a top-quintile
performer at Merrill Lynch, having been "a $1 million producer
for nearly a decade," but would have fared even better and
gotten a higher retention bonus absent discrimination, the suit
states.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages including the
value of all compensation and benefits lost because of the
alleged bias, as well as punitive damages and other remedies,
reports Reuters.


CASELLA WASTE: Defending Suit Over BMR Discriminatory Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. and Blue Mountain Recycling, LLC
continue to defend a class-action lawsuit over discriminatory
hiring practices.

In November 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania against BMR and
the company, alleging discriminatory hiring practices at BMR's
facility in Philadelphia.

A companion complaint was filed in February 2009, with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

BMR and the company deny all allegations, according to its June
15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009.

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. -- http://www.casella.com/-- is a
vertically integrated company.  The company operates in 15
states.  It operates vertically integrated solid waste
operations in Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts,
and Maine, and materials processing facilities in Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin.


CENTEX CORP: To Defend Lawsuits Over Proposed Pulte Homes Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centex Corporation and its directors intend to defend putative
class-action lawsuits relating to the proposed combination
between Centex and Pulte Homes, Inc.

The company and its directors are named as defendants in five
putative class-action suits filed between April 15 and April 23,
2009, in the District Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

An additional putative class-action lawsuit against Centex and
its directors was filed on April 24, 2009, in the District Court
of Clark County, Nevada.

The cases assert claims related to alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty in connection with the proposed combination between Centex
and Pulte Homes, Inc. announced on April 8, 2009.

The pleadings allege, among other things, that the Centex
directors, aided and abetted by Centex and/or Pulte, purportedly
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value, by taking steps to discourage competitive
bidding or alternate proposals, and by self-dealing or acting
with purported conflicts of interest.

Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an injunction against
consummation of the combination with Pulte, rescission of the
combination with Pulte if consummated prior to the entry of
final judgment, unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Motions have been made by certain of the Texas plaintiffs to
consolidate the Texas actions.  Based on the facts known to
date, the defendants believe that the claims asserted against
them are without merit, according to the company's May 21, 2009
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

Centex Corporation -- http://www.centex.com/-- is a residential
construction company whose principal operations are focused on
residential construction and related activities, including
mortgage financing to homebuyers. As of March 31, 2009, the
company's subsidiary companies operated in two principal lines
of business: Home Building and Financial Services.  Home
Building's operations involve the purchase and development of
land or lots, and the construction and sale of detached and
attached single-family homes. Financial Services operations
consist primarily of mortgage lending, title agency services and
settlement services.  These activities include mortgage
origination and other related services for homes sold by the
Company's subsidiaries and others.


CENTRAL JERSEY: To Defend "Perillo" Shareholder Suit in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Central Jersey Bancorp intends to defend a purported shareholder
class action complaint, according to the company's Form 8-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
June 22, 2009.

The company recently became aware that a purported class-action
complaint had been filed on June 8, 2009, in the Superior Court
of New Jersey in Ocean County against the company, each director
of the company and OceanFirst Financial Corp.

The action was brought by Anthony Perillo, an alleged
shareholder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
the company are in breach of their fiduciary duties to
shareholders in connection with the company's entry into an
agreement and plan or merger with OceanFirst.

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief to
enjoin the company and its directors from consummating the
transactions contemplated under the Agreement, along with
attorneys' fees and costs.

Central Jersey Bancorp -- https://www.cjbna.com/ -- is a bank
holding company.  The company combined its two bank
subsidiaries, Monmouth Community Bank, N.A. and Allaire
Community Bank, into a single banking entity, named Central
Jersey Bank, National Association. Central Jersey Bank, N.A.
offers a range of retail and commercial banking services
primarily to customers located in Monmouth County and Ocean
County, New Jersey.  These services include checking accounts,
savings accounts, money market accounts, certificates of
deposit, installment loans, real estate mortgage loans,
commercial loans, wire transfers, money orders, traveler's
checks, safe deposit boxes, night depositories, federal payroll
tax deposits, bond coupon redemption, bank by mail, direct
deposit, automated teller services, and telephone and Internet
banking.


CITY OF CHARLOTTE: Settles N.C. Suit Over Business License Fess
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Charlotte, North Carolina agreed to refund about
$2.6 million in business license fees that it collected
improperly from a number of building contractors to settle a
class-action lawsuit brought in January by Vision Ventures
Construction, Julia Oliver of The Charlotte Observer reports.

While other cities may be violating the same state law, the
plaintiff's attorney Jameson Wells told The Charlotte Observer,
Charlotte's fees were particularly high contractors paid the
city as much as $10,000 a year when they should have paid $10.

According to Mr. Wells, settlement will affect about 2,100
companies that paid a specific local business privilege tax
during a three-year period between July 2006 and July 2009,
reports The Charlotte Observer reports.

In settling the suit, the city agreed that it overcharged
certain building contractors, Bob Hagemann, senior assistant
city attorney tells The Charlotte Observer.

A final court hearing to approve the settlement and set the
attorney's fees will be held July 31, 2009, according to The
Charlotte Observer.


EBAY INC: Sellers in PayPal Case Seek Australian, U.K. Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc. sellers who filed a putative antitrust class-action
claiming the online auction company forces them to pay inflated
transaction fees through its PayPal service have lodged a
request to compel the company to provide documents from
Australian and U.K. personnel, as well as from a consulting
firm, Law360 reports.

The plaintiffs filed their request on June 24, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, saying
that eBay has declined to provide documents from employees
outside the U.S., according to Law360.


FLAMEL TECH: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Billhofer" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a putative class-action
suit entitled, "Billhofer v. Flamel Technologies, et al."

On Nov. 9, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company and certain of its current and former officers entitled,
"Billhofer v. Flamel Technologies, et al."

The complaint purports to allege claims arising under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public
statements by the company concerning, among other things, a
clinical trial involving Coreg CR and seeks the award of damages
in an unspecified amount.

By Order dated Feb. 11, 2008, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel in the action.

Pursuant to an agreed-upon scheduling order, the lead plaintiff,
on March 27, 2008, filed an amended complaint which continued to
name as defendants the company and certain previously named
officers and directors but omitted other persons who had
initially been sued and asserted the same claims based on the
same events as alleged in the initial complaint.

On May 12, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
entire action with prejudice.  That motion has been fully
briefed and is awaiting resolution by the Court.

None of the individual defendants named in the amended complaint
have been served in the action and they did not join in the
company's motion.  The company intends to defend itself in the
action, according to the company's May 19, 2009 Form 20-F Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Flamel Technologies S.A. -- http://www.flamel.com-- is a
biopharmaceutical company principally engaged in the development
of two polymer-based drug delivery technologies for the
improvement of medical applications.  The company's Medusa
nanoparticulate technology is designed to deliver therapeutic
proteins, peptides and other large and small molecules injected
subcutaneously.  The Micropump technology is a multiparticulate
technology for oral administration of small molecule drugs with
applications in controlled-release, taste-masking and
bioavailability improvement.  The Trigger-Lock technology is an
adaptation of Micropump designed to prevent the misuse of
medications subject to abuse and to avoid dose dumping in the
presence of alcohol.  The company is engaged in development and
commercialization of controlled-release therapeutic products
based on its polymer based technology.


FLOWSERVE CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Securities Breach in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to face a class-action lawsuit
alleging violations of federal securities laws, which has been
returned to the Northern District of Texas.

The company is a defendant in a class-action lawsuit that was
filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas in
August 2003, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The plaintiffs in that lawsuit appealed the District Court's
Nov. 13, 2007 and Jan. 4, 2008 rulings, which had denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action and had
granted summary judgment in the company's favor.

On June 19, 2009, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an opinion vacating the District Court's denial of class
certification, reversing in part and vacating in part the
District Court's entry of summary judgment, and remanding the
case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent
with the Court of Appeals' opinion.

As a result of the Court of Appeals' opinion, the case will be
returned to the District Court for further consideration of
certain issues, including whether the plaintiffs can demonstrate
that the case should be certified as a class action, according
to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated June 22, 2009.

Flowserve Corporation -- http://www.flowserve.com/-- is a
manufacturer and aftermarket service provider of comprehensive
flow control systems.  The company is engaged in developing and
manufacturing precision-engineered flow control equipment, such
as pumps, valves and seals, for critical service applications.
Through the manufacturing platform, the company offers a range
of aftermarket equipment services, such as installation,
advanced diagnostics, repair and retrofitting.  The company
operates in three business segments: flowserve pump division
(FPD) for engineered pumps, industrial pumps and related
services; flow control division (FCD) for engineered and
industrial valves, control valves, actuators and controls and
related services, and flow solutions division (FSD) for
precision mechanical seals and related products and services.
In April 2009, the company acquired CALDER AG.


GIANT INTERACTIVE: Bid to Junk Consolidated Amended Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York has not
yet scheduled a hearing on Giant Interactive Group Inc.'s motion
to dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint,
according to the company's June 19, 2009 Form 20-F Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Nov. 26 and Dec. 20, 2007, Pyramid Holdings, Inc. and Rosie
L. Brooks, respectively, filed a class action against the
company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, for alleged violations of federal securities laws with the
company's initial public offering.

On July 30, 2008, the Court consolidated these actions into one
class action and appointed a group of individual shareholders
made up of Dunping Qui, Xie Yong, Linming Shi, and Arthur
Michael Gray (the "Qui Group") and their counsel as lead
plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel, respectively, under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the Qui Group filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting claims for violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Complaint alleges
that plaintiffs purchased American Depositary Shares issued
pursuant to or traceable to the company's initial public
offering and that the registration statement and prospectus for
that offering contained untrue statements of material facts,
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements
made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the
applicable rules and regulations.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that prior to its initial
public offering, the company implemented a rule change to
discourage "gold farming activities" in ZT Online.  Gold farming
occurs when companies hire individuals to play the game to
generate online currency that is sold on third party websites
for cash.  According to the Complaint, this rule change caused a
decline in average concurrent users ("ACU") and peak concurrent
users ("PCU") and that the registration statement and prospectus
in connection with the company's initial public offering failed
adequately to disclose these declines.  The Complaint seeks a
declaration that action is a proper class action; damages to
class members with interest; that the initial public offering be
rescinded; litigation costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, accountants' fees, and experts' fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure
to state a claim on Nov. 21, 2008.  This motion has been fully
briefed and was deemed submitted to the Court for decision as of
Feb. 25, 2009.

Giant Interactive Group Inc. -- http://www.ga-me.com/--
formerly Giant Network Technology Limited, is an online game
developer and operator.  The company focuses on massively
multiplayer online (MMO) games that are played through networked
game servers, in which a number of players are able to
simultaneously connect and interact.  Giant Interactive operates
three MMO games, all of which it has developed internally: ZT
Online, ZT Online pay-to-play (PTP) and Giant Online.


GLASS MANUFACTURERS: Pa. Court Sets Sept. 10 Status Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
scheduled for Sept. 10, 2009 status conference regarding the
antitrust class-action suit charging several U. S. flat glass
manufacturers with price fixing, glassBYTEs reports.

According to court documents, during a June 17, 2009 status
conference, the court scheduled for Sept. 10, 2009 at 2 p.m.,
the next status conference for the case, glassBYTEs reported.

At the June 17 meeting, the parties also agreed to extend the
deadline for amending pleadings/adding parties from Aug. 3, 2009
to Oct. 2, 2009, according to glassBYTEs.

Previously, glassBYTEs reported that the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania denied several glass
manufacturers' motion to dismiss a class-action antitrust suit
filed against them alleging that they agreed to raise and fix
prices "through a combination of collusive energy surcharges and
price increases," (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2009).

The glass manufacturers included in the suit are:

       -- AGC America Inc.,
       -- AGC Flat Glass North America Inc.,
       -- Guardian Industries Corp.,
       -- Pilkington North America Inc.,
       -- Pilkington Holding Inc., and
       -- PPG Industries.

According to court documents, the manufacturers involved argued
that the complaint should be dismissed "because the various
allegations therein are insufficient under the pleading
standard...to infer the existence of an agreement or conspiracy
to restrain trade," reports glassBYTEs.

Specifically, the defendants argue in their dismissal motion
that:

       -- they did not make any sort of agreement, that the
          allegations of parallel energy surcharges are
          "insufficient";

       -- the allegations of parallel price increases by some
          defendants are insufficient; that the allegations of
          participation in trade associations are insufficient;

       -- the allegations of defendants' profitability are
          insufficient;

       -- the allegations of miscellaneous suspicious statements
          are insufficient; and

       -- the allegations regarding "European misconduct" are
          insufficient.

In addition, PPG specifically argues that it should be removed
from the case, as it was not named in the 2007 EU report.

However, glassBYTEs reported that the presiding judge pointed
out that the complaint alleges that "there was a history of
inability to raise and maintain prices" prior to the period
covered by the complaint, July 1, 2002, through December 2006.
He also notes that the complaint alleges that there was a
history of varying surcharges by region up until June 2002, but
afterwards this variation ceased.

The judge writes, "Rather, the CAC [Consolidated Amended
Complaint] alleges an agreement that existed for over thirty
months beginning in June 2002, by raising prices by identical
percentages and charging energy surcharges in virtual lockstep
while providing customers with identical charts and
justifications for the same, until February of 2005, when the
European Commission launched raids upon the European
construction flat glass market.  Thereafter, the Defendants did
not engage in lockstep parallel conduct.  Thus, contrary to
Defendants' position, this is not a case where Plaintiffs rely
solely on the decision of the European Commission to assert a
domestic conspiracy or a solely parallel conduct case.
Therefore, dismissal of the CAC is not warranted based on
Defendants' EC allegation arguments and arguments of parallel
conduct," according to the glassBYTEs report.

The judge also notes that while membership in trade associations
does not necessarily suggest conspiracy, that "the meeting dates
provide the Defendants with notice of specific time frames and
manner of the alleged agreement."

Finally, as to PPG's request to be removed from the case, the
judge writes, "It is of no moment that PPG did not participate
in the European conspiracy.  The CAC is not simply asserting a
theory of 'since it happened there, it happened here.'  To the
contrary, the CAC sets forth sufficient allegations, when read
in toto, to set forth a claim," glassBYTEs reported.

Named plaintiffs in the case include:

       -- Colonial Glass Solutions,
       -- Burhans Glass,
       -- John Draper (of Draper's Auto Glass),
       -- Perilstein Glass Corp.,
       -- Diversified Glass Services,
       -- Gilkey Window Co.,
       -- Maran-Wurzell Glass & Mirror,
       -- E & G Auto Parts Inc.,
       -- Superior Glass Inc.,
       -- Frank's Glass Inc.,
       -- Greenwood Glass Co.,
       -- Public Supply Co.,
       -- Raymond's Glass Inc.,
       -- Bailes Granite & Marble,
       -- Thermo Twin Industries Inc.,
       -- Sellmore Industries Inc.,
       -- Interstate Building Materials,
       -- Wally's Glass Service Inc.,
       -- Head West Inc.,
       -- D & S Glass Services Inc.,
       -- G&C Auto Body Inc.,
       -- Girard Glass Corp.,
       -- Fast Glass Service,
       -- Century Bathworks Inc., and
       -- No Job Too Small Inc.

glassBYTEs reported that initially several similar lawsuits were
filed in late 2007 and early 2008, after the European Union (EU)
levied fines on several glass manufacturers for alleged price-
fixing practices.  In June 2008, approximately 20 of these suits
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.  Chief District judge Donetta Ambrose
is presiding over the case, according to glassBYTEs.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Calif. Court Allows Suit Over Sonatas to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Plaintiffs are celebrating an early victory in a lawsuit
against Hyundai Motor America, a subsidiary of Hyundai Motor
Co., after an Orange County Superior Court judge ruled on June
12, 2009, that the case, which claims the carmaker knowingly
sold Sonatas with defective sub-frames, can move forward.

     Superior Court Judge Andrew J. Guilford found that
plaintiff Nicholas Cirulli's California Legal Remedies Act claim
has merit.  In the lawsuit, Cirulli claims Hyundai failed to
tell customers that the sub-frame on Sonatas lacked corrosion
protection and caused premature decay.  Cirulli also claims
Hyundai had full knowledge of the defect and yet did nothing to
warn customers.

     The lawsuit seeks to represent Hyundai Sonata owners who
purchased a vehicle anytime between 1999 and 2004.  The recent
ruling does not certify the outlined class.

     "This is a great first step in our case," said Rob Carey,
lead attorney from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.  "We know there
are thousands of these vehicles on the road and Sonata owners
should find out if they are affected. The corrosion problem is
very serious and can lead to dangerous conditions if a car fails
while in use."

     The suit claims that the car's sub-frame lacks sufficient
and effective drain holes that allow road materials and water to
drain from the frame, causing premature corrosion.  The lack of
drain holes also prevents Hyundai from treating the sub-frame
with anti-corrosion coating.

     The sub-frame, which sits under the engine between the
front wheels, serves as the sole steering support for the Sonata
and anchors the front suspension.

     Mr. Cirulli's sub-frame failed at 83,000 miles due to
severe corrosion.  As Cirulli approached a stop sign, he
momentarily lost control of his vehicle, which he later
discovered was caused by a front sub-frame failure.

     In the ruling, the judge dismissed plaintiff's breach of
warranty and other claims because plaintiff had not discovered
the corrosion within the warranty period. The judge granted
plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to add another plaintiff
who did discover the defect within the warranty period.

HBSS asks that any Sonata owners, who've discovered the defect
to contact the law firm. Owners can e-mail to discuss the case
and potential remedies.

You can also view court documents and join this case at

For more details, contact:

          Rob Carey, Esq. (rob@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (602) 840-5900
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/hyundaisonata


MACY'S INC: "Decristofaro" Merger Suit Still Pending in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc. continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by Edward Decristofaro, an alleged former stockholder of
The May Department Stores Company (May), according to its June
8, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2009.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the Company completed the acquisition of May.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Mr. Decristofaro filed a purported class-
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri on
behalf of all former May stockholders against May and the former
members of the board of directors of May.

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of May
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith
and candor to May stockholders in connection with the Merger.

The plaintiffs seek rescission of the Merger or an unspecified
amount of rescissory damages and costs including attorneys' fees
and experts' fees.

In July 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the case.

Macy's, Inc., -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated
Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retail
stores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's,
women's and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings and other consumer goods.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The Company, through its divisions, conducts
electronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog
businesses under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com and
Bloomingdale's By Mail.  In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an
online bridal registry to customers.


MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc. is still facing a purported class-action suit filed
by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in the company's
Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan, according to its June 8,
2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2009.

On Oct. 3, 2007, Mr. Shanehchian filed a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan
and The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan
between Feb. 27, 2005 and the present.

The complaint charges the Company, as well as certain current
and former members of its board of directors and certain current
and former members of management, with breach of fiduciary
duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan,
alleging that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects in relation to the integration of the acquired May
operations, resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the
Company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005 and May 15, 2007.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and costs.

Macy's, Inc., -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated
Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retail
stores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's,
women's and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings and other consumer goods.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The Company, through its divisions, conducts
electronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog
businesses under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com and
Bloomingdale's By Mail.  In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an
online bridal registry to customers.


MEDIA BREAKAWAY: Settle Fla. Suit Over "Mobile Content" Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
      Media Breakaway, LLC (providing mobile content under the
business name "Ringaza"), following similar settlements reached
with AT&T Mobility, LLC, and Mobile Messenger Americas, Inc.
regarding similar issues, has entered into a settlement of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of itself and its business
partners including third-party advertisers who also market and
provide "mobile content" services, involving claims of alleged
unauthorized mobile content charges on cell phone bills of
consumers in the U.S.  While Media Breakaway disputed these
allegations, the parties settled the class action lawsuit and
asked the court to preliminarily approve the settlement.  The
settlement, which received preliminary approval by the U.S.
District Court in Miami last week, entitles wireless customers
in the U.S. to receive refunds for claimed unauthorized mobile
content charges.

     Mobile content refers to products such as ringtones, games,
graphics, news, and other alerts that are provided through
mobile phones and are charged directly to consumers' mobile
phone bills.  Although a relatively new form of commerce, mobile
content has evolved to form a large and increasingly important
industry.  Media Breakaway acts as a provider of mobile content
and a marketer of third-party mobile content that consumers
purchase to use with their cellular telephones.

For more details, contact:

          Myles McGuire, Esq. (mmcguire@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          Phone: 1-312-589-6370 or 1-866-354-3015
          Fax: 1-312-589-6378

               - and -

          Claims Administrator
          Phone: 1-800-936-5093
          Web site: http://www.MBClassAction.com


MOODY'S INVESTORS: N.Y. Judge Appoints MSA CEO as Special Master
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal judge overseeing a consolidated class-action
lawsuit claiming Moody's Investors Service misled investors
about its independence from the entities it rated has appointed
the founder of Main Street Advisors LLC as special master in the
case and approved a monthly compensation package of $85,000,
Law360 reports.

Judge Shirley Wohl Kram signed off on the appointment and the
compensation package of Paul D. Wachter on June 24, 2009  in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to Law360.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Former Employees Files Calif. Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Three former employees of Northwestern Mutual Life
Insurance Company filed a suit on June 25, 2009 alleging
longstanding federal and state wage and hour violations by the
company in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The complaint asserts the plaintiffs
and other employees of the company in similar sales and
financial representative positions were denied the minimum pay
and overtime compensation to which they were entitled.

     The two California plaintiffs in the matter requested
certification of a class on behalf of hundreds of California
employees or former employees of the insurance company, and $100
million in unpaid wages and liquidated damages on behalf of the
class for violations of state law.  The federal plaintiffs also
requested unpaid wages and liquidated damages of $100 million.

     Plaintiffs and class representatives include Lola Lint, a
resident of San Diego who worked for Northwestern Mutual in the
Del Mar office in 2005-2006; Norma Waddell, a resident of
Escondido who worked for the company in 2006-2008 in both its
Del Mar and Newport Beach offices, and David Yang, a resident of
Duluth, Georgia, who worked in the company's Charlotte, NC, and
Atlanta, GA, offices from 2001-2007.

     They are represented in the matter by David Sanford of
Sanford Wittels & Heisler, Washington, D.C.; Grant Morris of the
Law Offices of Grant E. Morris, Washington, D.C.; and Edward D.
Chapin and Jill Sullivan, Of Counsel to Sanford Wittels &
Heisler in San Diego, CA.

     "In modern society, workers are not indentured servants --
they are entitled to work a livable number of hours at a livable
wage," said Mr. Sanford.  "Northwestern Mutual has
systematically denied basic minimum wage and overtime pay
mandated by both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
California's overtime and minimum wage laws."

     The complaint alleges that the giant insurer, whose
principal place of business and headquarters is in Milwaukee,
WI, bilks its sales and financial representatives in California
and other states by intentionally and repeatedly misclassifying
them as "independent contractors" rather than as employees.
Independent contractors are exempt from federal and state wage
and hour laws, but employees are not.

     Ms. Waddell and Mr. Yang are suing under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Ms. Lint and Ms. Waddell are
suing under California law.

     As the complaint details, sales and financial
representatives at Northwestern Mutual are responsible for
finding clients, selling them insurance products, and following
up with them if they have questions.  They have little, if any,
discretion; are required to secure management approval before
making decisions; and do not have the authority to make
independent choices relating to management, management policies
or general operations.  They clearly do not operate as
independent contractors.

     During their periods of employment, Ms. Lint, Ms. Waddell
and other members of the class were required by Northwestern
Mutual to work daily shifts longer than eight hours, and more
than 40 hours per week, but did not receive the overtime pay to
which these hours entitled them.  Furthermore, they were paid
less than California's minimum wage -- $7.50 per hour as of
January, 2007, and $8 per hour as of January 2008 -- during
their periods of employment.

     The complaint asserts that the company's failure to pay
overtime constitutes unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent activity
prohibited by the California Business and Professions Code by
which it has reaped and continues to reap benefits and illegal
profits at the expense of its employees.

     "Northwestern Mutual must stop its willful and illegal
behaviors immediately, be made to disgorge its ill-gotten gains,
and restore the wrongfully withheld wages to its employees and
former employees," said Mr. Morris, co-counsel for the
plaintiffs.

     The class representatives demand a jury trial on all
questions of fact raised in the complaint.

For more details, contact:

          Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP
          100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 391-6900
          Fax: (415) 391-6901
          Web site: http://www.nydclaw.com


OCEANFIRST FINANCIAL: Faces "Perillo" Shareholder Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
OceanFirst Financial Corp. recently became aware that a
purported class-action complaint had been filed on June 8, 2009,
in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Ocean County against the
company, Central Jersey Bancorp, and each director of Central
Jersey.

The action was brought by Anthony Perillo, an alleged
shareholder of Central Jersey, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Central Jersey are in breach of their fiduciary duties to
Central Jersey shareholders in connection with Central Jersey's
entry into an agreement and plan of merger with the company.

The complaint also alleges that the company knowingly assisted
the Central Jersey directors' breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the proposed merger.

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief to
enjoin the company from consummating the transactions
contemplated under the Agreement, along with attorneys' fees and
costs.

The company intends to defend the lawsuit, according to the
company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated June 22, 2009.

OceanFirst Financial Corp., Inc. --
https://www.oceanfirstonline.com/home/home -- is a holding
company for OceanFirst Bank (the Bank).  The Bank is a
Federally-chartered mutual savings bank.  The Bank's principal
business has been to attract retail deposits from the general
public in the communities surrounding its branch offices and
investing those deposits, together with funds generated from
operations and borrowings in single-family, owner-occupied
residential mortgage loans.  OceanFirst Bank invests in other
types of loans, including commercial real estate, multi-family,
construction, consumer, and commercial loans.  The Bank also
invests in mortgage-backed securities (MBS), securities issued
by the United States Government and agencies.  The Bank's
primary sources of funds are deposits, principal and interest
payments on loans, and MBS, proceeds from the sale of loans,
Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) advances and other borrowings and
to a lesser extent, investment maturities.


OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: June 29 Set as Plaintiff Status Cutoff
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP reminds investors of
Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Fund (Nasdaq: OPATX) (Nasdaq:
OPABX) (Nasdaq: OPACX) that June 29, 2009 is the deadline to
submit a request to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff in the class
action.

     Pomerantz filed a complaint (2:09-cv-00772-JFC) against the
company and certain officers in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  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


ORANGE COUNTY: Calif. Judge Ratifies Carriers' Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David C. Velasquez of the Orange County Superior Court
ratified a settlement between the Orange County Register and a
group of newspaper carriers on that affirmed the workers' status
as independent contractors, John Gittelsohn of The Orange County
Register reports.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in 2003 on behalf of 5,000
people who delivered the Register over the past decade, argued
that the newspaper should have provided better benefits and pay
to the carriers because they were treated like employees, not
independent contractors, according to The Orange County
Register.

The Orange County Register reported that they were represented
in the matter by attorney Thomas Nolan, Esq., while  Daniel
Callahan, Esq. is the attorney for the carriers.

An out-of-court agreement reached in the midst of a jury trial
in November set aside $22 million for the carriers, about $14.7
million of which has been claimed.  The checks are scheduled to
be sent in September, reports The Orange County Register.


PERRIGO CO: Pomerantz Haudek Picked Co-Lead Counsel in "Warner"
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has been appointed
Co-Lead Counsel in the class action against Perrigo Company
(NYSE: PRGO) pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York -- "Warner vs. Perrigo Company, et
al., No. 09 Civ. 2255 (TPG)."

     The Warner Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period
(November 6, 2008 through February 2, 2009), defendants misled
investors regarding the Company's losses in Auction Rate
Securities ("ARS") held by the Company.  In January and February
of 2008, ARS auctions began to fail, limiting the liquidity of
these securities.  Investment banks that collected lucrative
fees for underwriting the issuance of ARS and conducting the
auctions had secretly been buying ARS in their own auctions
whenever necessary to keep auctions from failing.  By early
2008, however, the banks' balance sheets were stretched too thin
for the practice to continue and the market for ARS collapsed.

     Perrigo was left holding $18 million of ARS when the market
froze.  With few secondary markets and virtually no liquidity,
the value of most ARS plummeted, even though the issuers were
not in default.  However, because the Attorneys General for New
York and Massachusetts, as well as the SEC, initiated
investigations and/or proceedings against many of the banks that
underwrote ARS and conducted the auctions, one bank after
another began to redeem the ARS their clients had purchased.
Perrigo had a reasonable expectation of redeeming its $18
million in ARS until September 15, 2008.  On that date, Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman") declared bankruptcy. Lehman
was the bank that underwrote and sold the ARS to Perrigo.  On
November 6, 2008, the beginning of the Class Period, defendants
reported the "fair value" of Perrigo's ARS as $14,500,000, when
in fact, the entire ARS should have been written off completely.
Indeed, three months later, on February 3, 2009, defendants
disclosed, for the first time, that its ARS were underwritten
and sold by Lehman, and that Perrigo would have to write off the
entire value of its ARS, wiping out over a third of Perrigo's
earnings in the quarter.  As a result of this disclosure, the
stock price plunged 18% from the previous day's closing price on
heavy volume, causing massive losses to investors.

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


PNM RESOURCES: Not Yet Served with Navajo Nation Allottees' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources, Inc. has not yet been served with the putative
class-action suit entitled, "Begay v. PNM et al.," according to
the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated May 19, 2009.

The putative class-action suit was filed against PNM and other
utilities on Feb. 11, 2009, in the U.S. District Court in
Albuquerque.

Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation,
who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership
in land carved out of the Navajo Nation.

Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad,
general assertions that defendants, including PNM, are right-of-
way grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and
are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the
grant of rights-of-way or both.

The plaintiffs, who have sued the defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, seek a constructive trust.  They have also
included a breach of trust claim against the United States and
its Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar.

PNM is evaluating plaintiffs' claims.

PNM Resources, Inc. -- http://www.pnmresources.com/-- is a
holding company of energy and energy-related businesses.  The
subsidiaries of the company are Public Service Company of New
Mexico and subsidiaries (PNM), Texas-New Mexico Power Company
and subsidiaries (TNMP), First Choice Power, L. P. and
subsidiaries (First Choice) and Optim Energy Twin Oaks, LP;
formerly known as Altura Power L.P. (Altura).  PNM is a public
utility with regulated operations engaged in the generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity, the transmission
and distribution and sale of natural gas.  TNMP is a regulated
utility operating in Texas and New Mexico.  First Choice is a
REP operating in Texas.  PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries
(PNMR) owns 50% of Optim Energy (formerly, EnergyCo), which is
focused on unregulated electric operations, within the areas of
Texas covered by Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT),
including the development, operation and ownership of generation
assets and wholesale marketing.


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Classes Certified in Bondholders' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP announced that it has begun to
publish Notices of Class Actions in Court-certified cases on
behalf of certain holders of bonds issued by the Republic of
Argentina in two separate classes.  The cases, entitled,
"Scappini v. Republic of Argentina (Case No. 04 Civ. 9788
(TPG))," and "Daelli v. Republic of Argentina (Case No. 05 Civ.
3095 (TPG))," pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, were formally certified by
the Court as class actions on behalf of all persons who, in the:

Scappini class action: (i) purchased the following bonds on or
before December 13, 2004, and (ii) hold them continuously
through the date of any final judgment as to liability:

--Republic of Argentina Bonds, due April 21, 2008, bearing
interest at a rate of 8 1/8% per year (ISIN No. XS0086333472);
or the

Daelli class action: (i) purchased the following bonds on or
before March 22, 2005, and (ii) hold them continuously through
the date of any final judgment as to liability:

--Republic of Argentina Bonds, due March 15, 2010, bearing
interest at a rate of 11 3/8% per year (ISIN No. US040114FC91).

     Recently, the Court directed that plaintiff proceed with
giving notice of the class action to class members.  A copy of
the Court-approved Notice of Class Action can be downloaded at
the website http://www.argentinabondslitigation.com.

     The lawsuit alleges that the Republic of Argentina's
default is a breach of contract.  The lawsuit seeks to recover
unpaid past due interest.  Plaintiff and the class are
represented by Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, a law firm based in
New York City.

     The website (http://www.argentinabondslitigation.com)
includes information about the class actions.  Additionally, the
website also provides a list of bonds along with the status of
the various class actions filed. The list additionally provides
information as to those bonds where class actions have not been
filed.

For more details, contact:

          Brian Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com)
          Lee Albert
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801,
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com


SEQUENOM INC: June 30, 2009 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------------
     Investors in Sequenom, Inc. (Nasdaq: SQNM), have until
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 to submit a request to the Court to be
appointed Lead Plaintiff in the class action.

Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District
of California, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.  The class action (09-cv-976) was filed on behalf of
those who purchased securities of the Company between June 4,
2008 and April 29, 2009, inclusive.  The Complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

     Sequenom is a diagnostic testing and genetics analysis
company.

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

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

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

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


STARBUCKS CORP: Still Faces Employment-Related Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Corp. continues to face an employment-related lawsuit
that is on appeal to California Supreme Court.

On June 30, 2005, three individuals -- Erik Lords, Hon Yeung,
and Donald Brown -- filed the lawsuit with the Orange County
Superior Court in California.  The plaintiffs allege that the
company violated the California Labor Code section 432.8 by
asking job applicants to disclose at the time of application
convictions for marijuana related offenses more than two years
old.  They also seek attorneys' fees and costs (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 11, 2009 ).

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiffs representing a class of
all persons who have applied for employment with Starbucks
Coffee Co. in California since June 23, 2004, who cannot claim
damages in excess of $200.

On Nov. 15, 2007, the court denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.  Starbucks has appealed the denial of its
motion for summary judgment and the California Court of Appeals
has agreed to hear the appeal.

The California Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Dec. 10,
2008, instructing the trial judge to enter summary judgment
against plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have appealed the appellate
court's decision to the California Supreme Court.

The Company believes its employment application complies with
California law, according to its Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, a variety of complementary food items,
coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium
teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-
operated retail stores.


SOUTH KENDALL: Fla. Court Sets Sept. 14 Hearing for Drywall Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gill S. Freeman of Miami-Dade County Circuit Court ordered
a Sept. 14, 2009 hearing to determine if a class-action lawsuit
against South Kendall Construction Corp. over homes that were
constructed using defective Chinese drywall, Paul Brinkmann of
South Florida Business Journal.

In addition, the judge also set a possible trial date for
September 2010, according to the South Florida Business Journal
report.

Previously, it was reported that Jason and Melissa Harrell filed
a class-action lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on
behalf of themselves and other homeowners who purchased
defective homes (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2009).

The Harrells allege that drywall installed in their new home,
and those of their neighbors, emits destructive and harmful
toxins and renders the homes unsafe and uninhabitable.

The defective drywall was installed in the Harrell's home by the
builder, South Kendall Construction Corp., and supplied by
Banner Supply Company.

In January 2008, Jason and Melissa Harrell purchased their newly
constructed home in Palm Isle Estates, a single family home
community in Homestead, Fla.  Shortly after moving in, the
Harrells noticed foul odors in the home, their children began
experiencing significant respiratory problems and Jason began
suffering headaches.  The Harrells also experienced problems
with their air conditioning system, appliances, internal wiring
and other electrical systems rendering them, in some cases,
inoperable.  Black soot appeared on the copper wiring in the
home and in other places.

The Harrells repeatedly asked their builder to fix the problems,
but it failed to correct them.  The Harrells were forced to move
out of their home and into a rental.  With no resolution in
sight, the Harrells turned to legal counsel.  "The Harrells
thought they were buying their dream home," said Joey Givner,
Esq., attorney for the Harrells.  "Instead, they stepped into a
nightmare."  Several of the approximate 100 homeowners in the
Palm Isles Estates have already relocated for similar reasons.

The lawsuit, brought by the law firms of Higer Lichter & Givner,
The Blumstein Law Firm and Podhurst Orseck, alleges that the
defective drywall emits toxins, including carbon disulfide,
carbonyl sulfide and hydrogen sulfide.  "These toxins pose
serious health threats, including headaches, respiratory
ailments and other health problems.  They also corrode various
metals within the structure of the homes and disrupt with the
operation of electronic equipment," said attorney Mark
Blumstein.  "People buy homes for shelter and protection; not
homes that make them sick."

According to the lawsuit, South Kendall Construction Corp.
purchased this defective Chinese drywall from suppliers
including Banner, a Miami-based company who supplied the drywall
for the construction of the homes.  It is believed that the
manufacturer of the drywall exported approximately 67.3 million
pounds of Chinese-made drywall into the United States, which is
enough to build up to 7,500 average-size single-family homes.
"There are many others experiencing the same problems as the
Harrells," said attorney David Lichter.  "Unfortunately,
sometimes the only way to get companies to do the right thing is
to sue them.  The Harrells want a safe house, not a sick house."

For more details, contact:

          Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
          City National Bank Building
          25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 358-2800
          Fax: (305) 358-2382
          e-mail: info@podhurst.com
          Web site: http://www.podhurst.com/

          The Blumstein Law Firm
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 402
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Phone: (305) 356-7547
          Fax: (305) 356-7539
          e-mail: Mark@BlumsteinLaw.com
          Web site: http://www.blumsteinlaw.com/

               - and -

          Higer Lichter & Givner LLP
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd.
          Suite 402
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Phone: 305-933-9970
          Fax: 305-933-0998
          e-mail: info@HLGLawyers.com
          Web site: http://www.hlglawyers.com/


TOLL BROTHERS: Still Faces Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc. continues to face an amended complaint in a
securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to its June 8, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

In April 2007, a securities class action suit was filed against
Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert I. Toll and Bruce E. Toll in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's
common stock between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005.

In August 2007, an amended complaint was filed adding additional
directors and officers as defendants.

The amended complaint filed on behalf of the purported class
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing various materially false and misleading statements that
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's stock.  It further alleges that the individual
defendants sold shares for substantial gains during the class
period.

The purported class is seeking compensatory damages, counsel
fees, and expert costs.

Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://www.tollcareercenter.com/-- is
engaged in designing, building, marketing and arranging finance
for single-family detached and attached homes in luxury
residential communities.  The company is also involved, directly
and through joint ventures, in projects where it is building, or
converting existing rental apartment buildings into high-, mid-
and low-rise luxury homes.  The company caters to the move-up,
empty-nester, active-adult, age-qualified and second-home buyers
in 21 states of the United States.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Consolidated Reese-Levering Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. faces a consolidated class-action suit
over alleged violations of the Reese-Levering Automobile Sales
Finance Act of California, according to Toyota's June 15, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

Initially two separate lawsuits were filed.  The first lawsuit,
"Garcia v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," is a cross-
complaint, alleging a class action, filed on January 2007 in the
Superior Court of California Stanilaus County.  It claims that
the company's post-repossession notice failed to comply with the
Reese-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of California.

The second cross-complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
California San Francisco County, alleging a class action.  The
suit, "Aquilar and Smith v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,"
was filed in February 2008 and contains similar allegations
claiming that the company's post-repossession notices failed to
comply with Reese-Levering.

The plaintiffs in the Aguilar matter are seeking injunctive
relief, restitution and disgorgement, as well as damages.

The company has filed a petition to consolidate these cases as
they present nearly identical questions of law and fact.  The
cases have been consolidated in Stanislaus County as they
present nearly identical questions of law and fact.

A complaint alleging a class action in the Superior Court of
California San Diego County, "McNess v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation," filed in September 2008, contains similar
allegations claiming that the company's post-repossession notice
failed to comply with Reese-Levering.

An additional complaint alleging a class-action suit in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, "Smith v.
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," filed in December 2008, also
contains similar allegations claiming that the Company's post
repossession notice failed to comply with Reese-Levering.

The plaintiffs in the McNess and Smith cases are seeking
injunctive relief and restitution.

The McNess and Smith cases were consolidated with the Garcia
Cases in November 2008 and January 2009, respectively, as they
present nearly identical questions of law and fact.

A First Amended Cross-Complaint and Complaint was subsequently
filed in the Superior Court of California Stanislaus County in
February 2009.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial
equipment dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range
of finance products, including retail financing, leasing, and
dealer financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and
their customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and
claims administration related to covering certain risks of
vehicle dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage
and related administrative services to its affiliates.  The
company is wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas
Corp. (TFSA).


UNITED STATES: State Department Settles ACLU Suit Over Passports
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union announced that it had reached
a settlement with the U.S. State Department in a class-action
lawsuit which was filed by passport applicants whose births were
attended by midwives, Susan Carroll of The Houston Chronicle
reports.

Wary of fraudulent birth documents provided by some midwives,
the U.S. State Department had challenged the passport
applications of hundreds of border residents, according to The
Houston Chronicle.

A federal lawsuit filed in February alleged the State Department
made "burdensome" and "unreasonable" documentation demands of
applicants whose births were attended by midwives, reports The
Houston Chronicle.

According to a copy of the settlement agreement, which is
pending court approval, the State Department denied wrongdoing,
but agreed to a number of changes in its application review
process.  Those changes include retraining employees who process
applications and setting up an automatic review process for
denials by a three-member panel, The Houston Chronicle reported.

The settlement also requires that the government review its list
of midwives suspected of birth certificate fraud to ensure there
is a "reasonable belief" that they were involved in wrongdoing,
The Houston Chronicle reports.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Litigation Over 2006 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. agreed to settle a shareholder class-
action lawsuit that alleged the company bungled its initial
public offering (IPO) in 2006, The Associated Press reports.

The Holmdel, N.J., company announced the agreement this month,
saying the settlement amount would be covered by its directors
and officers insurance policy.

The 2006 IPO was a disaster for investors.  They bought the
shares for $17 each, then saw the value fall 13 percent when
they opened for trading on May 24.  They were trading at 45.5
cents on Thursday morning, up 4.5 cents, reports The Associated
Press.

The Associated Press reported that the law firm Motley Rice LLC
filed suit on behalf of shareholders a week after the IPO,
alleging that Vonage erred when it reserved 13.5 percent of the
IPO shares for customers of phone service.  These were not
serious investors, the suit alleged, and the failure of some of
them to pay for the shares exacerbated the decline in share
value.

The settlement is subject to court approval, according to The
Associated Press.

For more details, contact:

          Motley Rice LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard,
          Mt. Pleasant, SC
          Phone: +1 800.768.4026
          Web site: http://www.motleyrice.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

RAYMOND JAMES: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, a Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Raymond James Financial,
Inc. (NYSE: RJF) during the period between April 22, 2008 and
April 14, 2009, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that it understated
the credit risks of its wholly-owned subsidiary's commercial and
residential loan portfolios, and failed to set aside adequate
reserves for the losses that the Company knew, or recklessly
disregarded, were forthcoming.  According to the complaint, on
April 14, 2009, after the Company revealed that results for the
second fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 would be well below
the consensus analysts' estimates and that both its commercial
and residential portfolios would require higher loss reserves,
with the loan loss provision tripling from the previous quarter,
the value of Raymond James's stock declined significantly.

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

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.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  * * *