CAR_Public/090630.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 127

                           Headlines

ADOLOR CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed in May
AT&T INC: Settles Mo. Lawsuit Over Taxes on Landlines for $65M
BIDZ.COM INC: To Defend "Gomez" Stock Purchasers Suit in Calif.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Aug. 3 Hearing Set for E46 Suit Settlement
CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Limiting Marriage to Heterosexuals

CCO HOLDINGS: Charter and Charter Holdco to Defend "Bodet" Suit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settles N.Y. Stockholders' Lawsuit for $2M
ENERSIS SA: Amount in Iguazu Suit v. Codensa Still Undetermined
ENERSIS SA: Unit Still Faces "Rojas" Suit in Cundinamarca Court
ENI SPA: Awaits Acknowledgment of NBR Products Suit Abandonment

FX ENERGY: Utah Judge Grants Dismissal Bid in Securities Lawsuit
ILLINOIS: Judge Agrees to Extend Discovery in U-46 Litigation
LEGAL BUCKS: Faces N.C. Suit for Allegedly Preying on Litigants
MEDIA BREAKAWAY: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for "Vandyke" Settlement
MICHAEL FOODS: Pursues Dismissal of Consolidated Amended Lawsuit

MIDAS INC: To Defend Remaining Claims by Canadian Franchisees
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Conn. Labor Commissioner Opposes $2.7M Deal
NEW MEXICO: Faces Suit Over Mismanaged College-Savings Portfolio
PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Copy Protection Software Suit Pending
QUEST RESOURCE: Discovery in Royalty Owners' Lawsuit Ongoing

QUEST RESOURCE: To Defend Claims in Consolidated Suit in Okla.
QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Judge Dismisses Claims, Suit Still Proceeds
SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: N.J. Suit to be Reinstated, Legal Experts Say
T-MOBILE USA: July 27 Hearing Set for $11.5M ETF Suit Settlement
TRAILER BRIDGE: Pursues Dismissal of Suits Over Pricing Practice

UBS AG: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending in New York
UBS AG: Faces Consolidated Suit by ERISA Retirement Plan Holders
UBS AG: Lawsuits Over Auction Rate Securities Marketing Pending
VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Lawsuit v. VRM I Remains Pending
VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Suit v. VRM II Ongoing in Calif.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing
POPULAR INC: Whatley Drake Announces Securities P.R. Suit Filing


                           *********

ADOLOR CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed in May
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, in May 2009, granted Adolor Corp.'s motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed
against it, its director and certain officers.

The lawsuit was filed on April 21, 2004, with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the
company, one of its directors and certain of its officers,
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased common stock between Sept. 23, 2003, and
Jan. 14, 2004.

It alleges violations of Section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the
announcement of the results of certain studies in the company's
Phase III clinical trials for Entereg(R), which allegedly had
the effect of artificially inflating the price of the company's
common stock.

The suit has been consolidated with three subsequent actions
asserting similar claims under the caption, "In re Adolor
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-01728."

On Dec. 29, 2004, the district court issued an order appointing
the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.  The appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 28, 2005.

The complaint purported to extend the class period, so as to
bring claims on behalf of a putative class of Adolor
shareholders who purchased stock between Sept. 23, 2003, and
Dec. 22, 2004.

The amended suit also adds as defendants the board of directors,
asserting claims against them and the other defendants for
violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 in connection with the company's public offering of
stock in November 2003.

The company and its management and director defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on April 29, 2005.  The plaintiffs
responded to this motion on June 28, 2005, and the defendants'
reply was filed on Aug. 12, 2005.

On May 8, 2009, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss
the case in its entirety that was filed by the company and the
other defendants, according to its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2009.

The suit is "In re Adolor Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-
cv-01728," filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lcsr.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP
         401 B St., Ste. 1700
         San Diego CA, 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              - and -

         Marc S. Henzel, Esq. (mhenzel182@aol.com)
         Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel
         273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202
         Bala Cynwyd PA 19004
         Phone: 610-660-8000

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael S. Doluisio, Esq.
         (michael.doluisio@dechert.com)
         Jeffrey G. Weil, Esq.
         Dechert, Price & Rhoads
         1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
         Phone: 215-994-2749
         Fax: 215-994-2222

              - and -

         Laurie B. Smilan, Esq. (laurie.smilan@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins LLP
         Two Freedom Square
         11955 Freedom Drive, Suite 500
         Reston, VA 20190-5651
         Phone: 1-703-456-5220
         Fax: 1-703-456-1001


AT&T INC: Settles Mo. Lawsuit Over Taxes on Landlines for $65M
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T, Inc. agreed to pay $65 million to 330 Missouri
municipalities, including University City, Wellston and
Winchester, to settle a 2004 class-action lawsuit over taxes on
landlines, Rick Desloge of The St. Louis Business Journal
reports.

On June 26, 2009, Judge Edward Sweeney of the St. Louis Circuit
Court gave preliminary approval to a settlement allowing the
municipalities to collect underpayment of municipal gross
receipt taxes from AT&T, Howard Paperner, Esq., one of the
attorneys representing the municipalities told The St. Louis
Business Journal.

The cities alleged that AT&T has been underpaying telephone
business taxes by excluding certain items from monthly gross
receipts.

Before opting to settle the case, AT&T had argued that the
cities' ordinances didn't include certain items such as access,
a charge that AT&T imposes on interstate and intrastate long-
distance companies to originate or complete phone calls, as well
as a flat-rate charge designed to recover a portion of AT&T's
cost of providing the local telephone loop to transport
customers' long-distance calls.


BIDZ.COM INC: To Defend "Gomez" Stock Purchasers Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bidz.com, Inc. intends to defend the purported class-action
lawsuit filed by Ramon Gomez in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, according to the company's Form
8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 14, 2009.

The lawsuit was filed against Bidz.com and its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, David Zinberg.

The complaint was filed as a purported class action on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of Bidz.com between Aug. 13,
2007 to Nov. 26, 2007.

The plaintiff's allegations are solely based on a report
published by Citron Research on Nov. 26, 2007.  After issuing
the report, Citron Research, previously known as StockLemon.com,
publicly acknowledged that it held a short position in the
common stock of Bidz.com, Inc.  The company has publicly refuted
all the claims made in the report.

The Complaint is another in a series of allegations against
Bidz.com in the aftermath of the Citron Report, including
complaints made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the Federal Trade Commission.

Bidz.com, Inc. -- www.bidz.com -- founded in 1998, is a leading
online retailer of jewelry.  Bidz offers its products through a
live auction format as well as a fixed price online retail
store, Buyz.com.  Bidz.com's auctions are also available in
Arabic, German and Spanish. To learn more about Bidz.com visit
its website at.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Aug. 3 Hearing Set for E46 Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 3, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. For
the proposed settlement om the matter, "Eric Bacca v. BMW of
North America, LLC, Case No. 06-06753 DDP (AJWx)."

The hearing will be held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson in
Courtroom 3, Western Division Spring Street Courthouse, United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
312  N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

According to a posting at http://wot.motortrend.com,BMW of
North America, LLC settled a class-action lawsuit over its
fourth-generation 3 Series models that was entitled, "Eric Bacca
v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 06-06753 DDP (AJWx)"
(Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2009).

The suit was filed on Oct. 24, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California in connection to
potentially faulty subframes on its fourth-generation 3 Series
vehicles that are commonly known by its E46 development code.

It claimed that defects in E46 3 Series models cause fractures
in the rear-axle supports in the subframe.  Symptoms include
clunking from the rear and outright subframe failure.  These
vehicles saw production from 1999 to 2006.

As part of a class-action lawsuit settlement, the company will
begin an inspection-and-repair process for potentially faulty
subframes in fourth-generation 3 Series models.

According to a statement from BMW North America, "BMW has agreed
to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning
the Sub-Frame structures on 3 Series ("E46") models produced
from 1999 through 2006.  Under rare conditions the attachment
points of the Sub-Frame may develop a fracture or crack.  BMW
has prepared an inspection, approved repair procedure, and
reimbursement policy in keeping with the terms of the proposed
class settlement.  This settlement will only pertain to US
residents and is not a recall of any kind.  Details will be
forthcoming, pending the court's final approval of the proposed
class settlement."

For more details, contact:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. (ehg@girardgibbs.com)
      Girard Gibbs
      601 California Street
      14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Phone: 415-981-4800

      Melissa M. Harnett, Esq. (mharnett@wcclaw.com)
      Wasserman Comden and Casselman
      5567 Reseda Boulevard Suite 330
      P O Box 7033
      Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
      Phone: 818-705-6800

           - and -

      E-46 Sub-Frame Class Action Settlement
      c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC
      P.O. Box 808054,
      Petaluma, CA 94975-8054
      Web site: http://www.e46subframeclassactionsettlement.com/


CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Limiting Marriage to Heterosexuals
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action lawsuit, "Burns v. State of California Case
No. CGC-08-481908," was filed on behalf of unmarried gays and
lesbians in San Francisco Superior Court today, Friday June 26,
2009, one day before San Francisco's gay pride festival.  This
will be the first case in California's State Court challenging
California's new Constitutional amendment limiting marriage to
heterosexual couples.  The Plaintiffs are represented by
attorney Waukeen McCoy who successfully argued In Re Marriage
Cases in 2008, which briefly allowed homosexuals the right to
marry in California.

     Last year, the California Supreme Court decided that
California's statutory law denying same-sex couples the right to
marry violated the privacy, due process, and equal protection
provisions of the California State Constitution as it then read.
Shortly after the decision, California's voters, by initiative,
changed the text of the California Constitution by adding a new
Section 7.5 to Article I.  The new section reads "only marriage
between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

     This lawsuit claims that section 7.5 of Article I violates
the equal protection clause of the State Constitution.  McCoy
said, "we chose to bring this lawsuit in State Court rather than
in Federal Court because sexual orientation is a protected class
under California State Law and it is not recognized in Federal
Law."


CCO HOLDINGS: Charter and Charter Holdco to Defend "Bodet" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Holding
Company, LLC intend to defend a class action by Gerald Paul
Bodet, Jr., according to CCO Holdings, LLC's May 14, 2009 Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009,

On or about March 16, 2009, Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. filed, but
did not appropriately serve, a class action against Charter and
Charter Holdco.

The suit is styled "Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. v. Charter
Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Holding Company,
LLC."

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman
Act and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act by tying the
provision of premium cable programming to the purchase or rental
of a set top box from the company.

CCO Holdings, LLC -- http://www.charter.com/-- through its
operating subsidiary, Charter Communications Operating, LLC,
operates broadband communications businesses in the United
States, with approximately 5.60 million customers at Dec. 31,
2007.  CCO Holdings Capital Corp. is wholly owned subsidiary of
CCO Holdings, and was established and exist solely as co-issuers
of the public debt issued with their parent companies.  Through
its hybrid fiber and coaxial cable network, the Company offers
traditional cable video programming (analog and digital, which
it refers to as video service), high-speed Internet access, and
telephone service, as well as, broadband services (such as
Charter OnDemand video service (OnDemand), high definition
television service, and digital video recorder (DVR) service).


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settles N.Y. Stockholders' Lawsuit for $2M
------------------------------------------------------------
Children's Place Retail Stores Inc. said it would pay $12
million to settle a class-action suit that alleged its officers
of misrepresenting facts about operations that caused the
company's stock to artificially inflate, Vidya Lakshmi of
Reuters reports.

The company said it denied all allegations made in the suit and
decided to settle the suit to eliminate further litigation and
related expenses.  It said the cost of the settlement would be
covered by insurance, according to Reuters.

It was previously reported that the Children's Place Retail
Stores, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated stockholder
lawsuit filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, (Class Action Reporter, May
8, 2009).

                     September Litigation

On Sept. 21, 2007, a stockholder class-action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
senior executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
company's current and former officers made statements to the
investing public which misrepresented material facts about the
company's business and operations, or omitted to state material
facts required in order for the statements not to be misleading,
causing the price of the company's stock to be artificially
inflated in violation of provisions of the Exchange Act, as
amended.

The suit alleges that more recent disclosures establish the
misleading nature of these earlier disclosures.

The complaint seeks money damages plus interest, as well as
costs and disbursements of the lawsuit.

                      October Litigation

On Oct. 10, 2007, a stockholder class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its current and former senior
executives.

This complaint asserts similar allegations as the September
suit.  It seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, compensatory damages plus interest, and costs and
expenses of the lawsuit, including counsel and expert fees.

The two cases have been consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint on Feb. 28, 2008.
The company, however, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
suit (Class Action Reporter, July 2, 2008).

On July 18, 2008, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied the move to
dismiss the shareholders' securities fraud lawsuit.  The judge
ruled that the plaintiffs in the class action have provided
enough evidence for a trial to go forward.

No further updates regarding the case were reported in the
company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit is "Hall, et al. v. The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08252," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610-668-7987
          Fax: 610-660-0450
          e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


ENERSIS SA: Amount in Iguazu Suit v. Codensa Still Undetermined
---------------------------------------------------------------
The amount involved in Conjunto Residencial Iguazu's class
action lawsuit remains undetermined, according to Enersis S.A.'s
June 8, 2009 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The plaintiff sued Enersis' Columbian subsidiary, Codensa S.A
E.S.P., and the Soacha City Government in the Cundinamarca
Administrative Court, Fourth Section - Sub-section "B".

Codensa was providing public lighting services to the Soacha
district since the inception of the company (on Oct. 23, 1997).
The public lighting infrastructure in the Soacha district is
mostly owned by Codensa, through a contribution from Empresa
Electrica de Bogota (together with other assets).

Soacha district called on bidders for the service of public
lighting, the winner being Soacha Ciudad Luz ("Sociluz"), a
temporary entity with which district representatives entered
into concession contract No.004 on Jan. 19, 1999.  Codensa did
not take part in the concession contract.  However, after that
contract had been executed, Sociluz hired Codensa to supply
electricity, and rented the Codensa infrastructure, billing and
collection systems.  These are the conditions under which
Codensa is related to the rendering of public lighting services
in Soacha.

On Nov. 20, 2008, the Council of State issued an unappealable
judgment annulling the appealable judgment and all the petitions
of the claim were rejected.  The higher court argues that the
claims are inadmissible as the claim dealt with the rights that
are not collective and that class actions are not the means to
obtain the discontinuance of the collection of a tax and the
refund of the paid amounts.  Judgment was notified by edict on
Nov. 27, 2008.

Enersis S.A. -- http://www.enersis.cl/-- is an electric utility
company.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the company
is engaged in the generation, transmission and distribution of
electricity in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Peru.
Enersis electricity generation business is conducted primarily
through Empresa Nacional de Electricidad S.A. (Endesa Chile),
which has operating subsidiaries in Chile, Argentina, Colombia
and Peru.  The company's electricity distribution business has
been conducted in Chile through Chilectra S.A., in Argentina
through Edesur, in Brazil through Ampla Energia e Servicos S.A.
and Companhia Energetica do Ceara S.A., in Colombia through
Codensa S.A. E.S.P. and in Peru through Empresa de Distribucion
Electrica de Lima Norte S.A.A.


ENERSIS SA: Unit Still Faces "Rojas" Suit in Cundinamarca Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enersis S.A.'s Columbian subsidiary, Codensa S.A E.S.P.,
continues to face a class action filed by Roberto Ramirez Rojas
in the Cundinamarca Administrative Court, Case No. 03-1473.

The plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit against Codensa,
Bogota Capital District and Alcaldia Zonal de San Cristobal in
the Cundinamarca Administrative Court, Third Section - Sub-
section "B".

The Circo Victoria transmission lines I and II were built by
Empresa Electrica de Bogota in 1962, when the site in which the
towers holding it are located, was not populated.  However, when
Codensa was born as a legal entity, on Oct. 23, 1997, one of
those towers (No.731) was surrounded by buildings put up after
1983 but prior to 1996.

The plaintiff demands protection for collective rights including
a healthy environment; sanitization, security and prevention of
technically foreseeable disasters; that buildings abide by
statutory regulations.

This is being processed by the Council of State for unappealable
judgment.

The amount involved remains undetermined, according to Enersis
S.A.'s June 8, 2009 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Enersis S.A. -- http://www.enersis.cl/-- is an electric utility
company.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the company
is engaged in the generation, transmission and distribution of
electricity in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Peru.
Enersis electricity generation business is conducted primarily
through Empresa Nacional de Electricidad S.A. (Endesa Chile),
which has operating subsidiaries in Chile, Argentina, Colombia
and Peru.  The company's electricity distribution business has
been conducted in Chile through Chilectra S.A., in Argentina
through Edesur, in Brazil through Ampla Energia e Servicos S.A.
and Companhia Energetica do Ceara S.A., in Colombia through
Codensa S.A. E.S.P. and in Peru through Empresa de Distribucion
Electrica de Lima Norte S.A.A.


ENI SPA: Awaits Acknowledgment of NBR Products Suit Abandonment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eni SpA, Polimeri Europa SPA and Syndial SPA awaits
acknowledgment by a U.S. federal judge of the abandonment of a
class action related to NBR products, according to the company's
May 14, 2009 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Class actions have been commenced in the U.S. with regard to NBR
products.

On the federal level, the class action was abandoned by the
plaintiffs. However, the federal judge has yet to acknowledge
this abandonment.

With regard to other products under investigation in the U.S.,
settlements were reached with both relevant U.S. Antitrust
authorities and the plaintiffs acting through a class action.

Eni recorded a provision for these matters.

Eni SpA -- http://www.eni.it-- is engaged in the oil and gas,
electricity generation, petrochemicals, oilfield services and
engineering industries.  The company operates in four segments:
Exploration & Production segment (E&P), which is engaged in oil
and natural gas exploration and field development and
production, as well as liquefied natural gas (LNG) operations in
39 countries, including Italy, Libya, Egypt, Norway, the United
Kingdom, Angola, Congo, United States, Kazakhstan, Russia,
Algeria, Pakistan and Australia; Gas & Power segment (G&P),
which engages in supply, transport, distribution and marketing
of natural gas, as well as of LNG; Refining & Marketing segment
(R&M), which engages in refining and marketing of petroleum
products mainly in Italy and Europe, and the Engineering &
Construction segment (E&C).


FX ENERGY: Utah Judge Grants Dismissal Bid in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FX Energy Inc. won its motion to dismiss a putative securities
class-action lawsuit accusing the oil exploration company and
six executives of failing to disclose what shareholders called
shoddy reserve estimations and shaky finances, Law360 reports.

Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah on June 25, 2009 granted FX Energy's motion to toss the
investors' consolidated complaint, according to the Law360
report.

It was previously reported that FX Energy, Inc., is facing a
consolidated securities fraud class-action suit that was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, according
to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

In November and December 2007, three actions were filed against
the company and officers and directors David N. Pierce, Clay
Newton, Thomas B. Lovejoy, Andrew W. Pierce, and Richard
Hardman, by three separate plaintiffs, each seeking class
certification to proceed on behalf of all others similarly
situated and alleging violations by the defendants of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws set forth in
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to the company's public
statements about its oil and gas activities and prospects in
Poland between March 2004 and January 2006.

The complaints seek damages to be determined at trial, interest,
and costs, together with such other relief as the court may deem
appropriate.

The three actions have now been consolidated into a single
matter, and the lead plaintiffs and counsel have been specified.
The consolidated actions have not been certified to proceed as a
class action.  No responsive pleading from the defendants will
be due until an amended complaint is filed.

The suit is "Pykkonen, et al. v. FX Energy, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-00874," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard D. Burbidge, Esq. (rburbidge@bmgtrial.com)
          Burbidge Mitchell & Gross
          215 S. State, Ste. 920
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Phone: (801) 355-6677

          Thomas R. Karrenberg (tkarrenberg@aklawfirm.com)
          Anderson & Karrenberg
          50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 534-1700

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq. (drscott@scott-scott.com)
          Scott & Scott
          108 Norwich Ave.
          PO Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (860) 537-5537

Representing the defendants are:

          Raymond J. Etcheverry, Esq.
          Parsons Behle & Latimer, Esq.
          201 S Main St., Ste. 1800
          P.O. Box 45898
          Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
          Phone: (801) 532-1234
          e-mail: ecf@parsonsbehle.com


ILLINOIS: Judge Agrees to Extend Discovery in U-46 Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Mason agreed to extend discovery
deadlines for the last time in a purported class-action lawsuit
accusing Elgin Area School District U-46 of racial bias, Lerry
Lester of The Daily Herald reports.

In a written ruling, the judge is warning parties to make haste
in preparing for trial.  The case has been pending since
February 2005, according to The Daily Herald.

Based on what both sides have since told Judge Mason in meetings
in his private chambers, "it is clear that settlement is highly
unlikely at this time," the judge wrote.  "The parties must not
delay further in their completion of discovery and preparation
for trial," The Daily Herald reported.

Mary Ann Fergus of The Chicago Tribune previously reported that
a federal judge granted class-action status to a long-running
lawsuit that accuses Elgin schools of violating the rights of
minority students by forcing them to attend older and more
crowded schools and to ride buses farther than white students,
(Class Action Reporter, Aug 20, 2008).

According to the report, the recent ruling, entered by Judge
Robert Gettleman of the U.S. District Court in Chicago, greatly
increases the number of African-American and Hispanic students
with potential claims against Elgin-based Unit School District
46.  Also as a result of the ruling, District U-46 or U46 could
be forced to implement district-wide remedies -- which could
affect 17,000 African-American and Hispanic students instead of
just the 14 plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- if the allegations are
proved.

Chicago Tribune recounts that the suit was filed in February
2005 on behalf of five families with 18 students in the
district.  Four have since graduated from high school and are no
longer a part of the suit, which seeks changes in how the
state's second largest school district treats minority students.

The suit alleges that the district redrew its boundaries to
segregate minority students and that the district inadequately
serves students with limited English proficiency.

In 2006, the report recounts, the judge rejected an earlier
request for class-action certification.  However, in a recent
ruling, Judge Gettleman wrote that any deficiencies in the
request for class-action status have been rectified.

"Specifically, the claims of the named plaintiffs are now
tightly aligned with claims of the two defined classes; each
claim is now matched to at least one named plaintiff," Judge
Gettleman wrote in the ruling, dated August 8, 2008.  He also
noted that legal obstacles to class-action were eliminated by
the addition of three new families as plaintiffs.

The judge further noted that the plaintiffs already had
identified district policies and practices that could support
allegations of harm to two classes of students, minorities and
those with limited English proficiency.

Carol Ashley, Esq., of the Futterman and Howard law firm, one of
the lawyers who filed the suit on behalf of the minority
families, said her clients "have been extremely committed to
making sure the community understands that they believe their
children have not been provided equal access to district
facilities."  Ms. Ashley said her clients will surely "feel
gratified that the court has recognized the scope of the
problem."

Attorneys for the school district told Chicago Tribune that they
were still analyzing the judge's order.

"We're disappointed with the ruling," said Patricia Whitten,
Esq., of the law firm Franczek Sullivan.  "We obviously disagree
with it.  We didn't think they strongly plead claims for
individuals, much less an entire class."

According to the report, U-46 serves more than 41,000 students
from pre-kindergarten through high school in 11 suburbs in Kane
and DuPage Counties and northwest Cook County.

For more details, contact:

          Carol Ashley, Esq. (cashley@futtermanhoward.com)
          Futterman Howard Watkins Wylie & Ashley, Chartered
          122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 427-3600
          Fax: (312) 427-1850
          Web site: http://www.futtermanhoward.com/


LEGAL BUCKS: Faces N.C. Suit for Allegedly Preying on Litigants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Bucks, LLC, LBFund I, LLC, and the Logan Financial
Network, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in Guilford
County, North Carolina accusing the three lenders of preying on
vulnerable claimants, charging up to 100 percent annual interest
on loans, Dan McCue of The Courthouse News Service reports.

According to a class-action lawsuit filed in Guilford County
Superior Court in North Carolina on June 15, 2009, the three
lenders -- who provide cash advances to litigants in personal
injury and workers' compensation cases -- intentionally targeted
personal-injury claimants with limited resources, knowing they
would agree to the exorbitant interest rates in order to fund
their claims.

Aside from the three lenders others named as defendants in the
suit are, J. Keith Tart, Linn D. Tart, Philip L. Smith and
Virginia Smith, all of who are identified as either managers or
officers of the three lenders, according to The Courthouse News
Service.

The three lead plaintiffs -- Alexander L. Lee, Joe S. Brown and
Mark Thompson -- allegedly borrowed between $11,000 and $20,000
from the cash-advance firms during a three-year period, and each
has been expected to repay the defendants at least double the
original loan amount, according to the suit, a copy of which was
obtained by The Courthouse News Service.

Legal Bucks and LB Fund I advanced them cash against the money
they were expected to win in pending cases.  However, after
receiving the loans, borrowers say they learned that the fees
and interest far exceeded the amounts authorized under the
federal Consumer Finance Act and North Carolina's usury statute.

The loan agreements also stipulated that once borrowers accepted
funds, they had to take the defendants' claims into account as
they considered when and whether to settle underlying claims,
The Courthouse News Service reported.

Once the borrowers won their underlying claims, the cash-advance
companies claimed an absolute right to the money recovered, the
complaint says, reports The Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3e54

For more details, contact:

          Barron & Berry, LLP
          301 South Greene Street, Suite 310
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Phone: (336) 274-4782
          Fax: 336-379-8592
          Web site: http://www.barronberry.com/


MEDIA BREAKAWAY: Sept. 18 Hearing Set for "Vandyke" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 18, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "Vandyke et al. v. Media
Breakaway LLC, Case No. 08-CV-22131."

The hearing will be held in Courtroom 1, 11th Floor, United
States District Court Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division, 400 N. Miami Ave., Miami, FL 33128.

In general, the the suit -- brought on behalf of a proposed
class of wireless subscribers -- is alleging that Media
Breakaway charged wireless subscribers for Mobile Content that
they did not authorize.

Media Breakaway, LLC (providing mobile content under the
business name "Ringaza") has entered into a settlement of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of itself and its business
partners including third-party advertisers who also market and
provide "mobile content" services, involving claims of alleged
unauthorized mobile content charges on cell phone bills of
consumers in the U.S. (Class Action Reporter, June 29, 2009).

While Media Breakaway disputed these allegations, the parties
settled the class-action lawsuit and asked the court to
preliminarily approve the settlement.  The settlement, which
received preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court in
Miami last week, entitles wireless customers in the U.S. to
receive refunds for claimed unauthorized mobile content charges.

Mobile content refers to products such as ringtones, games,
graphics, news, and other alerts that are provided through
mobile phones and are charged directly to consumers' mobile
phone bills.  Although a relatively new form of commerce, mobile
content has evolved to form a large and increasingly important
industry.  Media Breakaway acts as a provider of mobile content
and a marketer of third-party mobile content that consumers
purchase to use with their cellular telephones.

For more details, contact:

          Myles McGuire, Esq. (mmcguire@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL  60654
          Phone: 1-312-589-6370 or 1-866-354-3015
          Fax: 1-312-589-6378

               - and -

          Claims Administrator
          Phone: 1-800-936-5093
          Web site: http://www.mbclassaction.com/


MICHAEL FOODS: Pursues Dismissal of Consolidated Amended Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Foods, Inc. seeks dismissal of a consolidated amended
class-action complaint, according to the company's May 14, 2009
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 4, 2009.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against the company and several
other defendants (producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of
processed egg products, and egg industry organizations) alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection
with the production and sale of shell eggs and processed-egg
products.

Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of direct and
indirect purchasers and allege that defendants conspired to
reduce the supply of eggs by participating in animal husbandry,
egg-export and other programs of various egg-industry
associations.

In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Subsequently, the direct-purchaser and indirect-purchaser
plaintiffs each filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC").

On April 30, 2009, the company filed motions to be dismissed
from each CAC, and joined other defendants in motions for
dismissal of both CACs.

Michael Foods, Inc. -- http://www.michaelfoods.com-- is one of
the leading US producers of shell eggs and value-added egg
products (frozen, liquid, pre-cooked, dried).  It has other
operations, but eggs account for 70% of its sales.  The spuds
come in with its Northern Star subsidiary, which pre-shreds and
mashes potatoes.  The company's Crystal Farms subsidiary
packages and distributes cheese, butter and other dairy
products. Michael's customers include food processors,
foodservice distributors, and retail grocery stores throughout
North America, as well as in the Far East, South America, and
Europe. Investment firm, Thomas H. Lee Partners, owns almost 90%
of the company.


MIDAS INC: To Defend Remaining Claims by Canadian Franchisees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Midas Canada Inc., a subsidiary of Midas, Inc., intends to
defend the remaining claims in a class action proceeding by two
Canadian franchisees at trial.

Two Canadian franchisees have filed a lawsuit in Ontario against
Itasca-based (Illinois) Midas Inc. on June 29, Chicago Tribune's
James P. Miller reports.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims that the
automotive services provider breached its franchise agreement
when it closed its manufacturing and distribution operations,
the report said.

The plaintiffs ask for monetary damages of approximately $168
million.

Midas believes the case is without merit and will vigorously
defend itself (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2007).

Midas Canada and Midas International Corp. agreed to mediate the
claims asserted by two Canadian franchisees.  The mediation
concluded on Nov. 14, 2008 without a settlement.  However, the
parties have agreed to a further settlement discussion without
the aid of the mediator (Class Action Reporter, Nov 25, 2008).

As previously reported in the Form 8-K filed by the company on
March 27, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released
its decision regarding certification of the action as a class
proceeding in connection with the suit filed by two Midas
franchisees in Canada against Midas Canada and Midas
International.

The plaintiffs—Landsbridge Auto Corporation and 405341 Ontario
Limited—sought class certification.

Of the many and varied claims that were asserted by the
plaintiffs, the only claims that the plaintiffs will be allowed
to advance as a class are whether Midas Canada breached its
common law and statutory duties of good faith/fair dealing when
Midas Canada implemented its new supply chain in 2003, and, if
so, whether Midas Canada could properly maintain the same
royalty structure after ceasing to supply products to
franchisees.  All other causes of action against Midas Canada
and Midas International, and proposed common issues based on
those causes of action, were rejected by the court.

In its decision, the court ruled that Midas Canada did not
breach its franchise agreement when it closed its manufacturing
and distribution operations in 2003 or accepted rebates from its
supplier.  The court also held that Landsbridge is not a proper
plaintiff in the proceeding and that the class definition is
limited to only those franchisees who were part of the Midas
system before the new supply chain was implemented and continued
as franchisees through the date of the claim.

There are no class claims remaining against Midas International,
according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 4, 2009.

Midas, Inc. -- http://midas.com/--  is a provider of automotive
repair and maintenance services with over 2,550 shops globally.
Midas retail shops, which are operated by the Company, its
franchisees and licensees, offer an array of automotive repair
and maintenance services.


MORTGAGE LENDERS: Conn. Labor Commissioner Opposes $2.7M Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut commissioner of labor has objected to a $2.7
million settlement agreement between Mortgage Lenders Network
USA, its official committee of unsecured creditors, and
plaintiffs with class-action Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act claims, saying that the payout would impact
unrelated wage claims, Law360 reports.

The Connecticut labor commissioner has a $576,749.25 Class 1
priority claim for wages owed to Mortgage Lenders Network’s
employees, according to the objection, which was filed on June
25, 2009 in a bankruptcy court in Delaware, according to Law360
report.

The Hartford Courant previously reported that a bankruptcy court
in Delaware has set an Aug. 5, 2009 hearing for the proposed
settlement of a purported class-action lawsuit against now-
defunct Mortgage Lenders Network (Class Action Reporter, May 13,
2009).

More than 1,600 employees of company are expected to share in
the proposed $2.7 million settlement, according to The Hartford
Courant report.

The lawsuit accused the Middletown-based subprime lender, which
shut down abruptly in early 2007 and filed for bankruptcy, of
failing to comply with federal regulations that require
employers to give 60 days notice before shutting down a company,
reports The Hartford Courant.

The settlement, which was given preliminary approval on May 111,
2009, covers wages that would have been paid in the 60-day
period covered by the class-action lawsuit, The Hartford Courant
reported.


NEW MEXICO: Faces Suit Over Mismanaged College-Savings Portfolio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Six individuals are suing the Education Trust Board of New
Mexico, claiming it mismanaged two tax-sheltered funds they used
to save money for their children's education, Tom Sharpe of The
New Mexican reports

Attorney John Bienvenu, Esq. of Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes,
Dahlstrom, Schonburg & Bienvenu filed the class-action complaint
in state District Court on June 25, 2009.  He said the six have
lost "significant" money in the Education Plan and the Scholar's
Edge Plan — both of them so-called 529 plans managed by the
state, according to The New Mexican.

The New Mexican reported that listed as plaintiffs in the case
are Ping Lu of Albuquerque, Jill and Richard McKeon of Los
Angeles, Stephen Spencer of Sandoval County, Spencer Stopa of
Otero County and Judy C. Winnegar of Santa Fe.  Co-counsel to
the Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schonburg &
Bienvenu firm in the case is the Keller Rohrback firm of
Seattle.

According to the complaint, both plans offer a range of options
-- more aggressive portfolios vested in all stocks or equities
for younger students with at least 10 years before they start
college, and more conservative portfolios with more fixed-income
and money-market investments for those approaching their
freshman year.

The most conservative one -- called the "School Years Portfolio"
for those already attending college -- was designed to protect
the principal by investing 10 percent in equities, 50 percent in
fixed income and 40 percent in money market, reports The New
Mexican.

Under the state's "aged-based approach," the money in the
account is supposed to shift to increasingly conservative
portfolios as the beneficiary ages.  Yet according to the
complaint, the "overwhelming majority" of funds in the School
Years Portfolio went to three Oppenheimer Fund fixed-income
assets that "performed miserably," losing about 40 percent of
their value in recent months.

The complaint pointed out, "The reason for this shocking
performance was not bad luck or the overall performance of the
market.  It further states, "Even in a challenging market, the
fixed-income benchmarks that the State selected as fair
comparators managed to make money.  Instead the State's fixed
income holdings imploded because the State, presumably upon the
advice of its Program Manager, placed and retained Trust assets
in 'fixed income' holdings that were the very opposite of
traditional, conservative investments," reports The New Mexican.

"In a true long-term investment, it is sometimes possible to
'wait out' a dip in the market.  But here, Plan enrollees cannot
'wait out' mismanagement of the Trust unless the intended
beneficiary foregoes her higher education — which would defeat
the entire purpose of the Trust," the complaint states.

According to Mr. Bienvenu, "They took money that was meant to be
invested in the most conservative instrument to protect the
principal but would not have any upside potential for gain, they
took that money and they invested it, half or more of those
funds, into extremely speculative and risky investments that
ended up losing more than 40 percent of their value," The New
Mexican reports.


PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Copy Protection Software Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Playlogic Entertainment, Inc., continues to face a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit against Playlogic, filed on June 26, 2007, is in
connection with alleged damages as a result of copy protection
software included in Age of Pirates – Caribbean Tales.

The company says, in its May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009, that it does not foresee any liability in this
matter, as plaintiffs have clearly sued the wrong company and
the wrong entity.  Playlogic acts only as a publisher of the
game and therefore is not liable for possible faults in
production or distribution.

The suit is "Gindling v. Playlogic Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-05610-JSR," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Jed S. Rakoff, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Oren Giskan, Esq. (ogiskan@gslawny.com)
          Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson, LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-847-8315
          Fax: 212-473-8096

               - and -

          Scott Adam Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com)
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-202-6364


QUEST RESOURCE: Discovery in Royalty Owners' Lawsuit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the royalty owners' class-action lawsuit against
Quest Cherokee, LLC is ongoing, according to Quest Resource
Corporation's June 3, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit filed on Aug. 6, 2007, in the U.S. District Court,
District of Kansas, is styled "Hugo Spieker, et al. v. Quest
Cherokee, LLC Case No. 07-1225-MLB,"

Quest Cherokee was named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed by several royalty owners in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas.

The case was filed by the named plaintiffs on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all Quest Cherokee's royalty and
overriding royalty owners in the Kansas portion of the Cherokee
Basin.

Plaintiffs contend that Quest Cherokee failed to properly make
royalty payments to them and the putative class by, among other
things, paying royalties based on reduced volumes instead of
volumes measured at the wellheads, by allocating expenses in
excess of the actual costs of the services represented, by
allocating production costs to the royalty owners, by improperly
allocating marketing costs to the royalty owners, and by making
the royalty payments after the statutorily proscribed time for
doing so without providing the required interest.

Quest Cherokee has answered the complaint and denied plaintiffs'
claims.

Quest Resource Corporation (QRCP) --
http://www.questresourcecorp.com/-- is an integrated energy
company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development,
production and transportation of oil and natural gas.  The
company operates in two segments: oil and gas production, and
natural gas pipelines, including transporting, gathering,
treating and processing natural gas.  The company's subsidiaries
include Quest Energy Partners, L.P. (QELP) and Quest Midstream
GP, LLC (Quest Midstream GP).  As of May 15, 2009, the company
had approximately 45,732 net acres, five gross wells in various
stages of completion and approximately 183 miles of gas
gathering pipeline in the Appalachian Basin, owned by QRCP's
wholly owned subsidiary, Quest Eastern Resource LLC.


QUEST RESOURCE: To Defend Claims in Consolidated Suit in Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Resource Corporation (QRCP), Quest Energy Partners, L.P.,
and Quest Energy GP, LLC intend to defend against plaintiffs'
claims in a consolidated class action complaint pending in the
Western District of Oklahoma.

Four putative class-action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the
company, Quest Energy Partners, L.P., and Quest Energy GP, LLC
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The complaints were filed by certain stockholders on behalf of
themselves and other stockholders who purchased the company's
common stock between May 2, 2005 and Aug. 25, 2008 and Quest
Energy common units between Nov. 7, 2007 and Aug. 25, 2008.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements
and/or concealing material facts concerning certain unauthorized
transfers of funds from subsidiaries of the company to entities
controlled by the company's former chief executive officer, Mr.
Jerry D. Cash.

The complaints also allege that, as a result of these actions,
the company's stock price and the unit price of Quest Energy was
artificially inflated during the class period.

On Dec. 29, 2008, the court consolidated these complaints as
"Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP
LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose,
Case No. 08-cv-936-M," in the Western District of Oklahoma.

Various individual plaintiffs have filed multiple rounds of
motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, however the court
has not yet ruled on these motions and appointed a lead
plaintiff.  Once a lead plaintiff is appointed, the lead
plaintiff must file a consolidated amended complaint within 60
days after being appointed.  No further activity is expected in
the purported class action until a lead plaintiff is appointed
and an amended consolidated complaint is filed, according to the
company's June 3, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Quest Resource Corporation (QRCP) --
http://www.questresourcecorp.com/-- is an integrated energy
company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development,
production and transportation of oil and natural gas.  The
company operates in two segments: oil and gas production, and
natural gas pipelines, including transporting, gathering,
treating and processing natural gas.  The company's subsidiaries
include Quest Energy Partners, L.P. (QELP) and Quest Midstream
GP, LLC (Quest Midstream GP).  As of May 15, 2009, the company
had approximately 45,732 net acres, five gross wells in various
stages of completion and approximately 183 miles of gas
gathering pipeline in the Appalachian Basin, owned by QRCP's
wholly owned subsidiary, Quest Eastern Resource LLC.


QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Judge Dismisses Claims, Suit Still Proceeds
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
dismissed the antitrust claims brought in a class-action lawsuit
against Quiznos Franchise Co. LLC, but allowed other claims to
proceed, Janet Sparks of Blue MauMau reports.

The suit was filed on July 3, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, under the caption,
"Martrano et al v. The Quizno's Franchise Company, L.L.C. et
al., Case No. 2:2008-cv-00932."

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are Joe Martrano, Terry
Shallenberger, Tuffy Joes Eatery, L.L.C., Rene Vela, Gwen Vela,
Enon Heights Enterprises, L.L.C., Robert Yannito, Pat McGovern,
Charles McGovern, Park Plan Development, L.L.C., Ron Miller,
Miller Enterprises, L.L.C., Andrew Schry, Schry Holdings,
L.L.C., John Sciarrino, Sciarrino Ventures, L.L.C., Jason
Wojdyla and Wojdyla Enterprises, Inc.

Listed as defendants are The Quizno's Franchise Company, L.L.C.,
Quizno's Franchising, L.L.C., Quizno's Franchising II, L.L.C.,
The Quizno's Master, L.L.C., QFA Royalities, L.L.C., QZ Finance,
L.L.C., QIP Holder, L.L.C., TQSC, L.L.C., Cervantes Capital,
L.L.C., Richard E. Schaden, Richard F. Schaden, Kevin Casey,
John Lubarski, Mark "Max" Maximovich, Brian Masters, Michelle
Webster, Larry Dershow, Peter Giannirakis and Peter Ortiz.

Previously, Law360 reported that on June 16, 2009, Magistrate
Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the antitrust claims, but will allow the rest of the
prospective statewide class-action lawsuit to proceed (Class
Action Reporter, June 22, 2009).

Specifically, Judge Lenihan dismissed two claims, antitrust
violations and violations of Pennsylvania criminal code
provisions.  However, the judge denied all others including
fraud in inducement and civil Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Organization (RICO) charges.  She also cleared the way for
franchisee plaintiffs to refile for class certification,
according to the Blue MauMau.

In her ruling she writes, "The over-arching allegation of these
Complaints is that Defendants, not content with the
profitability of a nationwide network of honestly/legitimately
franchised 'toasted sandwich' businesses, operated and expanded
the Quiznos franchise empire via fraudulent and exploitive
sales/contracting and business practices; and with (a) disregard
for the long-term viability of its individual franchise stores,
and (b) the primary intent of inflating Quiznos short-
erm/apparent profitability and, correspondingly, its sale
value," reports Blue MauMau.

The order and opinion filed in essence rejects the defendants'
assertion that they were entitled to the dismissal of the
franchisees' RICO and/or fraud in the inducement claims on the
basis of the franchise documents, Blue MauMau reported.

For more details, contact:

          Peter J. Daley, II, Esq. (pjdassoc@verizon.net)
          Peter J. Daley & Associates
          242 Wood Street
          California, PA 15419
          Phone: (724) 938-8953
          Fax: 724-938-8959

          Andrew P. Bleiman, Esq.
          (andrew.bleiman@chengcohen.com)
          Cheng Cohen LLC
          1101 West Fulton Market
          Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Phone: 312-243-1723
          Fax: 312-277-3961

                - and -

          Vincent M. Roskovensky, Esq.
          (vroskovensky@thorpreed.com)
          Thorp, Reed & Armstrong
          301 Grant Street
          One Oxford Centre, 14th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4895
          Phone: (412) 394-7716


SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: N.J. Suit to be Reinstated, Legal Experts Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit against Snapple Beverage Corp. formerly
Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages, Inc. over drinks that
contain man-made high fructose corn syrup is on the verge of
reinstatement after being tossed two years ago, Jon Hood of
ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

A three-judge panel that recently heard arguments appears likely
to reopen the case, according to legal experts, reports
ConsumerAffairs.com.

The suit was thrown out by a lower court after the judge
determined that federal regulations preempted the state-based
claims.  The judge reasoned that FDA guidelines "so thoroughly
occupy the field of the beverage labeling at issue in this case
that it would be unreasonable to infer that Congress intended
states to supplement this area," ConsumerAffairs.com reported.

It was previously reported that the plaintiff in the matter,
"Holk v. Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-03018-MLC-JJH," which names as defendant Snapple
Beverage Corp., a unit of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., is
appealing the dismissal of the case, according to Dr Pepper
Snapple's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6, 2008).

In 2007, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Stacy Holk, in New
Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County.  The Holk case was filed
as a class-action lawsuit.  Subsequent to filing, the Holk case
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Ms. Holk alleges that Snapple's labeling of certain of its
drinks is misleading and deceptive and was seeking unspecified
damages on behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from
various labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of
amount paid for product and treble damages.

Snapple filed a motion to dismiss the Holk case on a variety of
grounds.  On June 12, 2008, the district court granted Snapple's
dismissal request and the Holk case was thrown out.  The
plaintiff has filed an appeal of the dismissal order.

The suit is "Holk v. Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages et
al., Case No. 3:07-cv-03018-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Mary L. Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Philip A. Tortoreti, Esq. (ptortoreti@wilentz.com)
          Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Phone: 732-636-8000

Representing the defendants is:

          Richard B. Harper, Esq.
          (richard.harper@bakerbotts.com)
          Baker Botts, LLP
          30 Rockerfeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Phone: 212-408-2675
          Fax: 212-259-2475


T-MOBILE USA: July 27 Hearing Set for $11.5M ETF Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on July 27, 2009 hearing for the proposed
$11.5 million settlement in the matter, "Milliron v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc., No. 08-04149(JLL) (ES)."

Phil Goldstein of FierceWireless previously reported that T-
Mobile USA, Inc. reached a proposed $11.5 million settlement
in a class-action suit entitled, "Milliron v. T-Mobile USA,
Inc., No. 08-04149(JLL) (ES)," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Class Action
Reporter, May 18, 2009).

The lawsuit alleges that T-Mobile violated state and federal
laws by charging customers a flat-rate early termination fee
(ETF) in its wireless telephone service contracts.

T-Mobile subscribers who were charged a flat-rate ETF from July
23, 1999, to Feb. 19, 2009, are eligible to be part of the class
action suit.  If the settlement is approved, T-Mobile will pay
$11.5 million to members of the lawsuit who paid an ETF or were
charged but did not pay an ETF.  Customers will be able to get
up to $125 each or a "non-cash" item such as extra minutes, text
messages or a pro-rated ETF, according to the FierceWireless
report.

For more details, contact:

          Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 945
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-0945
          Phone: 1-800-589-1423
          Web site: http://www.etf-settlement.com/

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
               Olstein
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: (973) 994-1744
          e-mail: Info@CarellaByrne.com
          Web site: http://www.carellabyrne.com/

               - and -

          Freed & Weiss LLC
          111 West Washington, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 220-0000
          e-mail: info@etf-settlement.com
          Web site: http://www.FreedWeiss.com


TRAILER BRIDGE: Pursues Dismissal of Suits Over Pricing Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trailer Bridge, Inc. is pursuing the dismissal of the claim in
the consolidated purported class-action lawsuit over its pricing
practices, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a grand jury investigation
of pricing practices among Puerto Rico ocean carriers.

The company was not served with a search warrant, although press
accounts indicate that other carriers were.  The company
representatives have met with DOJ attorneys and immediately
pledged the company's full and complete cooperation with the DOJ
investigation.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, and through May 10, 2008, customers in the
Puerto Rico trade lane have filed 34 purported class action
complaints against domestic ocean carriers, including Horizon
Lines, Sea Star Lines, and Crowley.  The company has been named
as a co-defendant in these lawsuits.

Specifically, the suits named as defendants:

     -- Horizon Lines, Inc.,
     -- Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.,
     -- Horizon Lines, LLC,
     -- Sea Star Line, LLC,
     -- Crowley Maritime Corp.,
     -- Crowley Liner Services, Inc., and
     -- Trailer Bridge, Inc.

The actions allege that the defendants inflated prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The actions, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, and the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico, have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes into a single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL
1962) in the District Court of Puerto Rico.

On March 10, 2009, the company filed an amended motion to
dismiss the claim with the court.

The DOJ investigation is a criminal investigation, and the
parallel class actions by civil litigants seek remedies that
include treble damages.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- is a
trucking and marine transportation company with contract and
common carrier authority.  Highway transportation services are
offered in the continental U.S., while marine transportation is
offered between Jacksonville, Florida, San Juan, Puerto Rico and
Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.


UBS AG: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Pending in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against UBS
AG in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York is in its early stages.

The consolidated class-action lawsuit was filed against UBS and
a number of senior directors and officers.

The plaintiffs allege securities fraud in connection with the
firm's valuations and disclosures relating to sub-prime and
asset-backed securities, according to the company's May 21, 2009
Form 20-F/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

UBS AG -- http://www.ubs.com/-- is a global provider of
financial services to private, corporate and institutional
clients.  The company's financial businesses are organized on a
worldwide basis into three business divisions and the Corporate
Center. Global Wealth Management & Business Banking consists of
three segments: Wealth Management International & Switzerland,
Wealth Management US and Business Banking Switzerland.  The
business divisions Investment Bank and Global Asset Management
constitute one segment each.  On Feb. 10, 2009, UBS announced
the split of Global Wealth Management & Business Banking into
two divisions: Wealth Management & Swiss Bank and Wealth
Management Americas. In February 2009, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
acquired the company's global agricultural business.


UBS AG: Faces Consolidated Suit by ERISA Retirement Plan Holders
----------------------------------------------------------------
UBS AG is facing a consolidated class-action lawsuit brought on
behalf of holders of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) retirement plan holders.

UBS and a number of senior officers and directors have been sued
in a consolidated class action brought on behalf of holders of
UBS ERISA retirement plans in which there were purchases of UBS
stock.

This class action is in its early stages, according to the
company's May 21, 2009 Form 20-F/A Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

UBS AG -- http://www.ubs.com/-- is a global provider of
financial services to private, corporate and institutional
clients.  The company's financial businesses are organized on a
worldwide basis into three business divisions and the Corporate
Center. Global Wealth Management & Business Banking consists of
three segments: Wealth Management International & Switzerland,
Wealth Management US and Business Banking Switzerland.  The
business divisions Investment Bank and Global Asset Management
constitute one segment each.  On Feb. 10, 2009, UBS announced
the split of Global Wealth Management & Business Banking into
two divisions: Wealth Management & Swiss Bank and Wealth
Management Americas. In February 2009, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
acquired the company's global agricultural business.


UBS AG: Lawsuits Over Auction Rate Securities Marketing Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
UBS AG remains named in several putative class actions relating
to the marketing and sale of Auction Rate Securities (ARS) to
clients and to UBS's role and participation in ARS auctions.

These class-action suits followed the disruption in the markets
for these securities and related auction failures since mid-
February 2008.

Plaintiffs generally seek rescission, i.e., for UBS to purchase
the ARS that UBS sold to them at par value, as well as
compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits and in some cases
penalties, according to the company's May 21, 2009 Form 20-F/A
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

UBS AG -- http://www.ubs.com/-- is a global provider of
financial services to private, corporate and institutional
clients.  The company's financial businesses are organized on a
worldwide basis into three business divisions and the Corporate
Center. Global Wealth Management & Business Banking consists of
three segments: Wealth Management International & Switzerland,
Wealth Management US and Business Banking Switzerland.  The
business divisions Investment Bank and Global Asset Management
constitute one segment each.  On Feb. 10, 2009, UBS announced
the split of Global Wealth Management & Business Banking into
two divisions: Wealth Management & Swiss Bank and Wealth
Management Americas. In February 2009, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
acquired the company's global agricultural business.


VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Lawsuit v. VRM I Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A contract breach class-action lawsuit against Vestin Realty
Mortgage I, Inc. (VRM I) and Vestin Mortgage, Inc. remains
pending.

VRM I and Vestin Mortgage are defendants in a breach of contract
class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by certain
plaintiffs who allege, among other things, that they were
wrongfully denied appraisal rights in connection with the merger
of Vestin Fund I, LLC (Fund I) into VRM I.

The court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders
who voted against the merger of Fund I into Vestin Realty
Mortgage I, Inc.

Trial was scheduled to begin on June 19, 2009.

The terms of VRM I's management agreement and Fund I's Operating
Agreement contain indemnity provisions whereby Vestin Mortgage
and Michael V. Shustek may be eligible for indemnification by
VRM I with respect to the action.

No further updates on the lawsuit were disclosed in Vestin Fund
III, LLC's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com-- is investing
in commercial real estate.  Through subsidiaries, the firm
originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by
commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office
buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities.
Its Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate
investment trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus
on mortgages and deeds of trust.


VESTIN REALTY: Contract Breach Suit v. VRM II Ongoing in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A contract breach class-action lawsuit is still pending against
Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. (VRM II) and Vestin Mortgage,
Inc.

VRM II and Vestin Mortgage are defendants in a breach of
contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by
certain plaintiffs who allege, among other things, that they
were wrongfully denied appraisal rights in connection with the
merger of Vestin Fund II, LLC (Fund II)into VRM II.

The court certified a class of all former Fund II unit holders
who voted against the merger of Fund II into VRM II, and a
subclass of all class members who were over the age of 60 and
Nevada residents at the time of the merger.

Trial was scheduled to begin on June 19, 2009.

The terms of VRM II's management agreement and Fund II's
Operating Agreement contain indemnity provisions whereby, Vestin
Mortgage and Michael V. Shustek may be eligible for
indemnification by VRM II with respect to the action.

Vestin Fund III, LLC did not provide further updates on the case
in its May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com-- is investing
in commercial real estate.  Through subsidiaries, the firm
originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by
commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office
buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities.
Its Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate
investment trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus
on mortgages and deeds of trust.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Oppenheimer AMT-Free New
York Municipals between May 1, 2006 and October 21, 2008,
inclusive.

     The complaint alleges the defendants of violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Fund's failure to
disclose in the prospectus and other sales materials employed in
selling and marketing the Fund that the Fund employed strategies
designed to enhance its reported returns while, at the same
time, these strategies exposed the Fund to much greater risk of
price decline in the value of it portfolio securities in the
event of illiquidity in the market for municipal securities that
these strategies exposed the Fund to greater risk of loss should
the Fund be forced to sell large blocks of portfolio at
disadvantageous times at prices reduced from those at which the
securities were previously carried on the Fund's books.  The
Fund's shares declined significantly, according to the
complaint, when these risks materialized.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 7, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Phone: 212-697-6484
          Web site: http://www.bgandg.com/


POPULAR INC: Whatley Drake Announces Securities P.R. Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC announced that
a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOP) between January 23,
2008 and January 22, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Popular and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the federal securities laws.

     Popular is a financial services provider with operations in
Puerto Rico, the United States, the Caribbean, and Latin
America.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements, including a materially false
and misleading registration statement and prospectus in
connection with Popular's May 28, 2008 offering of Series B
preferred shares, that misrepresented and failed to disclose
that:

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

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

       -- 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;

       -- the Company was experiencing a higher percentage of
          non-performing loans;

       -- 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.

     On January 22, 2009, the Company announced its financial
results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2008.
For the quarter, the Company reported a substantial net loss of
$702.9 million due to, among other things, higher provisions for
loan losses in the construction sectors in Puerto Rico and the
U.S. and mortgage-related loans in the Company's U.S. mainland
portfolios, and the recording of a substantial valuation
allowance for deferred tax assets related to the Company's U.S.
operations.

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

For more information, contact:

          Adam Plant, Esq. (aplant@wdklaw.com)
          Tom Butler, Esq. (tbutler@wdklaw.com)
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 1-800-695-6750 or 1-205-328-9576
          Web site: http://www.wdklaw.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  * * *