CAR_Public/090611.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, June 11, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 114

                           Headlines

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Remains Pending in South Carolina
CALLWAVE INC: Reached Deal on Stockholder Litigation Last May 28
CHEMICAL COS: Pennsylvania Judge Mulls Deal in Price-Fixing MDL
DE BEERS: JVC Seeks to Uphold Approval of Diamond Settlement

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Announces Expected Settlement in Ontario Case
FINANCIAL SECURITY: Consolidated Antitrust Breach Suit Pending
FINANCIAL SECURITY: Defends Suit Over Jefferson County's Debts
FORD MOTOR: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Kearns" Lawsuit
GENERAL MILLS: Calif. Judge Dismisses Suit Over "Cap'n Crunch"

INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 29
INTEGRATED DEVICE: Consolidated SRAM Antitrust Suit in Discovery
KBR INC: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Over Burn Pits in Iraq, Afghanistan
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement in Shareholder Lawsuit
MONTEREY COUNTY: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Public Records Fees

RBS GLOBAL: Units Face 12 Lawsuits Over Crimp Fittings Failure
SAVE MART: Settles Calif. Suit Over Customers' Credit Card Forms
TEXAS WINDSTORM: Faces Fraud Suit Over Insurance Policy Reversal
THINKORSWIM GROUP: Ill. Consolidated Amended Suit Deal Pending
THINKORSWIM GROUP: Settlement of Bordeleau Suit Pending Approval

UNITED PARCEL: Wins Dismissal of Canadian Suit Over Duties, Fees
YTB INT'L: Ill. Court Dismisses Most Claims in Agents' Lawsuit

* Mo. Judge's Ruling Fuels Meltdown in Organic Dairy Industry


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

POPULAR INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing


                           *********

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled "Michael Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema,
Inc. Case No. CV07-00171," which names as defendant AMC
Entertainment, Inc., remains stayed pending the plaintiff's
appeal on the denial of his renewed motion for class
certification of the case.

The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on electronic receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the cardholder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an
appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the
situation where more than five digits of the credit card are
printed on a receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.  Plaintiff has appealed this
decision.

The case is stayed pending this appeal, according to the
company's May 20, 2009 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 1,
2009.

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Gary A. Feess,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spirmoss.com)
         Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com)
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

          David E. Novitskim, Esq.
          Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
          Phone: 213-576-8097
          Fax: 213-576-8080


AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Remains Pending in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit over the alleged migration of
certain pollutants from AVX Corp.'s South Carolina factory to
neighboring properties remains pending, according to the
company's May 20, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2009.

The suit was filed in the South Carolina State Court on Nov. 27,
2007, by certain individuals seeking certification as a class-
action suit, which has not yet been determined.

In essence, the suit claims that property value had been
negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants
from the company's property (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9,
2009).

The suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina.

AVX Corp. -- http://www.avx.com/-- is a worldwide manufacturer
and supplier of a line of passive electronic components and
related products.  Virtually all types of electronic devices use
the Company's passive component products to store, filter or
regulate electric energy.  AVX's passive electronic component
products include ceramic and tantalum capacitors, film
capacitors, varistors and non-linear resistors manufactured in
its facilities throughout the world and passive components
manufactured by Kyocera Corp. of Japan (Kyocera), its majority
stockholder, which owns approximately 71% of AVX's outstanding
common stock.  The Company also manufactures and sells
electronic connectors and inter-connect systems, and distributes
and sells certain electronic connectors manufactured by Kyocera.
The Company has three segments: Passive Components, Kyocera
Electronic Devices Resale and Connectors.


CALLWAVE INC: Reached Deal on Stockholder Litigation Last May 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
CallWave, Inc., on May 28, 2009, reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs in two putative class-action suits
filed against the company and members of its Board of Directors
in the Superior Court in and for Santa Barbara County,
California.

The complaint in the first action, "Flynn v. Cavins, et. al.,"
filed on May 14, 2009, as S.B. Superior Court Case No. 1337321,
alleges, among other things, that the members of CallWave's
Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties in connection
with the proposal to deregister and delist CallWave's common
stock and take CallWave private.

The complaint in the second action, "Sobel v. CallWave, et. Al,"
filed on May 18, 2009, as S.B. Superior Court Case No. 1337358,
also alleges, among other things, that the members of CallWave's
Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties arising out
of their attempt to deregister and delist CallWave's common
stock and take CallWave private.

Those two actions, together, are referred to as the "Stockholder
Litigation."

On May 28, 2009, CallWave reached an agreement in principle with
the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the Stockholder
Litigation.  In connection with the settlement contemplated by
that agreement in principle, the lawsuits and all claims
asserted therein will be dismissed.

According to its May 29, 2009 Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, as part of the settlement,
the defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing.  The terms of
the settlement contemplated by that agreement in principle
require that CallWave make certain additional disclosures
related to the proposed going private transaction.  The parties
also agreed that plaintiffs may seek attorneys' fees and costs
up to and including the amount of $165,000, if such fees and
costs are approved by the Court.  There will be no other payment
in connection with the proposed settlement.  The agreement in
principle further contemplates that the parties will enter into
a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary
conditions, including Court approval following notice to
CallWave's stockholders.

CallWave, Inc. -- http://www.callwave.com/-- is an Internet
telephony company bridging the gap between the mobile telephone,
desktop computer and traditional fax line.  The company offers
several on-demand Web telephony services and virtual fax
services.  Its Phone Companion Software (PCS)-based services are
delivered on its Enhanced Services Platform, which allows
subscribers to manage calls across their existing landline,
mobile and Internet networks.  Its services enable subscribers
to receive, respond and manage calls or faxes on communications
devices without requiring them to purchase or install additional
hardware, purchase additional telecommunications services,
change their phone number, or switch their service provider.


CHEMICAL COS: Pennsylvania Judge Mulls Deal in Price-Fixing MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania will soon consider whether to
give preliminary approval to a nearly $1 million proposed class-
action settlement in multidistrict litigation accusing chemical
companies of involvement in a conspiracy to fix and inflate the
prices of methyl methacrylate and polymethyl methacrylate,
Law360 reports.

In an order On June 9, 2009, Judge Savage said he would hold a
hearing for preliminary approval to the case, according to the
Law360 report.


DE BEERS: JVC Seeks to Uphold Approval of Diamond Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
     On June 8, 2009, the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC)
filed a brief and motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, seeking "friend of the court" status.  The brief
and motion urge the court to uphold the order approving the
settlement of the class action lawsuit filed by jewelers and
consumers against De Beers.  A small number of consumers,
claiming minimal amounts of damages, have appealed the court-
approved settlement, thereby substantially delaying the payment
of claims.

     The original claims in the lawsuit that was brought by
representatives of consumers and resellers alleged that De Beers
acted in a monopolistic manner to control diamond prices.  The
defendants have not admitted to any such conduct in settling
this case. Consumer-appellants claimed a number of procedural
defects in reaching the settlement, and challenged the size of
the attorney fees granted by the court.  JVC does not take any
position regarding the specific claims raised by appellants.
Suzan Flamm, JVC’s assistant general counsel, was instrumental
in the drafting of the brief and motion.

     JVC filed the brief and motion in response to the harsh
economic climate jewelry retailers and manufacturers face.  The
appeals filed by a small number of consumers who seek minimal
damages delays payment of millions in claims to resellers, which
could act as an economic stimulus in the jewelry industry.  No
payments to thousands of consumers and resellers will be made on
eligible claims until all appeals are resolved.

     The class action lawsuit against De Beers was filed on
behalf of three classes of purchasers who bought diamonds during
the class period: (1) direct purchasers of diamonds — gem-
quality rough and polished — who bought from De Beers, or any of
its companies or mining competitors, (2) indirect purchasers of
gem-quality diamonds for resale and (3) consumers who purchased
gem-quality diamonds.

     Cecilia Gardner, JVC's president, chief executive officer
(CEO) and general counsel, said, "Delay in settling the De Beers
class action lawsuit can harm JVC members, the jewelry industry
and ultimately consumers.  While JVC does not take any position
regarding the specific claims raised by appellants, it does urge
the court to finalize prompt approval of the class action
settlement, which will provide much-needed economic stimulus to
an industry that is reeling from a distressed economy.  Current
financial conditions make it very difficult for many jewelers to
remain in business.  The speedy payment of claims can help JVC
members — and many others — to recover at least some of what
they allegedly lost as a result of the conduct set out in the
lawsuit.  The settlements rightfully due jewelry companies and
individuals are expected to make a difference at this crucial
time.  Further delay in payment can cause additional hardship."

     Eli Haas, JVC's chairman of the board, commented, "As the
legal guardian of integrity in the jewelry industry, JVC is
eager for the speedy settlement of the De Beers class action
lawsuit.  JVC's brief and motion cite the challenging economic
times jewelers continue to face, and outline for the court the
critical need for capital to stimulate the jewelry industry at
this time.  JVC urges the court to approve the settlement so
that the process of calculating claims and distributing funds
will not be delayed."  Check JVC's website, www.jvclegal.org, to
view a copy of the brief and motion filed by JVC and for further
information regarding the De Beers class action lawsuit.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Announces Expected Settlement in Ontario Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Dollar Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: DLLR), a leading
international financial services company serving unbanked and
under-banked consumers, commented today on the expected
settlement of its Ontario class action litigation, in which the
plaintiffs claimed that the business model used by the Company's
Canadian subsidiary, National Money Mart Company (NMMC),
resulted in the collection of fees in excess of the statutory
limit for the payday loans made since 1997 to a group of NMMC's
customers.

     In connection with this settlement, Jeff Weiss, the
Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer stated, "The
Government of Ontario is expected to implement balanced
regulation in 2009, with National Money Mart already being one
of the first companies in Ontario to be licensed under the
Payday Loans Act of 2008.  Now is a prudent time to put the past
behind us and focus management attention on the new business
model we expect to implement under the new Act, and the
potential future opportunities this Act should provide."

     Mr. Weiss continued, "While we admit no wrong doing and are
comfortable that our Canadian payday loan business model
operates within the guidelines of all legal jurisdictions, this
settlement will allow us to avoid the continuing substantial
litigation expense that would be expected, as well as the
significant drain on management resources being devoted in
defense of this claim.  We also expect that the defaulted debt
forgiveness and transaction credits will be welcomed by
customers, allowing them access to NMMC's full suite of needed
financial products.  This would include many customers who may
not have been using NMMC services recently, as a result of
outstanding historical indebtedness to the company that will now
be forgiven."

The Summary Settlement Agreement includes:

     1. Periodic payments over the next two years aggregating
        C$27.5 million in cash, consisting of:

          a. C$7.5 million paid to Plaintiff’s counsel in trust
             upon signing the Summary Settlement Agreement,

          b. C$2.5 million upon final approval of the settlement
             by the Court,

          c. C$10.0 million to be paid on July 15, 2010, and

          d. C$7.5 million to be remitted on July 15, 2011.

     2. NMMC will release approximately C$43.0 million of
        defaulted indebtedness of class members that has built
        up since 1997, and which is still outstanding as of the
        date the settlement is approved by the Court.  NMMC will
        take steps to notify all such class members that, as a
        result of this defaulted debt amnesty program, they will
        be returned to a status in good standing at any Money
        Mart location throughout Canada.

     3. NMMC will provide C$30.0 million in transaction credits
        for this broad group of customers, which can be applied
        in C$5.00 increments to future product transactions on
        most of NMMC's products.

     The settlement agreement still requires final Court
approval and there can be no assurance that this agreement and
the proposed settlement terms will receive such approval.  The
Company expects to record a charge of C$27.5 million associated
with the scheduled cash payments, and an additional amount that
will be based on the expected value of the transaction credits
utilized under the settlement provisions.  For financial
statement purposes, the Company’s loss provisioning policy
requires that defaulted debt over six months of age is fully
provisioned against in the Company's financial statements.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com-- is a leading
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are
typically service sector individuals who require basic financial
services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility,
purchase some or all of their financial services from the
Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions.
To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a
range of consumer financial products and services primarily
consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn
lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products,
currency exchange, reloadable VISA® and MasterCard® branded
debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.

At March 31, 2009, the Company’s global store network consisted
of 1,264 stores, including 1,078 company-operated financial
services stores and 186 franchised and agent locations in the
United States, Canada, Republic of Ireland and the United
Kingdom. The financial services store network is the largest
network of its kind in each of Canada and the United Kingdom and
the second-largest network of its kind in the United States. The
Company’s customers, many of whom receive income on an irregular
basis or from multiple employers, are drawn to the convenient
neighborhood locations, extended operating hours and high-
quality customer service. The Company’s financial products and
services, principally check cashing, money transfer, and short-
term consumer loan programs, provide immediate access to cash
for living expenses or other needs.


FINANCIAL SECURITY: Consolidated Antitrust Breach Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class-action complaint against Financial Security
Assurance Holdings, Ltd. for alleged violations of antitrust
laws in connection with the bidding of municipal guaranteed
investment contracts and derivatives remains pending, according
to the company's May 20, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

Between March and July 2008, seven putative class-action suits
were filed in federal court alleging antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry; an eighth was filed later in
July 2008.

Five of these cases name both the Company and FSA:

     -- "Hinds County, Mississippi et al. v. Wachovia Bank,
        N.A. et al., Case No. 08 CV 2516," filed on March 12,
        2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
        District of New York;

     -- "Fairfax County, Virginia et al. v. Wachovia Bank,
        N.A., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00432," filed on March 12,
        2008, before the U.S. District Court for the District of
        Columbia;

     -- "Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia
        Bank N.A.," filed on June 4, 2008 in the U.S. District
        Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:08-cv-
        956, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No. 1:08-cv-
        6342;

     -- "Mayor & City Counsel of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia
        Bank N.A.," filed on July 3, 2008 in the S.D.N.Y., Case
        No. 1:08-cv-6142; and

     -- "Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank N.A.,"
        filed on July 14, 2008 in the S.D.N.Y., Case No. 1:08-
        cv-6304.

Three of the cases name the Company only:

     -- "City of Oakland, California, v. AIG Financial Products
        Corp.," filed on April 23, 2008 in the U.S. District
        Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
        3:08-cv-2116, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No.
        1:08-cv-6340;

     -- "County of Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products
        Corp.," filed on July 8, 2008 in the N.D. Cal., Case No.
        3:08-cv-3278, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No.
        1:08-cv-7034; and

     -- "City of Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products
        Corp.," filed on July 17, 2008, in the U.S. District
        Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No.
        1.08-cv-1045, transferred to the S.D.N.Y. as Case No.
        1:08-cv-7355.

These cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the S.D.N.Y. as "In re Municipal Derivatives
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 (MDL 1950)."

Interim lead counsel for the MDL 1950 plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in August 2008 alleging
violations of the federal antitrust laws.  Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

The Plaintiffs Oakland, Alameda, and Fresno also allege
violations under California law, and the MDL 1950 court has
determined that it will handle federal claims alleged in the
Consolidated Complaint before addressing state claims.

The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss on the federal claims, but granted leave for the
plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint.

New York-based Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd. --
http://www.fsa.com/-- through its subsidiary, Financial
Security Assurance, Inc. provides guaranty insurance on
municipal bonds and asset-backed obligations.  The company
insures new issues and those already trading in the secondary
market; it also writes portfolio insurance for securities held
by investment funds.  The company is licensed as a guaranty
insurer in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands; it also operates in Europe and the Pacific Rim.


FINANCIAL SECURITY: Defends Suit Over Jefferson County's Debts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd. continues to defend
a class action complaint relating to Jefferson County, Alabama's
problems meeting debt obligations, according to the company's
May 20, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including FSA, were named as defendants in a civil
action brought in the circuit court of Jefferson County, Alabama
relating to the County's problems meeting its debt obligations
on its $3.2 billion sewer debt: Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan
Chase & Co et al (filed on or about Aug. 8, 2008 in the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-2008-
01907.00, a putative class action.

The action was brought on behalf of rate payers, tax payers and
citizens residing in Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy
and fraud in connection with the issuance of the County's debt.

The complaint in this lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

New York-based Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd. --
http://www.fsa.com/-- through its subsidiary, Financial
Security Assurance, Inc. provides guaranty insurance on
municipal bonds and asset-backed obligations.  The company
insures new issues and those already trading in the secondary
market; it also writes portfolio insurance for securities held
by investment funds.  The company is licensed as a guaranty
insurer in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands; it also operates in Europe and the Pacific Rim.


FORD MOTOR: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Kearns" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     O'Melveny & Myers LLP achieved a significant victory on
behalf of Ford Motor Company on June 8, 2009 when the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of a class action brought against automaker.

     Newport Beach partner Thomas Riordan and counsel Molly
Magnuson were the principal architects of the brief and
arguments.  They were assisted by associate Jillian Allen,
paralegal Charmy Harker, and legal assistant Terry Grossman.

     The lawsuit, "Kearns v. Ford," was brought by a purchaser
of a Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) Ford vehicle who alleged that
Ford promoted and advertised the CPO program by claiming that
CPO vehicles received a more rigorous inspection than typical
used vehicles, and therefore were more reliable, more
roadworthy, and safer than other used vehicles.  According to
the plaintiff, these statements were misleading because CPO
vehicles were purportedly no different than other used vehicles,
yet Ford and its "co-conspirator" dealers charged a premium for
CPO vehicles.  Plaintiffs asserted two claims, one under
California's Business and Professions Code and the other under
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

     The plaintiff originally filed in California State Court,
but O'Melveny removed the case to federal court for diversity
jurisdiction.  The plaintiff sought remand back to state court
under the "local controversy exception" of the Class Actions
Fairness Act of 2005, but in one of the earliest federal court
decisions to address this exception, the district court denied
remand.

     The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint for failing to meet the heightened pleading standards
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).  The Ninth Circuit
affirmed on those grounds, stating that in federal court any
claims that "sound in fraud" – and these include UCL and CLRA
claims – must be plead with sufficient particularity if they are
based on a fraud theory.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas Riordan, Esq. (triordan@omm.com)
          Molly Magnuson, Esq. (mmagnuson@omm.com)
          610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: +1-949-823-7167 or +1-949-823-6907
          Fax: +1-949-823-6994
          Web site: http://www.omm.com/


GENERAL MILLS: Calif. Judge Dismisses Suit Over "Cap'n Crunch"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison England of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California dismissed a lawsuit filed by a
San Diego woman who said she ate Cap'n Crunch cereal for years
thinking "crunchberries" were real fruit, according to a posting
at http://www.attorneyatlaw.com.

Janine Sugawara sued General Mills, the maker of Cap'n Crunch,
for fraud for claiming the colored balls of sugary cereal
sprayed with strawberry juice concentrate were fruit.  She
claims in her suit that she only noticed the true nature of the
cereal after eating it for four years.

On May 21, 2009, Judge England dismissed Ms. Sugawara's suit
ruling that she had failed to prove her legal case against
General Mills, a posting at http://www.attorneyatlaw.comstates.

In his ruling, the judge states, "A reasonable consumer would
not be deceived into believing that the product in the instant
case contained a fruit that does not exist.  So far as this
Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the
wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world."

The judge also ruled that Ms. Sugawara's suit, which had sought
class-action status to seek damages on behalf of all others who
were similarly tricked, had failed to establish that she relied
on General Mills' fraudulent claims in eating Cap'n Crunch
thinking it contained real fruit.

"Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have
figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged
she bought Cap'n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on
defendant's fraud," according to the judge.


INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing on the proposed settlement of a securities law
class action captioned Mallozzi v. Industrial Enterprises of
America, Inc., et al., Case No.: 07- CV-10321, is scheduled for
July 29, 2009.

The company was named as a defendant in a securities law class
action brought in the federal court for the Southern District of
New York in November 2007.

The case was filed by a purported class of persons who purchased
the company's common stock during the period Dec. 4, 2006
through Nov. 7, 2007.

Plaintiffs allege that the company and its co-defendants
(several of the company's officers who are no longer with IEA)
made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions about its
financial condition that caused the plaintiffs to purchase the
company's stock and to suffer damages.

The company filed a motion to dismiss those claims, and prior to
a Court ruling on the motion to dismiss, the parties agreed to
settle the case for $3.8 million, with the proceeds of the
settlement being paid to plaintiffs by the Company's insurer.

On April 16, 2009, the Southern District of New York
preliminarily approved that settlement and directed that notice
of the settlement be sent to class members.

On May 1, 2009, the company filed for bankruptcy under Chapter
11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, according to its May 29, 2009
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

New York-based Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc. (IEA) is
a holding company that operates through four wholly owned
subsidiaries: EMC Packaging, Inc. (EMC), Unifide Industries
Limited Liability Company (Unifide), Todays Way Manufacturing,
LLC (Todays Way) and Spinwell Holding Company, LLC (Spinwell).
In April 2007, the company acquired Hi-Tach Oil, Co., Inc.


INTEGRATED DEVICE: Consolidated SRAM Antitrust Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated case captioned, "In re Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation," is in discovery, according
to Integrated Device Technology, Inc.'s May 20, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 29, 2009.

On Oct. 24, 2006, the company was served with a civil antitrust
complaint filed by Reclaim Center, Inc., as plaintiffs in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and 37 other entities on behalf of a
purported class of indirect purchasers of Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) products.

The Complaint alleges that the Company and other defendants
conspired to raise the prices of SRAM, in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and several
other states' antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer
protection statutes.

Shortly thereafter, a number of other plaintiffs filed similar
complaints.  Given the similarity of the complaints, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases
to a single judge in the Northern District of California and
consolidated the cases for pretrial proceedings in February
2007.  The consolidated cases are captioned, "In re Static
Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation," (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007).

In August 2007, direct purchasers of SRAM and indirect
purchasers of SRAM filed separate Consolidated Amended
Complaints.  The company was not named as a defendant in either
complaint.

Pursuant to tolling agreements with the indirect and direct
purchaser plaintiffs, the statute of limitations was tolled
until Jan. 10, 2009 as to potential claims against the company.

The tolling agreements have now expired and the statute of
limitations is running on potential claims against the company.

Both cases are in the discovery stage.

Integrated Device Technology, Inc. -- http://www.idt.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
semiconductor solutions for the advanced communications and
computing industries.  The company operates in three business
segments: Networking, Timing and Memory Interface, and Standard
Products and Other.  The Networking segment includes network
search engines (NSEs), switching solutions, integrated
communications processors, flow-control management (FCM)
devices, first-in/first out (FIFOs), and multi-ports.  The
Timing and Memory Interface segment includes clock management,
dual in-line memory modules (DIMM) support and other timing
solution products.  The Standard Products and Other segment
include high-speed static random access memory (SRAM), military
applications, digital logic products, telecommunications and
video products.  On July 31, 2006, the company acquired the PC
Audio business from SigmaTel, Inc.


KBR INC: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Over Burn Pits in Iraq, Afghanistan
---------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root
Services, Inc., and Halliburton Co. are facing a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by six people from Texas, including
some soldiers, who claim they were poisoned by toxins and
emissions from burn pits at U.S. camps in Iraq and Afghanistan,
The San Antonio Express reports.

The suit, moved to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas from state court on May 29, 2009 was filed on
behalf of Robert Cain of San Marcos; Craig Henry of San Antonio;
Francis Jaeger of Haltom City; David McMenomy of Lampasas; Mark
Posz of San Antonio; and El Kevin Sar of Houston.

Captioned, "Cain et al v. KBR, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:2009-cv-
00435," it alleges the companies operated the large war-zone
pits and burned waste since 2004 that included trucks, tires,
plastic water bottles, medical waste, hazardous materials,
animal carcasses, and even human corpses, according to The San
Antonio Express report.

Generally, the suit claims burning the waste in open pits — with
no safety controls — may have released toxins that harmed at
least 100,000 people, including U.S. troops, contractors and
civilians, The San Antonio Express reported.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are seeking to make the case a
class-action lawsuit, citing evidence that many others are
having symptoms or medical conditions that include severe
respiratory ailments, asthma, sleep apnea, heart problems,
tumors, lymphoma, and leukemia, reports The San Antonio Express.

The six plaintiffs exhibited symptoms ranging from acute
abdominal pains, chronic respiratory infections, burning
sensations in the lungs and persistent cold-like symptoms.  Mr.
McMenomy had a football-size tumor removed from his hip
suspected of being caused by fumes from a burn pit at Camp Al
Taji, Iraq, according to the suit, according to The San Antonio
Express.

For more details, contact:

          David Ayers
          Werner Ayers LLP
          2000 W. Loop South
          Suite 1550
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: 713-626-2233
          Fax: 713-626-9708

               - and -

          Richard C. Danysh, Esq. (richard.danysh@bgllp.com)
          Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
          800 One Alamo Center
          106 S. St. Mary's St.
          San Antonio, TX 78205-3603
          Phone: (210)299-3475
          Fax: (210) 299-0106


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement in Shareholder Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (NASDAQ: MRVL) , a world
leader in storage, communications and consumer silicon
solutions, announced that it had entered into an agreement to
resolve a shareholder class action lawsuit filed on August 16,
2007 against Marvell and certain of its former and current
officers and directors relating to Marvell's historic stock
option granting practices.  The settlement provides for a
payment by Marvell to the class of $72 million.

     The agreement was entered into after the end of the first
quarter of fiscal 2010, ended May 2, 2009.  However, since the
litigation existed during the first quarter of fiscal 2010,
results for the first quarter have been updated from what was
previously reported on May 28, 2009 to adjust for this
settlement.  The impact of the settlement, recorded as general
and administrative expense, changes the GAAP net loss to $111.5
million, or $0.18 per share (diluted), which is a decrease of
$0.12 per share (diluted) compared to what was previously
reported.  Marvell does not typically include one-time
litigation settlements when it reports its non-GAAP results, and
as a result this expense will not impact Marvell's non-GAAP
results of operations previously reported.  Included with this
release are updated financial tables.

     This class action settlement is subject to preliminary and
then, following notice to class members, final approval by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Final approval of this settlement and the
settlement of the shareholder derivative lawsuit announced
previously would mark the end of all shareholder litigation
involving Marvell related to its historic stock option granting
practices.

Marvell Technology (NASDAQ: MRVL) -- http://www.marvell.com--
is a global leader in the development of storage, communications
and consumer silicon solutions.  Marvell's diverse product
portfolio includes switching, transceiver, communications
controller, wireless, and storage solutions that power the
entire communications infrastructure, including enterprise,
metro, home, and storage networking. As used in this release,
the term "Marvell" refers to Marvell Technology Group Ltd., and
its subsidiaries.


MONTEREY COUNTY: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Public Records Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Monterey County Clerk's Office is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit for allegedly violating the state Public Records
Act, Virginia Hennessey of the Monterey County Herald reports.

Attorneys for California Public Records Research Inc. say state
law allows local agencies to charge only the actual costs of
copying public records, including real estate records maintained
by county clerks, according to the Monterey County Herald
report.

In their class-action lawsuit, filed on June 4, 2009 in Monterey
County Superior Court, Clifton Hodges and Donald Ricketts
maintain those costs amount to no more than 10 cents per page,
reports the Monterey County Herald report.

But when they asked for copies of the county's fee schedule,
ordinances establishing the fees and any analyses done to
determine those costs, they were told the 186 related pages
would cost $372, or $2 a page, the Monterey County Herald
reported.

County Counsel Charles McKee and Clerk-Recorder Steve Vagnini,
who is named in the suit, told the Monterey County Herald that
when it comes to copying public documents, records in the
clerk's and assessor's offices fall under different statutes
than the Public Records Act.

Mr. McKee further explains that those documents often are not
standard 8-by-10-inch records, and the costs to copy them
include costs for research, retrieval, and the physical copy.

The lawsuit, which also alleges the Board of Supervisors
established the copy fees without a required public hearing,
asks the court to compel the county to turn over the requested
186 pages for no more than 10 cents per page, an injunction
prohibiting the county from seeking excessive fees in the
future, and unspecified financial damages, the Monterey County
Herald reports.


RBS GLOBAL: Units Face 12 Lawsuits Over Crimp Fittings Failure
--------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn
Industries, LLC (formerly known as Zurn Industries, Inc.), as of
May 29, 2009, have been named as defendants in twelve lawsuits,
brought between July 2007 and April 2009, in various U.S.
federal courts (MN, ND, CO, NC, MT, AL, VA, LA and NM).

The plaintiffs in these suits seek to represent a class of
plaintiffs alleging damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of the Zurn brass crimp fittings on the PEX
plumbing systems in homes and other structures.

The complaints assert various causes of action, including but
not limited to negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and
violations of the Magnuson Moss Act and certain state consumer
protection laws, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and
damages (including punitive damages) in unspecified amounts.

The suits were transferred to a multi-district litigation docket
in the District of Minnesota for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

The company is being provided a defense by its insurance
carrier, according to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

RBS Global, Inc. -- http://www.rexnord.com/-- is a diversified,
multi-platform industrial company.  Its business is comprised of
two platforms: Power Transmission (PT) and Water Management
(WM).  Its PT product portfolio includes gears, industrial
bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings,
aerospace bearings and seals, industrial chain.  The products
are either incorporated into products sold by original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) or sold to end users through industrial
distributors as aftermarket products.  The company's PT products
are used in the plants and equipment of companies in diverse
end-market industries, including aerospace, cement and
aggregates, construction, energy, food and beverages and forest
and wood products.  RBS Global's WM platform is focused on non-
residential construction market for water management products.
On Feb. 7, 2007, the company acquired the Zurn plumbing products
business of Jacuzzi Brands, Inc. from an affiliate of Apollo
Management, L.P.


SAVE MART: Settles Calif. Suit Over Customers' Credit Card Forms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Save Mart Supermarkets settled a purported class-action lawsuit
charging that the chain asked customers filling out credit card
forms to include their telephone numbers -- a violation of
California civil law aimed at curtailing identity theft, The
Modestor Bee reports.

Save Mart reportedly was unaware of the law, according to The
Modesto Bee report, and while the chain acknowledged the
violation, it denied any wrongdoing and contended no member of
the class was injured.

However, Save Mart decided it was best to settle the suit
quickly, the newspaper reported.  A Superior Court judge is
scheduled to make a decision on the proposed settlement on June
24, 2009.

Under the settlement, Save Mart will give away $20 gift cards up
to a total of $3.5 million to customers who indicate they used a
credit card to purchase merchandise from a Save Mart store
between July 2003 and July 2004, without the need to supply
receipts or any other proof, The Modesto Bee reported.


TEXAS WINDSTORM: Faces Fraud Suit Over Insurance Policy Reversal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Windstorm Insurance Association faces a purported class-
action suit that was filed by four Galveston County residents
who claim that TWIA, which is the insurer of last resort for 14
coastal counties, committed fraud in the wake of Hurricane Ike,
Ned Hibberd of MyFoxHouston.com reports

Plaintiffs' attorney Tony Buzbee, Esq., said that TWIA issued a
memo two months after the storm, reversing its policy on roofs
with non-visible damage, according to the MyFoxHouston.com
report.

"That basically said that unless there is visible damage -- that
is, shingles missing -- they will not pay for the repair of the
roof," Mr. Buzbee tells .

According to Mr. Buzbee, his clients sustained roof damage when
their shingles lost their adhesive seal during Ike.  He pointed
out that these unadhered shingles void the roof warranty and can
lead to leakage, MyFoxHouston.com reported.

Mr. Buzbee estimates 80-percent of Galveston County homes
sustained such non-visible damage and he is asking the judge to
certify his lawsuit as a class-action, potentially including
thousands of plaintiffs, reports MyFoxHouston.com.


THINKORSWIM GROUP: Ill. Consolidated Amended Suit Deal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
thinkorswim Group Inc. and TD AMERITRADE Holding Corporation's
settlement agreement of a consolidated amended class action
complaint in Illinois filed following the announcement of a
planned merger is pending court approval.

On May 28, 2009, TD AMERITRADE and thinkorswim entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in certain class
action lawsuits filed on behalf of thinkorswim's stockholders
regarding the settlement of those class action lawsuits that
were filed following the announcement of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of Jan. 8, 2009, between thinkorswim, TD
AMERITRADE, Tango Acquisition Corporation One, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of TD AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub One"), and Tango
Acquisition Corporation Two, a wholly-owned subsidiary of TD
AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub Two").

Two purported class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of
thinkorswim's stockholders in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois docketed as "Jonathan Simons v. Tom Sosnoff, et al.,
Case No. 09CH02970," and "Jim Burns v. thinkorswim Group Inc.,
et al., Case No. 09CH03435."

The complaints name each of the members of thinkorswim's board
of directors, thinkorswim, TD AMERITRADE and Merger Sub One as
defendants.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the members of
thinkorswim's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to thinkorswim's stockholders by entering into a merger
agreement with TD AMERITRADE for an unfair price and pursuant to
an unfair sale process.  They also allege that thinkorswim's
directors are attempting to obtain personal financial benefits
at the expense of thinkorswim's stockholders.  The complaints
further allege that TD AMERITRADE and Merger Sub One aided and
abetted the directors of thinkorswim in the alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties.

The complaints were consolidated by court order dated Feb. 25,
2009.

On March 5, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The amended complaints include additional
allegations that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus does not
disclose certain material information.  The consolidated amended
complaint also alleges, among other things, that the disclosures
regarding the proposed stock option exchange program were
insufficient and/or unclear and that the company should have
provided separate votes on the two components of the stock
option exchange program.

The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, certification
of a class of all common stockholders of thinkorswim who
allegedly were harmed by the defendants' actions challenged in
the complaint, preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting
consummation of the merger, rescission or damages if the merger
is consummated prior to entry of the court's final judgment and
payment of the plaintiff's costs and expenses.

On May 7, 2009, plaintiff Jonathan Simons voluntarily dismissed
his action without prejudice.

According to its May 29, 2009 Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, thinkorswim and TD
AMERITRADE continue to believe the lawsuits to be without merit.
Nevertheless, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
thinkorswim and TD AMERITRADE have agreed in principle to settle
the lawsuits in order to avoid the potential cost and
distraction of continued litigation and to eliminate any risk of
any delay to the closing of the merger posed by these lawsuits.
Such settlement is subject to execution and delivery of
definitive documentation, the closing of the merger and court
approval.  If the settlement becomes effective, the lawsuits
will be dismissed with prejudice.

thinkorswim Group Inc., -- https://www.thinkorswim.com --
formerly Investools Inc., operates in two segments: Brokerage
Services and Investor Education.  The company offers online
brokerage, investor education and brokerage and related
financial products and services for self-directed investors and
traders.


THINKORSWIM GROUP: Settlement of Bordeleau Suit Pending Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
thinkorswim Group Inc. and TD AMERITRADE Holding Corporation's
settlement agreement of a purported class-action lawsuit styled,
"James A. Bordeleau v. thinkorswim Group, Inc., et al." is
pending approval.

On May 28, 2009, TD AMERITRADE and thinkorswim entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in certain class
action lawsuits filed on behalf of thinkorswim's stockholders
regarding the settlement of those class action lawsuits that
were filed following the announcement of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of Jan. 8, 2009, between thinkorswim, TD
AMERITRADE, Tango Acquisition Corporation One, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of TD AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub One"), and Tango
Acquisition Corporation Two, a wholly-owned subsidiary of TD
AMERITRADE ("Merger Sub Two").

A purported class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
thinkorswim's stockholders in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, docketed as "James A. Bordeleau v. thinkorswim Group,
Inc., et al."

The complaint names each of the members of thinkorswim's board
of directors and thinkorswim as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the members of
thinkorswim's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to thinkorswim's stockholders by entering into a merger
agreement with TD AMERITRADE for an unfair price and pursuant to
an unfair sale process.  It also alleges that thinkorswim's
directors are attempting to obtain personal financial benefits
at the expense of thinkorswim's stockholders.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 5, 2009.

The amended complaint include additional allegations that the
Proxy Statement/Prospectus does not disclose certain material
information.

The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, certification
of a class of all common stockholders of thinkorswim who
allegedly were harmed by the defendants' actions challenged in
the complaint, preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting
consummation of the merger, rescission or damages if the merger
is consummated prior to entry of the court's final judgment and
payment of the plaintiff's costs and expenses.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or stay the New
York complaint on the ground that the claims asserted are the
subject of the prior, consolidated class action filed in the
Illinois court.

According to its May 29, 2009 Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, thinkorswim and TD
AMERITRADE continue to believe the lawsuits to be without merit.
Nevertheless, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
thinkorswim and TD AMERITRADE have agreed in principle to settle
the lawsuits in order to avoid the potential cost and
distraction of continued litigation and to eliminate any risk of
any delay to the closing of the merger posed by these lawsuits.
Such settlement is subject to execution and delivery of
definitive documentation, the closing of the merger and court
approval.  If the settlement becomes effective, the lawsuits
will be dismissed with prejudice.

thinkorswim Group Inc., -- https://www.thinkorswim.com --
formerly Investools Inc., operates in two segments: Brokerage
Services and Investor Education.  The company offers online
brokerage, investor education and brokerage and related
financial products and services for self-directed investors and
traders.


UNITED PARCEL: Wins Dismissal of Canadian Suit Over Duties, Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service Inc. won dismissal of a lawsuit filed by
Canadian customers who complained they were improperly charged
duties on parcels coming from abroad, Joe Schneider of Bloomberg
reports.

The suit is captioned, "Robert MacFarlane v. United Parcel
Service Canada Ltd., File No. S066788," filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia.

Judge Richard Goegel threw out the plaintiffs' request to
certify the case as a class-action lawsuit, or group suit,
saying the claim is "doomed to fail" because the issues had been
settled in an earlier, unsuccessful, suit against FedEx Corp.,
known as the Blackman case, according to Bloomberg report.

In a June 4, 2009 ruling, Judge Goegel wrote, "I have concluded
that the Blackman decision is fatal to the certification
application.  It is not appropriate nor is there any utility in
initiating a class proceeding and subjecting the parties and the
court to the costs, delays and complexity of such a proceeding,
having regard to the likely outcome," reports Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reported that UPS was sued over duties and fees it
charges for bringing items across the Canadian border after
Robert MacFarlane was charged a total of C$41.09, after having
paid on the Internet for an amplification device for telephones
from an Arizona-based company.  The charges included C$28.30 in
customs fees, a C$5.85 disbursement fee and a C$4.25 cash-on-
delivery fee.

The plaintiff said he wasn't aware he'd be required to pay the
charges as a condition of receiving the device, the judge wrote.

Just as FedEx did, UPS discloses a lot of information about the
requirements that must be met to obtain border clearance, Judge
Goegel wrote, according to the Bloomberg report.


YTB INT'L: Ill. Court Dismisses Most Claims in Agents' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois federal court granted parts of a motion to dismiss
filed by YTB International, Inc. a.k.a. YourTravelBiz in a
class-action suit brought against the multilevel marketing
travel company by former referring travel agents, who charged
that YTB operates as an illegal pyramid scheme, Nadine Godwin of
http://www.travelweekly.comreports.

The court though did not dismiss the litigation outright.  It
essentially, dismissed allegations against YTB subsidiary
Rezconnect and its CEO, Michael Brent, on grounds that the court
did not have jurisdiction over the New Jersey-based business,
according to a report by http://www.travelweekly.com.


* Mo. Judge's Ruling Fuels Meltdown in Organic Dairy Industry
-------------------------------------------------------------
     A slowdown in the sales of organic milk and dairy products,
attributed in recent articles by the New York Times and other
media outlets to the weakened economy, has organic dairy farmers
from coast to coast at or near financial collapse.  But a
worsening scandal in the industry might be doing more to
economically injure organic family farmers than the flattening
of demand for organic dairy products.

     Since 2005, a handful of giant factory farms, each milking
thousands of cows, have been accused of skirting strict federal
organic regulations and creating a surplus of cheap "phony"
organic milk flooding the market and driving down profit margins
for legitimate industry participants.  The Cornucopia Institute
estimates that as much as 30-40% of organic milk is now coming
from giant industrial operations, milking as many as 7000 cows
each.

     Last week, a judge in federal district court in St. Louis,
rejected 19 class-action lawsuits filed by consumers who are
claiming fraud in the sale of "organic" milk coming from one of
the giant operations.  In 2007, federal investigators found the
Aurora Dairy had "willfully" violated 14 different federal
organic regulations.  Consumers in 40 states sued, alleging
fraud in the manufacture of organic milk sold as storebrands in
Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway, Costco and other national chains
served by Aurora.

     Lawyers representing consumers involved with the class-
action lawsuits vow that they will appeal the judge's initial
ruling, especially in light of a recent Supreme Court decision
that clearly gives citizens the right to sue corporations that
allegedly act illegally even though federal regulatory agencies
provide statutory authority over certain industries.

     According to Mark Kastel, the Senior Farm Policy Analyst
for The Cornucopia Institute, the dismissal was particularly
distressing "because Bush Administration officials had
substantially softened USDA penalties recommended by enforcement
staff for Aurora’s organic transgressions."  Cornucopia first
alerted the USDA to Aurora’s violations by filing formal legal
complaints with the agency.

     "The very essence of the checks and balances system in our
three branches of government provides for citizens to seek
remedy, when regulatory agencies fail to enforce laws passed by
Congress" said Gary Cox, a Columbus, Ohio-based attorney with
experience in the organic industry.  "It is our contention that
a judicial review of the alleged misconduct by these giant
corporations, and the lack of enforcement by the USDA, is not
only appropriate but imperative"

     The outcome of the pending suits will not only impact
consumers but many organic dairy farmers whose livelihoods are
now threatened by the giant corporate dairy marketers.  A glut
of organic milk on the market now has the nation's organic
processors attempting to reduce their supply and cutting prices
paid to farmers.  Dean Foods, the nation's largest milk
processor, and owner of the Horizon Organic brand, and H.P.
Hood, a giant Boston-based milk bottler, that controls the
Stonyfield milk label, have both terminated contracts with
farmers or allegedly attempted to strong arm some of them out of
business.

     "I have invested my life in building this dairy farm, and
Hood encouraged many dairy producers to make major investments
and ramp-up for organic production, now my entire livelihood and
the financial future of my family is at risk" said Kevin Poetker
who milks 200 cows near Waterloo, IL, 24 miles SE of St. Louis.

     Even Organic Valley, the farmer-owned cooperative that is
second only to Dean Foods in organic milk sales, has cut prices
to their members and asked them to reduce their milk production
by 7%.  "Farmers who build their herds make long-term financial
and management decisions, and just shutting off even 7% of their
milk is no easy task" Kastel said.

     Thousands of letters, mostly from organic farmers, have
been sent to president Obama and USDA secretary Tom Vilsack
asking them to immediately intervene and undertake aggressive
enforcement of organic regulations, something lacking during the
past administration.

     The USDA's handling of the Aurora violations is not the
only instance where its enforcement actions have gone awry.
Other alleged violations have gone uninvestigated by agency
staff.  Cornucopia has filed several additional complaints,
based upon direct observation of practices employed on other
huge feedlot dairies owned by Aurora and Dean Foods.

     "Either the USDA refused to investigate or, when they
actually found violations, they have allowed illegal activities
to continue" Kastel lamented.  "We are now appealing to the
Obama administration for a more ethical approach to enforcement
in these matters.  Congress gave the USDA the responsibility of
overseeing the organic industry and now we are happy that some
on Capitol Hill are considering launching an investigation into,
seemingly, favorable treatment for some corporate players"

     If there is good news for consumers, it's that they have
alternatives in the marketplace.  "Consumers seeking authentic,
nutritionally superior organic milk have many choices and we
hope they will support the family farmers, the heroes who built
the organic industry" stated Ronnie Cummins of the Organic
Consumers Association.

     A multi-year research study by The Cornucopia Institute
created a scorecard, posted on its website (www.cornucopia.org),
rating all 110 organic brands based on their ethical and legal
approach to milk production. The study indicates that 90% of
organic milk, cheese, butter and yogurt marketers are clearly
subscribing to both the "spirit and letter of the organic
regulations"

     "These giant factory farms are a bad aberration.
Unfortunately they are associated with a couple of the largest
participants in the industry.  We need consumers to step up and
make careful choices in the supermarket so they reward the true
heroes in this industry and send a strong message to the bad
actors" Kastel said.  "Some organic farmers out there
desperately need the help and support of consumers"


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

POPULAR INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud 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 District of Puerto Rico on behalf of those who purchased the
securities of Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOP) between January 23,
2008 and January 22, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Popular and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following material adverse facts, among others:

       -- that the Company's deferred tax assets related to its
          U.S. operations were materially overstated;

       -- that Popular was experiencing increasing loan losses
          in Puerto Rico and the U.S. construction sectors;

       -- that the quality of the Company's remaining mortgage-
          related loans in its U.S. mainland portfolios and
          other assets were deteriorating and were materially
          overstated;

       -- that Popular was experiencing a higher percentage of
          non-performing loans;

       -- that the Company's new loan originations were
          declining; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company would soon
          be facing liquidity concerns and would be forced to
          cut or eliminate paying a dividend to shareholders.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 13, 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/


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *