CAR_Public/090721.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 21, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 142

                           Headlines

APPLE INC: Faces "Bizarre" Suit for Stalking, Extortion, Torture
BORLAND SOFTWARE: Stockholder Suit Settlement Pending Approval
CELL GENESYS: Investor Files Del. Lawsuit Over BioSante Buyout
CITY OF ROCKFORD: Faces Litigation Over August 2007 Floods
CLEAR CHANNEL: Faces Lawsuit Over Flooding at B93 Birthday Bash

CSL LTD: Faces Pa. Antitrust Lawsuit Over Blood Plasma Products
DEALERS WARRANTY: Faces Illinois Litigation Over "Hidden Fees"
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Ex-Drivers File FLSA Violations Suit in New York
DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Air Pollution Suit Settlement Reached in March
DUKE ENERGY: Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit Remains on Appeal

FEDEX CORP: Appealing "Bibo" Certification Ruling to 9th Circuit
FEDEX CORP: Continues to Face Independent Contractors' Lawsuits
FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Defends Lawsuit by Contractors' Drivers
FEDEX CORP: Still Faces FLSA Claims in "Tidd" Wage-and-Hour Suit
FEDEX CORP: "Wiegele" Wage-and-Hour Suit v. FedEx Ground Ongoing

HANNAFORD BROTHERS: Court Dismisses Claims in Data Breach Case
IRAN: Calif. Resident Files FSIA Violations Litigation in D.C.
KNIGHT INC: Discovery in "Going Private" Suits Remains Ongoing
KNIGHT INC: Royalties Suit v. CO2 Unit Set for October 19 Trial
LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Suit Pending in Minnesota

LIZ CLAIBORNE: To Defend "Tyler" Securities Lawsuit in New York
MGIC INVESTMENTS: To Seek Dismissal of Consolidated Suit in Aug.
MICRO FOCUS: Settles Texas Suit Over $113M Takeover of Borland
MONEY MART: Faces Borrowers' Litigation in British Columbia
MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Investor Files Lawsuit Over LabCorp Deal

REX ENERGY: Faces Pa. Landowners' Suit Over Natural Gas Payments
SANTA CRUZ: Ariz. Judge Approves $3.2M Strip Search Settlement
SASKATCHEWAN CROP: High Court Refuses to Hear Farmers' Appeal
SHIRE INT'L: Faces CAD$75M Lawsuit Filed by Alberta Investors
T-MOBILE USA: Employees File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in New York

TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Suits Over Chromium Emission Remain Stayed
TYCO INT'L: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Stumpf" Litigation
U.S. BANK: Faces Ohio Litigation Alleging RICO Act Violations
U.S. GOVERNMENT: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Costelo" Case


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
BARE ESCENTUALS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BARE ESCENTUALS: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit

KENEXA CORP: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                           *********

APPLE INC: Faces "Bizarre" Suit for Stalking, Extortion, Torture
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by
Gregory McKenna, who accuses the company, the St. Louis Police
Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and several
others of conspiring to stalk, extort and torture to him, MacNN
reports.

The suit was filed on July 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, under the caption,
"McKenna v. St. Louis County Police Department et al., Case No.
4:2009-cv-01113."  It specifically listed as defendants: St.
Louis County Police Department, Charles Boschert, Kenneth
Williams, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mark Kappelhoff,
Apple Inc., A-1 Private Investigations, Timothy Bonine and
D'Angelo Automotive.

After purchasing an iPod shuffle on eBay, Mr. McKenna claims he
quickly discovered that the device was manufactured "with an
illegal receiver as the Mafia proceeded to transmit extortion
threats and audible harassment to it."  The plaintiff became
even more convinced of Apple's involvement after allegedly
purchasing a new iPod mini that was also bugged and would state
"I'm about to kill him" in sync with a song, according to MacNN.

Mr. McKenna's conflicts with the Mafia allegedly began when he
worked at a New York modeling agency that withheld his paychecks
and demanded sexual favors from him.  After quitting that job,
the plaintiff claims to have entered a St. Louis nightclub where
he was told, "We're going to kill you if you don't model for us
in New York."

The plaintiff accuses the St. Louis police of neglect for not
protecting him against a person that came to his house to
threaten him.  The filing explains that a stalker repeatedly
left his home each time the police came, just to return when
they left.  The police department and FBI apparently began to
ignore his claims, leaving the alleged perpetrator to "stalk,
threaten, and kidnap plaintiff," MacNN reported.

Along with the iPods, McKenna claims to have discovered
listening devices in his 1998 Audi A4, at home, on a college
campus, the Ritz-Carlton, Banana Republic, and no less than six
different Catholic churches.

The plaintiff also repeatedly heard the word "herpes" while
listening to the song "Still Tippin" by Mike Jones.  Mr. McKenna
claims this was yet another attempt by the Mafia to "humiliate,
degrade, and cause emotional distress."  The additional content
was only heard when listening from his cars, an iBook G4,
PowerBook G4, iPods, and other music players.  Every iPod later
purchased, including a Nano and Touch, were also claimed to have
been bugged "prior to sale at the Apple Store as associates
allegedly conspired with the Italian Mafia to sell it to
Plaintiff," reports MacNN.

Mr. McKenna is seeking a trial by jury, according to MacNN.


BORLAND SOFTWARE: Stockholder Suit Settlement Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class action litigation filed by
two stockholders of Borland Software Corporation against the
company is pending court approval.

The company announced on July 17, 2009, that it has reached an
agreement in principle with two stockholders of Borland that
provides for the settlement of the purported class action
litigation commenced by such stockholders against Borland and
its directors following the announcement of the merger between
Borland and Micro Focus.  The settlement will not affect the
merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of Borland in
connection with the proposed merger between Borland and Micro
Focus or the timing of the special meeting of stockholders of
Borland scheduled for Wednesday, July 22, 2009, beginning at
10:00 a.m. local time, at 8310 North Capital of Texas Highway,
Building 2, Suite 100, Austin, Texas, 78731, to vote on a
proposal to adopt the merger agreement between Borland and Micro
Focus and to approve the merger.

On May 11, 2009, two Borland stockholders filed a purported
class action against Borland, its directors, Micro Focus
International plc, Micro Focus (US), Inc., and Bentley Merger
Sub, Inc. in the District Court for the 201st Judicial District
of Travis County, Texas.

Borland, its directors, and Micro Focus have reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of the litigation.

In connection with this settlement, Borland agreed to make
available additional information to its stockholders.  The
details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to be
sent to Borland's stockholders prior to a hearing before the
court to consider both the settlement and the plaintiffs' fee
application.

Borland, its directors, and Micro Focus deny plaintiffs'
allegations in the action and have agreed to settle the
purported class action litigation in order to avoid costly
litigation and eliminate the risk of any delay to the closing of
the merger, according to the company's Form 8-K filing in the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 17, 2009

Borland Software Corporation -- http://www.borland.com/-- is a
vendor of Open Application Lifecycle Management solutions (ALM),
which represents the segment of the ALM market in which vendors'
solutions are flexible enough to support a customer's specific
processes, tools and platforms.  The company offers a
combination of software products, as well as consulting and
education services to help its customers better manage the
growing complexity of software development.  Borland's solutions
address four critical ALM processes: software delivery
management, requirements definition & management, lifecycle
quality management and software change management.


CELL GENESYS: Investor Files Del. Lawsuit Over BioSante Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An angry investor has filed a proposed securities class
action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court on July 07, 2009, on
behalf of current investors of Cell Genesys, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CEGE), who purchased their shares before June 30, 2009, alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the board of directors of Cell
Genesys.

     The plaintiff alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and other
violations of state law by the board of directors of Cell
Genesys, Inc. in connection with their attempt to sell Cell
Genesys to BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The plaintiffs say
that the buyout price "does not represent the true value".

     BioSante Pharmaceuticals and Cell Genesys announced on June
30, 2009 that they have entered into a definitive merger
agreement by which the companies will merge in an all-stock
transaction, with BioSante Pharmaceuticals as the surviving
company.

     Under the terms of the proposed merger agreement, Cell
Genesys stockholders will receive 0.1615 of a share of BioSante
Pharmaceuticals common stock for each share of Cell Genesys
common stock they own.  Based on BioSante's closing price on
June 29, 2009, the deal is presently worth $0.347 a share for
Cell Genesys shareholders, or a total consideration of
approximately $38 million, and a premium of 12 percent to the
closing sale price of Cell Genesys' common stock on that date.

     The plaintiffs asked judge to stop the buyout under the
given conditions and award damages.


CITY OF ROCKFORD: Faces Litigation Over August 2007 Floods
----------------------------------------------------------
The City of Rockford, Illinois and the Rock River Water
Reclamation District are facing a purported class-action lawsuit
over August 2007 floods in the city, the Rockford Register Star
reports.

The suit alleges that the defendants were negligent for failing
to clear Keith Creek and take other actions that could have
prevented the flood damage.

The case remains in discovery phases, in which depositions are
being taken and information gathered.  Nine homeowners from
Churchill Park and Rolling Green neighborhoods are named as
plaintiffs, but Detroit attorney David Dubin, Esq. tells the
Rockford Register Star that he has been contacted by more than
200 others.

Mr. Dubin told the Rockford Register Star he plans to make a
motion to turn the legal matter into a class-action suit during
a hearing on July 22, 2009 inside the Winnebago County
Courthouse.

For more details, contact:

          David Dubin, Esq.
          Macuga, Liddle & Dubin, P.C.
          975 East Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, Michigan 48207-3101
          Phone: 313.392.0015
          Fax: 313.392.0025
          e-mail: info@mldclassaction.com
          Web site: http://www.mlclassaction.com/


CLEAR CHANNEL: Faces Lawsuit Over Flooding at B93 Birthday Bash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Michigan over the flooding that enveloped more than
1,000 vehicles at the B93 Birthday Bash, WOOD-TV reports.

The suit was filed on July 17, 2009 in Ionia County Circuit
Court by Anthony Hansknecht, who alleges the radio station was
negligent regarding parking for the outdoor concert, did not
monitor weather forecasts properly and failed to warn
concertgoers, according to WOOD-TV.

Mr. Hansknecht also claims B93 engaged in willful and wanton
misconduct because the station officials had the ability to
avoid the problem and didn't.

The third count in the lawsuit is the class-action.  That is,
"the class of individual owners of the damaged vehicles is too
numerous for joinder of all members individually to be
practicable," WOOD-TV reported.

Clear Channel, the owner of B93, has 21 days to respond to the
lawsuit, reports WOOD-TV.


CSL LTD: Faces Pa. Antitrust Lawsuit Over Blood Plasma Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSL Ltd., CSL Behring LLC and Baxter International, Inc. are
facing a purported antitrust class-action lawsuit accusing
Australia's biggest health-care company, CSL, and its main
rival, Baxter International, of a conspiracy to fix the prices
of life-saving blood plasma products, Eli Greenblat of The Age
reports.

The suit was filed on July 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Pemiscot Memorial
Hospital, under the caption, "Pemiscot Memorial Hospital v. CSL
Limited, et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-03143."

Pemiscot Memorial, a small publicly owned hospital in Missouri,
which services several counties in the south-eastern part of the
state, alleges CSL and Baxter had illegal agreements to restrict
supply and push up prices through co-ordinating their individual
output, according to The Age.

The hospital is relying heavily on the statements and findings
of the FTC in June that claimed that CSL, Talecris Therapeutics,
and Baxter operated as a "tight oligopoly" and had learned they
could maximize profits if each company did its part to pull back
on supply to avoid driving prices lower.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
Age, "Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired, combined or
contracted to restrict output and to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the prices of blood plasma proteins that they sold to
(the) plaintiff and the other class members during the class
period."  The plaintiff said that because of this conspiracy,
blood plasma prices were higher than they otherwise would have
been.

"The restriction of supply and increase in prices was not the
result of natural market forces.  Rather, they were caused by
defendants' conspiracy, which defendants formed in response to
the excess supply that occurred earlier in the decade and that
defendants did not want to experience again," the complaint
states.

The Age reported that Pemiscot Memorial's complaint seeks to
represent U.S. buyers of blood plasma proteins from October 1,
2004, to the present.

The complaint has asked the court for a jury trial.  It is also
seeking unspecified damages, reports The Age.

For more details, contact:

          Marc I. Machiz, Esq. (mmachiz@cohenmilstein.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          255 South 17th Street
          Suite 1307
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 267-773-4680


DEALERS WARRANTY: Faces Illinois Litigation Over "Hidden Fees"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dealers Warranty, LLC is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
claiming the company, which agreed to "stop violating the 'no
call' law" with "phone blitzes to millions of random
households," charges hidden fees that can claim more than half
of the refund customers expect after canceling their policies,
Bridget Freeland of The Courthouse News Service reports

The suit was filed on July 16, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by Jonathan J. Sahim,
under the caption, "Sahim v. Dealers Warranty, LLC et al., Case
No. 1:2009-cv-04279."  It named as defendants Dealers Warranty
a/k/a Mogi a/k/a Federal Auto Protection, Warranty Finance, LLC,
and the companies' owner Brian Albert Marino.

Ms. Sahim claims Mr. Marino charges $50 for canceling his
alleged extended warranties, and fails to disclose a 10 percent
"marketing fee" on the total cost of the contract, and interest,
until after the customers cancel.  He says the piled-up
deductions took "more than 60 percent of his expected refund and
over 25 percent of the total value of his contract," according
to The Courthouse News Service.

The plaintiff -- represented by Bryan Waldman of Levin &
Perconti -- claims that the "so-called 'marketing fee' has
nothing to do with 'marketing,'" and that any reference to it is
unclear and buried "in a tiny footnote."

The complaint claims that this is not the first time Dealers
Warranty and Warranty Finance have come under scrutiny: "The
Warranty Defendants are accustomed to having their unscrupulous
business tactics come under legal attack.  Recently sued by
national phone companies for engaging in mass automated phone
blitzes to millions of random households, the Warranty
Defendants entered a consent decree to stop violating the 'no-
call' law which was designed to prevent such illegal phone
solicitations.  Moreover, Congress recently held hearings on
these same extended warranty service scams," reports The
Courthouse News Service.

The suit demands $50 million in damages, The Courthouse News
Service reported.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fa1

For more details, contact:

          Bryan Joseph Waldman, Esq. (bjw@levinperconti.com)
          Levin & Perconti
          325 N. LaSalle Street
          Suite 450
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: 312.332.2872
          Fax: 312.332.3112


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Ex-Drivers File FLSA Violations Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Domino's Pizza, LLC is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by three former delivery drivers, claiming they earned
less than minimum wage, Bret Thorn of Nation's Restaurant News.

The suit was filed on July 9, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York by Ernesto Bodon, Kevin
Curry and Donna Annunziato, under the caption, "Bodon et al v.
Domino's Pizza, LLC, Case No. 1:2009-cv-02941."  It generally
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The former employees claim that Domino's Pizza did not reimburse
them sufficiently for car maintenance and other job-related
expenses, which pushed their pay below federal and New York
state minimum wages, according to Nation's Restaurant News.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, also accused the
company of violating New York labor law by not paying weekly
uniform maintenance allowances, imposing "excessive deductions
from employees' wages," keeping gratuities belonging to its
employees and failing to keep records, reports Nation's
Restaurant News.

The plaintiffs all worked at the same Domino's location in
Queens between 2004 and 2008.  The lawsuit says Domino's Pizza
paid them "an hourly wage at or around the New York minimum
wage," which is currently $7.15.

Food service employers in the state are allowed a $2.55 hourly
tip credit for tipped employees, but the lawsuit said that
Domino's Pizza did not rely on that credit.  The suit also said
the payment for car maintenance and other delivery-related
expenses was less than the actual incurred expenses, Nation's
Restaurant News reported.

For more details, contact:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-256-3200
          Fax: 612-338-4878

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road
          Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100
          Fax: 816-714-7101

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          Weinhaus & Potashnick
          11500 Olive Blvd.
          Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: 314-997-9150
          Fax: 314-997-9170


DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Air Pollution Suit Settlement Reached in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a purported class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Clean Air Act by Duke Energy Ohio,
Inc., is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

Duke Energy Ohio, which is an Ohio corporation organized in
1837, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp., which
itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp.  The
company is a combination electric and gas public utility company
that provides service in the southwestern portion of Ohio and
through Duke Energy Kentucky, in nearby areas of Kentucky.  Its
principal lines of business include generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity, the sale of and transportation of
natural gas, and energy marketing.

A citizen of the Village of Moscow, Ohio, the town adjacent to
the company's Zimmer Station filed the suit in November 2004.
The case seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against
the company for alleged violations of the CAA, the Ohio State
Implementation Plan, and Ohio laws against nuisance and common
law nuisance.

The plaintiffs have filed a number of additional notices of
intent to sue and two lawsuits raising claims similar to those
in the original claim.  One lawsuit was dismissed on procedural
grounds, and the remaining two have been consolidated.

On Dec. 28, 2006, the District Court certified the consolidated
case as a class action.  Discovery in the case continues.

In March 2009, a settlement in principle was reached with the
class plaintiffs, subject to execution of a definitive
settlement document and approval by the court.  The settlement,
as currently structured, will not have a material adverse effect
on Duke Energy Ohio's consolidated results of operations, cash
flows or financial position, according to the company's May 13,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Freeman v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Case No.
1:04-cv-00781-SJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Judge Susan J. Dlott, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paul Alley, Esq. (palley@graydon.com)
         John Charles Greiner, Esq. (jgreiner@graydon.com)
         Graydon Head & Ritchey
         2500 Chamber Center Drive, P.O. Box 17070, Suite 300
         Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017
         Phone: 859-282-8800

Representing the company are:

         Louis Francis Gilligan, Esq. (lgilligan@kmklaw.com)
         Keating Muething & Klekamp
         One E Fourth Street, Suite 1400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-579-6400
         Fax: 513-579-6523

              - and -

         Ariane Johnson
         Cinergy Services, Inc.
         1000 East Main Street
         Plainfield, IN 46168


DUKE ENERGY: Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit Remains on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit, captioned "Comer, et al. v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," remains on appeal before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  The suit names
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as a defendant

Duke Energy Indiana, which is an Indiana corporation organized
in 1942, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp., which
itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp.

The company is a vertically integrated and regulated electric
utility that provides service in north central, central, and
southern Indiana.  Its primary line of business is generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity.

On April 19, 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy Corp. were named in a
third amended complaint of the purported class action suit,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.  The plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy
and Cinergy, along with numerous other utilities, oil companies,
coal companies and chemical companies, are liable for damages
relating to losses suffered by victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants' greenhouse gas
emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms
such as Hurricane Katrina.

In October 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy were served with this
lawsuit.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs
have filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.

Oral argument was heard on Aug. 6, 2008.  Due to the late
recusal of one of the judges on the Fifth Circuit panel, the
court held a new oral argument on Nov. 3, 2008, according to the
company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com)
          Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
          (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com)
          F. Gerald Maples, PA
          902 Julia Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Phone: 504-569-8732

              - and -

          Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net)
          Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com)
          Smith & Fawer
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-525-2200
          Fax: 504-525-2205


FEDEX CORP: Appealing "Bibo" Certification Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation is appealing the class certification ruling in
the wage-and-hour case captioned, "Bibo v. FedEx Express," filed
against one of the company's business segments, Federal Express
Corporation.

In April 2009, a California federal court granted class
certification in the wage-and-hour case, certifying several
subclasses of FedEx Express couriers in California from April
14, 2006 (the date of the settlement of the Foster class action)
to the present.

The plaintiffs allege that FedEx Express violated California
wage-and-hour laws after the date of the Foster settlement.

In particular, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
they were forced to work "off the clock" and were not provided
with required meal breaks or split-shift premiums.

The company has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit to accept an appeal of the class certification ruling,
according to its July 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2009.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: Continues to Face Independent Contractors' Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., one of FedEx Corporation's
business segments, remains involved in class-action lawsuits
relating to the treatment of the company's owner-operators as
employees rather than independent contractors.

FedEx Ground is involved in approximately 50 class-action
lawsuits (including 21 that have been certified as class
actions), several individual lawsuits and approximately 40 state
tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the
company's owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather
than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits have been consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.

With the exception of recently filed cases that have been or
will be transferred to the multidistrict litigation, discovery
on class certification and classification issues and class
certification briefing are now complete.

In October 2007, the company e received a decision from the
court granting class certification in a Kansas action alleging
state law claims on behalf of a statewide class and federal law
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
on behalf of a nationwide class.  In January 2008, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined the company's
request for appellate review of the class certification
decision.

In March 2008, the court granted class certification in 19
additional cases and denied it in nine cases.  The court has not
yet ruled on class certification in the other cases that are
pending in the multidistrict litigation.

Motions for summary judgment on the classification issue (i.e.,
independent contractor vs. employee) are pending in all 20 of
the multidistrict litigation cases that have been certified as
class actions.

In January 2008, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is
not part of the multidistrict litigation, "Anfinson v. FedEx
Ground," was certified as a class action by a Washington state
court.  The plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of FedEx
Ground single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in
Washington from Dec. 21, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2005, and allege
that the class members should be reimbursed as employees for
their uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay.  In
March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson case was held, and the
jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx Ground, finding that
all 320 class members were independent contractors, not
employees.

The plaintiffs have appealed the verdict. The other contractor-
model lawsuits that are not part of the multidistrict litigation
are not as far along procedurally as Anfinson and are all
currently stayed pending further developments in the
multidistrict litigation, according to the company's July 15,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Defends Lawsuit by Contractors' Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., one of FedEx Corporation's
business segments, continues to face a purported class action
brought by drivers of the company's independent contractors.
The class action lawsuit was brought by drivers of the company's
independent contractors who claim that they were jointly
employed by the contractor and FedEx Ground.

No further details were disclosed in the company's July 15, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: Still Faces FLSA Claims in "Tidd" Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of FedEx Corporation's business segments, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., continues to face a class claims under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

In September 2008, in another one of these wage-and-hour cases,
"Tidd v. Adecco USA, Kelly Services and FedEx Ground," a
Massachusetts federal court conditionally certified a class
limited to individuals who were employed by two temporary
employment agencies and who worked as temporary pick-up-and-
delivery drivers for FedEx Ground in the New England region
within the past three years.

Potential claimants must voluntarily "opt in" to the lawsuit in
order to be considered part of the class.  In addition, in the
same opinion, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
FedEx Ground with respect to the plaintiffs' claims for unpaid
overtime wages.

Accordingly, as to FedEx Ground, the conditionally certified
class of plaintiffs is now limited to a claim of failure to pay
regular wages due under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the company's July 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2009.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: "Wiegele" Wage-and-Hour Suit v. FedEx Ground Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of FedEx Corporation's business segments, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., continues to face wage-and-hour class
action case captioned, "Wiegele v. FedEx Ground."

In February 2008, the Wiegele wage-and-hour case was certified
as a class action by a California federal court, and in April
2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
company's petition to review the class certification ruling.

The plaintiffs in Wiegele represent a class of FedEx Ground sort
managers and dock service managers in California from May 10,
2002 to the present.

The plaintiffs allege that FedEx Ground has misclassified the
managers as exempt from the overtime requirements of California
wage-and-hour laws and is correspondingly liable for failing to
pay them overtime compensation and provide them with rest and
meal breaks.

Subject to court approval, the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss
the sort managers, leaving only the dock service managers in the
class, according to the company's July 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.


HANNAFORD BROTHERS: Court Dismisses Claims in Data Breach Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the
majority of class-action claims brought against Hannaford
Brothers Co., a Maine-based grocery store chain, for breaches of
consumers' credit-card data at various locations of Hannaford
stores throughout New England and Florida, Scott O'Connell of
the New Hampshire Business Review reports.

In a May 12, 2009, the court dismissed majority of the claims,
but allowed a limited number of negligence-based claims to move
forward, provided that plaintiffs could demonstrate actual
damages, according to the New Hampshire Business Review.

In March 2008, after knowing about the data breach for three
weeks, Hannaford revealed that data on roughly 4.2 million
credit and debit cards had been compromised by a hacker between
December 2007 and March 2008.

By June 2008, more than 20 class-action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine by plaintiffs
seeking damages for time and money lost as a result of the data
thefts, which resulted in the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidating the actions into a single action last
summer, reports the New Hampshire Business Review.

The court ultimately dismissed four of the plaintiffs' claims
based on Maine state law, saying that the plaintiffs had merely
suffered ordinary inconveniences, which could not be recovered
under Maine law.  The dismissed claims included breach of
implied warranty, breach of confidential relationship, failure
to advise customers of the data breach and strict liability, the
New Hampshire Business Review reported.

In allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with three claims, the
court held that a jury could find a basis for liability if the
claims of breach of implied contract, negligence and the Maine
unfair trade practices statute could be supported by evidence,
according to the New Hampshire Business Review.


IRAN: Calif. Resident Files FSIA Violations Litigation in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Islamic Republic of Iran is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act, Jordan Weissmann of The National Law Journal.

The suit was filed on July 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia by Nasrin Mohammadi, under the
caption, "Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Case No.
1:2009-cv-01289."  It names as defendants the Islamic Republic
of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Sayid Ali Hoseyni
Khamenei and Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution

Attorney Larry Klayman, Esq., the former head of conservative
watchdog Judicial Watch who now runs Freedom Watch, filed the
$10 trillion class-action case on behalf of Nasrin Mohammadi of
Beverly Hills, Calif., whose brother died in an Iranian prison
after taking part in a student protest, according to a complaint
obtained by The National Law Journal.

The complaint asks the judge to certify a class "on behalf of
all Iranians who have had their civil and human rights violated,
been assaulted, battered, tortured and even murdered to keep a
vicious, illegitimate and inhuman radical regime in power,"
reports The National Law Journal.

For more details, contact:

          Larry Klayman, Esq. (leklayman@yahoo.com)
          FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
          9701 Wilshire Boulevard
          Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90212
          Phone: (310) 651-3026
          Fax: (310) 651-3025


KNIGHT INC: Discovery in "Going Private" Suits Remains Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated discovery remains ongoing in two purported class-
action lawsuits against Knight, Inc. -- formerly Kinder Morgan,
Inc. -- over a proposed "Going Private" Transaction.

On May 28, 2006, Richard D. Kinder; the company's chairman and
chief executive officer together with other members of Kinder
Morgan's management; co-founder Bill Morgan; current board
members Fayez Sarofim and Mike Morgan; and investment partners
Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, American International Group
Inc., The Carlyle Group, and Riverstone Holdings LLC, submitted
a proposal to the company's Board of Directors to acquire all of
the company's outstanding common stock at a price of $100 per
share in cash.

On Aug. 28, 2006, Kinder Morgan entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Knight Holdco LLC and Knight Acquisition Co. to
effectuate the transaction at a price of $107.50 per share in
cash.

Beginning on May 29, 2006, and in the days following, eight
putative class action complaints were filed in Harris County
(Houston), Texas, and seven putative class action lawsuits were
filed in Shawnee County (Topeka), Kansas, against, among others,
Kinder Morgan, its Board of Directors, and several corporate
officers.

                   Harris County, Texas Cases

       1. "Mary Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Charles W. Battey, Stewart
          A. Bliss, Ted A. Gardner, William J. Hybl, Michael C.
          Morgan, Edward Randall III, Fayez S. Sarofim, H.A.
          True III, Douglas W.G. Whitehead, and James M.
          Stanford, Cause No. 2006-33011," filed in the 164th
          Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas;

       2. "CWA/ITU Negotiated Pension Plan, individually and on
          behalf of others similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan,
          Inc., Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr.,
          William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles W. Battery,
          H.A. True, III, Fayez Sarofim, James M. Stanford,
          Michael C. Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward Randall,
          III, and Douglas W.G. Whitehead, Cause No. 2006-
          39364," filed in the 129th Judicial District Court,
          Harris County, Texas;

       3. "Robert Kemp, on behalf of himself and all other
          similarly situated v. Richard D. Kinder, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles
          W. Battey, H.A. True, III, Fayez Sarofim, James
          Stanford, Michael C. Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward
          Randall III, Douglas W. G. Whitehead, Kinder Morgan,
          Inc., GS Capital Partners V Fund, L.P., AIG Global
          Asset Management Holdings Corp., Carlyle Partners IV,
          L.P., and Carlyle/Riverstone Energy Partners III,
          L.P., Cause No. 2006-33015," filed in the 113th
          Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas;

       4. "Dean Drulias v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A.
          Gardner, Charles W. Battey, H.A. True III, Fayez S.
          Sarofim, James Stanford, Michael C. Morgan, Stewart A.
          Bliss, Edward Randall III, Douglas W.G. Whitehead,
          Goldman Sachs, American International Group, Inc., the
          Carlyle Group, and Riverstone Holdings, LLC, Cause No.
          2006-34594," filed in the 333rd Judicial District
          Court, Harris County, Texas;

       5. "J. Robert Wilson, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
          Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Michael C. Morgan, Fayez Sarofim, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles
          W. Battey, H.A. True, III, James M. Stanford, Stewart
          A. Bliss, Edward Randall, III, Douglas W.G. Whitehead,
          Bill Morgan, Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, American
          International Group, Inc., The Carlyle Group,
          Riverstone Holdings, L.L.C., C. Park Shaper, Steven J.
          Kean, Scott E. Parker, and Tim Bradley, Cause No.
          2006-40027," filed in the 270th Judicial District
          Court, Harris County, Texas;

       6. "Sandra Donnelly, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
          Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Michael C. Morgan, Fayez S. Sarofim, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles
          W. Battey, H.A. True III, James M. Stanford, Stewart
          A. Bliss, Edward Randall III, and Douglas W.G.
          Whitehead, Cause No. 2006-33042," filed in the 61st
          Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas;

       7. "David Zeitz, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
          Similarly Situated v. Richard D. Kinder, Cause No.
          2006-34520," filed in the 234th Judicial District
          Court, Harris County, Texas; and

       8. "Robert L. Dunn, Trustee for the Dunn Marital Trust,
          and the Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of
          Detroit v. Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr.,
          William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles W. Battey,
          H.A. True, III, Fayez Sarofim, James M. Stanford,
          Michael C. Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward Randall
          III, and Douglas W.G. Whitehead, Cause No. 2006-
          36184," filed in the 127th Judicial District Court,
          Harris County, Texas.

By order of the Court dated June 26, 2006, these cases have been
consolidated into the case captioned, "Crescente v. Kinder
Morgan, Inc., et al." in the 164th Judicial District Court,
Harris County, Texas, which challenges the proposed transaction
as inadequate and unfair to Kinder Morgan's public stockholders.

Seven of the eight original petitions consolidated into this
lawsuit raised virtually identical allegations.

One of the eight original petitions (Zeitz) challenges the
proposal as unfair to holders of the common units of Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners and listed shares of Kinder Morgan
Management.

On Sept. 8, 2006, interim class counsel filed the consolidated
petition for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting,
in which they alleged that Kinder Morgan's board of directors
and certain members of senior management breached their
fiduciary duties and the sponsor-investors aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering into the merger
agreement.  They seek, among other things, to enjoin the merger,
rescission of the merger agreement, disgorgement of any improper
profits received by the defendants, and attorneys' fees.

The defendants filed answers to the consolidated petition on
Oct. 9, 2006, denying the plaintiffs' substantive allegations
and denying that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

                  Shawnee County, Kansas Cases

       1. "Michael Morter v. Richard D. Kinder, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., Charles W. Battey, Stewart A. Bliss, Ted
          A. Gardner, William J. Hybl, Michael C. Morgan, Edward
          Randall, III, Fayez S. Sarofim, H.A. True, III, and
          Kinder Morgan, Inc., Cause No. 06C 801," filed in the
          District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12;

       2. "Teamsters Joint Counsel No. 53 Pension Fund v.
          Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Charles W.
          Battey, Stewart A. Bliss, Ted A. Gardner, William J.
          Hybl, Michael C. Morgan, Edward Randall, III, Fayez S.
          Sarofim, H.A. True, III, and Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Cause No. 06C 841," filed in the District Court of
          Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12;

       3. "Ronald Hodge, Individually And On Behalf Of All
          Others Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr., William J.
          Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles W. Battery, H.A. True
          III, Fayez S. Sarofim, James M. Stanford, Michael C.
          Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward Randall, III, and
          Douglas W.G. Whitehead, Cause No. 06C 813, filed in
          the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division
          6;"

       4. "Robert Cohen, Individually And On Behalf Of All
          Others Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr., William J.
          Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles W. Battery, H.A. True,
          III, Fayez Sarofim, James M. Stanford, Michael C.
          Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward Randall, III, and
          Douglas W.G. Whitehead, Cause No. 06C-864," filed with
          the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division
          6;"

       5. "Robert P. Land, individually, and on behalf of all
          others similarly situated v. Edward H. Austin, Jr.,
          Charles W. Battey, Stewart A. Bliss, Ted A. Gardner,
          William J. Hybl, Edward Randall, III, James M.
          Stanford, Fayez Sarofim, H.A. True, III, Douglas W.G.
          Whitehead, Richard D. Kinder, Michael C. Morgan, AIG
          Global Asset Management Holdings Corp., GS Capital
          Partners V Fund, LP, The Carlyle Group LP, Riverstone
          Holdings LLC, Bill Morgan and Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Cause No. 06C-853," filed in the District Court of
          Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 6;"

       6. "Dr. Douglas Geiger, individually, and on behalf of
          all others similarly situated v. Edward H. Austin,
          Jr., Charles W. Battey, Stewart A. Bliss, Ted A.
          Gardner, William J. Hybl, Edward Randall, III, James
          M. Stanford, Fayez Sarofim, H.A. True, III, Douglas
          W.G. Whitehead, Richard D. Kinder, Michael C. Morgan,
          AIG Global Asset Management Holding Corp., GS Capital
          Partners V Fund, LP, The Carlyle Group LP, Riverstone
          Holdings LLC, Bill Morgan and Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Cause No. 06C-854," filed in the District Court of
          Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 6;" and

       7. "John Bolton, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
          Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Michael C. Morgan, Fayez Sarofim, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles
          W. Battey, H.A. True, III, James M. Stanford, Stewart
          A. Bliss, Edward Randall, III, Douglas W.G. Whitehead,
          William V. Morgan, Goldman Sachs Capital Partners,
          American International Group, Inc., The Carlyle Group,
          Riverstone Holdings LLC, C. Park Shaper, Steven J.
          Kean, Scott E. Parker and Tim Bradley, Case No. Cause
          No. 06C-837," filed in the District Court of Shawnee
          County, Kansas, Division 6;

By order of the Court dated June 26, 2006, the Kansas cases have
been consolidated, under the caption, "In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 06 C 801," filed with the
District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12.

On Aug. 1, 2006, the Court selected lead plaintiffs' counsel in
the Kansas State Court proceedings.

On Aug. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated and
amended class action petition in which they alleged that Kinder
Morgan's board of directors and certain members of senior
management breached their fiduciary duties and the sponsor-
investors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty in entering into the merger agreement.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the merger agreement and any action taken to
effect the acquisition of Kinder Morgan and its assets by the
buyout group, damages, disgorgement of any improper profits
received by the defendants, and attorney's fees.

                   The Two Consolidated Cases

On Oct. 12, 2006, the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas
entered a Memorandum Decision and Order in which it ordered the
parties in both the "Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al."
case pending in Harris County Texas and the "In Re Kinder
Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation" pending in Shawnee County
Kansas to confer and to submit to the court recommendations for
the "appointment of a Special Master or a Panel of Special
Masters to control all of the pretrial proceedings in both the
Kansas and Texas Class Actions arising out of the proposed
private offer to purchase the stock of the public shareholders
of Kinder Morgan, Inc."

By Order dated Nov. 21, 2006, the Kansas District Court
appointed the Honorable Joseph T. Walsh to serve as Special
Master for In Re Kinder Morgan Inc. Shareholder Litigation case
pending in Kansas.

By Order dated Dec. 6, 2006, the Texas District Court also
appointed the Honorable Joseph T. Walsh to serve as Special
Master in the "Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al." case
pending in Texas for the purposes of considering any
applications for pretrial temporary injunctive relief.

On Nov. 21, 2006, the plaintiffs in "In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation" filed a third amended class action
petition with Special Master Walsh.  This Petition was later
filed under seal with the Kansas District Court on Dec. 27,
2006.  The defendants' answer to the third amended class action
petition was filed in March 2007.

Following extensive expedited discovery, the plaintiffs in both
consolidated actions filed an application for a preliminary
injunction to prevent the holding of a special meeting of
shareholders for the purposes of voting on the proposed merger,
which was scheduled for Dec. 19, 2006.

The application was briefed by the parties between Dec. 4, 2006,
and Dec. 13, 2006, and oral argument was heard by Special Master
Walsh on Dec. 14, 2006.

On Dec. 18, 2006, Special Master Walsh issued a Report and
Recommendation concluding, among other things, that "plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate the probability of ultimate success
on the merits of their claims in this joint litigation."

Accordingly, the Special Master concluded that the plaintiffs
were "not entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the holding
of the special meeting of KMI shareholders scheduled for Dec.
19, 2006."

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in January 2008.
Defendants opposed this motion, which is currently pending.

On Jan. 9, 2009, Special Master Walsh issued a Report
recommending that the class should be comprised of all holders
of Kinder Morgan, Inc. common stock, during the period Aug. 28,
2006 (the date the merger agreement was signed) through May 30,
2007 (the date the merger closed) and their transferees,
successors and assigns.  Excluded from the Class are defendants
and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related
to or affiliated with any defendant. Special Master Walsh also
recommended that Dr. Geiger and Mr. Wilson, but not Mr. Land, be
appointed as Class Representatives.  The Special Master's
recommendation is currently pending before the Kansas trial
court.

In August, September and October, 2008, the Plaintiffs in both
consolidated cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the
claims against those Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s directors who did not
participate in the buyout (including the dismissal of the
members of the special committee of the board of directors),
Kinder Morgan, Inc. and Knight Acquisition, Inc.

In addition, on Nov. 19, 2008, by agreement of the parties, the
Texas trial court issued an order staying all proceedings in the
Texas actions until such time as a final judgment shall be
issued in the Kansas actions.  The effect of this stay is that
the consolidated matters will proceed only in the Kansas trial
court.

The parties are currently engaged in consolidated discovery in
these matters, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Knight Inc. -- http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- formerly Kinder
Morgan, Inc., is an energy transportation and storage company in
North America.  Its pipelines transport natural gas, gasoline,
crude oil, carbon dioxide and other products, and its terminals
store petroleum products and chemicals and handle bulk materials
like coal and petroleum coke.  Knight is also an independent
provider of carbon dioxide (CO2) for oil recovery projects in
North America. principal business segments are Natural Gas
Pipeline Company of America and certain affiliates, referred to
as Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Power, Express
Pipeline System, Products Pipelines-KMP, Natural Gas Pipelines-
KMP, CO2-KMP and Terminals-KMP.  On Aug. 28, 2006, the Company
entered into an agreement and plan of merger whereby it would
merge with a wholly owned subsidiary of Knight Holdco LLC.  On
May 30, 2007, the merger closed, with Kinder Morgan, Inc.
continuing as the surviving legal entity and subsequently
renamed Knight, Inc.


KNIGHT INC: Royalties Suit v. CO2 Unit Set for October 19 Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
New trial in a purported class-action lawsuit over royalties
against Knight Inc.'s subsidiary, Kinder Morgan CO2 Company,
L.P., is set to occur beginning on Oct. 19, 2009, according to
the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

The company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan, Inc.

The case is styled, "J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty
Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of all other
private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome
Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder
Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., No. 04-26-CL (8th Judicial District
Court, Union County New Mexico)."

The case involves a purported class action against Kinder Morgan
CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and
overriding royalty ("royalty interests") on the true and proper
settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide produced from the
Bravo Dome Unit during the period beginning Jan. 1, 2000.  The
complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.  The
purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the United States of America, and those private royalty
interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The case was tried in the trial court in September 2008.  The
plaintiffs sought $6.8 million in actual damages as well as
punitive damages.  The jury returned a verdict finding that
Kinder Morgan did not breach the settlement agreement and did
not breach the claimed duty to market carbon dioxide.  The jury
also found that Kinder Morgan breached a duty of good faith and
fair dealing and found compensatory damages of $0.3 million and
punitive damages of $1.2 million.  On Oct. 16, 2008, the trial
court entered judgment on the verdict.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the district court entered orders vacating the
judgment and granting a new trial in the case.

Kinder Morgan filed a petition with the New Mexico Supreme
Court, asking that court to authorize an immediate appeal of the
new trial orders.  In a 2 to 1 decision, the New Mexico Supreme
Court denied Kinder Morgan's petition for immediate review of
the new trial orders.  The district court has scheduled a new
trial to occur beginning on Oct. 19, 2009.

Knight Inc. -- http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- formerly Kinder
Morgan, Inc., is an energy transportation and storage company in
North America.  Its pipelines transport natural gas, gasoline,
crude oil, carbon dioxide and other products, and its terminals
store petroleum products and chemicals and handle bulk materials
like coal and petroleum coke.  Knight is also an independent
provider of carbon dioxide (CO2) for oil recovery projects in
North America. principal business segments are Natural Gas
Pipeline Company of America and certain affiliates, referred to
as Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Power, Express
Pipeline System, Products Pipelines-KMP, Natural Gas Pipelines-
KMP, CO2-KMP and Terminals-KMP.  On Aug. 28, 2006, the Company
entered into an agreement and plan of merger whereby it would
merge with a wholly owned subsidiary of Knight Holdco LLC.  On
May 30, 2007, the merger closed, with Kinder Morgan, Inc.
continuing as the surviving legal entity and subsequently
renamed Knight, Inc.


LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Suit Pending in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson Software, Inc., continues to face a labor-related class-
action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

The punitive class-action lawsuit was filed against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on May 20, 2008, on behalf of current and former business,
systems, and technical consultants.

The suit, "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," alleges that the company failed to pay
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
state law, and alleges violations of state record-keeping
requirements.  It also alleges certain violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and unjust enrichment.

The relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan
credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees.

The company successfully moved the case from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota Federal District Court has
conditionally certified the case under the FLSA as a collective
action and granted the company's motion to dismiss the two ERISA
counts.

The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend the complaint and
assert Minnesota state FLSA causes of action, and that motion is
currently pending before the court, according to the company's
July 16, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

The suit "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H. Stein,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq. (lgreen@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

          Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq.
          (lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com)
          Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
          190 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-747-0300
          Fax: 516-747-0653

               - and -

          Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq. (smcgrane@felhaber.com)
          Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A.
          220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-373-8511
          Fax: 612-338-0535


LIZ CLAIBORNE: To Defend "Tyler" Securities Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Claiborne, Inc. intends to defend a purported class action
complaint for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint captioned Angela Tyler (individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated) v. Liz Claiborne, Inc, Trudy
F. Sullivan and William L. McComb, was filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York on April 28,
2009, against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, William
L. McComb and Trudy Sullivan, a former President of the company.

The complaint alleges certain violations of the federal
securities laws, claiming statements and omissions surrounding
the company's wholesale business.

Liz Claiborne, Inc. -- http://www.lizclaiborne.com/-- designs
and markets a global portfolio of retail-based brands.  Liz
Claiborne, Inc. is located in New York and had a total revenue
in 2007 of $4.441billion and in 2008 of $3.984billion.  Shares
of Liz Claiborne (LIZ) traded recently at $3.88 per share, down
from $22.71 per share in 2008 and $46.15 per share in 2007.


MGIC INVESTMENTS: To Seek Dismissal of Consolidated Suit in Aug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corp. will be filing a motion to dismiss the
consolidated purported stockholder class-action complaint in
August 2009, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 16, 2009.

A consolidated group of plaintiffs accused mortgage insurance
giant MGIC Investment Corp. and company principals of misleading
the public about the company's health ahead of a mortgage
meltdown-related stock crash that cost investors more than half
a billion dollars, Law360 reports.

In a 130-page amended lawsuit, filed on June 22, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
brings together five groups of plaintiffs, according to the
Law360 report.

Previously, it was reported that MGIC Investment Corp. continues
to face several purported stockholder class-action lawsuits,
according to the company's latest Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 20, 2009 (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009).

In the second, third and fourth quarters of 2008, complaints in
five separate purported stockholder class action lawsuits were
filed against the company, several of its officers, and an
officer of Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC
(C-BASS).

The complaints generally allege that through the officers named
in the complaints, the company violated the federal securities
laws by failing to disclose or misrepresenting C-BASS'
liquidity, the impairment of its investment in C-BASS, the
inadequacy of the company's loss reserves and that we were not
adequately capitalized.  The collective time period covered by
the lawsuits begins on Oct. 12, 2006, and ends on Feb. 12, 2008.

The complaints seek damages based on purchases of the company's
stock during this time period at prices that were allegedly
inflated as a result of the purported misstatements and
omissions.

In March 2009, the five lawsuits were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed.  A consolidated complaint was filed in
June 2009.

With limited exceptions, the company's bylaws provide that its
officers are entitled to indemnification from it for claims
against them of the type alleged in the complaints.

MGIC Investment Corp. -- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding
company and, through its wholly owned subsidiary Mortgage
Guaranty Insurance Corp., provides private mortgage insurance in
the U.S.  MGIC is licensed in all 50 states of the U.S., the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.  One of MGIC's
subsidiaries is licensed in Australia and another is in the
process of becoming licensed in Canada.  In addition to mortgage
insurance on first liens, the company, through its subsidiaries,
provides lenders with various underwriting and other services
and products related to home mortgage lending.  The company has
ownership interests in less than majority owned joint ventures
and investments, principally Sherman Financial Group LLC and
Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC, which it
refers to as C-BASS.  Sherman is principally engaged in
purchasing and collecting for its own account delinquent
consumer receivables.


MICRO FOCUS: Settles Texas Suit Over $113M Takeover of Borland
--------------------------------------------------------------
British software firm Micro Focus International Plc settled a
class-action lawsuit aiming to halt its proposed $113 million
takeover of U.S company Borland Software Corp., Reuters reports.

In a statement, Micro Focus and Borland refuted the plaintiffs'
claims that the merger consideration and process were unfair but
said they had decided to settle to avoid the costs of litigation
and delaying the acquisition, according to Reuters.

"The settlement amount is immaterial, and will not affect the
merger consideration to be paid to shareholders of Borland,"
according to Micro Focus.

A lawsuit was filed on May 17, 2009 in Texas alleging that "the
Borland directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Borland shareholders in the attempt to sell Borland to Micro
Focus by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price,"
Reuters reported.

The suit further claimed that Borland directors operated to
ensure that no competing offers for the company would be
successful, reports Reuters.


MONEY MART: Faces Borrowers' Litigation in British Columbia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Money Mart faces a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed
on behalf of B.C. residents who borrowed money, ctvbc.ca
reports.

The class-action suit, which is set for next January, is to
recover payday loan fees which Money Mart charged people who
borrowed cash, according to ctvbc.ca.

Attorneys allege the fees and interest were in excess of the 60
per cent allowed under the criminal code of Canadian law.  In
some cases, clients were charged a variety of fees on top of
that interest, including a charge to fill out paperwork, reports
ctvbc.ca.

Any B.C. resident who has borrowed from Money Mart since 2003 is
automatically included in the class-action suit, as well as
anyone who lived in B.C. during that time and now lives in
another province, ctvbc.ca reported.


MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Investor Files Lawsuit Over LabCorp Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An angry investor has filed a proposed securities class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California on behalf of
current investors Monogram Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: MGRM), who
purchased the shares before June 23, 2009, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by the board of
directors of Monogram Biosciences Inc. in connection to a the
proposed acquisition of the company by Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings (NYSE: LH).

     Previously, it was reported that the law office of Brodsky
& Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the Superior Court of California challenging the
proposed acquisition of Monogram Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MGRM) by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (NYSE: LH).
LabCorp has agreed to acquire Monogram Biosciences in an all-
cash deal valued at approximately $106.7 million ($155 million,
including indebtedness) (Class Action Reporter, July 2, 2009).

     Under the proposed agreement, Monogram Biosciences
shareholders will receive $4.55 for every share of Monogram
Biosciences common stock they own.  The investigation concerns
possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of
state law related to the Monogram Biosciences Board's approval
of the proposed merger.  The transaction appears to be unfair,
in part, given that Monogram Biosciences stock was trading at
over $4.35 a share as recently as February 2009 and traded at
over $5.00 a share into the 4th quarter of 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


REX ENERGY: Faces Pa. Landowners' Suit Over Natural Gas Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by Westmoreland County landowners who claim that they are
owed millions of dollars by the energy company, which had agreed
to lease their properties to tap into the natural gas-rich
Marcellus Shale seam, only to back out of the contracts when
energy prices plummeted, Paul Peirce of Tribune-Review reports.

The suit was filed on July 10, 2009 in Westmoreland County
Common Pleas Court.  Three property owners in Derry and Ligonier
townships claim they never received payments ranging from
$35,000 to $38,750 within the 90-day period they had agreed to
when they signed separate agreements in August.

Those involved in the class-action suit are Clyde and Janell
Snyder of Greensburg, who own 15 acres in Derry Township;
William Snyder of 661 Matson Road, Ligonier Township, who has 14
acres spanning Derry and Ligonier townships; and Ray and Sandra
White of 711 Matson Road, according to Tribune-Review.

The landowners' attorney, David A. Borkovic, Esq. of Sewickley
told Tribune-Review that he believes Rex Energy embarked on a
program to aggressively acquire "significant" gas acreage
throughout central Westmoreland County beginning in late 2007
through the summer of 2008 "to make itself more attractive to
investors, stock analysts and potential strategic partners."

As part of the plan, according to co-counsel James S. Lederach,
Esq. of Scottdale, Rex Energy used employees from Duncan Land &
Energy of Pittsburgh, who were working in Westmoreland to pursue
the local agreements.  Duncan Land is not a defendant in the
lawsuit.

The lawyers tell Tribune-Review that Rex Eenrgy went so far as
to hold "town meetings" using Duncan Land employees who wore Rex
Energy-labeled clothing and distributed Rex business cards.

"By the end of 2008, Rex Energy controlled 88,000 acres or more
of Marcellus Shale gas leases in Pennsylvania," according to the
lawsuit.

"These leases were approved on properties as small as an acre,"
Mr. Borkovic told Tribune-Review.  "We're alleging Rex sent
these representatives, land agents, out into the communities to
sign the agreements, then refused to pay on those agreements,"
he adds.

The lawsuit states, "defendants' landmen told plaintiffs and
those similarly situated they would be paid the money under the
leases within 60 to 90 days," reports Tribune-Review.

For more details, contact:

          David A. Borkovic, Esq.
          625 Liberty Ave # 26
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 338-2931

               - and -

          James S. Lederach, Esq.
          201 N Chestnut St
          Scottdale, PA 15683-1548
          Phone: (724) 887-3600


SANTA CRUZ: Ariz. Judge Approves $3.2M Strip Search Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Raner C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona approved the $3.2 million in a purported
class-action lawsuit over strip-searches in the Santa Cruz
County Jail in Nogales, Brian J. Pedersen of The Arizona Daily
Star reports.

The settlement allows claimants who were illegally searched
between Feb. 25, 2006, and Aug. 26, 2008, to get anywhere from
$15 to $9,250, depending on the nature of their circumstances,
according to The Arizona Daily Star.

Previously, The Arizona Daily Star reported that the lawsuit,
captioned, "Garcia v. Santa Cruz County, et. al., Case No.
4:2008-cv-00139," was filed on Feb. 25, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona by Nogales resident
George Victor Garcia.  It named as defendants Santa Cruz County,
Sheriff Tony Estrada and several others (Class Action Reporter,
April 6, 2009).

The Arizona Daily Star reported that people who were booked into
the jail between Feb. 25, 2006, and Aug. 26, 2008, are eligible
to file a claim to get a piece of the settlement reached earlier
this year in U.S. District Court.

Mark Merin, Esq., a Sacramento, Calif.-based civil-rights lawyer
involved in the suit estimates that as many as 4,000 people will
be able collect between $15 and $9,250 for being strip-searched
or subjected to body-cavity searches at the Santa Cruz County
Jail, depending on what type of offense they had been charged
with and whether they suffered physical or emotional harm as a
result of the search.

During the time period affected, jail officials violated
people's Fourth and 14th Amendment rights because they were
being searched before being arraigned and without probable cause
to believe such searches would produce contraband or weapons,
Mr. Merin tells The Arizona Daily Star.

Mr. Merin also told The Arizona Daily Star, "Everybody who was
going to be housed was strip-searched.  They weren't making
distinctions between people who they had reason to believe were
concealing contraband or people accused of crimes that were more
likely to be concealing contraband."

He explained that typically, only those who are charged with
crimes involving drugs, violence and weapons are automatically
searched, yet Santa Cruz County Jail personnel searched many
others, often conducting the searches in groups and within view
of people of the opposite sex, according to The Arizona Daily
Star report.


SASKATCHEWAN CROP: High Court Refuses to Hear Farmers' Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear an appeal by a small
group of farmers who tried to launch a class action lawsuit
against Saskatchewan Crop Insurance, Angela Hall of The Regina
Leader-Post.

Specifically, the court said it won't hear an appeal of a lower
court's ruling that said the case couldn't be certified as a
class action.

The matter dates back to a chilly Aug. 10, 2005 in northwest
Saskatchewan when farmers say frost struck.  However, the
Glaslyn weather station recorded a low of 1.9 C on that date,
according to court documents.  Because of the reading, payments
weren't triggered to farmers enrolled in the weather-based
insurance program that was offered by Crop Insurance at the
time, according to The Regina Leader-Post.

"The respondents have alleged the weather station was not
operating properly on August 10, 2005, based on statements from
a number of individuals claiming to have witnessed a frost in
the surrounding area on that particular day," according to a
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling released earlier this year.

Affected farmers in the area who were in the program should have
been paid a total of about CAD$345,000, the lawsuit argued,
reports The Regina Leader-Post.

The Regina Leader-Post reported that the farmers initially won
certification as class action at the Court of Queen's Bench in
Saskatchewan.  However, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal struck
down the order certifying the case as a class-action.


SHIRE INT'L: Faces CAD$75M Lawsuit Filed by Alberta Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shire International Real Estate Investments Ltd., a Calgary
investment company, which has been ordered to cease trading in
Saskatchewan and Alberta, faces a CAD$75-million class-action
suit, Bruce Johnstone of The Regina Leader-Post.

The class-action lawsuit against Shire was launched by two
Alberta investors, Lucia de Wet and Jennifer Lofgren in the
Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary.

The lawsuit alleges that the Shire, Jeanette Cleone Couch and a
number of related companies and individuals raised millions of
dollars from investors in Canada from 2005 to 2009 for 10
"purported real estate development projects, none of which was
genuine or as represented."

According to the statement of claim, "In total, the defendants
raised approximately $75 million in connection with the
projects, none of which ever came to fruition or produced any
meaningful returns to investors."

The suit claims that the defendants were "using funds from one
investor to make interest, dividend or other interim payments to
earlier investors in the nature of a Ponzi or pyramid scheme."

Ms. Lofgren told The Regina Leader-Post in a recent interview
that she hopes that more investors will join the class-action
lawsuit.  "There are reports that there's upwards of 3,000
investors.  So far I've managed to reach 238 (investors),
representing CAD$10.7 million in investments."

She also tells The Regina Leader-Post that the 154 investors who
have joined the class-action have invested CAD $8.1 million in
Shire International and related companies, including three
Saskatchewan investors owed a total of CAD$155,000.

Ms. Lofgren and her husband invested more than CAD$75,000 in
Shire International in 2006, including CAD$25,000 in a Fort
McMurray land development project and $50,000 into a Hawaii
development project.

But, over the three years, Ms. Lofgren tells The Regina Leader-
Post that she never received anything from Shire, except
excuses, promises and requests for more money.


T-MOBILE USA: Employees File FLSA Violations Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act with regards
to letting employees work remotely with wireless gadgets, Tresa
Baldas of The National Law Journal reports.

The complaint, "Agui et al v. T-Mobile, USA et al, Case No.
1:2009-cv-02955," was filed on July 10, 2009 by Miguel Agui,
Alexander Reyes and James Gipson.  The retail sales associates
and supervisors allege that they were not paid for "off the
clock duties," such as logging into computer systems and
responding to e-mail and text messages "all hours of the day,"
according to The National Law Journal.

The plaintiffs also allege they were issued T-Mobile smartphones
and were required to review and respond to numerous T-Mobile-
related e-mails and text messages both day and night, whether or
not they were logged into T-Mobile's computer-based timekeeping
system.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that they were required to
take and place T-Mobile-related telephone calls, participate on
T-Mobile conference calls and work "off the clock" during
scheduled lunch breaks, The National Law Journal reported.

The lawsuit was brought as a nationwide, opt-in collective
action consisting of all persons who are or were employed by T-
Mobile USA, Inc. from July 10, 2006, to date as retail sales
associates and supervisors, reports The National Law Journal.

For more details, contact:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq. (pelton@peltonlaw.com)
          Pelton & Associates, PC
          111 Broadway
          Suite 901
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-385-9700
          Fax: 212-385-0800 (fax)


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Riverside Cement Co.,
continues to defend a purported class-action complaint styled,
"Virginia Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company,
et al."

In late April 2008, the "Shellman" lawsuit was filed in
Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action complaint for medical
monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were
allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from the company's
Crestmore cement plant.

The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to
the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.

The suit requests, among other things, punitive and exemplary
damages and establishment and funding of a medical testing and
monitoring program for the class until their exposure to chrome
6 is no longer a threat to their health.

No further updates on the matter were disclosed in the company's
July 17, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.

Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com-- is a supplier of
heavy construction materials in the United States through its
three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer
products.  The company's cement segment produces gray portland
cement and specialty cements.  Its cement production and
distribution facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and
California.  The company's aggregates segment produces natural
aggregates, including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and
specialty lightweight aggregates.  Its consumer products segment
produces primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent,
packaged products.  The company is a supplier of natural
aggregates and ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern
Louisiana, and to a lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Suits Over Chromium Emission Remain Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Five purported class-action complaints over hexavalent chromium
emissions against Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Riverside
Cement Co., remain stayed.

The company has been served with three additional lawsuits filed
in Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California in
mid July 2008.

Each purports to be a class action complaint for medical
monitoring for a putative class defined as students who attended
or presently attend a specified school in the vicinity of the
company's Crestmore plant and who were allegedly exposed to
chrome 6 emissions from the plant.

The putative class in each of these cases is a subset of the
putative class in the case styled, "Virginia Shellman, et al. v.
Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.," and the allegations
and request for relief are nearly identical to those in the
Shellman case.  As a consequence, the court has stayed four of
these lawsuits until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined,
according to the company's July 17, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2009.

Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com-- is a supplier of
heavy construction materials in the United States through its
three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer
products.  The company's cement segment produces gray portland
cement and specialty cements.  Its cement production and
distribution facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and
California.  The company's aggregates segment produces natural
aggregates, including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and
specialty lightweight aggregates.  Its consumer products segment
produces primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent,
packaged products.  The company is a supplier of natural
aggregates and ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern
Louisiana, and to a lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas.


TYCO INT'L: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Stumpf" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
certified as a class-action, the matter, "Stumpf v. Tyco
International Ltd., et al., Docket No. 03-CV-03540," which was
brought on behalf all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of TYCOM Ltd. during the period July
26, 2000 through Dec. 17, 2001.

     The lawsuit arises from TyCom's $2.2 billion IPO of 70.3
million newly issued shares at $32 per share.  Lead Plaintiff,
Mark Newby, alleges that TyCom made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in its Prospectus for the
July 26, 2000 IPO and on the open market thereafter through
December 17, 2001, regarding the business operations of TyCom,
and the prospects for TyCom's new global network of undersea
cable (TGN).  Specifically, Lead Plaintiff alleges, among other
violations, that defendants misrepresented the demand for
undersea bandwidth and failed to disclose the oversupply of
bandwidth that existed and promised to exist for the foreseeable
future.

     Recently, the action has been certified to proceed as a
class-action case on behalf of the class against defendants Tyco
International Ltd., TyCom, Dennis Kozlowski (Executive Chairman
and a Director of TyCom, and the President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tyco), Mark H.
Swartz (Vice President and a Director of TyCom, and the
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Tyco),
and Neil R. Garvey (President, Chief Executive Officer, and a
Director of TyCom), as well as Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill
Lynch & Co., and Salomon Smith Barney Inc., the three co-lead
underwriters of the IPO (Underwriter Defendants).

For more details, contact:

          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 759-4600 or (877) 370-7703
          Fax: (212) 486-2093
          Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com/


U.S. BANK: Faces Ohio Litigation Alleging RICO Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bank National Association and National City Bank are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act
Melissa Thomas of The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on July 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio by James Johnson of San
Francisco, under the caption, "Johnson v. U.S. Bank National
Association et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00492."

Mr. Johnson, 90 alleges that the U.S. Bank National Association
and National City Bank provide "essential banking services" to a
payment processor that worked with fraudulent telemarketers "to
raid the bank accounts of tens of thousands of consumers, many
of them elderly."  He claims the banks provided services to
Integrated Check Technologies and Collect-A-Check, and three of
their senior officers -- none of whom are named as defendants in
this case, according to The Courthouse News Service.

Integrated Check Technologies (ICT), of Columbus, is run by
Thomas J. Cimicato, according to the complaint.  John Josephson,
whereabouts unknown, was CFO of ICT, and Gregory Whitworth,
whereabouts unknown, was its vice president, the class claims.
Also named, but not as a defendant, is Collect-A-Check adba
Check Free Recovery.

The complaint states, "ICT was a payment processor.  ICT issued
and deposited remotely created checks also known as demand
drafts on behalf of telemarketers," The Courthouse News Service
reported.

"The telemarketing companies that use ICT as a payment processor
were engaged in telemarketing fraud.  A large number of them
have been the subject of consumer complaints and law enforcement
investigations for telemarketing fraud," according to the
complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Courthouse News
Service.

The suit claims the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of
New York and other state and federal regulators identified them
as fraudulent telemarketers.  It covers anyone whose bank
accounts suffered from the "demand drafts" that ICT deposited
into its own accounts, or into those of any of its subsidiaries,
in the past 4 years.

The plaintiff -- represented by Robert Klinger, Esq. -- demands
damages for money laundering and mail fraud, reports The
Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fa2

For more details, contact:

          Robert Alan Klingler, Esq. (rak@klinglerlaw.com)
          525 Vine Street
          Suite 2320
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3124
          Phone: 513-665-9500


U.S. GOVERNMENT: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Costelo" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted a motion that sought for class certification of the
lawsuit, "Teresita G. Costelo, et al, v. Michael Chertoff, Case
No. 08-688."

The suit over "aged-out" children and the government's refusal
to follow the plain language of the Child Status Protection Act,
a law passed by Congress in 2002.

On July 16, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna
issued a 21-page decision granting Reeves & Associates' motion
to certify the lawsuit as a class-action and appointing Reeves &
Associates as class counsel.

The Court defined the class as "aliens who became lawful
permanent residents as primary beneficiaries of third- and
fourth preference visa petitions listing their children as
derivative beneficiaries, and who subsequently filed second-
preference petitions on behalf of their aged-out unmarried sons
and daughters, for whom USCIS have not granted automatic
conversion or the retention of priority dates pursuant to
Section 203(h)(3)" said Jeremiah Johnson, managing attorney of
the San Francisco office of Reeves & Associates.

The government's response to CSPA has been inconsistent at best.
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued one case permitting
the retention of the original priority date and another denying
the retention.  United States Citizenship & Immigration Services
(USCIS) has recognized the retention in some cases and refused
to recognize it in others.  In some cases, these inconsistencies
affected children in the same family, as is the case with
Teresita Costello.  One of her daughters was allowed to keep the
original priority date and her other daughter was not.  In other
cases, USCIS has simply ignored the request to retain the
original priority date.  Before the Court, USCIS took the
position that these children should give up their place in line,
go to the back of the line and wait another ten years to be
reunited with their families.

The class-action lawsuit seeks to compel USCIS to comply with
the requirements of CSPA or INA 203(h)(3) and process subsequent
petitions filed by the parent using the parent's original
priority date.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fa4

For more details, contact:

          Reeves & Associates
          2 North Lake Avenue, 9th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: 626.795.6777
          Fax: 626.795.6999
          e-mail: immigration@rreeves.com
          Web site: http://www.rreeves.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 14, 2009, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington against Ambassadors
Group Inc. (NASDAQ: EPAX).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, 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 February 8, 2007 through October 23, 2007.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 14, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Ambassadors Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:
EPAX) between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007, inclusive.

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

     Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose the following adverse facts:

       -- the Company was experiencing a lower conversion rate
          from people attending its informational meetings to
          booking travel;

       -- that there was a decrease in the number of enrolled
          participants for the Company's 2008 travel programs,
          especially in its international outbound programs;

       -- that the Company had utilized a different database in
          order to promote its travel programs to prospective
          clients; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company and its prospects.

     As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements,
Ambassadors Group stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $40.99 per share on
October 18, 2007.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 14, 2009.

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/


BARE ESCENTUALS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Bare Escentuals, Inc. (Nasdaq: BARE) between November
7, 2006 and November 26, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     The complaint charges Bare Escentuals and certain of its
executives with violations of the Exchange Act.  Bare
Escentuals, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
development, marketing, and sale of cosmetics, and skin care and
body care products under bareMinerals, RareMinerals, Buxom, and
md formulations brands worldwide.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose the following adverse facts, among others:

       -- that the Company's infomercial business was not
          performing according to internal expectations and
          would need to be substantially revamped;

       -- that the Company's new infomercial had led to an
          immediate decrease in sales and was not performing to
          internal expectations; and

       -- as a result, the Company's growth rate would be
          slowing from historical growth rates.

     On August 1, 2007, Bare Escentuals announced its financial
results for the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the period ended
July 1, 2007.  That same day, the Company held a conference call
with investors and analysts to discuss the Company's earnings
and operations, during which it was revealed that its
infomercial sales were weakening.  In response to this
announcement, the price of Bare Escentuals common stock fell
$3.55 per share, or approximately 13%, to close at $24.75 per
share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

     On October 31, 2007, Bare Escentuals announced its
financial results for the third quarter of fiscal 2007, the
period ended September 30, 2007.  Following the press release,
the Company held a conference call with investors and analysts
to discuss the Company's earnings and operations, during which
it was revealed that the Company had seen continued weakness in
its infomercial business.  In response to this announcement, the
price of Bare Escentuals common stock fell $2.24 per share, or
approximately 8%, to close at $24.70 per share, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

     Then, on November 26, 2007, the Company announced that
President of Wholesale Sales Diane Miles had resigned to "pursue
other opportunities, effective immediately," which resulted in
shares of the Company's stock falling $3.42 per share over the
next two trading days, to close at $19.75 per share on November
28, 2007.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Bare Escentuals common stock during the Class
Period.

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/bareescentuals/


BARE ESCENTUALS: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Bare Escentuals, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BARE) between November 7, 2006 and November 26, 2007, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Bare Escentuals and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Bare Escentuals, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
development, marketing, and sale of cosmetics, and skin care and
body care products under bareMinerals, RareMinerals, Buxom, and
md formulations brands worldwide.

     The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's true financial
condition, business and prospects.

     Specifically, it is alleged that defendants failed to
disclose the following adverse facts, among others:

       -- that the Company's infomercial business was not
          performing according to internal expectations and
          would need to be substantially revamped;

       -- that the Company's new infomercial had led to an
          immediate decrease in sales and was not performing to
          internal expectations; and

       -- as a result, the Company's growth rate would be
          slowing from historical growth rates.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.

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/


CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased the securities of Caraco
Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX: CPD), between May 29,
2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Caraco and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Caraco is engaged primarily in the business of developing,
manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and private-
label pharmaceuticals to the nation's largest wholesalers,
distributors, warehousing and non-warehousing chain drugstores
and managed care providers, throughout the U.S.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Caraco's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading.  Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were
false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate, among
other things, the following:

       -- that the Company failed to meet the United States Food
          and Drug Administration's (FDA) current Good
          Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP") requirements;

       -- that the Company failed to take corrective measures in
          order to have its manufacturing facilities comply with
          the FDA's cGMP requirements;

       -- that the Company had failed to remedy repeat
          violations of FDA regulations previously observed and
          documented by the FDA;

       -- that the foregoing significantly jeopardized the
          Company's ability to gain FDA approval of pending new
          drug applications; and

       -- as a result of the above, that the Company would have
          to recall certain products.

     On June 25, 2009, the FDA announced that U.S. Marshals had
seized drug products manufactured by Caraco from the Company's
facilities.  According to the FDA, this action followed Caraco's
continued failure to meet the FDA's cGMP requirements, which
assure the quality of manufactured drugs.  The FDA stated that
through the seizure it sought to immediately stop the Company
from further distributing drugs until there is assurance that
Caraco complies with good manufacturing requirements.  On this
news, shares of Caraco declined $1.79 per share, or
approximately 43%, to close on June 25, 2009, at $2.39 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

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: Barroway Topaz Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
announced that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on behalf of purchasers of securities of Kenexa Corporation
(Nasdaq: KNXA) between May 8, 2007 and November 7, 2007,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Kenexa and certain of its officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Kenexa
and its subsidiaries provide software and services which enable
organizations to recruit and retain employees.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

       -- that one of Kenexa's largest employment process
          outsourcing customers was seeking to be released from
          its agreements with the Company;

       -- that sales cycles for certain of the Company's lines
          of business were growing longer, thereby slowing the
          Company's revenue growth;

       -- that Kenexa's international sales were suffering which
          would force the Company to reorganize its sales force;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being and future
          business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
          basis when made.

     On November 7, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced its financial results for the 2007 fiscal third
quarter and readjusted its 2007 earnings forecast downward.  The
Company lowered its projected 2007 total revenue to $181.5
million to $182.5 million, subscription revenue to $147.7
million to $148.5 million and non-GAAP operating income to $37.5
million to $37.9 million.  Upon the release of this news, the
Company's shares declined $11.23 per share, or 40 percent, to
close on November 8, 2007 at $16.61 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

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

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders
of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) in relation to the
Company's alleged violations of FDA regulations involving the
Zicam Cold Remedy products.

     The complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona and seeks damages for violations of
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased
Matrixx stock between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009,
inclusive.

     Matrixx is a nutrient and drug delivery company that
develops, manufactures and markets delivery systems for
bioactive compounds.  The Company, through its subsidiary,
produces, markets and sells, among other pharmaceutical
products, Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel, Zicam Cold Remedy gel
swabs, and Zicam Cold Remedy children's swabs.

     The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning
the Company's operational well-being and future prospects.

     Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose or indicate:

       -- that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of
          serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the
          Zicam Cold Remedy Products;

       -- that Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the
          FDA despite having an obligation to do so;

       -- that the Company failed to comply with FDA regulations
          despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its meeting FDA regulations were
          false and misleading when made.

     As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined
$13.46 per share, or an astounding 70 percent, to close on June
16, 2009 at $5.78 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway
          Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.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  * * *