CAR_Public/090701.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 128

                           Headlines

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder's Lawsuit Over GD Merger
BOB EVANS: Assistant Managers' Suit v. SWH Corp. in Discovery
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settles N.Y. Stockholders' Lawsuit for $12M
CITY OF FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek $15,000 Share of "Sauby" Deal

DATA DOMAIN: Faces Investors' Lawsuit Over Proposed NetApp Deal
EXPEDITORS INT'L: Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services Pending
FIBERNET TELECOM: Shareholders File Suit Over Zayo Merger Deal
HILLENBRAND INC: Court Denies FCA Petition in Antitrust Lawsuit
JONES SODA: Wash. Shareholder Securities Suit Dismissed in June

KBR INC: Execs, Officers Face Investors' Lawsuit in Tex. Court
KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Securities Suits by Shareholders
LG DISPLAY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits in California
LG DISPLAY: To Defend Suits Over Anti-competitive Activities
LG DISPLAY: To Defend Suits Over Antitrust Violations in Canada

LML PAYMENT: Appeal to Junked DPPA Violations Suit Still Pending
LUND BOAT: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Minn. Vacation Pay Suit
MECHEL OAO: To Contest "Frederick" Securities Suit in New York
MICHELIN NORTH: Md. Court Approves "Run-Flats" Suit Settlement
PETLAND INC: Seeks Dismissal of Arizona Suit Over Sold Puppies

PIEDMONT OFFICE: Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Wells REIT Securities Suit Still in Discovery
RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Investor's Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
TIPPECANOE COUNTY: Ind. Court Nixes "Olson" Civil Rights Lawsuit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defects in Prius HID Lights

UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers' Suits Remain Pending
UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filters Sale Pending in Quebec
UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filters Sale in Ontario Still Pending
UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filters Sale in Calif.
WINDOW BLINDS: Ill. Court Refuses to Dismisses Claims in Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Lawsuit


                           *********

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a
lower court decision dismissing a proposed class-action lawsuit
accusing AstraZeneca PLC of misleading its investors about the
safety and effectiveness of Exanta, a blood thinner that failed
to win the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Law360 reports.

Shannon Henson of Securities Law 360 previously reported that
Judge Thomas P. Griesa of the U.S. District Court of the
Southern District of New York dismissed a securities class-
action lawsuit accusing AstraZeneca Plc of misleading its
investors about the safety and effectiveness of Exanta, its
blood thinner that failed to win the approval of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2008).

The class, which included everyone who bought or otherwise
acquired securities of AstraZeneca between April 2, 2003, and
Sept. 10, 2004, accused the company and four of its officers and
directors of artificially inflating the company's stock through
misrepresentations about the drug.

The alleged misrepresentations caused plaintiffs to suffer
losses when the FDA did not recommend the drug for approval, the
suit said.

In its motion to dismiss, U.K.-based AstraZeneca argued that
U.S. securities laws did not give the court the authority to
consider the claims of foreign purchasers who bought its shares
in foreign stock markets.

The company also argued that the plaintiffs did not and could
not plead facts giving rise to a viable securities fraud claims
-- particularly the facts demonstrating scienter.  The
individual defendants also filed an independent motion to
dismiss.

Exanta was the focus of four clinical trials that studied its
effectiveness at preventing strokes; secondary venus
thromboembolism; causes of mortality following total knee-
replacement surgery; and major cardiac events in patients who
had suffered heart attacks.

However, the company and the individual defendants did not
disclose or misstated the drug's risks of liver disease and
heart attack, the plaintiffs said.  In October 2004, the FDA
denied approval of Exanta amid concern about liver injuries,
heart attack and its efficacy when compared to another drug.

The drug was pivotal to the company's financial success because
U.S. patents on three of the company's drugs, which represented
more than half of AstraZeneca's sales, were set to expire, the
complaint said.

The judge, in his recent ruling said, that his court does not
have jurisdiction over foreigners who bought AstraZeneca stock
on foreign exchanges and that the plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege scienter.

More than 90% of the members of the putative class were
foreigners who purchased stock on foreign exchanges, the judge
said.  He ruled that the complaint failed to meet a requirement
of the test for jurisdiction over foreigners buying on foreign
exchanges -- that particular acts or culpable failures to act
within the U.S. directly caused losses to foreign investors
abroad.  "The facts in the complaint and in documents
incorporated into the complaint make clear that if fraudulent
conduct occurred, it took place both within the United States
and abroad," the judge said.

The judge also said that the plaintiffs did not have enough
evidence to prove that the defendants had a motive to mislead
investors.

The judge said the plaintiffs also failed to meet a test of
conscious misbehavior and recklessness on the part of the
defendants.  "In the long recital of information about Exanta
given to the public, there is nothing whatever to indicate that
the statements made did not reflect the honest belief of the
authors," the judge wrote.

London-based AstraZeneca PLC -- http://www.astrazeneca.com/--
discovers, develops, manufactures and markets prescription
pharmaceuticals for important areas of healthcare, such as
cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, neuroscience, oncology,
respiratory and inflammation, and infection.


AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder's Lawsuit Over GD Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An angry investor has filed a proposed securities class
action lawsuit in Connecticut state court on behalf of current
investors of Axsys Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXYS) against
Axsys Technologies after it announced that General Dynamics
Advanced Information Systems has entered into a agreement to
acquire the company for $54 per share.

     Previously, it was reported that Levi & Korsinsky announced
that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Connecticut state
court challenging the proposed acquisition of Axsys
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXYS) (Class Action Reporter, June
29, 2009).

     The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Axsys
stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with General Dynamics Corp.  Under the terms of the merger
agreement, Axsys shareholders will receive $54 in cash for each
share they own for a total transaction value of approximately
$643 million.  The price appears to be unfair given that in 2008
Axsys generated $245.48 million in total revenue with a net
income of $25.87 million and Axsys shares traded over $72 per
share as recently as December 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/axys1.html


BOB EVANS: Assistant Managers' Suit v. SWH Corp. in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action complaint entitled, "Leonard Flores v. SWH
Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe" is in the discovery phase,
according to Bob Evans Farms, Inc.'s June 23, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 4, 2009

Like many restaurant companies and retail employers, SWH
Corporation, which does business as Mimi's Caf‚, has been faced
with allegations of purported class-wide wage and hour
violations in California.

On Oct. 28, 2008, a class action complaint entitled, "Leonard
Flores v. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe" was filed in Orange
County, California Superior Court.

Mr. Flores was employed as an assistant manager of Mimi's Cafe
until September 2006.

Mimi's Cafe classifies its assistant managers as exempt
employees.

Mr. Flores purports to represent a class of assistant managers
who are allegedly similarly situated.

The case involves claims that current and former assistant
managers working in California from October 2004 to the present
were misclassified by Mimi's Caf‚ as exempt employees.

As a result, the complaint alleges that these assistant managers
were deprived of overtime pay, rest breaks and meal periods as
required for non-exempt employees under California wage and hour
laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

The case is currently in the discovery phase, and no trial date
has been set.

The company says, in its June 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 4, 2009, that it believes Mimi's Caf‚ properly classifies
its assistant managers as exempt employees under California law.
The company is evaluating the results of similar proceedings in
California and is consulting with advisors with specialized
expertise.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- is a full-
service restaurant company that operates two restaurant
concepts, Bob Evans Restaurants and Mimi's Cafes.  As of April
25, 2008, Bob Evans owned and operated 703 full-service
restaurants, including 571 Bob Evans Restaurants in 18 states
and 132 Mimi's Cafes in 22 states.  Bob Evans Restaurants are
primarily located in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic and Southeast
regions of the United States.  Mimi's Cafes are primarily in
California and other western states.  The company also produces
and distributes fresh and fully cooked pork products and a
variety of complementary home-style convenience food items under
the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.  These food products are
distributed primarily to grocery stores in the East North
Central, mid-Atlantic, Southern and South western United States.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settles N.Y. Stockholders' Lawsuit for $12M
-------------------------------------------------------------
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


CITY OF FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek $15,000 Share of "Sauby" Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Two plaintiffs involved in the purported class-action lawsuit,
captioned, "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW-
KKK," are saying they should share $15,000 from the case, The
Associated Press reports.

Stephanie Sauby of West Fargo, who filed the original lawsuit in
January 2007, is asking for $10,000.  James Burns of Fargo is
seeking $5,000.  Their lawyers say Ms. Sauby has been subjected
to "mean-spirited, vile and personal attacks" and deserves the
higher amount, according to AP.

Patrick Springer of INFORUM reported that a proposed $1.5
million settlement was reached in a purported class-action suit,
captioned, "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW-
KKK," (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2009).

The case, filed by Stephanie Sauby, a West Fargo woman, was
certified as a class-action, with 54,000 drivers eligible to
become part of the case who collectively paid fines exceeding
those set by state law by $4.3 million, according to the INFORUM
report.

Dickinson Press previously reported that Judge Rodney Webb of
the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota ruled
that a West Fargo woman can continue her lawsuit against the
city of Fargo over traffic fines.

According to Dickinson Press, plaintiff Stephanie Sauby accused
the city of violating her rights by assessing higher traffic
fines than state law allows.

The city argued that the fines were not unconstitutional, and
asked Judge Webb to dismiss Ms. Sauby's lawsuit.

The report notes that in his recent ruling, Judge Webb dismissed
one of the counts against the city, but found enough evidence to
continue the case on two other counts.  Specifically, Judge Webb
threw out Ms. Sauby's claim of excessive fines but said she "has
successfully raised equal protection and due process claims."

Judge Webb, however, has not yet decided whether to grant Ms.
Sauby's case class-action status, Dickinson Press relates.

According to the report, the city's lawyer, Stacy Tjon-Bossart,
Esq., did not return a phone message asking for comment.  Ms.
Sauby's attorney, Timothy Purdon, Esq., likewise has no comment.

The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-
RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
North Dakota, Judge Rodney S. Webb, presiding, with referral to
Judge Karen K. Klein.

For more details, contact:

          Timothy Q. Purdon, Esq. (tpurdon@vogellaw.com)
          Vogel Law Firm
          PO Box 2097
          200 N 3 St Ste 201
          Bismarck, ND 58502-2097
          Phone: 701-258-7899
          Fax: 701-258-9705

               - and -

          Stacey Elizabeth Tjon Bossart, Esq.
          (STB@solberglaw.com)
          Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon
          PO Box 1897
          Fargo, ND 58107-1897
          Phone: 701-237-3166


DATA DOMAIN: Faces Investors' Lawsuit Over Proposed NetApp Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Angry investors have filed a proposed securities class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court against the Board
of Data Domain, Inc., NetApp, Inc., and their acquisition
entities.

     It was previously was reported that Levi & Korsinsky
announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the
Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the
proposed acquisition of Data Domain, Inc. (Nasdaq: DDUP) (Class
Action Reporter, June 22, 2009).

     The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Data Domain
stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with NetApp, Inc.  Under the terms of the proposal, Data
Domain's shareholders would receive $30.00 to be paid in a
combination of cash and NetApp stock.  In addition, NetApp
offered positions on its board to certain Data Domain officers
and there are rumors that the Data Domain CEO Slootman could be
the next CEO of NetApp.  This raises questions as to whether the
sales process conducted by the Board was fair and open.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street -15th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com


EXPEDITORS INT'L: Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., and several other
global logistics providers continue to face a purported class-
action suit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, alleging antitrust violations.

The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption,
"Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport
(Holding) Ltd."  It alleges that the defendants engaged in
various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter, April
21, 2008).

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Panalpina, Inc.;
     -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG;
     -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;
     -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.;
     -- EGL, Inc.;
     -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP;
     -- Deutsche Bahn AG;
     -- Schenker AG;
     -- Schenker, Inc.;
     -- Deutsche Post AG;
     -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.;
     -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and
     -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders.

Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC
d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental
entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
         stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
         Services sold in the United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
         affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
         or combination;

     (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
         artificially high and non-competitive level;

     (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon interstate commerce;

     (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         declaratory and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
        contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule
        23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
        of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
        provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
        the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
        with the antitrust laws;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner:

        (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
            conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering
            into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering
            into any other contract, conspiracy or combination
            having a similar purpose of effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the distribution or sale of
            Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
            prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
            such products except to the extent necessary in
            connection with bona fide sale transactions between
            the parties to such communication;

        and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded
     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre-
        at the highest legal rate from and after the date of
        service of the initial complaint in this action;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their
        costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        as provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such
        other, further, and different relief as the case may
        require and the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

Legal costs for the federal anti-trust class-action lawsuit and
the European Commission's Request for Information have been a
relatively small part of the $14 million of legal fees incurred
related to anti-trust investigations, according to the company's
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated June 23, 2009.

The suit is "Precision Associates, Inc., et al. cv. Panalpina
World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al., Case No. CV 08 0042,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq. (clovell@lshllp.com)
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: 212-608-1900
          Fax: 212-719-4677

Representing the defendants are:

          August C. Venturini, Esq. (acv@venturini-law.com)
          Venturini & Associates
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 545
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-826-6800
          Fax: 212-949-6162

          James Joseph Calder, Esq. (james.calder@kattenlaw.com)
          Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-940-6460
          Fax: 212-940-3871

               - and -

          Breon S. Peace, Esq. (bpeace@cgsh.com)
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2059
          Fax: 212-225-3999


FIBERNET TELECOM: Shareholders File Suit Over Zayo Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An angry investor has filed a proposed securities class
action lawsuit in Delaware Chancer Court on behalf of current
investors in FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:FTGX), who
purchased their FTGX shares before May 28, 2009, over alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by
the Board of Directors of FiberNet.

     According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges breach of
fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by the Board of
Directors of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.  FiberNet Telecom
Group, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Zayo Group, LLC, a regional
provider of bandwidth and telecom services to carrier,
enterprise and government customers and Zayo Merger Sub, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Zayo Group.  Each share of FiberNet
Telecom Group, Inc. common stock issued and outstanding
immediately prior to the effective time of the merger will be
entitled to receive $11.45 in cash for a total deal value of
approximately $87 million.

     According to the lawsuit the transaction appears to be
unfair, among other things, given that FiberNet Telecom Group,
Inc. shares were trading at $11.68 a share as recently as April
07, 2009.  Shares of Fibernet traded at $11.54 per share on
September 23, 2008 and $11.43 on April 6, 2009.

     The plaintiff also alleges that at least one analyst has
placed a $12 price target on FiberNet stock and the Company
announced that it received a proposal to acquire the Company for
$12.50 per share.

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


HILLENBRAND INC: Court Denies FCA Petition in Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
has denied a petition by the Funeral Consumers Alliance (FCA) to
appeal a federal district court order in its antitrust lawsuit
against Batesville Casket Company, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Hillenbrand, Inc., and three of its funeral home
customers.

     The FCA, a self-styled consumer advocacy group, had sought
class certification in a lawsuit alleging that Batesville Casket
Company and its three named customers had violated antitrust
laws.  A U.S. District judge in the Southern District of Texas
denied certification on March 26, 2009, and the appellate court
denied the subsequent petition for appeal on June 19, 2009.  The
FCA plaintiffs now have the option of dismissing their case or
proceeding with individual claims.

     "It is very gratifying to receive the favorable ruling of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has
denied the appeal request of the plaintiffs in this case," said
Kenneth A. Camp, Hillenbrand's president and chief executive
officer.  "From the beginning, we believed the plaintiffs'
allegations were baseless and we aggressively defended the fair
and ethical practice of selling our products only through
licensed funeral homes, which has been a cornerstone of our
business model for more than 100 years."

Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.HillenbrandInc.com-- is the
holding company for Batesville Casket Company, a leader in the
North American death care industry through the sale of funeral
services products, including burial caskets, cremation caskets,
containers and urns, selection room display fixturing and other
personalization and memorialization products.


JONES SODA: Wash. Shareholder Securities Suit Dismissed in June
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder litigation involving Jones Soda Co., and Peter van
Stolk, its former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of
the Board, and former director, has been dismissed, according to
the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated June 23, 2009.

On June 22, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend a consolidated securities class action
complaint brought against Jones Soda and Mr. van Stolk,
dismissing the case with prejudice, and directing the court
clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants.

The consolidated action, "In re Jones Soda Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL," was purportedly commenced
on behalf of all individuals who purchased Jones Soda common
stock from Jan. 10, 2007 to May 1, 2008, and generally alleged
violations of federal securities laws based on, among other
things, false and misleading statements and omissions about
agreements with retailers, allocation of resources, and business
prospects.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 7, 2008.  After hearing oral argument on Feb. 3, 2009, the
Court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss in its
entirety on Feb. 9, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint
on March 25, 2009, and defendants opposed the motion on April
17, 2009.  On June 22, 2009, the Court issued an order denying
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, dismissing the case with
prejudice, and directing the court clerk to enter judgment in
favor of defendants.  Plaintiffs may appeal the ruling within 30
days.

The suit is "In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

          David A.P. Brower, Esq. (brower@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          488 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-501-9000

               - and -

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. (cacantor@comcast.net)
          627 208th Ave Se
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          Phone: 425-868-7813
          Fax: 425-868-7870

Representing the defendants is:

          Barry M. Kaplan (bkaplan@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-883-2500
          Fax: 206-883-2699


KBR INC: Execs, Officers Face Investors' Lawsuit in Tex. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Investors in Halliburton Co. (NYSE: HAL) and KBR, Inc.
(NYSE: KBR) have filed at least two separate lawsuits on behalf
of current investors in Halliburton Co. in Texas state court on
May 14, 2009 against certain one-time Halliburton subsidiary
KBR, Inc. executives and officers and others alleging that poor
oversight and lack of internal controls enabled a pervasive
environment of misdeed and corruption, resulting in enforcement
actions and substantial government penalties that have severely
damaged investors' holdings.

     The complaint alleges wrongdoing by KBR, including massive
waste and overbilling of services provided to American forces in
Iraq; bribery in Nigeria to win government contracts; and
multiple instances of fraud, corruption, and misconduct in both
its domestic and foreign operations.

     The defendants include KBR Chief Executive Officer William
Utt and six board members, former Chevron Corp. CEO Kenneth Derr
and Robert Crandall, past chairman of American Airlines, and
others.

     The plaintiff accuses that the "Defendants' failures have
caused the Companies to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars
in damages, and to be exposed to substantial additional
judgments in the future."  Halliburton and KBR have paid more
than $650 million in fines, penalties, and settlements --
including the largest fine ever assessed by the U.S. Commerce
Department and the largest settlement ever paid by U.S.
companies for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

     The plaintiff allege that "Under defendants' watch, and
supposedly under their control and supervision, the companies
were permitted to engage in conduct so notorious that the name
'Halliburton' has become virtually synonymous with
'corruption,'" and that the companies board of directors
breached their fiduciary duty through business practices and
criminal activities that resulted in massive fines, penalties
and settlements paid to the federal government.

     According to the complaint, the full extent of misdeeds was
successfully hidden until KBR was spun off as an independent
company in 2006 and "the myriad crimes and wrongdoings could not
have happened if Defendants were doing their jobs.  As officers
and directors of the Companies, the Defendants were required to
ensure that the Companies' internal controls were in place,
functioning properly, and sufficiently strong to prevent it from
committing wrongful or illegal acts."


KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Securities Suits by Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
KV Pharmaceutical Company continues to face putative class-
action shareholder lawsuits alleging violations of the federal
securities laws, according to its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 23, 2009.

The company's Board of Directors has appointed a Special
Committee of the Board in response to the initiation of a series
of putative class action shareholder lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws by the company and
certain individuals, the initiation of lawsuits alleging
violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), as well as the receipt by the company of an informal
inquiry from the SEC.

KV Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharma.com-- is a
fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures, acquires and markets branded and generic/non-
branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The company has a
range of dosage form capabilities, including tablets, capsules,
creams, liquids and ointments.  KV conducts its branded
pharmaceutical operations through Ther-Rx Corporation (Ther-Rx)
and its generic/non-branded pharmaceutical operations through
ETHEX Corporation (ETHEX).  Through Particle Dynamics, Inc.
(PDI), the company also develops, manufactures and markets
value-added raw material products for the pharmaceutical,
nutritional, personal care, food and other markets.  The company
has developed a variety of drug delivery and formulation
technologies, which are primarily focused in four principal
areas: SITE RELEASE; tastemasking; oral controlled release, and
oral quick dissolving tablets.


LG DISPLAY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. continues to defend purported class-action
antitrust lawsuits in the Northern District of California,
according to the company's June 23, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec.31, 2008.

A number of purported class-action lawsuits were filed against
the company and other TFT-LCD panel manufacturers in various
U.S. federal district courts, alleging violation of U.S.
antitrust laws and other related laws.

In a series of decisions in 2007 and 2008, all of such cases
were transferred to the Northern District of California for
pretrial proceedings.

An additional claim by a customer's assignee has also been filed
in the Northern District of California.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The
company manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and
specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors and other applications.  It also
supplies high-definition television panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as
mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial
and other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable
navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical
diagnostic equipment.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the
company sold a total of 93.4 million large-size (10-inch or
larger) TFT-LCD panels.  During 2008, it acquired LG
Electronics' active matrix organic light emitting diode (OLED)
technology (AMOLED) business.


LG DISPLAY: To Defend Suits Over Anti-competitive Activities
------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. intends to defend purported class action
lawsuits filed in connection with possible anti-competitive
activities in the TFT-LCD industry, according to the company's
June 23, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

These purported class action lawsuits have been brought against
the company, and certain of its officers and directors, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in
2007.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with possible
anti-competitive activities in the TFT-LCD industry.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The
company manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and
specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors and other applications.  It also
supplies high-definition television panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as
mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial
and other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable
navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical
diagnostic equipment.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the
company sold a total of 93.4 million large-size (10-inch or
larger) TFT-LCD panels.  During 2008, it acquired LG
Electronics' active matrix organic light emitting diode (OLED)
technology (AMOLED) business.


LG DISPLAY: To Defend Suits Over Antitrust Violations in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. intends to defend purported class-action
complaints alleging violation of Canadian antitrust laws.

The complaints were filed against the company in various
Canadian courts.

No further details regarding these lawsuits were disclosed in
the company's June 23, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com- formerly
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels.  The
company manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and
specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors and other applications.  It also
supplies high-definition television panels.  The company
manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as
mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial
and other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable
navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical
diagnostic equipment.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the
company sold a total of 93.4 million large-size (10-inch or
larger) TFT-LCD panels.  During 2008, it acquired LG
Electronics' active matrix organic light emitting diode (OLED)
technology (AMOLED) business.


LML PAYMENT: Appeal to Junked DPPA Violations Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit
against a subsidiary of LML Payment Systems, Inc., alleging
violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act remains
pending, according to the company's June 23, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

DPPA regulates the use of personal information such as driver's
license numbers and home addresses contained in motor vehicle
records held by motor vehicle departments, by not having a
permissible use in obtaining the State of Texas' entire database
of names, addresses and other personal information.

In the case, which was originally filed on Jan. 12, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, $2,500 for each
instance in which the defendants obtained, disclosed or used
personal information, and are claiming that because the Texas
database includes the information of approximately 20 million
persons, that the mere act of improperly obtaining that database
constitutes 20 million violations of the statute by each
defendant.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that a provider of
check verification services (such as LML) should not be allowed
to obtain and use Texas' entire driver's license database for
the purpose of enabling merchants to check driver's licenses or
other forms of identification at the point of sale, and that
instead providers of check verification services should only be
allowed to obtain the driver's license numbers of individuals at
the time that such individual presents his or her driver's
license to a merchant (in other words, plaintiffs allege that
when a customer gets to the cashier and presents a driver's
license to the merchant for the purpose of enabling the merchant
to verify such person's identity when such person is using a
credit card or check to purchase goods or services, that this is
the first time at which it would be appropriate for a provider
of check verification services to obtain such driver's license
number from the state of Texas).

On Sept. 8, 2008, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice and
on Oct. 8, 2008 the plaintiffs appealed this decision.

LML Payment Systems Inc. -- http://www.lmlpayment.com/-- is a
financial payment processor that primarily provides consumer
financial payment processing solutions to retailers and other
clients in the U.S.


LUND BOAT: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Minn. Vacation Pay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Lund Boat Co., and
its parent company, Brunswick Corp. are appealing a ruling that
wen against them in a class-action lawsuit in connection to a
dispute over vacation pay, Lauren Radomski of The Daily Journal
reports.

Kevin Cederstrom of the New York Mills Herald previously
reported that the suit was filed in Otter Tail County in the
State of Minnesota under the caption, "Roberts, et al. v.
Brunswich Corp. and Lund Boat Company, Court File No. 56-CV-07-
1307," (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2009).

The suit was brought brought by a group of former and laid off
Lund employees that included:

       -- Darwin Roberts,
       -- Dave Dubs,
       -- Greg Morse,
       -- John Westhoff,
       -- Kenneth Mathewson,
       -- Jeff Small,
       -- Arthur Buntrock,
       -- Roger Grindstaff,
       -- James Baron,
       -- Jack Herr,
       -- Vincent Bernu,
       -- Richard Sydow,
       -- Steve Eklund,
       -- Leroy Atkinson,
       -- Michael Kroupa,
       -- Diana Makinen,
       -- Suzzy Harper,
       -- Gary Harper, and
       -- Thomas Kimmes.

The plaintiffs claim that the company violated the law by
failing to provide employees with all of their paid vacation
time that they say was earned between the model year beginning
June 30, 2004 and ending July 1, 2005, according to the New York
Mills Herald.

They also claim that when the company converted to a new paid
vacation policy on July 1, 2005, the company failed to credit
employees for paid vacation time they say they earned during the
previous model year.

The plaintiffs contend that they lost up to four weeks vacation
and seek money damages for their claims, and the claims of class
members, reports the New York Mills Herald.

The New York Mills Herald reported that the purported class
includes all persons employed by Brunswick Corp. and Lund Boat
Co. at the New York Mills plant through July 1, 2005, whose
vacation time was calculated according to the model calendar
year (beginning July 1 and ending June 30), and ordinarily would
have earned vacation time on July 1, 2005 under the Genmar
vacation policy.

In a June 2009 ruling, Judge Mark Hansen of Otter Tail County
District Court said that plaintiffs suffered no loss of benefits
in the change to the new vacation policy.  That policy was
effectively modified in the employee handbook, which served as
an employment agreement between workers and the company, Judge
Hansen said in his decision.  Employees should have known of the
changes, Judge Hansen said, and the fact that they continued to
work signaled acceptance of those changes.


MECHEL OAO: To Contest "Frederick" Securities Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mechel OAO plans to contest a class-action lawsuit entitled
"Frederick v. Mechel OAO, No. 09 Civ.3617."

On April 8, 2009, a person who held its American depositary
shares (ADSs) during the period October 2007 to July 2008, sued
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, alleging claims against the company, its chief
executive officer, its chief financial officer and the chief
executive officer of its subsidiary Mechel Management.

The case states claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff's claims arise from the FAS directive in which FAS
claimed that the the company's pricing of coking coal within the
Russian Federation violated Russian antimonopoly laws and that,
in addition, the company did not pay all taxes that the Russian
government now considers to be owed.

The plaintiff in the class action alleges that the company and
its officers should have anticipated or did anticipate these
actions by the Russian authorities, and that the failure to
disclose these risks constituted U.S. securities fraud.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class of all holders of
the company's securities between October 2007 and July 2008 and
an unspecified amount of damages.

The company has engaged counsel, according to the company's June
23, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The case is in its earliest stages; as of June 23, 2009, a lead
plaintiff has not yet been selected pursuant to the provisions
of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Mechel OAO -- http://www.mechel.com/-- is a Russia-based
integrated mining and steel company.  The company is organized
in four segments: mining, steel, ferroalloy and power.  Mechel
unites producers of coal, iron ore concentrate, steel, rolled
products, ferroalloys, hardware, heat and electric power.
Mechel products are marketed domestically and internationally.
Mining segment includes coal, coking coal, steam coal, coal
concentrate, coking, steam and iron ore concentrate.  Products
under steel segment include coke, pig iron, steel, rolled
products and hardware.  Product under ferroalloy segment
includes nickel, ferrosilicon and ferrochrome.  Power segment
output includes electric power generation and heat power
generation.  The company's mining segment comprises production
and sale of coal (coking and steam), iron ore and nickel, which
supplies raw materials to its steel business and also sells
substantial amounts of raw materials to third parties.


MICHELIN NORTH: Md. Court Approves "Run-Flats" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger W. Titus of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland gave final approval to a proposed settlement by
Michelin North America Inc. and American Honda Motor Co. Inc. of
a nationwide class-action lawsuit brought by consumers who
claimed they were misled about the benefits of their "run-flat"
tires and were then further burdened by the slow and expensive
repair process, Jenny Munro of Greenville News reports.

The judge approved an aggregate award of $83,000, which will be
distributed to class members in sums of $5,000, $2,500 or $2,000
as compensation for replaced tires, reports Greenville News,

The settlement allows class members to receive a rebate of $110
for the purchase of a Honda-approved PAX spare tire kits or
spare tire or a $300 rebate for the purchase of a new Honda
Odyssey or Acura RL.  In addition, Michelin offered a three-
year/36,000-mile extended warranty on the tires, Greenville News
reported.

Also, the court awarded attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses of $3 million, according to Greenville News.

Brendan Kearney of The Daily Record previously reported that in
a two-page motion filed on Dec. 29, 2008, attorneys for the
plaintiffs and defendants announced the agreement although the
terms of the deal were not disclosed (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 15, 2009).

According to the filing, a copy of which was obtained by The
Daily Record, the parties have "essentially completed the
paperwork," but end-of-the-year corporate closures will put off
disclosure of the specifics for the purposes of preliminary
approval by Judge Roger W. Titus until Jan. 7, 2009.  A hearing
on the matter is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2009.

In their 140-page consolidated amended complaint filed in May
2008, the plaintiffs allege Michelin, which made the tires, and
Honda, which outfitted certain cars and minivans with Michelin's
PAX Tire and Wheel Assembly System, failed to disclose that the
tires last half as long as radial tires.

They also alleged the tires are "prohibitively expensive to
repair and replace" and that sufficient repair facilities and
stock of the tires and other parts of the PAX system do not
exist in the U.S.

According to the suit, the Honda Odyssey was the first minivan
sold in North America to have the PAX system, which was supposed
to allow drivers to travel farther -- 125 miles -- on a flat
tire, thus obviating the need for a spare.  The 2005-2007 models
came with the system, which was discontinued within the past
year.  Certain Acura RL and Nissan Quest models also featured
the run-flat tire system, which cost more than $2,000.

Quoting Michelin statistics, the suit states more than 200,000
PAX systems have been sold in Europe and the U.S. Since 1998
when it was introduced to the market.

The suit states that the paucity of repair facilities,
exacerbated by the system's discontinuation, has led to
inconvenience and poses a safety risk for those who must drive
on bad tires.

The Daily Record reported that class-action lawsuits filed by
owners and leasers of the vehicles in Arizona, Florida, Illinois
and New York were transferred to Judge Titus, who is presiding
over the multidistrict litigation, in February 2008.  Classes
from other states are included in the suit before Judge Titus.

Michelin and Honda decided not to retrofit, despite the ability
to do so, the plaintiffs alleged.  "Instead of taking this
responsible action to remedy their unlawful actions and
misconduct, Defendants have cynically chosen to disclaim
responsibility for their misconduct and, instead, have sought to
shift the economic burden of their development, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and/or sale of the inherently defective
PAX System to Plaintiffs and Class members," the amended
complaint states.

For more details, contact:

          Betsy Ferling-Hitrizmm Esq. (bferling@sfmslaw.com)
          James E. Miller, Esq. (jmiller@sfmslaw.com)
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
          Phone: 866-540-5505
          Web site:
          http://www.sfmslaw.com/pages/cases.php?id=343


PETLAND INC: Seeks Dismissal of Arizona Suit Over Sold Puppies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Petland, Inc. and Hunte Corp. are seeking for the dismissal of a
purported class-action lawsuit in Arizona that accuses them of
operating "puppy mills," Thomas Gnau of Dayton Daily News
reports.

Greg Grisolano of The Joplin Globe previously reported that
Petland, Inc. and Hunte Corp. are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit in Arizona that accuses them of operating "puppy
mills," (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2009).

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona on March 16, 2009 by several pet owners namely JoDell
Martinelli, Stephanie Booth, Melia Perry, Abbigail King, Nicole
Kersanty and Ruth Ross.

The Humane Society of the United States and the pet owners who
purchased their animals from Petland allege that the company
conspired to sell sick puppies bred in filthy conditions,
according to The Joplin Globe report.

The suit seeks class-action status.  It challenges the
companies' conduct under federal racketeering statutes and
consumer-protection laws in 20 states.

In addition, the suit accuses Hunte of selling to Petland
puppies that were "whelped at puppy mills," reports The Joplin
Globe.

The suit is "Martinelli et al v. Petland, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:09-cv-00529-DGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Judge David G. Campbell, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Donald Andrew St. John (andy@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          2425 E Camelback Rd
          Ste 650
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602-840-5900
          Fax: 602-840-3012


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A second amended complaint in the matter "In Re Piedmont Office
Realty Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:07-
cv-02660-CAP," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The purported class-action suit was filed on Oct. 25, 2007, by a
Piedmont Office Realty Trust Inc. stockholder before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the
company and its board of directors.

The complaint attempts to assert class-action lawsuit claims on
behalf of:

       -- those persons who were entitled to tender their shares
          pursuant to the tender offer filed with the SEC by
          Lex-Win Acquisition LLC on May 25, 2007, and

       -- all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy
          statement filed with the SEC on Oct. 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated
thereunder.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed classes.

On Dec. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking that the
court designate it as lead plaintiff and its counsel as class
lead counsel, which the court granted on May 2, 2008.

On May 19, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which contains the same counts as the original complaint.

On June 30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On March 30, 2009, the court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court dismissed
two of the four counts of the amended complaint in their
entirety.  The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the
exception of allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose
information regarding the likelihood of a listing in Piedmont's
amended response to the Lex-Win tender offer and (ii)
misstatements or omissions in Piedmont's proxy statement
concerning then-existing market conditions, the alternatives to
a listing or extension that were explored by the defendants, the
results of conversations with potential buyers as to Piedmont's
valuation, and certain details of our share redemption plan.

On April 13, 2009, defendants moved for reconsideration of the
court's March 30, 2009 order or, alternatively, for
certification of the order for immediate appellate review.  The
defendants also requested that the proceedings be stayed pending
consideration of the motion.

On April 20, 2009, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal securities
laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder.  The second
amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages, to nullify and void any authorizations secured
by the proxy statement, and to compel a tender offer.  The time
for defendants to answer the second amended complaint has not
yet expired, according to Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.'s
May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "In Re: Piedmont Office Trust Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-02660-CAP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge
Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
          Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19041-0100
          Phone: 215-642-8500

          Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq. (MEdelstein@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the defendants is:

          J. Timothy Mast, Esq. (tim.mast@troutmansanders.com)
          Troutman Sanders, LLP-ATL
          Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3312
          Fax: 404-962-6796


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Wells REIT Securities Suit Still in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery remains ongoing in the matter captioned "In Re Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case
No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," which names Piedmont Office Realty
Trust, Inc. (Piedmont REIT) -- f/k/a/ Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT) -- as a defendant.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a
purported class-action suit and derivative complaint entitled,
"Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real
Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al." before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells
REIT, and the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the internalization transaction.  The court then
granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the
case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on April
24, 2007.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate
the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which contains the same counts as the original complaint, with
amended factual allegations based primarily on events occurring
subsequent to the original complaint and the addition of a
Piedmont officer as an individual defendant.

On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part a motion by the
defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court
dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in
their entirety.  The court dismissed the remaining two counts
with the exception of allegations regarding the company's
failure to disclose in its proxy statement details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for Internalization omitted details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind
Internalization, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to
the defendants as consideration for Internalization.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.  On June 23, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.

On Jan. 16, 2009, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The plaintiff filed its reply
in support of its motion for class certification on Feb. 19,
2009, and the motion is presently pending before the court.  The
parties are presently engaged in discovery.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The time
for the defendants to respond to the motion for leave to amend
has not yet expired, according to Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc.'s May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge
Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq. (mcates@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600


RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Investor's Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Raymond James Financial, Inc. (NYSE: RJF)
has filed a proposed securities class-action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Raymond
James Financial between April 22, 2008 and April 14, 2009
against Raymond James Financial and others over alleged
violations of Federal Securities Laws.

     Previously, it was reported that Shalov Stone Bonner &
Rocco LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Raymond James
Financial, Inc. (NYSE: RJF) between April 22, 2008, and April
14, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009).

     The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Raymond James;
Thomas A. James, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Raymond James; and Jeffrey P. Julien, the Company's chief
financial officer.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material adverse facts
that were known to the defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them.

     More specifically, the complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants publicized the Company's purportedly
conservative management practices and mortgage portfolios, when,
in reality, there were significant credit risks associated with
the residential and commercial loan portfolios of one of its
largest wholly-owned subsidiaries.

For more details, contact:

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


TIPPECANOE COUNTY: Ind. Court Nixes "Olson" Civil Rights Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit filed against
Tippecanoe County Sheriff Tracy Brown alleging by a former
inmate who claimed his rights were repeatedly violated by jail
staff, Sophia Voravong of Journal and Courier reports.

The lawsuit, originally filed in Tippecanoe Superior Court 1,
was transferred the to U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana on Jan. 20, 2009, under the caption, "Olson
v. Brown, Case No. 4:2009-cv-00006."

Journal and Courier reported that it was filed by Jeffrey M.
Olson, 40, who argued that jail employees opened his legal mail
and provided him with wrong prescription medication, among other
allegations.

Last week, Judge Allen Sharp dismissed Mr. Olson's complaint,
calling it moot because Mr. Olson is no longer a jail inmate.
At the time, the Lafayette man was awaiting transfer to the
Indiana Department of Correction, Journal and Courier reports.

"The requirement that Mr. Olson's case be dismissed under these
circumstances has been made clear by the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals," Judge Sharp wrote in the 11-page ruling, a copy of
which was obtained by Journal and Courier.

Mr. Olson is serving a 10-year prison sentence for a case out of
Tippecanoe County in which he pleaded guilty to fraud on a
financial institution and being a habitual offender.  He was
transferred from the jail to the Department of Correction about
two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, according to Journal and
Courier.

Journal and Courier relates that Mr. Olson's attorney had sought
class-action certification for the complaint -- arguing the
lawsuit still should stand as a class action.

Judge Sharp, however, noted that Mr. Olson was transferred
before a judge could grant the request.

Mr. Olson's lawsuit outlined several complaints, including
allegations that Mr. Olson's legal work for an unrelated civil
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Kentucky was taken and placed
in storage.

He also alleged improper handling and delayed response of the
jail's grievance policy, which allows inmates to file complaints
without needing legal action.  Jail staff has 15 days to respond
to a grievance, Journal and Courier reports.

However, Judge Sharp pointed out that Olson waited nearly two
months from the date of his last written grievance to file the
lawsuit in federal court.  The judge also wrote that no evidence
was presented showing that Mr. Olson was denied from accessing
the court, reports Journal and Courier.

Mr. Olson's other allegations were that legal mail was opened
not in his presence; that he was denied access to the jail's
"out-of-date" law library; that dirty eating utensils and cups
are given to inmates; and that commissary prices, such as the
cost of pre-paid phone cards, are excessive, according to
Journal and Courier.

For more details, contact:

          Gavin M. Rose, Esq. (grose@aclu-in.org)
          ACLU of Indiana
          1031 E Washington Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202-3952
          Phone: 317-635-4059 Ext 106
          Fax: 317-635-4105

               - and -

          Douglas J. Masson, Esq. (djm@hlblaw.com)
          Hoffman Luhman & Masson PC
          200 Main Street Suite C
          PO Box 99
          Lafayette, IN 47902-0099
          Phone: 765-423-5404
          Fax: 765-742-6448


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defects in Prius HID Lights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit over the upgraded optional lights, known as high-
intensity discharge headlamps on its Prius vehicles that have a
tendency to fail, Jean Halliday of AdAge.com reports.

The suit was filed on May 1, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, under the caption, "Carlos
Collado v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:2009-cv-
03087."

According to the complaint, "Toyota is concealing the problems
from owners" even though the automaker has "long been aware of
Prius' HID headlight problem," which the suit calls a "dangerous
but undisclosed safety defect," reports AdAge.com.

Attorney Eric Gibbs, Esq. Girard Gibbs LLP told AdAge.com that
his San Francisco firm has been contacted by hundreds of people
experiencing faulty HID headlights on the Prius.  He pointed out
that the defect seems most prevalent in 2006 and 2007 models,
although the firm is also looking at 2008 and 2005 models.

For more details, contact:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. (ehg@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street Suite 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846


UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers' Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the U.S. direct and indirect purchasers'
amended purported class-action complaints, which name United
Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories Inc., as defendant, remain pending.

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, the class actions allege conspiracy
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1,
related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.

                   Direct Purchaser Litigation

As of March 15, 2009, the company and Champion have been named
as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed
in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the
Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of
Illinois, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission
filters.

Eight of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but those plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Carlyle
from each of those actions without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a
defendant in 13 virtually identical actions originally filed in
the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the
District of New Jersey.

All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket
filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of
their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present.

Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an
injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees.

On Nov. 26, 2008, all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  This complaint names Champion
as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United
Components.  The complaint is styled as a putative class action
and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including
statutory treble damages, an injunction against future
violations, costs and attorney's fees.  On Feb. 2, 2009,
Champion filed its answer to the direct purchasers' Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

                 Indirect Purchaser Litigation

United Components and Champion were also named as two of
multiple defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in
the District of Connecticut, the Northern District of
California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect
purchasers of aftermarket filters.

Two of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a
defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions
voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named in three
similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern
District of California.

These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law.

They are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all
persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters
manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the
defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any
time between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present; with the exception of
three complaints, which each allege a class period from Jan. 1,
2002 to the present, and one complaint which alleges a class
period from the "earliest legal permissible date" to the
present.

The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages,
an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of
profits, costs and attorney's fees.

On Dec. 1, 2008, all of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
except Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America
("GASDA"), filed a Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.
This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but
it does not name United Components.  The complaint is styled as
a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust,
consumer protection and unfair competition law.  The indirect
purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble
damages, penalties and punitive damages where available, an
injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits,
costs and attorney's fees.  On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the
other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.  On that same date,
Champion, United Components and the other defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint.

                            JPML Order

On Aug. 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and indirect
purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings
before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.

Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all
defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009.

The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed
until after it rules on the motions to dismiss.

On April 13, 2009, GASDA voluntarily dismissed United Components
from its case without prejudice.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filters Sale Pending in Quebec
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related
to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of
five defendants in a class action filed in Quebec, Canada.

This action alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good
faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related
to the sale of aftermarket filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five
defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages
and $1.0 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter
continue as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on, 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.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filters Sale in Ontario Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related
to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada.

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of 14
defendants in a class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario,
Canada.

This action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference
with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the
Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket
filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14
defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and
$15 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter
proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on, , 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.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filters Sale in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
Laboratories, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action
in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los
Angeles.

On Jan. 12, 2009, Champion, but not United Components, was named
as one of ten defendants in an action filed in the Superior
Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of
aftermarket filters.

On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of
removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, and then subsequently requested that the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer this case to the
Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

No further developments on the case were reported in 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.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement
parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four
primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original
equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up 40.1% of
sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling
products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products.


WINDOW BLINDS: Ill. Court Refuses to Dismisses Claims in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dave Hylla of Madison County Circuit Court has denied a
motion the sought for the dismissal of the remaining claims in a
purported class-action lawsuit accusing 13 companies that
manufacture, distribute or sell window blinds deemed dangerous,
Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record reports.

The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 18, 2005 in the Madison County
Circuit Court.  It alleges that defendants conspired to conceal
a risk that dangling cords could strangle people.  Thus, the
suit seeks to represent "hundreds of millions" of window blind
buyers (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006).

The plaintiffs claim no personal injury, however they seek
damages equal to the difference between what they paid for
window blinds and what they would have paid if they had known
the risk.

Lawyer Jeffrey Lowe of Clayton, Mo. continues to pursue the
case, which is accusing all 13 firms of conspiracy, on behalf of
Ronald Alsup of Edwardsville and Robert Crews of Granite City,
according to The St. Clair Record.

After much legal wrangling, Mr. Lowe would later seek an
injunction banning further manufacture, distribution or sale of
blinds with dangling cords, recalls The St. Clair Record.

Some defendants eventually settled and 13 companies asked
Circuit Judge Dave Hylla to dismiss all counts, The St. Clair
Record reported.

The St. Clair Record relates that Mr. Lowe narrowed his
approach, agreeing to dismiss counts of negligence and breach of
implied warranties against all 13 firms.  He dropped all fraud
counts and the count of negligent omission against 11,
persisting against Springs Window Fashion and Beautiful Window
Enterprise.  He later dropped his count seeking a ban on
dangling cords.

All 13 defendants moved to dismiss remaining counts, and on June
9, 2009, Judge Hylla denied the motions, reports The St. Clair
Record.

That left Springs Window Fashion and Beautiful Window Enterprise
facing a variety of claims and all 13 facing claims of civil
conspiracy and concert of action.

Judge Hylla wrote that Mr. Lowe's accounts of meetings among
window makers in 1994 were sufficient to allege conspiracy,  The
St. Clair Record reports.


                   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:

       -- 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

       -- 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  * * *