CAR_Public/091029.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 29, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 214
  
                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
ARRIS GROUP: Contests C-COR Ex-Employees' Suit for Overtime Pay
BEMIS CO: Still Awaiting Final Approval of Pa. Suit Settlement
BEMIS CO: Faces Consolidated "Price Fixing" Suit in California
BEMIS CO: Defends Four Labelstock "Price Fixing" State Suits

BRITANNIA BULK: Shipper Wins Dismissal of Securities Fraud Case
CALIFORNIA: Redevelopment Agencies Sue to Reclaim School Funding
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Inks Settlement Agreement in Merger Action
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Faces TEPPCO Unitholders' Suit in Texas
HONDA MOTOR: Acura Owner Complains About Transmission Problems

iPCS INC: Shareholders Want More Money from Sprint Nextel
I-FLOW CORP: Shareholders Want More Money from Kimberly Clark
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Inks Settlement Agreement in "Marshell" Suit
KENEXA CORP: Faces Two Securities Exchange Act Violations Suits
LEAP WIRELESS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.

OCEANFIRST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits
OMNICARE INC: Sixth Circuit Says Optimistic Statements Not Fraud
OPNEXT INC: In Talks to Settle Consolidated N.J. Securities Suit
TREX CO: Hearing to Approve Final Settlement Set for October 30

                            *********

21ST CENTURY: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Holding Co. continues to defend a consolidated
amended securities fraud complaint, according to the company's
Aug. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

From July 27, 2007 to Aug. 7, 2007, several securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the company's securities during the various class
periods specified in the complaints.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of the class
on Jan. 22, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to accurately project the
company's business and financial performance during the putative
class period.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages and claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class
complaint with leave to amend by Dec. 8, 2009 or the allegations
dismissed would be deemed dismissed with prejudice without
further order of the Court.

Lead plaintiffs did not seek to amend the consolidated complaint
and the defendants have answered.  

The action will proceed on allegations with respect to the
company's setting of loss reserves for the year ending 2006 and
first quarter of 2007.

The suit is Kivun Mutual Funds Ltd v. 21st Century Holding
Company, et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-61057-JIC, (Fla.) (Cohn, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David J. George, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364
          E-mail: dgeorge@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Peter A. 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: pbinkow@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Lewis Franklin Murphy, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS & DEMPSEY LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, 40th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131-2398
          Phone: 305-577-2957
          Fax: 305-577-7001
          E-mail: lmurphy@ssd.com


ARRIS GROUP: Contests C-COR Ex-Employees' Suit for Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARRIS Group, Inc., is actively contesting the class-action suit
filed by several former employees of a former subsidiary of C-
COR, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

The company acquired C-COR in late 2008.

In February 2008, several former employees of a former subsidiary
of C-COR, filed a class action Fair Labor Standards Act suit
against the former subsidiary and C-COR alleging that the
plaintiffs were not properly paid for overtime.

The proposed class could include 1,000 cable installers and field
technicians.  ARRIS is actively contesting the suit.

The opt-in period for substantially all of the plaintiffs ended
July 31, 2009.

As of Aug. 7, 2009, approximately 203 people have opted-in.

ARRIS Group, Inc. -- http://www.arrisi.com/-- is a global  
communications technology company specializing in integrated
broadband network solutions that include products, systems and
software for content and operations management, and professional
services.  It develops, manufactures and supplies cable
telephony, video and high-speed data equipment.  In addition, it
is a supplier of infrastructure products used by cable system
operators to build-out and maintain Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial (HFC)
networks.  It provides products and equipments to cable system
operators and multiple systems operators (MSOs).  Its products
allow MSOs and other broadband service providers to deliver a
range of integrated voice, video and high-speed data services to
their subscribers.


BEMIS CO: Still Awaiting Final Approval of Pa. Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bemis Co., Inc., is still awaiting final approval of the
settlement in a national class-action lawsuit.

The company and its subsidiary, Morgan Adhesives Company, have
been named as defendants in thirteen civil lawsuits related to an
investigation that was initiated and subsequently closed by the
U.S. Department of Justice without any further action.  Six of
these lawsuits purport to represent a nationwide class of
labelstock purchasers, and each alleges a conspiracy to fix
prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry.

The first of these lawsuits was filed on May 27, 2003.

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek actual damages for the
period of the alleged conspiracy, Jan. 1, 1996 through July 25,
2003, trebled, plus an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On Nov. 5, 2003, the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation
issued a decision consolidating all of the federal class actions
for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, before the Honorable Chief Judge
Vanaskie.

On Nov. 20, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On June 24, 2008, the Court in the consolidated federal class
actions issued a decision dismissing the company from those
actions.

On Jan. 27, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class based on new case law in the Third Circuit.   On May 26,
2009, the company and Morgan Adhesives Company entered into a
settlement with the plaintiff class, pursuant to which the
company agreed to pay $1.25 million in return for a full and
complete release of all claims in the federal class actions.

The company agreed to pay this settlement amount to avoid the
expense of further litigation.

On June 10, 2009, Judge Vanaskie granted preliminary approval to
the settlement.

A hearing on final approval was set for September 2009, according
to the company's Aug. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

Bemis Co., Inc. -- http://www.bemis.com/-- manufactures flexible  
packaging products and pressure sensitive materials.  The company
sells its products to customers throughout theUnited States,
Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.  It
operates in two segments: Flexible Packaging and Pressure
Sensitive Materials.


BEMIS CO: Faces Consolidated "Price Fixing" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bemis Co., Inc., intends to defend a consolidated lawsuit filed
with the California Superior Court in San Francisco, according to
the company's Aug. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

The company and its subsidiary, Morgan Adhesives Company have
been named in three lawsuits filed in the California Superior
Court in San Francisco.  These three lawsuits, which have been
consolidated, seek to represent a class of all California
indirect purchasers of labelstock and each alleges a conspiracy
to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry.

Bemis Co., Inc. -- http://www.bemis.com/-- manufactures flexible  
packaging products and pressure sensitive materials.  The company
sells its products to customers throughout theUnited States,
Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.  It
operates in two segments: Flexible Packaging and Pressure
Sensitive Materials.


BEMIS CO: Defends Four Labelstock "Price Fixing" State Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Bemis Co., Inc., intends to defend various state class actions,
according to the company's Aug. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

The company has been named in:

     a. one lawsuit in Vermont, seeking to represent a class of
        all Vermont indirect purchasers of labelstock,

     b. one lawsuit in Nebraska seeking to represent a class of
        all Nebraska indirect purchasers of labelstock,

     c. one lawsuit in Kansas seeking to represent a class of
        all Kansas indirect purchasers of labelstock, and

     d. one lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking to represent a class
        of purchasers of labelstock in various jurisdictions.

All lawsuits are alleging a conspiracy to fix prices within the
self-adhesive labelstock industry.

Bemis Co., Inc. -- http://www.bemis.com/-- manufactures flexible  
packaging products and pressure sensitive materials.  The company
sells its products to customers throughout the United States,
Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.  It
operates in two segments: Flexible Packaging and Pressure
Sensitive Materials.


BRITANNIA BULK: Shipper Wins Dismissal of Securities Fraud Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Perlow at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in Manhattan largely dismissed a shareholder class action
accusing Britannia Bulk Holdings of deceiving investors in
statements about its initial public offering.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote tossed the fraud claims against
all defendants, which included Britannia, its CEO and CFO, and
four underwriters. The only surviving claim is a "negligent
conduct" charge against the two executives.

The company's June 2008 IPO was a financial success for the
company and its underwriters. They raised $125 million by selling
more than 8.3 million shares of common stock to investors for $15
per share.

By late October, the stock had dropped more than 98 percent to
$0.27 per share after the company became insolvent.

Britannia Bulk is an international provider of dry-bulk shipping
and logistics services, mainly in and out of the Baltic region.

Its profits soared to "historic levels" in early 2008 as demand
for Russian coal and other raw materials increased the demand for
dry-bulk transportation in the Baltic and Northern Europe.

It earned $300 million in the first three months of 2008,
compared with $60 million over the same time period a year
earlier.

The class claimed that the registration statement and prospectus
contained misstatements and omissions, mostly surrounding its use
of forward freight agreements (FFA). FFAs are contracts traded on
the Baltic exchange in which shippers and ship owners hedge
against the volatility of the ocean market. Parties use them to
bet on the price of a particular freight-route on a particular
day.

The lawsuit accused Britannia of failing to disclose that it used
FFAs to guard against increases and not merely decreases,
effectively putting a ceiling on potential gains.

Britannia was also accused of failing to enter into proper fixed-
price contracts at a time when crude oil and bunker fuels were
experiencing extreme fluctuation, and that it "engaged in
speculative trading in FFAs . . . to 'play the market.'"

The class maintained that the alleged "false and misleading"
information was of considerable relevance to investors evaluating
Britannia's business.

But Judge Cote ruled that the documents provided to shareholders
"contain an abundance of cautionary language about Britannia's
use of FFAs that Plaintiff simply ignores."

Also, the company's shareholder update was written in
"straightforward" and "plain language" and was "entirely
consistent with the Company's intervening SEC filings after the
IPO," Cote wrote.
She ruled that the plaintiff's claim "does not withstand
meaningful scrutiny."

A copy of the slip opinion in In re Britannia Bulk Holdings Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File 08 Civ. 9554 (S.D.N.Y.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/26/Britannia.pdf


CALIFORNIA: Redevelopment Agencies Sue to Reclaim School Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that California
unconstitutionally snatched $3.75 billion from city Redevelopment
Agencies for schools, cities claim in a Superior Court class
action.  Suing on behalf of its members, the California
Redevelopment Association claims Assembly Bill X4-26 violates the
California Constitution, which states that the Legislature "'may
not enact laws allocating tax increment revenues for purposes
unrelated to development.'"  ABX4-26 takes $1.7 billion from
redevelopment agencies this year and $2.05 billion next year and
sends it to public schools. Plaintiffs, including the cities of
Union City and Fountain Valley, says the state made the money
grab to try shift the burden of education funding.

The Association says that the money seized for the schools had
been set aside to repay bondholders and creditors who funded
redevelopment projects. Without that money, the group says,
cities will be forced to breach their contracts with creditors.

The cities want the bill enjoined from being implemented as
scheduled, on May 10, 2010.

A copy of the Complaint in California Redevelopment Association,
et al. v. Genest, et al., Case No. 34-2009-80000359 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/26/CalSch.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Brandt, Esq.
          T. Brent Hawkins, Esq.
          Ann Taylor Schwing, Esq.
          McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC
          500 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
          Sacramento, CA 95814               
          Telephone: 916-444-3900

               - and -  

          Steven A. Merksamer, Esq.
          Richard D. Martland, Esq.
          MIELSEN, MERKSAMER, PARRINELLO, MUELLER & NAYLOR, LLP
          1415 L Street, Suite 1200
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 916-446-6752


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Inks Settlement Agreement in Merger Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., along with other defendants,
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release contemplated by the Memorandum of
Understanding, in order to settle the consolidated putative class
actions, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of
TEPPCO, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, in his individual capacity, as a putative class
action on behalf of other unitholders of TEPPCO Partners, L.P.
and derivatively on behalf of TEPPCO, concerning, among other
things, certain transactions involving TEPPCO and the company or
its affiliates.  Mr. Brinckerhoff filed an amended complaint on
July 12, 2007.  The amended complaint names as defendants:

     (i) TEPPCO, certain of its current and former directors,
         and certain of its affiliates,

    (ii) the company and certain of its affiliates,

   (iii) EPCO, Inc., and

    (iv) Dan L. Duncan.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants caused TEPPCO to enter into specified transactions
that were unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise unfairly favored us or
our affiliates over TEPPCO.  These transactions are alleged to
include:

     (i) the joint venture to further expand the Jonah system
         entered into by TEPPCO and the company in August 2006,
         the plaintiff alleges that TEPPCO did not receive fair
         value for allowing the company to participate in the
         joint venture;

    (ii) the sale by TEPPCO of its Pioneer natural gas
         processing plant and certain gas processing rights to
         the company in March 2006, the plaintiff alleges that
         the purchase price we paid did not provide fair value
         to TEPPCO; and

   (iii) certain amendments to TEPPCO's partnership agreement,
         including a reduction in the maximum tier of TEPPCO's
         incentive distribution rights in exchange for TEPPCO
         units.

The amended complaint seeks:

     (i) rescission of the amendments to TEPPCO's partnership
         agreement,

    (ii) damages for profits and special benefits allegedly
         obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged
         wrongdoings in the amended complaint, and

   (iii) an award to plaintiff of the costs of the action,
         including fees and expenses of his attorneys and
         experts.

By its Opinion and Order dated November 25, 2008, the Delaware
Court dismissed Mr. Brinckerhoff's individual and putative class
action claims with respect to the amendments to TEPPCO's
partnership agreement.

On April 29, 2009, Peter Brinckerhoff and Renee Horowitz, as
Attorney-in-Fact for Rae Kenrow, purported unitholders of TEPPCO,
filed separate complaints in the Delaware Court as putative class
actions on behalf of other unitholders of TEPPCO Partners, L.P.,
concerning the proposed merger of TEPPCO and TEPPCO GP with the
company.

On May 11, 2009, these actions were consolidated under the
caption Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC Merger
Litigation, C.A. No. 4548-VCL.  The complaints name as defendants
the company, nterprise Products GP, LLC, TEPPCO GP, the directors
of TEPPCO GP, EPCO and Dan L. Duncan.

The Merger Action complaints allege, among other things, that the
terms of the merger (as proposed as of the time the Merger Action
complaints were filed) are grossly unfair to TEPPCO's unitholders
and that the proposed merger is an attempt to extinguish the
Derivative Action without consideration.   The complaints further
allege that the process through which the Special Committee of
the ACG Committee of TEPPCO GP was appointed to consider the
proposed merger is contrary to the spirit and intent of TEPPCO's
partnership agreement and constitutes a breach of the implied
covenant of fair dealing.

The complaints seek relief:

     (i) enjoining the defendants and all persons acting in
         concert with them from pursuing the proposed merger,

    (ii) rescinding the proposed merger to the extent it is
         consummated, or awarding rescissory damages in respect
         thereof,

   (iii) directing the defendants to account for all damages
         suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiffs and the
         purposed class as a result of the defendants' alleged
         wrongful conduct, and

    (iv) awarding plaintiffs' costs of the actions, including
         fees and expenses of their attorneys and experts.

On June 28, 2009, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding pursuant to which the company, TEPPCO, EPCO, TEPPCO
GP, all other individual defendants and the plaintiffs have
proposed to settle the Merger Action and the Derivative Action.

The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement within 30 days from
the date of the Memorandum of Understanding.

On Aug. 5, 2009, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release contemplated by
the Memorandum of Understanding.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the board of directors of
TEPPCO GP will recommend to TEPPCO's unitholders that they
approve the adoption of the merger agreement and take all
necessary steps to seek unitholder approval for the merger as
soon as practicable.  Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
approval of the merger will require, in addition to votes
required under TEPPCO's partnership agreement, that the actual
votes cast in favor of the proposal by holders of TEPPCO's
outstanding units, excluding those held by defendants to the
Derivative Action, exceed the actual votes cast against the
proposal by those holders.  The Settlement Agreement further
provides that the Derivative Action was considered by TEPPCO GP's
Special Committee to be a significant TEPPCO benefit for which
fair value was obtained in the merger consideration.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to customary conditions,
including Delaware Court approval.  There can be no assurance
that the Delaware Court will approve the settlement in the
Settlement Agreement.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the Settlement Agreement may be terminated.

Among other things, the plaintiffs' agreement to settle the
Derivative Action and Merger Action litigation, including their
agreement to the fairness of the proposed terms and process of
the merger negotiations is subject to (i) the drafting and
execution of  other such documentation as may be required to
obtain final Delaware Court approval and dismissal of the
actions, (ii) Delaware Court approval and the mailing of the
notice of settlement which sets forth the terms of settlement to
TEPPCO's unitholders, (iii) consummation of the proposed merger
and (iv) final Delaware Court certification and approval of the
settlement and dismissal of the actions.

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. -- http://www.epplp.com/-- is
a North American midstream energy company providing a range of
services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas
liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain petrochemicals.  It is
also engaged in the development of pipeline and other midstream
energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf
of Mexico.  The company conducts substantially all of its
business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Enterprise
Products Operating LLC (EPO.  The company is owned 98% by its
limited partners and 2% by its general partner, Enterprise
Products GP, LLC (EPGP). EPGP is owned by Enterprise GP Holdings
L.P.  The company operates in four business segments: NGL
Pipelines & Services, Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services,
Offshore Pipelines & Services and Petrochemical Services.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Faces TEPPCO Unitholders' Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. faces putative class actions
filed with the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, according
to the company's Aug. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2009.

On June 29 and 30, 2009, respectively, M. Lee Arnold and Sharon
Olesky, purported unitholders of TEPPCO, filed separate
complaints in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, as
putative class actions on behalf of other unitholders of TEPPCO,
concerning the proposed merger of TEPPCO with us. The complaints
name as defendants us, TEPPCO Partners, L.P., TEPPCO GP,
Enterprise Products GP, LLC, EPCO, Inc., Dan L. Duncan, Jerry
Thompson, and the board of directors of TEPPCO GP.

The allegations in the complaints are similar to the complaints
filed in Delaware on April 29, 2009 and seek similar relief.

On April 29, 2009, Peter Brinckerhoff and Renee Horowitz, as
Attorney in Fact for Rae Kenrow, purported unitholders of TEPPCO,
filed separate complaints in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware as putative class actions on behalf of other
unitholders of TEPPCO Partners, L.P., concerning the proposed
merger of TEPPCO and TEPPCO GP with the company.

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. -- http://www.epplp.com/-- is
a North American midstream energy company providing a range of
services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas
liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain petrochemicals.  It is
also engaged in the development of pipeline and other midstream
energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf
of Mexico.  The company conducts substantially all of its
business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Enterprise
Products Operating LLC (EPO.  The company is owned 98% by its
limited partners and 2% by its general partner, Enterprise
Products GP, LLC (EPGP). EPGP is owned by Enterprise GP Holdings
L.P.  The company operates in four business segments: NGL
Pipelines & Services, Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services,
Offshore Pipelines & Services and Petrochemical Services.


HONDA MOTOR: Acura Owner Complains About Transmission Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Honda
Acuras with automatic transmissions "lock up" and shift into
lower gear during normal use, causing skids and loss of control,
in Los Angeles Superior Court.


iPCS INC: Shareholders Want More Money from Sprint Nextel
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that iPCS shareholders say in
Cook County Court that the company is selling itself too cheaply
to Sprint Nextel, for $831 million, or $24 a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Hunt v. iPCS, Inc., et al., Case No.
09CH40868 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/23/CCAiCPS.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-332-3400

               - and -  

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-9330

               - and -  

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kira German, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Ave.
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: 201-567-7377


I-FLOW CORP: Shareholders Want More Money from Kimberly Clark
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say I-Flow
Corp. is selling itself too cheaply to Kimberly Clark and Boxer
Acquisition, for $276 million, or $12.75 a share, in Orange
County Court, Calif. I-Flow makes "drug delivery devices."

A copy of the Complaint in Lash, et al. v. Earhart, et al., Case
No. 30-2009-00312968 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/26/SCAIFlow.pdf


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Inks Settlement Agreement in "Marshell" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., has entered into a settlement
agreement for an insignificant amount with plaintiffs in the
purported class action, Vincent Marshell v. Impac Funding
Corporation, et al., according to the company's Aug. 10, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On Oct. 4, 2007, Marshell v. Impac Funding Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-01290 (C.D. Calif.) -- a purported class action
matter -- was filed against Impac Funding and Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc.  The action alleges violations of Truth in Lending
Act, violation of California Business and Professional Code
Section 17200, et seq., breach of contract, and an additional
claim under Business and Professional Code Section 17200.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
pertinent information in a clear conspicuous manner as called for
in the Truth in Lending Act, and that they misled the plaintiff.

The action seeks to recover actual damages, compensatory damages,
consequential damages, punitive damages, rescission, reasonable
attorneys fees and costs, statutory damages, a disgorgement of
all profits obtained as a result of the unfair competition,
equitable relief including restitution and such other relief as
is just and proper.

In June 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement for
an insignificant amount with plaintiff.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. is a Maryland corporation
incorporated in August 1995 and has the following subsidiaries:
IMH Assets Corp., Impac Warehouse Lending Group, Inc., and Impac
Funding Corporation, together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries
Impac Secured Assets Corp., Impac Commercial Capital Corporation.


KENEXA CORP: Faces Two Securities Exchange Act Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenexa Corp. continues to defend two putative class actions filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, according to the company's Aug. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On June 11, 2009 and July 16, 2009, two putative class actions
were filed against the company and its Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, purportedly on behalf of a class of
the company's investors who purchased its publicly traded
securities between May 8, 2007 and Nov. 7, 2007.

The complaints in these actions generally allege violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in
connection with various public statements made by us.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, any
member of the purported class who wished to be appointed "lead
plaintiff" had until last Aug. 10, 2009, to file a motion seeking
such designation.

According to the Court's scheduling order:

    (i) a hearing regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff
        was scheduled last Sept. 9, 2009;

   (ii) whoever is appointed lead plaintiff had until Sept. 30,
        2009 to file an amended complaint; and

  (iii) defendants had until Oct. 21, 2009 to file their
        response to the complaint.

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


LEAP WIRELESS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leap Wireless International, Inc., continues to defend purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, according to the
company's Aug. 7 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The company and certain current and former officers and
directors, and its independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, were named as defendants in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California which
consolidated several securities class action lawsuits initially
filed between September 2007 and January 2008.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about Leap's internal controls,
business and financial results, and customer count metrics.

The claims are based primarily on the Nov. 9, 2007 announcement
that the company was restating certain of its financial
statements and statements made in its August 7, 2007 second
quarter 2007 earnings release.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination that the
alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide  basis and
unspecified damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  On Feb. 23,
2009, defendants were served with an amended complaint which does
not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or any of Leap's outside
directors.

The company and the remaining individual defendants have moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

Headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Leap Wireless International,
Inc. -- http://www.leapwireless.com/--provides wireless services  
in 29 states and holds licenses in 35 of the top 50 U.S. markets.  
Cricket offers customers a choice of unlimited voice, text, data
and mobile Web services.


OCEANFIRST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
OceanFirst Financial Corp., Inc., intends to defend purported
class actions complaints filed with the Superior Court of New
Jersey in Ocean County, according to the company's Aug. 10, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On June 8, 2009, and July 15, 2009, purported class action
complaints were filed against the company, Central Jersey Bancorp
and each director of Central Jersey, except that Robert S. Vuono
was not named in the second class action complaint.

The actions were brought by two separate alleged shareholders of
Central Jersey, each on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated.  The complaints allege, among other things,
that the directors of Central Jersey are in breach of their
fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with Central
Jersey's entry into the merger agreement with the company.  The
complaints also allege that the company and Central Jersey
knowingly assisted the Central Jersey directors' alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed merger.

The complaints seek, among other things, damages and injunctive
relief to enjoin the company, Central Jersey and Central Jersey's
directors from consummating the transactions contemplated under
the merger agreement, along with attorneys' fees and costs.  The
company and Central Jersey believe that the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against the claims and causes of action asserted in these legal
matters.

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


OMNICARE INC: Sixth Circuit Says Optimistic Statements Not Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit largely upheld
dismissal of a shareholder class action against pharmaceutical
company Omnicare.  "Seizing on a few vague statements from
management, the plaintiffs try to turn bad corporate news into a
securities class action," U.S. District Judge Richard Mills
wrote.

Because securities law "forbids such alchemy," the ruling states,
the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal on all claims but
an accounting claim.

A class of investors, led by a state pension fund, accused
Omnicare of publishing overly positive outlooks while the company
was in a contract dispute and was unprepared to transfer to a
prescription drug benefit program called Medicare Part D.

But the Cincinnati-based appellate panel affirmed the lower
court's dismissal, saying the plaintiffs' proof of loss causation
was "thoroughly lacking."

The plaintiffs had claimed that Omnicare hid a contract loss with
a major drug plan supplier by continuing to say that the company
was doing well.
     
Omnicare CEO Joel Gemunder's positive, forward-looking statements
were protected by safe-harbor laws, the three-judge panel ruled.
     
Mr. Gemunder's optimistic comments "fall squarely within the
realm of corporate puffery, as they do nothing more than vaguely
predict positive future results, a claim so banal and ubiquitous
that it cannot engender reliance by reasonable investors," Mills
wrote.
     
The appellate panel also dismissed a claim that the company
misled investors by stating that it was ready to transfer to the
new Medicare Part D drug coverage program in late 2005. When Part
D launched in January 2006, Omnicare experienced a "rocky
transition" that cost the company $9.8 million, the plaintiffs
claimed.
     
The court similarly tossed a claim based on Omnicare's assurances
that it had complied with the law. Investors said Omnicare knew
about drug recycling and other illegal practices, but hid them.
     
"[N]o allegations establish when the defendants were aware of the
wrongdoing or, for that matter, when the wrongdoing was
occurring," Judge Mills wrote.
     
The court mostly dismissed the case, but remanded a claim for
abuses of generally accepted accounting principles to re-
establish loss causation.

A copy of the slip opinion issued in Indiana State District
Council of Laborers and Hod Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund, et
al. v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 07-6379 (6th Cir.), is
available at:

     http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0370p-06.pdf
     

OPNEXT INC: In Talks to Settle Consolidated N.J. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
against Opnext, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey continue to engage in settlement discussions.

On Feb. 20, 2008, a putative class action captioned, "Bixler v.
Opnext, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:08-cv-00920," was filed against
the company and certain of its directors and officers, alleging,
inter alia, that the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the company's initial public offering
contained material misrepresentations in violation of federal
securities laws.

On March 7 and 20, 2008, two additional putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the the
District of New Jersey, similarly alleging, inter alia, that
federal securities laws had been violated by virtue of alleged
material misrepresentations in the company's registration
statement and prospectus.

These two additional complaints, captioned, "Coleman v. Opnext,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01222," and "Johnson v. Opnext,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01451," respectively, named as
defendants the company, certain individual defendants, the
company's auditor, and the underwriters of the IPO.

Motions were filed by several of the company's present and
former shareholders seeking:

     -- to consolidate the "Bixler," "Coleman," and "Johnson"
        cases;

     -- to be appointed lead plaintiff; and

     -- to have their counsel appointed by the Court as lead
        counsel for the putative class.

On May 22, 2008, the court issued an order consolidating the
three cases under Civil Action No. 08-920 (JAP).

On July 30, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.  The underwriter defendants filed an answer to
the consolidated complaint on Oct. 21, 2008.

On Nov. 6, 2008, Opnext's auditor was voluntarily dismissed from
the action by plaintiff without prejudice.  Hitachi, which was
added as a defendant in the Consolidated Complaint, filed a
motion to dismiss on Dec. 22, 2008.  As of Feb. 9, 2009, the
date of this Form 10-Q filing, the Court had not ruled on
Hitachi's motion.

The court has stayed all proceedings in this matter, including
discovery, as Opnext, the Individual Defendants, and plaintiff
continue to engage in settlement discussions.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 10, 2009,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The consolidated suit is Bixler v. Opnext, Inc., et al. Case
No. 3:08-cv-00920 (N.J.) (Pisaon, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
          236 Tillou Road
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Phone: 973-313-1887
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-632-3000
          Fax: 973-923-0858
          E-mail: jsarnelli@ldgrlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          John M. Falzone, III, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          One Newark Center, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-639-7099
          E-mail: john.falzone@lw.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: 201-391-7000
          E-mail:  ggraifman@kgglaw.com


TREX CO: Hearing to Approve Final Settlement Set for October 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has set Oct. 30, 2009 to consider final approval of the
settlement agreement entered into by Trex Co., Inc. and
plaintiffs in a class action case, according to the company's
Aug. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On Jan. 19, 2009, a class action case was commenced against the
company in the Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County
generally alleging certain product defects in the company's
products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate
remedies for defective products.

On Feb. 13, 2009, the Company removed this case to the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.

On July 30, 2009, a settlement of this lawsuit was preliminarily
approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The Court has set a hearing for final approval on Oct. 30, 2009.

Trex Co., Inc. -- http://www.trex.com/-- is a manufacturer of  
wood-alternative decking, railing, fencing products and trim,
which are marketed under the brand name Trex.  The company
manufactures its products in a process that combines waste wood
fibers and reclaimed polyethylene.  Its decking, railing and
fencing products are provided in a selection of sizes and
lengths, and are also available with several finishes and
numerous colors.  The products are used primarily for residential
and commercial decking and railing.


                            *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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  * * *