CAR_Public/090624.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 123

                           Headlines

ALBERTA GOVERNMENT: Judge Reserves Decision on Chiropractic Case
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 31 Hearing Set For HDCP Suit Settlement
BIG LOTS: Certification of Workers' Suit Pending in Calif. Court
BIG LOTS INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Workers' Wage Lawsuits
BIG LOTS: To Defend Civil Complaint Over FLSA Violations in N.Y.

C&S GROCERS: Faces Antitrust Litigation in New Hampshire
CONTINENTAL CARBON: Settles "Ponca Tribe" Litigation for $10.5M
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Suit Over Denied Overtime Pay Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Lawsuit Over Waffles Sales
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Pytelewski" Lawsuit in San Diego County

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks Dismissal of "Verzani" Suit in New York
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Over Uncompensated Working Time Pending
FLOWSERVE CORP: Fifth Circuit Revives Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
GENESCO INC: Suit Over Customer E-mail Addresses Still Pending
GENESCO INC: To Conduct Discovery in "Jacobs" Labor Litigation

HEADWATERS INC: Jury Wards $8.7M to Plaintiffs in Adtech Lawsuit
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Consolidated Securities Suit in Discovery
JO-ANN STORES: To Defend "Blair" Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: To Defend "Kohlenberg" Lawsuit in Calif.
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: To Defend Suit by Former Hourly Employees

MERCK & CO: Addresses Allegations in Australian Vioxx Litigation
MICHIGAN: Court of Appeals Allows "Duncan" Litigation to Proceed
MICROSOFT CORP: Md. Court Approves $4.4M Antitrust Settlement
MONRO MUFFLER: Settlement of Employees' Suit Approved in March
NASA: Ninth Circuit Upholds Injunction in JPL Workers' Lawsuit

PENNSYLVANIA: DPW Faces Suit Over Policy for Mentally Retarded
PEROT FAMILY: Partnership Files Tex. Suit Over Investment Losses
SIMON & SCHUSTER: Ninth Circuit Reinstates $90M Text Spam Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Mortgage LLC"
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Litigation Over 2006 IPO

WHITEHAVEN SETTLEMENT: Faces Lawsuit Over Loans, Payment Scheme
ZEON CHEMICALS: Ky. Judge Gives Residents Time to Consider Deal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Lawsuit


                           *********

ALBERTA GOVERNMENT: Judge Reserves Decision on Chiropractic Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian judge reserved decision on a motion by the Alberta
government to be dropped as a defendant in a proposed class-
action lawsuit over chiropractic care, The Canadian Press
reports.

According to a government spokesman, the case offers no reason
why Alberta has been included as a defendant, so lawyers argued
that there is no reason to continue against the province.  The
claim by Sandra Nette also names chiropractor Gregory John
Stiles and the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors,
The Canadian Press reported.

The lawsuit alleges that adjustments to Ms. Nette's upper neck
ruptured arteries, which in turn disrupted blood flow to her
brain and caused several paralyzing strokes.  Her lawyer, Philip
Tinkler, says the government can't just wash its hands of the
matter, according to The Canadian Press.

He suggests the province should actually be speaking out against
the type of chiropractic treatment that he claims left Ms. Nette
paralyzed, reports The Canadian Press.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 31 Hearing Set For HDCP Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 31, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re ATI Tech. HDCP
Litigation, Case No. 5:06-CV-01303-JW."

The suit was filed against ATI Technologies, Inc. (now known as
ATI Technologies ULC), ATI Technologies Systems Corp., ATI
Research Silicon Valley Inc., and ATI Research, Inc. (Class
Action Reporter, May 21, 2009).

The plaintiffs claim that certain graphics cards were marketed
as "HDCP ready," "HDCP compliant," or "HDCP capable," or
otherwise conforming to High-bandwidth Digital Content
Protection (HDCP) specifications for the transmission of HDCP
content, when they were not.

Initially, on February and March 2006, two consumer class-action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against ATI and three of its subsidiaries
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2009).

The complaint allege that ATI had misrepresented its graphics
cards as being "HDCP ready" and on that basis alleged violations
of state consumer protection statutes, breach of express and
implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment.

On April 18, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the
two actions.

On June 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint,
alleging violations of California's consumer protection laws,
breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

On June 21, 2006, a third consumer class-action lawsuit that was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee in May 2006, alleging claims that are substantially
the same was transferred to the Northern District of California.
On July 31, 2006, that case was also consolidated into the
consolidated action pending in the Northern District of
California, according to a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 9, 2009 by
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., the parent company of ATI
Technologies, Inc.

The settlement covers anyone who -- while residing in the United
States -- purchased for their own personal use and not for
resale an ATI graphics card (that means a card built by or for
ATI, not by or for another company such as Asus, Diamond,
Gigabyte, Palit, Sapphire, or VisionTek) from one of the
following series: Radeon(R) 9550; Radeon(R) 9800; Radeon(R)
x700; Radeon(R) x800; Radeon(R) x850; Radeon(R) x1300; Radeon(R)
x1600; Radeon(R) x1800; Radeon(R) x1900; All-in-Wonder(R) 9800;
All-in-Wonder(R) 2006; All-in-Wonder(R) x600; All-in-Wonder(R)
x800; All-in-Wonder(R) x1800; All-in-Wonder(R) x1900; or any
FireGL(R) or FireMV(R) series of graphics cards.  Those who will
qaulify for the settlement must have made their purchase during
the period from Jan. 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006.

According to Kevin Spiess of Neoseeker.com, if less than 55,500
claimants join the class-action lawsuit, ATI will ship claimants
a new HD 4650 video card.  If more than 55,500 people join, but
less than 71,501 people, ATI will send an HD 2400.  If more than
71,501 join the lawsuit, ATI will send checks out for $41.95 to
each new claimant.

For more details, contact:

          ATI HDCP Notice and Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 6177
          Novato, CA 94948-6177
          Phone: 1-888-309-9567
          Web site: http://www.aticlassaction.com/

          KamberEdelson, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street
          Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 589-6370
          Fax: (312) 589-6378
          Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com

               - and -

          Parisi & Havens LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, California 91403
          Phone: (818) 990-1299
          Fax: (818) 501-7852
          Web site: http://www.parisihavens.com/


BIG LOTS: Certification of Workers' Suit Pending in Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, has yet to certify a class or set a trial date for a
purported class-action lawsuit against Big Lots Inc., alleging
that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws
by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees.

The purported class-action complaint was filed in September
2006.  In it, the plaintiff seeks to recover, on his own behalf
and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly
situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage
statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,
reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has not yet determined whether the case may proceed as
a class action, and has not set any deadlines for class
certification or trial, according to the company's June 11, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Workers' Wage Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., continues to defend several purported class-
action lawsuits filed against the company in California,
asserting various wage and hour claims.

In February 2008, three alleged class-action complaints were
filed against the company by a California resident.

The first was filed before the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, alleging that the company violated certain
California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store
managers as exempt employees.

The second and third matters, filed before the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of
California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the
company violated certain California wage and hour laws for
missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf
of a California statewide class of all other individuals who are
similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage
statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment
of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of
unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company believes that these matters overlap and it intends
to transfer venue and to consolidate them before one court.  The
remaining allegations also overlap some portion of the claims
released through the class action settlement in the Espinosa
matter, according to the company's June 11, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS: To Defend Civil Complaint Over FLSA Violations in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. intends to defend a civil collective action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York, according to the company's June 11, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 2, 2009.

In April 2009, the complaint was filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York,
alleging that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees.

In addition, the plaintiff also seeks class action treatment
under New York law relating to those assistant store managers
working in the State of New York.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


C&S GROCERS: Faces Antitrust Litigation in New Hampshire
--------------------------------------------------------
C&S Grocers, Inc. and Supervalu, Inc. are facing a purported
antitrust class-action lawsuit alleging they engaged in a
conspiracy to inflate prices by entering into an agreement not
to compete on each other's home turf, Law360 reports.

The suit was filed on June 19, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire by Boston food retailer
DeLuca Corp., under the caption, "Deluca's Corp. v. C&S
Wholesale Grocers et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00213."

For more details, contact:

          Christopher Cole, Esq. (ccole@sheehan.com)
          Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green (Manchester)
          1000 Elm St.,
          P.O. Box 3701,
          Manchester, NH 03105-3701
          Phone: (603) 668-0300


CONTINENTAL CARBON: Settles "Ponca Tribe" Litigation for $10.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Carbon Co., CCC USA, Inc., and China Synthetic
Rubber Corp. reached a $10,500,000 settlement for the class-
action lawsuit, "Ponca Tribe of Indians, et al. v. Continental
Carbon Company, et al., Case No. 05-445 (W.D. Okla.)," Native
American Times reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma on April 20, 2005.  It seeks a court order
forcing Continental Carbon to halt polluting the land and air
where the White Eagle community lives.  Also, it demands that
the company clean up polluted properties and seeks damages for
the Ponca Tribe and its people (Class Action Reporter, May 3,
2007).

The complaint alleges trespass, private nuisance, public
nuisance, failure to warn, personal injuries, negligence,
medical monitoring, unjust enrichment and punitive damages.

The defendants named in the suit are Continental Carbon Co.,
China Synthetic Rubber Corp. and its domestic corporation, CSRC
USA and Taiwan Cement Corp.  The parent company is a publicly
traded corporation in Taiwan, which owns the Ponca City carbon
black facility, while CSRC is the fourth-largest producer of
carbon black in the world.

Carbon black, which contains constituent polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, or PAHs, a known carcinogen to humans, is a
reinforcement product in automobile tires and hoses and used as
a colorant in printing inks and resins.  It is also used as
conductivity-imparting filler.

On Feb. 6, 2009 the parties reached an agreement to settle the
case, according to Native American Times.

The court will hold a hearing in this case on July 28, 2009 at
the United States Federal Courthouse in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
at 200 NW 4th Street, Courtroom 501 (Fifth Floor) to consider
whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers
representing all plaintiffs for attorneys fees of 40% of the
settlement fund, plus expenses of approximately $1,800,000.

For more details, contact:

          Class Administrator
          1723 South Boston Avenue
          Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
          Phone: (918) 398-0762

          Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Esq. (Jason@aamodt.biz)
          Aamodt Law Firm
          1723 S Boston Ave
          Floor 2
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Phone: 918-347-6169
          Fax: 918-398-0514

               - and -

          Richard Casey Cooper, Esq. (casey@cnwlegal.com)
          Cooper Newsome & Woosley PLLP
          401 S Boston Ave
          Suite 3300
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Phone: 918-592-3300
          Fax: 918-592-7816


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Suit Over Denied Overtime Pay Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to face a purported overtime
class-action lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The putative class-action suit was filed on Dec. 26, 2007,
against the company principally alleging denial of overtime.  It
alleges misclassification of certain California managers.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles under the caption, "Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., Case No. BC-382911."

Claims in the suit are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

The suit was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, under the caption "Jesse
Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al., Case No.
2:08-cv-01408-FMC-JWJ."

On March 6, 2008, Costco filed a motion to dismiss.  On May 15,
2008, the court partially granted the motion, dismissing the
Labor Code 226 claims and refusing to expand the statute of
limitations for the remaining claims.  An answer was filed on
May 27, 2008.

No further developments on the matter were disclosed in the
company's June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 10,
2009.

The suit is "Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et
al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01408-FMC-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Florence-
Marie Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          D. Alan Harris, Esq. (aharris@harrisandruble.com)
          Harris and Ruble
          5455 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: 323-931-3777
          Fax: 323-931-3366

Representing the defendants is:

          David D. Kadue, Esq. (dkadue@seyfarth.com)
          Seyfarth Shaw
          2029 Century Park East Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3063
          Phone: 310-277-7200
          Fax: 310-201-5219


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Lawsuit Over Waffles Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to defend a purported
nationwide class action relating to sales of certain waffles.

The company has been named as a defendant in the class-action
suit, which alleges that labeling (provided by the company's
supplier) of these items was deceptive and misleading.

The suit is styled, "Hodes, et al., v. Van's International
Foods, et al., United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. CV 09-01530."

The complaint asserts causes of action for fraud, breach of
warranty, false advertising under California Business and
Professions Code sections 17500 et seq., and unfair business
practices under California Business and Professions Code
sections 17200 et seq.

Relief sought includes compensatory, consequential, and punitive
damages, restitution, prejudgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

Motions to dismiss the complaint have been filed, according to
the company's June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 10,
2009.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Pytelewski" Lawsuit in San Diego County
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit captioned, "Mary Pytelewski v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of San
Diego, Case No. 37-2009-00089654," is pending.

According to the company's June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 10, 2009, the action, which is similar to the suit
captioned "Anthony Castaneda v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-399302," was
filed on May 15, 2009.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of present and former hourly
employees in California, claiming denial of wages and false
imprisonment during post-closing procedures, when security
measures allegedly cause employees to be locked in the
warehouses.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks Dismissal of "Verzani" Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. seeks to dismiss the purported nationwide
class action captioned "Verzani v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No.
09 CV 2117," according to the company's June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 10, 2009.

In the purported nationwide class-action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract and violation of
the Washington Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure of
the company to disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with
Cocktail Sauce" the weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct
from the accompanying cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges.

The complaint seeks various forms of damages (including
compensatory and treble damages and disgorgement and
restitution), injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

On April 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the company from
selling the shrimp tray unless the company separately discloses
the weight of the shrimp and provides shrimp consistent with the
disclosed weight.

On June 5, 2009, the company filed its opposition to the motion,
as well as a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Over Uncompensated Working Time Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to face a purported class-
action lawsuit in California over uncompensated working time,
according to the company's June 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 10, 2009.

A case purportedly brought as a class-action lawsuit on behalf
of present and former hourly employees in California, in which
the plaintiff principally alleges that the company's routine
closing procedures and security checks cause employees to incur
delays that qualify as uncompensated working time and that
effectively deny them statutorily guaranteed meal periods and
rest breaks.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 2, 2008 in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, under the caption, "Anthony
Castaneda v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. BC-399302."

Claims in the lawsuit are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


FLOWSERVE CORP: Fifth Circuit Revives Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
revived a proposed securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
Flowserve Corp., Nate Raymond of Am Law Litigation Daily
reports.

The Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, represented by Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, filed a securities fraud class-
action suit against the company in 2003, later amending the
complaint to add Bank of America, Credit Suisse First Boston,
and PricewaterhouseCoopers as defendants, according to Am Law
Litigation Daily.

Previously, it was reported that the action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf
of all purchasers of Flowserve securities between Oct. 23, 2001
and Sept. 27, 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2007).

The complaint specifically alleges that defendants, among other
things:

     (a) misrepresented that the Company's aftermarket sales
         (the Company's "quick turnaround" business) were
         steady, stable and consistent streams of revenue;

     (b) misrepresented that the Company's growth made it less
         dependent upon the chemical and industrial segments,
         which had historically been very sensitive to economic
         downturn;

     (c) failed to disclose that the Company had instructed one
         or more of its plants to stop building inventory as a
         result of the projected (albeit undisclosed) continuing
         decline in sales; and

     (d) without any reasonable basis, projected full year 2002
         earnings at ranges that were unattainable due to the
         declines the Company was experiencing in critical
         business segments.

On Sept. 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings
shortfall for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its
full year 2002 earnings guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per
share, from the $2.30 per share earnings guidance shared with
investors during road show presentations promoting Flowserve's
public offerings less than six months earlier.

Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and
severe.  Flowserve shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on
Sept. 27, 2002, a decline of more than 75% from the Class Period
high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002.  During the Class Period,
Flowserve completed two public offerings of its common stock,
raising more than $430 million, and Flowserve insiders sold
their Flowserve common stock for substantial profit.

Am Law Litigation Daily reported that after surviving a motion
to dismiss, Alaska Electrical sought class certification in
2006.  A year later, the district court denied certification and
granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.  The district
court concluded that plaintiffs hadn't sufficiently established
loss causation to certify a class, and then granted summary
judgment on those grounds.

However, on June 19, 2009, the Fifth Circuit panel reversed the
lower court.  According to a per curiam Fifth Circuit opinion
written by retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the district
court's finding on loss causation with regard to class
certification was not dispositive on the merits of the
plaintiffs' loss causation case and thus should not have
resulted in a summary judgment ruling, reports Am Law Litigation
Daily.

A copy of the opinion is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3e1d


GENESCO INC: Suit Over Customer E-mail Addresses Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against Genesco, Inc., alleging
violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971,
California Civil Code Section 1747.08, related to requests that
customers in the company's California retail stores voluntarily
provide the company with their e-mail addresses, remains
pending.

The suit was filed before the Superior Court of California, San
Diego County on April 8, 2008.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint consisting of a
general denial of its allegations and asserting a number of
affirmative defenses and is presently unable to predict whether
or to what extent it may have liability in the case.

On Oct. 13, 2008, the court certified the action as a class-
action suit and preliminarily approved a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the company has issued to each plaintiff class
member a discount coupon good for 25% off up to a $200 purchase
from a Johnston & Murphy store in a single transaction,
exchangeable at the class member's option for a $25 gift card.

The company also agreed to pay attorney's fees and costs and
additional consideration to the named plaintiff totaling
approximately $200,000.

No further developments in the case were reported in the
company's June 11, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2,
2009.

Genesco, Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


GENESCO INC: To Conduct Discovery in "Jacobs" Labor Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. is preparing to conduct oral and written discovery
in a putative class-action suit styled, "Jacobs v. Genesco Inc.
et al.," according to its June 11, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 2, 2009.

On June 16, 2008, the suit was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Shasta, a putative class-
action suit styled, "Jacobs v. Genesco Inc. et al.," alleging
violations of the California Labor Code involving payment of
wages, failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, and
unfair competition, and seeking back pay, penalties and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company has removed the case to the Federal District Court
for the Eastern District of California.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the court dismissed certain of the plaintiff's
claims, including claims for conversion and punitive damages.

The company is preparing to conduct oral and written discovery
and to defend itself against the remaining claims in the case.

On May 5, 2009, the Company and the plaintiff's counsel reached
an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on a claims made
basis. The minimum payment by the Company pursuant to the
agreement, which remains subject to court approval, is $398,000;
the maximum is $703,000.

Genesco, Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


HEADWATERS INC: Jury Wards $8.7M to Plaintiffs in Adtech Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Headwaters, Inc. said a federal jury awarded about $8.7 million
in a class action brought by a group who had sued over a
purchase agreement involving a synthetic fuel technology,
Antonita Madonna Devotta of Reuters reports.

The transaction, which took place in 1998, transferred certain
patent and royalty rights to Headwaters related to the
technology invented by James Davidson, according to Reuters.

The class action was brought on behalf of shareholders of
unlisted Adtech, Inc., whose operations were once run by Mr.
Davidson, Reuters reported.

According to Headwaters, it did not expect to record any
additional expense in the current quarter as a result of the
partial verdict, which was awarded to eight named plaintiffs
representing the class.

In addition, Headwaters said the jury also reached a verdict on
certain liability issues and an advisory verdict on damages of
up to $12.7 million on behalf of the remaining class members,
reports Reuters.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Consolidated Securities Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated securities fraud suit against
Herley Industries, Inc., and certain other defendants are in the
process of completing fact discovery.

In June and July 2006, the company and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in and served with several class-action
complaints before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuits assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to
dismiss in April 2007.

On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying Herley
Industries' and former Herley Chairman Lee N. Blatt's dismissal
motions and granted, in part, the other defendants' request.

Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim
against the other defendants and denied the motion to dismiss
the Section 20(a) claim against them.

On July 18, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
stay the actions.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Court issued an order allowing for certain
document discovery to commence.  On May 9, 2008, the Court
lifted the stay.  A  Scheduling Order has then been entered
requiring the parties to complete discovery by January 2009.

On July 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.

On March 4, 2009, all defendants filed an Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  On May 18, 2009
Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for class
certification.  Oral argument regarding the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification has not yet been scheduled, according to
its June 11, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2009.

The suit is "In re Herley Industries Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02596-JS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Juan R. Sanchez,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stanley P. Kops, Esq. (Stankops@aol.com)
          102 Bala Avenue
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610-949-9999

               - and -

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:

          Joel L. Frank, Esq. (jfrank@chescolaw.com)
          Thomas P. Hogan, Jr., Esq. (thogan@chescolaw.com)
          Lamb McErlane PC
          24 East Market Street, P.O. Box 565
          West Chester, PA 19381-0565
          Phone: 610-430-8000
          Fax: 610-692-6210

               - and -

          Timothy D. Katsiff, Esq. (katsiff@blankrome.com)
          Blank Rome LLP
          One Logan Square, 18th & Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Phone: 215-569-5500
          Fax: 215-569-5555


JO-ANN STORES: To Defend "Blair" Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. intends to defend a purported wage and hour
class-action suit in Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, according to the company's June 11, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

On July 21, 2008, the class action was filed against the company
in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles captioned, "Patti Blair et al. v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. et
al., Case No. BC394795."

In the complaint, as amended, six former company employees,
individually and on behalf of the purported class members,
allege that certain current and former California store team
leaders employed by the company since July 21, 2004 were
classified improperly as exempt employees (and thus not paid for
overtime work), and that current and former hourly employees
employed by the company's California stores since July 21, 2004
missed rest and meal breaks for which they were not properly
compensated and at times worked off the clock without
compensation.

The amended complaint alleges other violations of California law
arising from the alleged wage and hour violations.  The amended
complaint seeks substantial monetary damages, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees.

On May 19, 2009 the court certified this matter to proceed as a
class action.

Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. -- http://www.joann.com-- is a specialty
retailer of fabrics and crafts, serving customers in their
pursuit of apparel and craft sewing, crafting, home decorating
and other creative endeavors.  The company's retail stores
(operating as Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft stores and Jo-Ann stores)
and Website (www.Joann.com) feature a variety of merchandise
used in sewing, crafting and home decorating projects, including
fabrics, notions, crafts, frames, paper crafting material,
artificial floral, home accents, finished seasonal and home
decor merchandise.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated
764 stores in 47 states (554 small-format stores and 210 large-
format stores).


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: To Defend "Kohlenberg" Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. intends to defend the class-action suit
filed by a former hourly company employee in Orange County
Superior Court, California, according to its June 10, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 3, 2009.

On March 26, 2009, the former employee filed the lawsuit
entitled, "Brett Kohlenberg et al v. lululemon athletica inc."

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various California
Labor Code sections by failing to pay its employees for certain
rest and meal breaks and "off the clock" work, and for penalties
related to waiting times and failure to provide itemized wage
statements.

The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in
North America.  Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the
lululemon athletica brand name.  The company offers a line of
apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops
and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance,
running and general fitness.  It offers a line of performance
apparel and accessories for both women and men.  The company's
fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as
bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital
versatile discs, water bottles and headbands.  As of Feb. 1,
2009, the company's branded apparel was principally sold through
its 113 stores that are primarily located in Canada and the
United States.  As of Feb. 1, 2009, the company has discontinued
its operations in Japan.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: To Defend Suit by Former Hourly Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. intends to defend a class action
lawsuit filed by three of its former hourly employees in San
Diego Superior Court, according to the company's June 10, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2009.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit
entitled, "Mia Stephens et al v. lululemon athletica inc."

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various California
Labor Code sections by requiring employees to wear lululemon
clothing during working hours without reimbursing such employees
for the cost of the clothing and by paying certain bonus
payments to its employees in the form of lululemon gift cards
redeemable only for lululemon merchandise.

The complaint also alleges that the company owes waiting time
penalties as the result of failing to pay employees all wages
due at the time of termination.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in
North America.  Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the
lululemon athletica brand name.  The company offers a line of
apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops
and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance,
running and general fitness.  It offers a line of performance
apparel and accessories for both women and men.  The company's
fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as
bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital
versatile discs, water bottles and headbands.  As of Feb. 1,
2009, the company's branded apparel was principally sold through
its 113 stores that are primarily located in Canada and the
United States.  As of Feb. 1, 2009, the company has discontinued
its operations in Japan.


MERCK & CO: Addresses Allegations in Australian Vioxx Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. says that an Australian class-action lawsuit
filed against it fails to prove that its anti-arthritis drug
Vioxx increased the risk of patients having a heart attack, The
Australian reports.

In their closing address in the three-month trial, attorneys for
the Merck & Co. told the Federal Court that the plaintiff's case
fell over on a number of points, including establishing that
Vioxx caused cardiovascular problems, according to The
Australian.

Merck & Co. lawyers also told the judge, Christopher Jessup, he
had "fallen into error" after being "seduced" by the plaintiff's
argument about the actual risk of the drug shown in various
clinical studies, reports The Australian.

Previously, The Australian reported that Merck & Co., Inc., and
its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in connection with Vioxx (Class
Action Reporter, June 1, 2009).

The lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson, who filed the suit on behalf
of more than 1,000 Australians, blames Vioxx for his heart
attack in December 2003.  Mr. Peterson says Merck knew of the
cardiovascular risks of the blockbuster anti-arthritis drug but
played it down in the lead-up to Vioxx's voluntary withdrawal in
2004, according to The Australian report.

Kate Hagan of The Age previously reported that the suit, which
is pending in the Federal Court of Australia, was brought on
behalf of every Australian who had cardiovascular conditions
after completing at least one prescription of Vioxx between June
30, 1999, and its worldwide recall in 2004.

The Australian reported that in the recent hearing, counsel for
Merck & Co., Peter Garling, told the court there were problems
with the plaintiff's case, including a lack of scientific proof,
a two-month gap in Mr. Peterson's Vioxx prescription and a
failure to prove that a cardiovascular warning would have made
any difference.

"(Mr. Peterson) has not established that his myocardial
infarction (heart attack) was caused or materially contributed
to by Vioxx," according to Mr. Garling.

According to The Australian, Mr. Garling added that Vioxx did
not leave a chemical imprint in the body.  "If Vioxx caused a
heart attack ... there is no discrete signature to say it was
caused by Vioxx," he said.

The barrister said there was no way to say definitively what was
the contributing factor to the 58-year-old man's heart attack in
December 2003, because he had a number of risk factors.  These
included age, gender, hypertension and obesity, reports The
Australian.


MICHIGAN: Court of Appeals Allows "Duncan" Litigation to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a purported class-
action lawsuit can go forward challenging how publicly appointed
lawyers represent poor people in three counties, The Chicago
Tribune reports.

The case centers on Genesee, Berrien and Muskegon counties,
where poor criminal defendants claim their constitutional rights
are being violated.  They say a lack of public money and other
problems mean getting attorneys who are not qualified or able to
effectively represent them, according to The Chicago Tribune.

In a 2-1 decision, The Chicago Tribune reported that judges
William Murphy and David Sawyer, based in Grand Rapids, said,
"We are not ruling that a constitutional failure has in fact
occurred here, but it has been alleged and needs to be
judicially addressed."

The judiciary, they said, can't stand idle if the executive and
legislative branches "abdicate their constitutional
responsibilities, either intentionally or neglectfully."  "If
not the courts, then whom," said Judge Murphy, writing for the
pair.

In a dissent, Judge William Whitbeck said there "is little
question" that Michigan has failed to meet its duty when it
comes to the rights of criminal defendants who can't afford a
lawyer, reports The Chicago Tribune.

But broad changes, according to him, should be up to governors
and lawmakers, not judges. "This case involves a sweeping and
fundamental challenge to Michigan's system," Judge Whitbeck
said.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the court is reiterating that
it was not ruling on the merits of the allegations.  "If
plaintiffs are to succeed, they must prove widespread and
systemic constitutional violations that are actual or imminent,"
Judge Murphy wrote.

The case is being handled by Circuit Judge Laura Baird in Ingham
County, the seat of state government.  The appeals court upheld
her decisions denying immunity to the state and certifying the
lawsuit as a class-action case, The Chicago Tribune reports.

                         Case Background

Previously, it was reported that the State of Michigan and
Governor Jennifer Granholm were named as defendants in a
purported class action alleging that they failed to fulfill
their constitutional obligation to provide adequate defense
services to those who cannot afford private counsel.

The suit, "Duncan et al. v. State of Michigan," was filed in
Ingham County Circuit Court.  It does not ask any monetary
damages, but seeks class-action status with the aim of improving
indigents' defense system statewide.

It claims that the state has long abdicated its constitutional
duty to ensure that citizens accused of crimes receive timely,
qualified, appropriately-resourced lawyers for their defense.

The plaintiffs in the case are individuals facing felony charges
in Berrien, Muskegon and Genesee Counties who cannot afford
private counsel.

They brought the suit on behalf of themselves and all defendants
in Berrien, Muskegon, and Genesee Counties, who are charged or
will be charged with felony crimes and who cannot afford private
counsel, and are instead relying on public defenders.

According to the suit, public defenders are burdened by
overwhelming caseloads and don't meet with clients or have
enough time to prepare for important proceedings.

Essentially, the suit calls on the court to declare the current
public defense systems of three counties - Muskegon County,
Berrien County, and Genesee County - unconstitutional and compel
the state to provide representation consistent with national
standards and constitutional norms.

Backing the plaintiffs in the litigation is the newly formed
Michigan Coalition for Justice, a diverse group of organizations
and individuals committed to reform of Michigan's public defense
system.

Michigan Coalition for Justice members include the American
Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan, the Brennan Center
for Justice, the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, and the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1a4d

For more details, contact:

          Stephanie Chang, Esq. (schang@aclumich.org)
          The Michigan Coalition for Justice
          60 W. Hancock
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Phone: (313) 578-6808
          Web site: http://www.micoalitionforjustice.org/


MICROSOFT CORP: Md. Court Approves $4.4M Antitrust Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Frederick Motz of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted preliminary approval of a
settlement reached by Microsoft Corp. in an antitrust class-
action lawsuit, Law360 reports.

On June 19, 2009, Judge J. Frederick Motz of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland issued an order granting
preliminary approval to the settlement, which will see the
software giant give government entities in Arizona $4.4 million
to purchase new computer equipment, according to the Law360
report.


MONRO MUFFLER: Settlement of Employees' Suit Approved in March
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of the class-action lawsuit against Monro Muffler
Brake, Inc. concerning employees' overtime pay received final
court approval in March 2009.

The company was the defendant in a lawsuit filed in December
2007, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, that
claimed that the company violated federal and state laws related
to the calculation and payment of overtime to certain
headquarters employees.

In May 2008, subject to Court approval, the company and the
plaintiffs agreed upon the financial terms of a settlement of
all claims in the lawsuit.  In doing so, the company did not
admit any wrongdoing with respect to the matters involved in the
lawsuit.

The company obtained final court approval of the Settlement in
March 2009.  The company recorded a reserve for the Settlement,
including an estimate of all costs to bring the matter to a
close, in the amount of $.9 million in fiscal 2008.  This amount
was reduced by approximately $.1 million in fiscal 2009 due to
lower than anticipated costs to resolve the matter, according to
the company's June 11, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 28, 2009.

Monro Muffler Brake, Inc. -- http://www.monro.com/-- is a chain
of 698 company-operated stores and 14 dealer-operated stores
providing automotive under-car repair and tire services in the
U.S.


NASA: Ninth Circuit Upholds Injunction in JPL Workers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a 2008
injunction in connection to legal fight by scientists and
engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory against a Bush-era
directive to submit to more intrusive background checks, Mary
O'Keefe of Glendale News Press reports.

The class-action lawsuit against Homeland Security Directive 12,
issued under the Bush administration in 2004, was filed on Aug.
30, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California by several JPL employees under the caption, "Robert
M. Nelson et al v. National Aeronautical and Space Agency et
al., Case No. 2:2007-cv-05669."

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are: Robert M. Nelson,
William Bruce Banerdt, Julia Bell, Josette Bellan, Dennis V.
Byrnes, George Carlisle, Kent Robert Crossin, Larry R.
D'Addario, Riley M. Duren, Peter R. Eisenhardt, Susan D.J.
Foster, Matthew P. Golombek, Varoujan Gorjian, Zareh Gorjian,
Robert J. Haw, James Kulleck, Sharon L. Laubach, Christian A.
Lindensmith, Amanda Mainzer, Scott Maxwell, Timothy P. McElrath,
Susan Paradise, Konstantin Penanen, Celeste M. Satter, Peter
M.B. Shames, Amy Snyder Hale, William John Walker and Paul R
Weissman.

Named as defendants were, the National Aeronautical and Space
Agency, Michael Griffin, Department of Commerce, Carlos M.
Gutierrez, California Institute of Technology and several DOES.

The lawsuit was filed after the employees were told they would
have to submit to an extensive background check that could
include interviews with friends, neighbors and co-workers or
anyone the agency deemed important.  The checks could also
include questions regarding an individual's health history and
sexual orientation, according to Glendale News Press.

According to the plaintiffs, under the directive they would have
to submit to the extensive background checks, which would be
above and beyond the initial checks they had to pass before
getting hired.  They are claiming that the intrusion violated
their right to privacy, Glendale News Press reported.

The appellate decision upheld an earlier ruling that scientists
"face a stark choice - either violation of their constitutional
rights or loss of their jobs," reports Glendale News Press.

The federal government now has 60 days from the June 4, 2009
ruling to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to
Glendale News Press.

For more details, contact:

          Dan Stormer, Esq. (dstormer@hadsellstormer.com)
          Christy Virginia Keeny, Esq. (vkeeny@hskrr.com)
          Hadsell Stormer Kenny Richardson and Renick LLP
          128 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 204,
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Phone: 626-585-9600
          Fax: 626-577-7079


PENNSYLVANIA: DPW Faces Suit Over Policy for Mentally Retarded
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court against the Pennsylvania Department of Public
Welfare (DPW) for violating the rights of over 1,200
Pennsylvanians with mental retardation and intellectual
disabilities.  The suit, "Benjamin v. Department of Public
Welfare," seeks relief for the residents of five large state-
operated institutions who have not been offered the opportunity
to move to appropriate community living arrangements.

     Research shows that people with mental retardation can,
with proper supports and services, improve independent living
skills and thrive in community settings.  For individuals who
are capable of participating in community life, segregating them
in institutions deprives them of their basic human rights.
Pennsylvania has no sound reason not to develop community
alternatives for the named plaintiffs and class members, and it
would be far less costly to provide these individuals with
services in the community.  The average annual cost of providing
services in state-operated intermediate care facilities for
persons with mental retardation is nearly $228,000 per person,
more than double the average per capita cost of providing
community services (including residential services).  People
with mental retardation have the same right as every other
Pennsylvanian to live in a comforting home environment and be
part of the community.

     "My 71 year-old sister, Deanna, lived in an institution for
12 years.  And while we, as her family, became comfortable
knowing she was safe and secure, we also realized that she was
not the same person we once knew," says Betty Dugan, Board
President, PIER Family Satisfaction Team.  "Making the change to
a community-based home in 1990 has given her a chance to grow
and be happy.  She is so well cared for - both medically and
emotionally.  And I was pleasantly surprised by the level of
acceptance, compassion and understanding she received in the
community.  Now, she is happy as a lark!"

     Ten years ago today, the United States Supreme Court
interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act integration
mandate to mean that states cannot unnecessarily segregate
individuals with disabilities in institutions if they can
receive services in more integrated community settings.  The
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia then ruled in
2004 that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare had an
obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act to develop and implement integration plans
for individuals with disabilities.

     "Ten years after the Supreme Court decision, DPW has still
not developed - much less implemented - an integration plan for
people with mental retardation who are unnecessarily
institutionalized in state facilities," says Robert Meek,
attorney at Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania who is
representing the plaintiffs.  "Persons with intellectual
disabilities who are institutionalized in state facilities
deserve the opportunity to be part of the community."

     Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania seeks injunctive
relief in the Benjamin case to assure that all residents of
Pennsylvania's state mental retardation institutions are
properly evaluated to assess their need for community services
and, if they are not opposed to discharged, are offered
community alternatives in accordance with the integration
mandates of federal law.  Complaint available at
http://www.drnpa.org/File/bencomplaint.pdf.

For more details, contact:

          Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania
          Phone: 1-800-692-7443 (Voice)/1-877-375-7139 (TDD)
          Web site: http://www.drnpa.org


PEROT FAMILY: Partnership Files Tex. Suit Over Investment Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
     After losing 100% of its investment, Southern Avenue
Partners, a Dallas-based investment partnership, filed a class
action lawsuit against the Perot Family Trust and other business
entities owned and controlled by the family of Dallas
billionaire, H. Ross Perot, on behalf of a group of investors in
Parkcentral Global Hub, a hedge fund that was allegedly managed
and controlled by the Perot Family Trust and other-related
entities.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, and
alleges that the investors lost $2.5 billion as the result of
the defendants' breach of fiduciary duties and cover-ups.

     The Parkcentral Global Hub lawsuit alleges that the
defendants used the Perot-controlled, Plano, Texas-based
Parkcentral Capital Management to market a hedge fund that
enticed other investors with a "once in a lifetime chance to
have access to the same money management team used by the Perot
Family."  By January of 2008, the fund claimed more than $2.5
billion in assets.  According to the Complaint, "Defendants
misrepresented to investors that they would follow the Global
Fund's risk controls, and otherwise, prudently manage the fund's
assets.  Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly disregarded
the Global Fund's risk controls, breached their fiduciary
duties, and misrepresented the risk, liquidity, losses and
leverage of the fund to investors.  Defendants'
misrepresentations were deliberate and by design with the sole
purpose being to attract new investment capital and collect
substantial management and incentive fees.  As a result of
Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty, the Global Fund imploded.
The fund's net asset value went from over 2.5 billion to less
than zero.  Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed
Class lost 100% of their invested capital."

     A Dallas Morning News article chronicled the last frantic
days of the Fund where employees instructed their bank -- "No
securities, or cash, FOR ANY REASON are allowed to be sent out
from JP Morgan."  JP Morgan had a margin call in excess of $700M
for losses incurred by Perot's Global Hub Fund which preceded
the fund's demise.  The lawsuit alleges that if the defendants
had not breached their fiduciary duty, prudently invested,
accurately reported the risk, and had adequate liquid reserves,
then the investors would not have lost 100 % of their
investment.

     After the case was filed, the Court entered an order
appointing securities and investment fraud attorneys Joel
Fineberg and Dean Gresham, of Fineberg Gresham, and James
Jaconette, of Coughlin Stoia, as co-lead class counsel. They
will be responsible for prosecuting the case on behalf of the
class of investors.  Co-lead class counsel is expected to take
discovery and file more pleadings as the case progresses toward
the class certification hearing.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3e1a

For more details, contact:

          Fineberg Gresham
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1900
          Dallas, Texas 75219
          Phone: 214-219-8828
          Fax: 214-219-8838
          Web site: http://www.fineberglaw.com/

               - and -

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Attorneys at Law
          San Diego, CA
          Phone: 1-800-449-4900
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/


SIMON & SCHUSTER: Ninth Circuit Reinstates $90M Text Spam Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     In an unprecedented ruling, the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit announced that publishing giant Simon & Schuster
could be on the hook for as much as $90 million for sending
unwanted text messages to tens of thousands of people.  The
unanimous decision, which was announced on Friday, held that
text messages were under the purview of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which makes it unlawful to make
automated calls to cellular telephones.

     The court based its ruling on a prior interpretation by the
Federal Communications Commission:  "The FCC has explicitly
stated that the TCPA's prohibition...'encompasses both voice
calls and text calls to wireless numbers including, for example,
short message service (SMS) calls,'" the opinion explained,
"[W]e find that the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA is
reasonable, and therefore afford it deference to hold that a
text message is a "call" within the TCPA."

     The case was brought by Laci Statterfield, whose young son
received a text in the middle of the night warning him that the
"next call you take may be your last."  It turned out the text
message was a promotion for the Stephen King horror book "The
Cell."  The district court initially dismissed the case, finding
that the TCPA did not apply to these text messages and further
that Satterfield had consented to receive text messages by
downloading a free ringtone from an unrelated website.  The
appellate court rejected both arguments.

     The suit is brought on behalf of a putative class of 60,000
people, each of whom could receive a minimum of $500 and as much
as $1,500 each if it is determined that the violation was
intentional.

     Satterfield is represented by John G. Jacobs of The Jacobs
Law Firm, who argued the appeal, as well as his partner Bryan
Kolton and Jay Edelson and Myles McGuire of KamberEdelson, LLC
(http://www.kamberedelson.com/Edelson.html).


UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Mortgage LLC"
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The California Superior Court certified a nationwide fraud
class action (Morgate LLC v. Mail Boxes Etc., Inc., Case No.
294647) against United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) and its
affiliates on June 19, 2009.

     The class action consists of owners of The UPS Store who
converted from Mail Boxes Etc. stores to The UPS Store in 2003.
Judge William F. Highberger certified the class action late
Friday afternoon allowing 3500 owners of The UPS Store to
present their claims that UPS and its affiliated companies
violated California law, including the California Franchise
Investment Law that protects franchisees from deception.

     Legal actions have been filed by The UPS Store owners who
alleged they were misled to convert from Mail Boxes Etc. stores
to The UPS Stores.  Other legal actions have been filed by Mail
Boxes Etc. store owners who allege they were subjected to
breaches of contract and other violations of California law.

     Both sets of claims are pending before Judge William F.
Highberger.

For more details, contact:

     Amy Darby, Esq. or Miles Scully, Esq.
     Mobile: (720)346-3587 or (619) 248-2691

          - and -

     Mara Woloshin
     Phone: 503-310-4504 or 323-654-5692.


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

The Holmdel, N.J., company announced the agreement on June 28,
2009, saying the settlement amount would be covered by its
directors and officers insurance policy.

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

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

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

For more details, contact:

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


WHITEHAVEN SETTLEMENT: Faces Lawsuit Over Loans, Payment Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whitehaven Settlement Funding is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit filed by a Madison County woman who alleges that the
company illegally loaned money to people and expected them to
repay it with money they won in injury claims, Kelly Holleran of
The St. Clair Record reports.

The suit was filed on June 12, 2009 in Madison County Circuit
Court (case number: 09-L-628) by Sheila Kelly who says she
entered into a purported contract with Whitehaven Settlement
Funding in 2008 for a loan of $25,000.

According to the complaint, Ms. Kelly -- represented by Thomas
G. Maag, Esq., and Peter J. Maag, Esq. of Wendler Law in
Edwardsville -- was required to pay the $25,000 back out of the
proceeds she received in a personal injury lawsuit, reports The
St. Clair Record.

"It is a violation of the public policy and law of Illinois to
allow assignment of causes of action resulting from personal
injury claims, such as Kelly's case," the complaint says.

The suit states that Whitehaven Settlement Funding tried to
circumvent the law by inserting a choice of law provision into
its contract, purporting to require the imposition of New York
law over a contract entered into in Illinois, The St. Clair
Record reported.

"To further the wrongful scheme, Defendant inserted a provision
into the contract, which is and was a contract of adhesion,
which purported to require arbitration, in New York, before a
New York attorney, knowing that Plaintiff, and members of the
Plaintiff class, are uniformly impoverished, desperate, badly
injured and unable to travel substantial distances, and unable
to afford the costs and expenses of arbitration in New York,
such that Plaintiff, and the members of the Plaintiff class in
Illinois would be economically and physically prohibited from
ever vindicating their rights," the suit states.

In addition, Ms. Kelly claims in her suit that Whitehaven
Settlement Funding attempts to scare people who enter into
contracts with it from ever vindicating their rights by
requiring an obligation to pay enormous costs and expenses if an
arbitrator rules against them, according to The St. Clair
Record.

Aside from the $25,000, Ms. Kelly says Whitehaven Settlement
Funding is asking her for 60 percent simple interest, plus
additional sums of money.  She contends she should not have to
pay the money because the contract is void.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The
St. Clair Record, "Defendant Whitehaven's actions are immoral,
unethical, oppressive and/or unscrupulous, as it purports to
provide for the assignment and transfer of some or all of a
personal injury action, and Defendant Whitehaven's actions have
caused substantial injury to consumers, including Plaintiff
thereby."

The lawsuit is divided into two classes.  The first class is
composed of Illinois residents who suffered an injury and have a
pending case of which money won from that case would go toward
Whitehaven Settlement Funding, who says the resident owes them
for a past loan.  The second class consists of Illinois
residents who suffered an injury and who have recovered money
from a claim.  Whitehaven Settlement Funding says it is now due
money from the claim after loans it gave to the second class.

In the two-count suit, Ms. Kelly is asking the court to certify
the class.  She is also asking the court to declare that class
members do not owe Whitehaven any money; to disgorge any amounts
actually paid by class members; to declare the contract void and
to prohibit Whitehaven from enforcing, collecting or attempting
to collect any money on the basis of the contract, The St. Clair
Record reports.

The St. Clair Record reported that Ms. Kelly is also seeking
actual and treble damages of more than $50,000 and an award of
all damages as allowed by law in excess of $50,000, plus
attorney's fees, costs and other relief the court deems
appropriate.


ZEON CHEMICALS: Ky. Judge Gives Residents Time to Consider Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John G. Heyburn II of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky gave thousands of people who live
in western Louisville an extra month to decide whether to be a
part of a class-action settlement involving a chemical plant,
The Associated Press reports.

During a hearing on June 19, 2009. Judge Heyburn said people who
live near the Zeon Chemicals Limited Partnership plant will have
until July 20 to opt out of the lawsuit that was filed in 2007,
according to AP.

The Courier-Journal says the lawsuit claims the plant's
emissions and odors had denied the residents "full use and
enjoyment of their properties."

The Associated Press reported that Zeon has agreed to reduce
emissions, pay into an air-monitoring fund and provide small
cash awards to the residents.  But some of the plaintiffs oppose
the settlement because it releases the company from certain past
and future liabilities.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Emerson Poynter LLP, a national law firm with offices in
Little Rock, Arkansas and Houston, Texas, announces that it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who
purchased Class A and/or Class B and/or Class C shares of the
Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals Fund (Nasdaq:OPTAX)
(Nasdaq:OTFBX) (Nasdaq:OMFCX) during the period from May 13,
2006 to October 21, 2008, inclusive.  This action was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
(09-CV-01447).

     In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
OppenheimerFunds, Inc., OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the
Fund and certain of its trustees and officers violated Sections
11, 12 (a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, which
prohibit materially false and misleading statements in
registration statements and prospectuses of the kind used to
sell shares in the Fund.  The Fund invests primarily in
municipal securities.

     Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period the Fund failed to disclose risk factors associated with
the Fund's investments, including, but not limited to: (1) the
Fund's investments in "inverse floater" securities that exposed
it to the risk that it would be forced to sell, upon certain
occurrences relating to the inverse floater securities, other
securities in its portfolio at fire-sale prices.  This amounted
to hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed potential
liabilities; and (2) the Fund's over concentration of
investments in illiquid securities in violation of its 15% cap
by investing in illiquid tobacco bonds and ordinary municipal
bond and notes that could turn illiquid quickly.

     On October 21, 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus supplement
alerting investors of the true liquidity risks of its
investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007 and
throughout 2008.  By October 2008, however, those risks had
already manifested, causing substantial losses to investors.  On
October 21, 2008, the Fund's shares traded at approximately
$5.96 per share, down from $8.93 per share at the beginning of
the year, an approximate decline of 33.3% per share for the
year.  The Fund was among the worst performing in its peer
group.

     According to the complaint, after the end of the Class
Period, the Fund belatedly disclosed liabilities and residual
exposure from the inverse floaters, about which investors were
not previously told.  On December 18, 2008, the Fund reported in
its Quarterly Schedule of Portfolio Holdings for the period
ending October 31, 2008, filed on Form N-Q with the SEC
("October 31, 2008 Form N-Q"), that the amount of its exposure
to the effects of leverage from its investments in inverse
floaters exceeded $240.7 million as of October 31, 2008.

     Additionally, the Fund also reported that its municipal
bond holdings with a value of approximately $402.4 million were
held by Trusts created by the inverse floaters and served as
collateral for approximately $324.1 million in short-term
floating rate notes issued and outstanding at that date, and
that its residual exposure to the inverse floating rate
securities was estimated at nearly $218.7 million.  The massive
liabilities and exposure of more than $500 million were not
disclosed in any Registration Statements issued during the Class
Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 13, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          John G. Emerson, Esq
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq
          Emerson Poynter LLP
          500 President Clinton Ave, Suite 305
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: 501.907.2555 or 800.663.9817
          Fax: 501.907.2556
          e-mail: epllp@emersonpoynter.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  * * *