CAR_Public/090722.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 143

                           Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "LaFlamme" Agrees to Dismiss Claims in Feb.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Defending Consolidated Lawsuit Over RPA
ATLAS MINING: To Defend Amended Suit by Common Stock Purchasers
BARE ESCENTUALS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California

BOSAI MINERALS: Faces Pa. Lawsuit Over Refractory-Grade Bauxite
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Decision in Unpaid Overtime Case Appealed
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mich.
CROWN MEDIA: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court
CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia

DUANE READE: July 28 Hearing Set for Appeal to Medi-Span Deal
DUANE READE: July 28 Trial Set for Bid v. First Data Bank Deal
FIBERNET TELECOM: To Defend "Chen" Civil Complaint in New York
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over First American Takeover
FUWEI FILMS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York

HARLEY INTERNATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Madoff Investments
JASPER COUNTY: Mo. Judge Recuses Self From Suit v. Rita Hunter
KBR INC: Faces Okla. Lawsuit Over Burn Pits in Iraq, Afghanistan
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Side Effects of Zicam
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Side Effects of Zicam

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Ariz.
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Some Claims in Calif. Backdating Lawsuit Nixed
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Approval to Settlement of SRAM Suits Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
NEW JERSEY: State Troopers Challenge Mandatory Retirement Policy
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Hisamitsu Merger

WILLIS GROUP: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over R. Allen Stanford Scheme

* 2009 Securities Class Actions Filings Decline, Report Says


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARE ESCENTUALS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Suit Filing
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit captioned "In re Air Cargo
Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775," remains
pending, according to American Airlines, Inc.'s July 15, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Forty-five purported class action lawsuits have been filed in
the U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic
air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.

These cases, along with other purported class action lawsuits in
which the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re
Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775,"
on June 20, 2006.

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.

The company has not been named as a defendant in the
consolidated complaint filed by the plaintiffs.  However, the
plaintiffs have not released any claims that they may have
against the company, and the company may later be added as a
defendant in the litigation.  If the company is sued on these
claims, it will vigorously defend the suit, but any adverse
judgment could have a material adverse impact on the Company.

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml/-- is
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp.  All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR.  American is a scheduled passenger
airline.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 150 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia.  American is also a scheduled air freight carrier,
providing a range of freight and mail services to shippers
throughout its system onboard American's passenger fleet.  In
September 2008, the company announced that it has completed the
sale of American Beacon Advisors, Inc., its wholly owned asset-
management subsidiary, to Lighthouse Holdings, Inc.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "LaFlamme" Agrees to Dismiss Claims in Feb.
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., says in its Form 10-Q filing dated July
15, 2009, that it will defend itself in the event that the
Turner plaintiffs pursue their claims or the LaFlamme plaintiffs
re-file claims against the company.

Two purported class-action lawsuits over allegations that the
company violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to
set prices and surcharges for passenger transportation in Japan
and Germany, were respectively filed on March 13, 2008, and
March 14, 2008, under the captions:

       -- "Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444
          (N.D. Cal.);" and

       -- "LaFlamme v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-
          1079 (E.D.N.Y.)."

The plaintiffs in the Turner and LaFlamme cases are seeking
trebled money damages and injunctive relief.  (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 22, 2008)

According to the company's July 15, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009, the Turner plaintiffs have failed to
perfect service against the company, and it is unclear whether
they intend to pursue their claims.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the LaFlamme plaintiffs agreed to dismiss
their claims against the company without prejudice.

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml/-- is
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp.  All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR.  American is a scheduled passenger
airline.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 150 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia.  American is also a scheduled air freight carrier,
providing a range of freight and mail services to shippers
throughout its system onboard American's passenger fleet.  In
September 2008, the company announced that it has completed the
sale of American Beacon Advisors, Inc., its wholly owned asset-
management subsidiary, to Lighthouse Holdings, Inc.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Defending Consolidated Lawsuit Over RPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. and and the Association of Professional
Flight Attendants (APFA) continue to defend a consolidated class
action complaint regarding a Restructuring Participation
Agreement (RPA).

On July 12, 2004, a consolidated class action complaint that was
subsequently amended on Nov. 30, 2004, was filed against
American and the APFA, the union which represents American's
flight attendants (Ann M. Marcoux, et al., v. American Airlines
Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York).

While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks on
behalf of all of American's flight attendants or various
subclasses to set aside and to obtain damages allegedly
resulting from the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement
referred to as the RPA.

The RPA was one of three labor agreements American successfully
reached with its unions in order to avoid filing for bankruptcy
in 2003.

In a related case (Sherry Cooper, et al. v. TWA Airlines, LLC,
et al., also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York), the court denied a preliminary injunction against
implementation of the RPA on June 30, 2003.

The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against the APFA and
American relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the
RPA by individual APFA members, including: violation of the
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the
APFA's Constitution and By-laws, violation by the APFA of its
duty of fair representation to its members, violation by
American of provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) through
improper coercion of flight attendants into voting or changing
their vote for ratification, and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO).

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against American, all but one of the LMRDA
claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.

On July 22, 2008, the district court granted summary judgment to
American and APFA concerning the remaining claimed violations of
the RLA and the duty of fair representation against American and
the APFA (as well as one LMRDA claim and one claim against the
APFA of a breach of its constitution).

On Aug. 20, 2008, a notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the
purported class of flight attendants.

According to American Airlines' July 15, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009, a final adverse court decision invalidating
the RPA and awarding substantial money damages would have a
material adverse impact on the company.

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml/-- is
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp.  All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR.  American is a scheduled passenger
airline.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 150 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia.  American is also a scheduled air freight carrier,
providing a range of freight and mail services to shippers
throughout its system onboard American's passenger fleet.  In
September 2008, the company announced that it has completed the
sale of American Beacon Advisors, Inc., its wholly owned asset-
management subsidiary, to Lighthouse Holdings, Inc.


ATLAS MINING: To Defend Amended Suit by Common Stock Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Mining Company's management intends to defend an amended
class action complaint filed on behalf of purchasers of the
company publicly traded common stock during the period Jan. 19,
2005 through Oct. 8, 2007.

The company, certain of its directors and former officers and
employees, its prior auditor, Chisolm, Bierwolf & Nilson, LLC,
and Nano Clay and Technologies, Inc., its defunct, wholly owned
subsidiary, are defendants in a class action filed on Oct. 11,
2007, on behalf of purchasers of the company publicly traded
common stock during the period Jan. 19, 2005 through Oct. 8,
2007.

The First Amended Complaint alleges that the company damaged
purchasers by making material misstatements in publicly
disseminated press releases and Securities and Exchange
Commission filings regarding the extent of the halloysite
deposit on company property, the availability and quality of
halloysite for sale, and claimed sales of halloysite.

The Complaint also alleges that the company improperly
manipulated reported earnings with respect to purported
halloysite sales and misrepresentations by the individual
defendants as to our financial statements.

The plaintiffs seek remedies under Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and for
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company's former officers and employees have requested, with
respect to this action, payment of their attorneys' fees and
indemnification.

Lead counsel in this case has been selected, according to the
company's July 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Atlas Mining Company -- http://www.atlasmining.com-- is a
natural resources company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration and development of its resource properties in the
states of Idaho and Utah.  The company also provides contract
mining services and specialized civil construction services for
mine operators, exploration companies and the construction and
natural resources industries through its trade name Atlas
Fausett Contracting (AFC).  AFC performs site evaluation,
feasibility studies, trouble-shooting and consultation prior to
the undertaking of exploration and mine development.  The
company also operates in timber industry.  The company contracts
its logging to a qualified logger when it is selling the timber.
Its property consists primarily of pine, fir and larch.  The
company's major mining properties include Shoshone County,
Idaho, and Juab County, Utah.


BARE ESCENTUALS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor with Bare Escentuals, Inc. (Nasdaq: BARE) has
filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Bare Escentuals
between November 7, 2006 and November 26, 2007, alleging the
company violated Federal Securities Laws.

     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/


BOSAI MINERALS: Faces Pa. Lawsuit Over Refractory-Grade Bauxite
---------------------------------------------------------------
The China-based companies of Bosai Minerals Group Co. Ltd. and
CMP Tianjin are facing a purported class-action lawsuit that
accuses them of engaging in a conspiracy to fix and inflate the
price of refractory-grade bauxite sold to a U.S.-based metal
refining services company and other purchasers, Law360 reports.

The suit was filed by refractory supplier Resco Products Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, according to Law360.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Decision in Unpaid Overtime Case Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
     A national class action against Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce (CIBC) for unpaid overtime is being appealed to the
Ontario Divisional Court.

     On June 18, 2009, Ontario Superior Court Justice Joan Lax
refused to certify the case as a class action. The Court was of
the opinion that the claims of the class members were not
sufficiently common but, rather, the causes of overtime were
individual in nature.

     Dara Fresco, the proposed representative Plaintiff is
asking, on behalf of thousands of current and former CIBC
employees, that the Divisional Court overturn Justice Lax's
ruling and to certify the case as a class action.

     "My experience from working in a dozen branches of the CIBC
is that unpaid overtime is a regular occurrence at the branches.
Hundreds of CIBC employees from across the country have
contacted me and my lawyers and confirmed that it is their
experience as well," said Ms. Fresco.  "If affected employees at
CIBC and elsewhere are to have a meaningful way to address these
issues, I believe that the appeal court needs to understand the
nature of the work environments and the position of the
employees, and needs to certify this case as a class action."

     Louis Sokolov, one of Ms. Fresco's lawyers said "Many of
the most significant class action decisions in Ontario were
initially denied but later reversed on appeal.  We believe that
there are compelling reasons to certify this case as a class
action and are hopeful that the appeal court will do so."

     Ms. Fresco's lawyers are required to file the materials in
support of her appeal by the end of August, following which CIBC
will have 60 days respond.

For more details, contact:

          Louis Sokolov
          Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
          Phone: (416) 979-6439


CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor has filed a proposed securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan behalf of certain investors of Caraco
Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) over potential
claims against the company, concerning possible securities
violations related to public statements made by the Company
between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009.

     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


CROWN MEDIA: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Media Holdings, Inc. faces a securities class action
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on July 13, 2009.

The lawsuit was brought against each member of the Board of
Directors of Crown Media Holdings, Inc., Hallmark Cards,
Incorporated and its affiliates, as well as the company as a
nominal defendant, by a minority stockholder of the company
regarding the recapitalization proposal which the company
received from Hallmark Cards, Incorporated.

The plaintiff is S. Muoio & Co. LLC which owns beneficially
approximately 5.8% of the company's Class A common stock,
according to the complaint and filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Proposal, which the company publicly announced on May 28,
2009, provides for a recapitalization of its outstanding debt to
Hallmark Cards affiliates in exchange for new debt and
convertible preferred stock of the company.

The lawsuit claims to be a derivative action and a class action
on behalf of the plaintiff and other minority stockholders of
the company.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that, the defendants
have breached fiduciary duties owed to the company and minority
stockholders in connection with the Proposal.  The lawsuit
includes allegations that if the Proposal is consummated, an
unfair amount of equity would be issued to the majority
stockholders, thereby reducing the minority stockholders' equity
and voting interests in the company, and that the majority
stockholders would be able to eliminate the minority
stockholders through a short-form merger.

The complaint requests the court to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the Proposal and to award plaintiff fees and
expenses incurred in bringing the lawsuit.

On July 14, 2009, the company issued a press release announcing
that that the Special Committee of its Board of Directors formed
to review and consider the Proposal has retained Morgan Stanley
& Co. Incorporated as its independent financial advisor,
according to its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated July 15, 2009.

Crown Media Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.hallmarkchannel.com/ -
- owns and operates a pay television channel, known as the
Hallmark Channel dedicated to entertainment programming for
adults and families.  In addition, the company owns and operates
the Hallmark Movie Channel, which is around the clock digital
cable network dedicated to offering viewers a collection of
movies and mini-series and the Hallmark Movie Channel HD, which
was launched in April 2008.  Its channels are distributed in the
United States and its territories and possessions, including
Puerto Rico.  Its wholly owned subsidiary is Crown Media United
States, LLC.


CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. and other major U.S. railroads continue to face a
consolidated class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia over allegations that the individual
railroads violated the U.S. antitrust laws.

Since May 2007, at least 30 putative class-action lawsuits have
been brought by indirect purchasers in various federal district
courts against CSX and four other U.S.-based Class I railroads.

The lawsuits contain substantially similar allegations to the
effect that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to
contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal
conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws.  The lawsuits seek
unquantified treble damages allegedly sustained by purported
class members, attorneys' fees and other relief.

All but three of the lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a
class of shippers that allegedly purchased rail freight
transportation services from the defendants through the use of
contracts or through other means exempt from rate regulation
during defined periods commencing as early as June 2003 and were
assessed fuel surcharges.

Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of indirect
purchasers of rail services.  One additional lawsuit has been
filed by an individual shipper.

The class-action lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss and oral arguments were heard on Oct.
10, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2008).

The district court has dismissed all of the indirect purchasers
causes of action except for injunctive relief.  The indirect
purchasers have appealed that decision and the district court
case has been stayed pending the appeal.

The railroads have asked the District Court for the District of
Columbia to first proceed with discovery relating to the
appropriateness of class certification, and then permit merit
discovery only if a class is certified (Class Action Reporter,
May 4, 2009).

The court denied the railroads' request to first proceed with
discovery relating to the appropriateness of class
certification, and then permit merits discovery only if a class
is certified.  The court, however, agreed with the railroads
that class certification should be decided as early as possible,
rejecting plaintiffs' proposal that certification be determined
after the close of all discovery and close to trial, according
to the company's July 15, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
26, 2009.

CSX Corp. -- http://www.csx.com/-- is a transportation company.
The company owns companies providing rail, intermodal and rail-
to-truck transload services, connecting more than 70 ocean,
river and lake ports.  CSX operates in two segments: rail and
intermodal.


DUANE READE: July 28 Hearing Set for Appeal to Medi-Span Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A July 28, 2009 expedited hearing has been set for the appeal
from the approved settlement in Medi-Span's class action lawsuit
against Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. over average wholesale price
(AWP) reporting, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 15, 2009.

In May 2007, Medi-Span, the other primary source of  AWP
reporting, entered into a similar settlement agreement in
connection with a separate class action filed in the U.S.
District for the District of Massachusetts subject to final
court approval.

In January 2008, the court denied approval of the Medi-Span
settlement as proposed.

Subsequently, a new settlement agreement was submitted to the
court.  On March 17, 2009, the court issued an order approving
the revised settlement.

Pursuant to the settlements, as approved, Medi-Span has agreed
to reduce the reported AWP for certain drugs by four percent.
Separately, and not pursuant to the settlement agreements, Medi-
Span has indicated that they will also reduce the reported AWP
for a large number of additional drugs not covered by the
settlement agreements and that they intend to discontinue the
reporting of AWP in the future.  Under the terms of the court's
decision, the settlement agreement can become effective no
earlier than 180 days from the entry of final judgment, which
was March 30, 2009.  Some parties have appealed the court's
ruling.  While the court did not grant a stay of the
implementation of the settlement, the court granted an expedited
hearing on the appeal, which has been set for July 28, 2009.

Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.duanereade.com/-- is a
drugstore chain in New York City.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, the
company operated 148 of its 251 stores in Manhattan's business
and residential districts.  In addition, at Dec. 27, 2008, it
operated 77 stores in New York and 26 stores in the New York and
New Jersey suburbs, including the Hudson River communities of
northeastern New Jersey, as well as Westchester, Nassau and
Suffolk counties in New York.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company
operated 251 stores, 15 of which were opened during the fiscal
year ended December 27, 2008 (fiscal 2008).  It closed six
stores, during fiscal 2008.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, approximately
59% of its stores were in Manhattan, 31% were in the outer
boroughs of New York City and 10% were located outside New York
City.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company occupied 1.7 million
square feet of retail space.


DUANE READE: July 28 Trial Set for Bid v. First Data Bank Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
An expedited hearing has been set for July 28, 2009, on the
appeal from the approved settlement in First Data Bank's class
action lawsuit against Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. over average
wholesale price (AWP) reporting.

In October 2006, in connection with a class action filed in the
U.S. District for the District of Massachusetts, First Data
Bank, which is one of two primary sources of AWP of drugs price
reporting, announced that it had entered into a settlement
agreement related to its reporting of average wholesale prices,
subject to final court approval.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, First Data
Bank agreed to reduce the reported AWP of certain drugs by four
percent and to discontinue the publishing of AWP at a future
time.

In January 2008, the court denied approval of the First Data
Bank settlement as proposed.

Subsequently, a new settlement agreement was submitted to the
court.  On March 17, 2009, the court issued an order approving
the revised settlement.

Pursuant to the settlements, as approved, First Data Bank has
agreed to reduce the reported AWP for certain drugs by four
percent.  Separately, and not pursuant to the settlement
agreements, First Data Bank has indicated that they will also
reduce the reported AWP for a large number of additional drugs
not covered by the settlement agreements and that they intend to
discontinue the reporting of AWP in the future.  Under the terms
of the court's decision, the settlement agreement can become
effective no earlier than 180 days from the entry of final
judgment, which was March 30, 2009.  Some parties have appealed
the court's ruling.  While the court did not grant a stay of the
implementation of the settlement, the court granted an expedited
hearing on the appeal, which has been set for July 28, 2009,
according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 15, 2009.

Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.duanereade.com/-- is a
drugstore chain in New York City.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, the
company operated 148 of its 251 stores in Manhattan's business
and residential districts.  In addition, at Dec. 27, 2008, it
operated 77 stores in New York and 26 stores in the New York and
New Jersey suburbs, including the Hudson River communities of
northeastern New Jersey, as well as Westchester, Nassau and
Suffolk counties in New York.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company
operated 251 stores, 15 of which were opened during the fiscal
year ended December 27, 2008 (fiscal 2008).  It closed six
stores, during fiscal 2008.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, approximately
59% of its stores were in Manhattan, 31% were in the outer
boroughs of New York City and 10% were located outside New York
City.  As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company occupied 1.7 million
square feet of retail space.


FIBERNET TELECOM: To Defend "Chen" Civil Complaint in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. intends to defend a putative class
action complaint captioned, "Chen v. DeLuca, et al.," filed in
the Supreme Court of New York for the County of New York.

On July 10, 2009, the civil action was filed against the company
and its directors, as well as Zayo Group, LLC ("Zayo Group") and
Zayo Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Zayo
Group ("Merger Sub").

The action was brought by a purported stockholder of the
company, on behalf of a putative class of company stockholders,
and, among other things, seeks to enjoin the consummation of the
merger of Merger Sub with and into the company (the "Merger")
and seeks an award of monetary damages, costs and an accounting
for all profits and any special benefits obtained by the
defendants as a result of the proposed Merger.

Plaintiff alleges that the decisions by the company's directors
to approve the Merger constituted breaches of their respective
fiduciary duties because they failed to engage in an honest and
fair sales process and failed to disclose material facts
regarding the proposed Merger.

Plaintiff also contends that the company, Zayo Group and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by the company's directors, according to the company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
July 14, 2009.

FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. -- http://www.ftgx.com/-- provides
interconnection services enabling the exchange of voice, video
and data traffic between multiple, global networks.  The Company
owns and operates colocation facilities and diverse transport
routes in the gateway markets of New York/New Jersey, Los
Angeles, Chicago and Miami.  The Company's network
infrastructure and facilities are designed to provide broadband
interconnectivity for network operators, including domestic and
international telecommunications carriers and service providers.
In its network-neutral colocation facilities, FiberNet provides
racks, cabinets and customized caged spaces for its customers to
deploy networking equipment and establish network points of
presence.  The facilities are located in the carrier hotels of
gateway markets.  The Company also provides redundant power
systems, environmental controls and security for customers'
colocation needs at these network aggregation points.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over First American Takeover
----------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor with First Advantage Corporation (NASDAQ: FADV)
has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware behalf of current
investors of the company, who own the Class A common stock of
First Advantage, over alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and
other violations of state law in connection with an alleged
unfair takeover price that was announced.

According to the complaint, "The Proposed Transaction
significantly undervalues First Advantage.  First American has
chosen this particular moment in time to buy out First
Advantage's minority shareholders in breach of the fiduciaries
duties it owes to them."

The complaint alleges that the Proposed Transaction is not
entirely fair and is an opportunistic attempt by First American
to benefit itself at the expense of First Advantage's
shareholders, to whom it owes fiduciary duties."

     The First American Corporation (NYSE: FAF), America's
largest provider of business information, announced on Monday,
June 29, 2009, that it has made an offer to acquire the
remaining shares of its 74% owned subsidiary, First Advantage
Corp.  Under the terms of the offer, First Advantage's
shareholders would receive, at a fixed exchange ratio, 0.5375 of
a share of First American common stock for each share of First
Advantage common stock.  The proposed exchange ratio represents
an offer price of $14.04 per share and a 10.2 percent premium to
First Advantage's stock price, based on First American's and
First Advantage's closing stock prices on Friday, June 26, 2009.

    The offer values First Advantage at $837 million.  Since
First American already owns approximately 74% of Frist Advantage
the remaining value for First American to takeover First
Advantage is with 59.76 million shares in total presently with
15.537 6million shares (26% remaining outstanding shares) at
$14.04 per share $218.148 million.  First Advantage said the
offer is being reviewed by a committee of independent directors.


FUWEI FILMS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
     Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co. Ltd. (Nasdaq: FFHL), a
manufacturer and distributor of high-quality BOPET plastic films
in China, announced that the Company has received a Memorandum
and Order from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York regarding the shareholder class action
suit.

     On March 14, 2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed against Fuwei, certain of its present and
former officers, directors, and shareholders, and the
underwriters for Fuwei's December 19, 2006 initial public
offering, alleging that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus contained materially false and misleading information
in violation of federal securities laws.  The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Complaint on May 14, 2008.

     At this preliminary stage of the litigation, the Court is
required to assume that the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are
true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs'
favor.  Applying that standard, the Court granted the
defendants' motions in part and denied them in part.  The Court
dismissed plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were based upon
Fuwei's alleged failure to disclose the DMT arbitration
proceeding.  The Court also dismissed certain of plaintiffs'
claims to the extent they were brought on behalf of shareholders
who did not purchase their shares directly in the IPO.

     The Court sustained plaintiffs' remaining claims.  However,
the Court noted that the defendants may be able to assert
affirmative defenses provided by the federal securities laws in
a motion for summary judgment, which could resolve the case
before trial.

     Now that the motions to dismiss have been ruled upon, the
defendants must submit responsive pleadings to the Complaint and
discovery will proceed.


HARLEY INTERNATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Madoff Investments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harley International Ltd., a hedge fund run by Cayman Island-
based Euro-Dutch Management Ltd., is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit alleging that the fund and its managers and
advisers breached their fiduciary duties to investors by failing
to recognize clear signs that Bernard L. Madoff was operating a
Ponzi scheme, Law360 reports.

The suit was filed on July 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York by Tradex Global Master
Fund SPC Ltd., under the caption, Tradex Global Master Fund SPC
Ltd. v. Inder Rieden et al, Case No. 1:2009-cv-06395."

Listed as defendants are Anthony L.M. Inder Rieden, Dawn E.
Davies, Euro-Dutch Management Ltd., Aspen International
Investment Ltd., Ernst & Young, Ernst & Young L.L.P., Harley
International (Cayman) Ltd. and Fix Asset Management.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas George Ciarlone, Jr., Esq.
          (tciarlone@lawssb.com)
          Shalov Stone & Bonner & Rucco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310


JASPER COUNTY: Mo. Judge Recuses Self From Suit v. Rita Hunter
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit challenging fees charged by Rita Hunter as Jasper
County public administrator will be heard by a judge outside the
county, after Presiding Judge David Dally recused himself form
the case on July 17, 2009, Susan Redden writes for The Joplin
Globe.

The Missouri Supreme Court will be asked to assign a judge to
the case, Judge Dally said after a brief hearing, according to
The Joplin Globe.

Debby Woodin of The Joplin Globe previously reported a class-
action lawsuit was filed asking that Jasper County public
administrator Rita Hunter be removed as conservator of her 450
to 500 clients or be ordered to refund any fees she has charged
them that the court deems excessive (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
1, 2008).

The report relates that the lawsuit was brought by the same
attorney who won dismissal of criminal charges against a
California woman and her husband who had been charged with
kidnapping the woman's Carthage mother while she was a ward of
the public administrator.  The attorney, R. Lynn Myers, of
Springfield, filed the lawsuit against the public administrator
over the case.

Mr. Myers said that he has studied about 90 of the probate court
files of public-administrator cases since he initially took the
case of 95-year-old Emma France and her 67-year-old daughter,
Dolores Forste.

According to Joplin Globe, one of the issues in the lawsuit is
an allegation that Ms. Hunter was careless in obtaining
guardianship and conservatorship, and that she charged Ms.
France about $4,500 for her services.  Mr. Myers said he
believes that fees have been charged other clients, too, beyond
what state law allows.

Mr. Myers added that the fees set by Ms. Hunter have increased
about 400% over those charged by her predecessor.  Ms. Hunter is
double-billing some clients, he alleges, by charging fees for
some of her work or a deputy clerk's work when she is paid a
salary by the county to provide those services.

Mr. Myers also pointed out that under Missouri law, public
administrators generally are allowed to either collect a salary
or charge fees for services, but not both, though there are
certain exceptions.  The law does allow some special fees to be
charged by salaried administrators for things such as attorney
bills, he said.  He also believes there must be a contract in
place that specifies the services and fees to be charged.

"I think you have to establish the standards the public
administrator can use to charge" clients, Mr. Myers said.  "The
administrator is there to be the safety net.  They're there to
catch those without families or the indigent," and the service
should not be used as a profit center for county operations, he
said.  He further noted that the office has generated about
$400,000 for county coffers since Ms. Hunter took office in
2005.

Joplin Globe says that Ms. Hunter, who is a candidate for re-
election facing two Republican opponents in the Aug. 5 primary,
said she had not yet been served with a copy of the lawsuit as
of Wednesday afternoon.  "I know nothing about this until I'm
actually served," she said, adding that her attorney would not
be aware of it yet either.  "I have no comment," she said,
though she did question the timing of the lawsuit coming less
than a week before the primary election and asked how reporters
knew about the lawsuit.

Mr. Myers told Joplin Globe that the timing is just
coincidental.

Mr. Myers clarified that he is not asking that Ms. Hunter be
removed as guardian of her cases.  In Missouri, guardians make
decisions for the person, such as granting permission for
medical care or placement for housing, and the role as
conservator is a separate function to manage a person's money
and property.  Courts may limit powers to the role of one or the
other, depending on the need of a client.

Mr. Myers also said he started looking into fees charged in
other cases after he had Ms. France released from Ms. Hunter's
oversight and the criminal charges dismissed.

The report relates that Ms. France asked her daughter to take
her home with her, and when the daughter did take her mother to
California, she and her husband were charged with interfering
with custody and other crimes.  The report recalls that all the
charges eventually were dismissed when Mr. Myers showed that Ms.
France was not in need of a guardian, and that state law was not
followed in making her a ward of the public administrator.


KBR INC: Faces Okla. Lawsuit Over Burn Pits in Iraq, Afghanistan
----------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., Kellogg, Brown
& Root LLC and Halliburton Co. are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit filed by two Oklahoma veterans of the war in
Iraq, who are claiming that the companies "callously exposed and
continue to expose soldiers and others to toxic smoke, ash and
fumes" in Iraq and Afghanistan, David Harper of Tulsa World
reports.

The suit was filed on July 16, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma by David Green and Nick
Daniel Heisler, under the caption, "Green et al v. KBR, Inc. et
al, Case No. 4:2009-cv-00459."

Mr. Green of Miami, Okla., and Mr. Heisler of Lawton say in the
lawsuit that they are seeking "redress for American soldiers and
others deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan who were poisoned" by
the companies, according to Tulsa World.

The lawsuit alleges "the defendants were paid millions of
dollars by the United States government to dispose of waste on
bases and camps in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Defendants promised to
dispose of all waste in a method designed to minimize safety
risks, to minimize the environmental effects of any burn site
they operated and to minimize any type of smoke exposure to
people" in and around the area, reports Tulsa World.

According to the complaint though, "the defendants utterly
failed to fulfill any of the promises they made to the United
States government."  "This misconduct began in 2004 and
continues unabated," it states.

Tulsa World reported that the plaintiffs claim the "defendants
operated burn pits that released known carcinogens and
respiratory sensitizers into the air, creating a severe health
hazard for plaintiffs and all people located near the burn pits,
potentially causing both acute and chronic health problems."

The complaint asks for sufficient "monetary damages to
compensate each plaintiff for his or her physical injuries,
emotional distress, fear of future disease and need for
continued medical treatment and monitoring."

Beyond that, the lawsuit asks the plaintiffs be awarded
"punitive damages in an amount sufficient to strip defendants of
all the revenue and profits earned from their pattern of
constant, wanton and outrageous misconduct and callous disregard
and utter indifference to the welfare of Americans serving and
working in Iraq and Afghanistan," Tulsa World reports.

For more details, contact:

          Elizabeth M. Burke, Esq.
          Genevieve McCormack Burke O'Neil LLC
          1000 Potomac St Ste 150
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-232-5504
          Fax: 202-232-5513

               - and -

          Armando J. Rosell, Esq. (rosell@lawokc.com)
          Mulinix Ogden Hall Andrews & Ludlam PLLC
          210 Park Ave Ste 3030
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: 405-232-3800
          Fax: 405-232-8999


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Side Effects of Zicam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit over its Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel product, which the
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based recalled in June, after the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration warned that some users were experiencing
loss of smell, Paul Brinkmann of bizjournals.com reports.

The suit was filed on July 1, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida by Laura Gonzalez-Jones,
under the caption, "Gonzalez-Jones v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,
Case No. 1:09-cv-21836-CMA."

Ms. Gonzales-Jones of Miami, alleges negligence and product
liability, stating that she lost her sense of smell after using
Zicam, according to bizjournals.com.

For more details, contact:

          Sarah Clasby Engel, Esq. (sengel@harkeclasby.com)
          Harke & Clasby
          155 S Miami Avenue
          Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-536-8220
          Fax: 305-536-8229 (fax)


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Side Effects of Zicam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. and CVS Caremark Corp. are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit over its Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal
Gel product, which the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based recalled in June,
after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned that some
users were experiencing loss of smell, Paul Brinkmann of
bizjournals.com reports.

The suit was filed on July 16, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida by Katherine Jane Phodes
and her husband, David Holtzman, under the caption, "Phodes et
al v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al, Case no. 1:2009-cv-
22032."

The suit alleges that the plaintiff lost her sense of smell
after using Zicam.  That suit also names as a defendant CVS
Caremark Corp., where the product was purchased, according to
bizjournals.com.

It seeks reimbursement for medical expenses and damages for pain
and suffering, among other things, reports bizjournals.com.

For more details, contact:

          Seth Eric Miles, Esq. (sem@grossmanroth.com)
          Grossman Roth, P.A.
          2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
          Suite 1150
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: 305-442-8666
          Fax: 305-285-1668


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor with Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX)
has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of shareholders of Matrixx Initiatives, who purchased
Matrixx stock between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009, in
relation to Matrixx Initiatives alleged violations of FDA
regulations involving the Zicam Cold Remedy products.

     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


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Some Claims in Calif. Backdating Lawsuit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed a number of claims in a
proposed securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Maxim
Integrated Products, Inc., Law360 reports.

In an order issued on July 16, 2009, Judge Ware agreed to
discard some of the claims in the case, which is alleging the
company and several former officers and directors improperly
participated in a stock options backdating scheme that
artificially pumped up Maxim's stock price, according to Law360.

It was previously reported that a motion that sought for the
dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
against Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. was in California
federal court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2009).

On Feb. 6, 2008, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Maxim and its former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to
the grants of stock options.  It seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during the period from
April 29, 2003 to Jan. 17, 2008, unspecified damages, interest
and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
disbursements.

Following stipulations of the parties, a First Consolidated
Class Complaint was filed on Dec. 16, 2008, the Court entered a
schedule for Defendants' responses to the Complaint.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on Jan. 30, 2009,
according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 27, 2008.

The suit is "In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:08-cv-00832-JW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (MChitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Promenade II, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

Representing the defendants are:

          Thad Alan Davis, Esq. (thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com)
          Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-443-3000

               - and -

          David Michael Friedman, Esq. (david.friedman@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          505 Montgomery Street
          Suite 2000
          San Francisco, Ca 94111-2562
          Phone: (415) 391-0600
          Fax: (415) 395-8095


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal in connection to several
purported antitrust class-action lawsuits against Micron
Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access
memories (DRAM) that were transferred to California for
consolidated proceedings remains pending.

The purported class-action lawsuits generally allege violations
of antitrust statutes.

At least 68 purported class-action complaints have been filed
against the company and other DRAM suppliers in various federal
and state courts in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico on behalf of
indirect purchasers alleging price-fixing in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws, violations of state unfair
competition law, and unjust enrichment relating to the sale and
pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999
through at least June 2002.

Cases have been filed in these states: Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, and also in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The complaints purport to be on behalf of a class of individuals
and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and products
containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various
time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002.

They allege violations of the various jurisdictions' antitrust,
consumer protection and unfair competition laws relating to the
sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary
damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees.

A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California for consolidated proceedings.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss a second amended consolidated
complaint in the matter.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking certification
for interlocutory appeal of the decision.   On Feb. 27, 2008,
the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit accepted the plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal (Class
Action Reporter, April 30, 2009).

No further developments in the matter were reported in the
company's July 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 4,
2009.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Approval to Settlement of SRAM Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of the purported antitrust class-action lawsuit
filed against Micron Technology, Inc., among others, over the
sale of Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) products is pending
the U.S. courts approval.

Subsequent to the issuance of subpoenas to the SRAM industry, a
number of purported class action lawsuits have been filed
against the company and other SRAM suppliers.

Six cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that purchased SRAM
directly from various SRAM suppliers during the period from Nov.
1, 1996 through Dec. 31, 2005.

Additionally, at least seventy-four cases have been filed in
various U.S. District Courts asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly
purchased SRAM and/or products containing SRAM from various SRAM
suppliers during the time period from Nov. 1, 1996 through Dec.
31, 2006.

In September 2008, a class of direct purchasers was certified,
and plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint to
cover Pseudo-Static RAM or "PSRAM" products as well.

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and state antitrust and unfair competition laws
and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest
and attorneys' fees. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009)

On March 19, 2009, the company executed settlement agreements
with both the direct purchaser class and the purported indirect
purchaser class.  If approved by the Court, the agreements would
resolve the pending U.S. class action SRAM litigation against
the company and release Micron from those claims  (Class Action
Reporter, April 30, 2009).

No further developments on the matter were disclosed in the
company's July 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 4,
2009.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random
access memories (DRAM) continue to face several purported class-
action lawsuits in Canada that allege violations of antitrust
statutes.

Three purported class-action lawsuits over DRAM have also been
filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers,
alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

The three cases have been filed in these Canadian courts:
Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec;
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British Columbia.

The suits allege violations of the various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek
treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees.

In May and June 2008 respectively, the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was denied in the British Columbia and
Quebec cases.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of those decisions (Class
Action Reporter, April 30, 2009).

The company reported no development in the matter in its July
14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 4, 2009.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against
Micron Technology, Inc. is still pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same court.

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001, to Feb.
13, 2003.

The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct.  It
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class
but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's
stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002
(Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2009).

No further updates regarding the case were reported by the
company in its July 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 4,
2009.

The suit is "City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00085-BLW," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, Judge Judge B. Lynn
Winmill, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
         (bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com)
         Gordon Law Offices
         623 W. Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512
         Phone: (208) 345-7100
         Fax: 1-208-345-0050

              - and -

         Mary Blasy, Esq. (maryb@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendants are:

         Douglas W. Greene, Esq. (dgreene@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-883-2529
         Fax: 208-883-2699

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener Esq. (rgreener@greenerlaw.com)
         Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A.
         950 W. Bannock St. 900
         Boise, ID 83702
         Phone: (208) 319-2600


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported
antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada over the sale of SRAM.

Three purported class-action SRAM lawsuits also have been filed
in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging
violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the SRAM cases filed in the U.S. cases (Class Action
Reporter, April 30, 2009).

The company reported no developments in the matter in its July
14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 4, 2009.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face three purported class-
action lawsuits filed in Canada that allege price-fixing of
Flash products.

The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly
and indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers (Class Action
Reporter, April 30, 2009).

The company reported no development in the matter in its July
14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 4, 2009.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


NEW JERSEY: State Troopers Challenge Mandatory Retirement Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 120 New Jersey state troopers have filed a purported
class-action lawsuit challenging the state's mandatory
retirement policy, Business Management Daily reports.

Under current state law, state troopers must retire at age 55.
The suit calls the policy discriminatory and outdated. According
to Business Management Daily.


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Hisamitsu Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor has filed a proposed securities class action
lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of current
investors of Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: NOVN), who
purchased the shares before July 14, 2009, over potential
breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in
connection with an alleged unfair takeover price.

     Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical
Co., Inc. announced on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, that they have
entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which
Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical offered to acquire Noven Pharmaceutical
for total cash consideration of approximately $428 million, or
$16.50 per share, in an all-cash tender offer for 100% of the
outstanding shares of Noven.  The offer price represents a 22%
premium to the closing price of Noven's common stock on July 13,
2009.

     The plaintiff "alleges that The Proposed Transaction
reflects a clear effort by Hisamitsu to takeover Noven at an
unfair price."  The complaint further alleges that "Hisamitsu's
offer consideration is only a 22 percent premium over the $13.48
closing price of Noven on the last trading day before the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction."

     The complaint alleges that "the consideration that
Hisamitsu has stated it will offer to holders of Noven common
stock, and that Noven's Board has accepted in unanimously
agreeing to the Proposed Transaction, is unfair and inadequate
because, among other things, the intrinsic value of Noven common
stock is materially higher than the amount offered, giving due
consideration to the Company's growth and operating results and
a promising new drug product in its pipeline."


WILLIS GROUP: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over R. Allen Stanford Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary is facing a
lawsuit seeking class-action status for hundreds of Latin
American investors, which claims that the London-based insurance
broker falsely gave assurances about investments offered by
financier R. Allen Stanford, Curt Anderson of The Associated
Press reports.

The suit was filed on July 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern of Florida by Reinaldo Ranni, under the
caption, "Ranni v. Willis of Colorado Inc et al, Case No.
1:2009-cv-22085."  It also names Willis of Colorado, Inc.,
Willis Group's subsidiary, as a defendant.

The lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages.  It claims that from
2005 to 2008, Willis provided letters that Mr. Stanford's
operations were fully insured and had been independently
audited.  The lawsuit claims neither was true, according to The
Associated Press.

Mr. Stanford is accused in a 21-count federal indictment of
operating a $7 billion Ponzi scheme that swindled investors,
many from Latin America, reports The Associated Press.

For more details, contact:

          Luis Eduardo Delgado, Esq.
          (ldelgado@homerbonnerlaw.com)
          Homer Bonner & Delgado
          1200 Four Seasons Tower
          1441 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-350-5100
          Fax: 305-379-0918


* 2009 Securities Class Actions Filings Decline, Report Says
------------------------------------------------------------
     Federal securities class action activity declined in the
first half of 2009, with a particularly significant decline in
the second quarter, according to Securities Class Action
Filings' 2009: Mid-Year Assessment, an annual report prepared by
the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in
cooperation with Cornerstone Research.

     A total of 87 federal securities class actions were filed
in the first half of 2009, a 22.3 percent decline from the 112
filings in both halves of 2008.  Only 35 filings were observed
in the second quarter, the lowest quarterly total since the
first quarter of 2007.  Financial services firms are defendants
in 66.7 percent of these filings, an increase over the 50.0
percent share of all filings in 2008.

     This report introduces a new metric, the Class Action
Filing-Foreign Index (CAF-F Index), that measures the number of
securities class action filings in U.S. federal courts against
defendant corporations headquartered outside the United States.
Federal securities class action lawsuits against issuers with
non-U.S. headquarters ("foreign firms") have been rising for
more than a decade and reached 31 filings (13.8 percent of total
filings) in 2008, with an average of 18 foreign firms (9.4
percent of total filings) sued in each year since 1997.  Thus
far in 2009, 18 lawsuits have been filed against foreign firms,
representing 20.7 percent of the total.  Filings against foreign
firms are concentrated in the financial sector, as 41.9 percent
of the filings in 2008 and 77.7 percent of the filings in the
first half of 2009 were against financial firms.

     Disclosure Dollar Losses (DDL) totaled only $48 billion,
well below the semiannual average of $69 billion.  Two-thirds of
these losses are generated by two mega-DDL cases with DDLs in
excess of $5 billion each.  This considerable decline in DDL,
and its heavy concentration in two cases, likely reflects lower
stock market valuations: prices are declining from a lower base,
meaning that investors' losses at the time of disclosure are
compressed.  Both average and median DDL were also lower in the
first half of 2009, but were still higher than the semiannual
average for the 12 years ending December 2008.

     Maximum Dollar Losses (MDL), however, totaled $429 billion,
a 22.2 percent increase from the second half of 2008 and 20.5
percent above the semiannual average.  The median MDL was also
80.3 percent higher than the semiannual average.  There were
seven mega MDL filings-lawsuits with an MDL of $10 billion or
more-that accounted for $376 billion of MDL in the first half of
2009 and represent 87.6 percent of MDL in the first half of
2009, the largest share in the prior 12 years.  The decline in
DDL and the simultaneous increase in MDL can be explained by the
fact that the MDL metric measures declines over the entire
length of the alleged class period, which can often include
higher stock prices because the class period may have begun
before the recession.  In contrast, the DDL metric considers
only the stock price decline contemporaneous with the corrective
disclosure, which today typically occurs at lower valuations.

                           Commentary

Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with
Cornerstone Research:

     "Securities litigation activity continues to be driven by
claims against financial services firms, but all the large firms
in the industry have already been sued. Plaintiffs are therefore
filing claims against the smaller number of smaller financial
services firms yet to be sued.  Those facts, combined with the
general decline in stock market valuations, help explain the
decline in the number of companies sued and in the dollar
amounts at risk in recent litigation, as measured by the DDL."

     "A disproportionate number of recent claims against foreign
firms target the financial services sector.  The uptick in
litigation activity against foreign firms can therefore be
viewed as a side-effect of the larger trend to sue financial
services firms, wherever they are headquartered.  The key
question for the plaintiffs is whether they can get jurisdiction
in the U.S. Courts."

Dr. John Gould, Vice President of Cornerstone Research:

     "The continued rise in securities class action filings
against foreign firms, as presented in the report's new metric,
underscores the interconnected nature of the credit crisis and
the global reach of securities class action litigation."

     "A possible explanation for the decline in filings thus far
in 2009 may be the reduced stock market volatility.  The market
was much more volatile in the second half of 2008, when filings
were rising, compared to the first half of this year, when
filings dropped off. Moving forward, greater market stability
may signal a reduced number of securities class action filings."

                          Key Findings

       -- If the filing rate for the first half of the year
continues, then 174 securities class actions will be filed this
year, a 22.3 percent decrease from 2008 and an 11.7 percent
decrease from the annual average for the 12 year period ending
December 2008.

       -- About half of the filings so far in 2009 were driven
by the credit crisis, with 42 filings in the first half of the
year containing allegations related to the credit crisis.

       -- The dramatic decline in the number of class action
filings is contemporaneous with a 43.7 percent decline from the
fourth quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009 in stock
market volatility as measured by the Chicago Board Options
Exchange Volatility Index (VIX).

       -- The Litigation Heat Maps, a recent addition to the
report, show that 2.8 percent of companies that represent 7.5
percent of market capitalization in the S&P 500 index were
defendants in filings in the first half of 2009.  Financial
firms were hit hard as 12.8 percent of companies in the S&P 500
classified by Bloomberg as financial were named as defendants,
accounting for 41.2 percent of the market capitalization of that
sector.

        -- The number of filings against unique issuers on major
U.S. exchanges decreased in the first half of 2009 on an
absolute level and as a percentage of total filings.  This
decline was driven by a large number of filings related to non-
exchange-traded securities and private companies in the first
half of 2009.

        -- There were 15 filings related to Ponzi schemes thus
far in 2009.  The majority of these lawsuits, 11 filings, were
on behalf of investors in Madoff funds, with most suits
targeting so-called feeder funds, hedge funds, and other
financial intermediaries that invested their clients' money with
Madoff.

Professor Grundfest and Dr. Gould are available to speak to the
media about the report titled Securities Class Action Filings:
2009 Mid-Year Assessment.  The full text of the report is
available at the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse (http://securities.stanford.edu)and Cornerstone
Research (http://securities.cornerstone.com)websites.

A copy of the full text report is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fab


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARE ESCENTUALS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been commenced 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 for violations of the
federal securities laws.

     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:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock 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 Michigan on behalf of those who
purchased the securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories,
Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Caraco and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, it is alleged that defendants failed to disclose
the following:

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

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

       -- Caraco 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, Caraco would have to recall
          certain products.

     On June 25, 2009, the FDA announced that U.S. Marshals had
seized drug products from the Company's facilities.  According
to the FDA, this action followed Caraco's continued failure to
meet the FDA's cGMP requirements.  On this news, shares of
Caraco fell approximately 43% to $2.39 per share.

     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/caracopharmaceutical/


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (Nasdaq: MTXX) between
December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009, inclusive.

     The complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges
Defendants failed to disclose:

       -- that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of
          serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the
          Company's Zicam line of cold remedy products
          ("Zicam");

       -- 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.

     On June 16, 2009, Matrixx issued a press release confirming
it had received a warning letter from the FDA, which asserted
the Company was in violation of FDA regulations regarding the
sale of Zicam, and announcing the withdrawal of Zicam from the
market.  Upon this revelation, the Company's shares declined
$13.26 per share, or 70%, to close at $5.78 per share on
unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Matrixx common stock between December 22,
2007 and June 15, 2009.

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

For more details, contact:

          Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. (Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Izard Nobel Announces Stock 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 District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased the
securities of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) between
December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Matrixx and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Matrixx, through its subsidiary, produces, markets and sells
Zicam Cold Remedy Products.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts concerning the Company's operational
well-being and future prospects including the following:

       -- 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
          Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") despite having an
          obligation to do so;

       -- that Matrixx 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.

     On June 16, 2009, Matrixx disclosed that it had received an
FDA Warning Letter and would withdraw the Zicam Cold Remedy
Products from the market.  On this news, Matrixx's stock price
fell approximately 70%.

     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/matrixxinitiatives/


                            *********

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, 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  * * *